Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.

« Archives, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194

Cutting down the excessive length and inconsistency of Wikipedia policy supplementary essays

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.

---

What is being done to reduce Wikipedia's excessively long loose collection of "explanatory supplements" that are inconsistently applied in antagonizing and persecuting ways? Bright☀ 09:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Happening now at WMF HQ

A crack team of WMF secret against are working on it right now. I believe the plan is to parachute into the servers at night and begin asassinating rogue explanatory supplyuments, which, as your question has conclusively proven, are a huge problem in need of immediate drastic measures. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Bad tactics Beeblebrox, typical of WMF. They're sure to get tripped up by the flow of bits and bytes created by people trying to build an encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a good start on typing "agents", but the rest needs some work. Supplyuments is beyond help. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. We don't have to dot the i's and cross the t's. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This dismissive attitude is toxic to the improvement of Wikipedia. Bright☀ 14:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Question

Why was the above section locked? Bright's question seemed sincere, but was followed by some flippant remarks, so then the whole thing was closed by TonyBallioni? Am I missing something here?Egaoblai (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Because the only thing keeping it open would have led to was more hurt feelings and drama. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the fundamental issue with the question as phrased was its vagueness. There may indeed be a problem about too much rules and instruction on Wikipedia, but it would be more helpful if a specific rule or instruction was identified so that we could discuss it more substantively, as opposed to remaining in generalities. Mz7 (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNCing the section "AR-15 style rifle" of the article "Colt AR-15" to the lead of its parent article

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.

---

Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a (verbatim or nearly so) copy of the lead of its main article AR-15 style rifle, as per WP:SYNC? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Background

There has been a lot of controversy over whether articles on specific firearms or classes of firearms should include information on crimes and mass shootings. Briefly, those in favor of inclusion argue that these events are extremely notable so that it would violate NPOV to leave then out, and further, that a large fraction of users coming to these articles are either looking for information on the shooting itself or seeking further information on the gun that was used, and would benefit from confirmation that they reading the right article. Those opposed feel the articles should focus on the characteristics of the firearm itself, and therefore, that information on crimes committed with them is out of place. (This brief summary obviously does not do justice to this debate!) Recent discussions of this include Talk:Colt AR-15#RfC: Port Arthur Massacre and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 142#RfC: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles, both of which turned out in favor of inclusion of mass shootings, and a long and exhausting discussion on the current talk page Talk:Colt AR-15.

This RfC is not intended to settle this debate. In fact, it is entirely neutral with regard to that question. Instead, it is just a policy question asking whether WP:SYNC should apply to Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle. The virtue of this would be that as a copy of the lead of another article, there would no longer be any need to debate the content of that section. Instead, debate on this could focus exclusively on the lead of AR-15 style rifle. If a consensus is reached and the lead of AR-15 style rifle changes (for instance, to remove information on mass shootings), the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle could be changed too without any additional debate. So this is simply a technical mechanism to save time for everyone. (I included the language "verbatim or nearly so" to allow for a little flexibility in case some wording needs to be adjusted to make sense for a section rather than a lead, but not to allow so much freedom that there are arguments over what counts as close enough.)

Note that the recent discussion Talk:Colt AR-15#AR-15_style_rifle_subsection, which ended with editors split 10-10, was on a related but different proposal (to add some content taken from the current lead of AR-15 style rifle, but only some of the content and not to sync the articles "permanently").

Survey question

Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a (verbatim or nearly so) copy of the lead of its main article AR-15 style rifle, as per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SYNC?

Straw-poll: Yes or no?

• Yes, per the motivation above. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• NO, I recommend that Waleswatcher read Wikipedia:Forum shopping.--RAF910 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• NO There was already a lengthy discussion about this on the Talk:Colt AR-15 page, over the past few days (and still technically active), there was no consensus to support this edit, so now this user is resorting to forum shopping. We need an uninvolved admin to close this now, review and close the discussion there and perhaps have a policy and guideline review with the OP here. - ^theWOLFchild 22:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not the same proposal, as noted above. This poll is over whether the content should be synced with the content of the lead of AR-15 style rifle, not what that content should be. 22:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Admin. supported agenda pushing at WP:N

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

---

The notability guideline is supposed to be for the benefit of all of Wikipedia. However, we have a small group who want to "get the guideline to match what we do over at AfD" for the sole benefit of only the folks over at AfD. The most troubling part about this is that one of the group is an admin. who is supposed to represent the interests of everyone, yet they insist that they ignore all the rules over at AfD and what they practice over there (their specific agenda) should be pushed over to the guideline. The relevant discussions are here and here. Huggums537 (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting more eyes at the ongoing discussion here concerning the above referenced matter. Thanks very much. Huggums537 (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Huggums537: if you have an issue with any of my actions, take it to WP:ANI, not VPP. We’re talking about the removal of one sentence that is covered in the guideline better elsewhere, has support for removal on the talk page, and where removal matches current practice. While I find your assumptions around my diabolical nature intriguing, this really is how Wikipedia works, and I’m pretty experienced in this regard. Also, I think someone should close this RfC as you aren’t actually asking a question and are just ranting. Like I said, take me to ANI if you have concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC about user page guideline WP:POLEMIC

WP:POLEMIC currently states: ‘’Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.’’

Please select one of the following choices to keep, remove or modify the phrase “timely manner”:

1. Keep as is
2. Replace with: ‘’...is not permitted as it could be misused or misconstrued as a threat or WP:HOUND
3. within 30 days
4. within 45 days
5. within 60 days

Thank you...^{Atsme📞📧} 14:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• 2 - history indicates that such compilations have been used (perceived or otherwise) to threaten and/or hound editors who represent “the opposition” in controversial articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• 3- although the use of user space to compile a dispute resolution case is legit, leaving it as "in a timely manner" is basically an invitation to let it languish forever. A strict time limit needs to apply. Reyk _YO! 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• 3 - Pretty much agree with Reyk, though I would consider more of a 15 days since last substantial edit to the page, 30 days from initial creation. My reasoning is that I think 30 days is a little too long unless you are actively preparing some sort of dispute resolution case. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• 1 - It is better for that drama to just "sit" and die off somewhere in userspace. Do we really want an automatically started incident thread, 30 days after every such thing? wumbolo ^^^ 15:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1 or 60-90 days. These things can take time. Because the target is (in this case) attempting to sabotage the collection of evidence (just as Trump is attempting to dictate the terms of the Mueller investigation), the clock should be restarted and the diff collector given even more time. That should teach the target to not obstruct justice. See my comment below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1 "Timely" should not be a hard-and-fast rule. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1. What is an appropriate time will vary based on the situation. Natureium (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• 3 Seems like the best fit, I like the spirit of timely but it is to open to gaming. Perhaps a provision for an extension after 30 days if a good explanation is provided, otherside it festers and creates problems. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1.5 - I don't like arbitrary time limits, but I also don't see any reason for such material to stay visible outside of when the user is actively working on it. I would add a provision to the current version like A page containing such material should be blanked upon request when not actively in use.. While the user is working on it (in their current session), they can restore it from the edit history of the page, and while they are not working on it, its hidden from view to avoid the polemic nature. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• 0.5 - remove the "provided..." clause or keep as is. DexDor ^(talk) 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1 or 5+ these things take time. If a case is to go to ArbCom one needs to demonstrate both prior resolution attempts and a long term pattern. There can be months from the time a problem becomes apparent until it can be sufficiently documented for ArbCom to do something about it. Such pages should not be kept on prominent display, e.g. do not collect/post evidence on your user page, but having such a sub-page where others must go looking for it should be OK.
  Beyond that, if there is a long term issue one wishes to document it can take quite a bit of time to dig through various editor and page histories to find diffs and figure out how to properly present the information. Most editors will not want to drop everything simply to research and write up a case but instead will work on it as time permits. Thirty or even sixty days is not very long considering this is a volunteer project and that documenting misbehavior is not why people want to spend their time editing here. Jbh ^Talk 19:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• 0.5 per DexDor. Such a list can be a useful thing to have in your back pocket as a way to document and recognize problematic editing patterns, which may or may not lead to dispute resolution etc. It should be kept discreetly on a user subpage without prominent links or polemic commentary.

If such lists are being used problematically, then the problematic behavior should be addressed. In particular they should not be trotted out during talk page discussions unless a formal complaint or accusation is being made. –dlthewave ☎ 22:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• 1 I think such lists can be an element of hounding, but in of themselves they aren't hounding. For example, if you made a list like this and then went around posting links to it on article talk pages or other discussions with the target editor, then that'd be hounding. Not quite the same thing, but some editor took part of a discussion I had with him and featured it prominently on his user page (presumably to make some kind of point) but I only happened to see that by coincidence and we haven't otherwise interacted, so why should I care? Same with a list of diffs like this. If they're just keeping the list on their page, then what harm is it? Just don't go to their user page if you don't like it. Also, there's a very easy solution: if you don't want someone to make a list of diffs of you violating policy, then don't violate policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1 per WP:AINTBROKE and the note at the top of this page about not using this page to settle disputes about implementation of policy. POLEMIC is working just fine. As the discussion bellow is showing, the line between good-faith collection of evidence for dispute resolution versus malicious persecution is not a bright one, and is best decided on a case-by-case basis. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1 It's fine. Dispute resolution can be protracted and subject to changing deadlines/late closures/etc. No need to put a hard deadline on something. As Ivan said, if it ain't broke... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• 2 there's no reason for this kind of stuff to be publicly accessible, keep it on your own computer until you're ready to stand behind it. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1 defining hard limits is rarely useful. If it wasn't good on day 31, it also wasn't fine on day 29. 2 would be my second choice. --Jayron32 14:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1 (or 0.5) - There's no need for a strictly-defined time limit. Much wasted time could be avoided if some users would simply refrain from snooping though other user's subpages for whatever drama that they can stir up. We should also stop misusing the word "polemic", which has nothing to do with the compilation of factual evidence (diffs). - MrX 🖋 12:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• 0.5, remove time constraint completely. Why on earth is this not given as an option? Such apparent bias compromises the credibility of the RFC. The intro says: "Please select one of the following choices to keep, remove or modify the phrase “timely manner”", but there is in fact no remove option. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 0.5, remove time constraint completely per Johnbod. I get regularly hounded by people harbouring grudges. Sometimes they turn up on my talk page to complain about something and I tolerate this indefinitely. Maybe they have a point or maybe they don't but it does little good to sweep it under the carpet because it's so easy to repeat or save the details elsewhere. Better to get it all out in the open to understand the grievances and clear the air. Andrew D. (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 0.5 per the people above. It's rare I agree with Andrew but he's absolutely right here, sometimes there is a necessity to keep a long string of diffs in your own user area because otherwise it's difficult to prove a persistent problematic issue if it doesn't happen every day. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1 per Ivanvector's WP:AINTBROKE argument. I don't understand the problem that this is intended to fix! Compilation of such info could possibly be construed as Hounding - but I know of no instances where it has been so by the community - in isolation - without other more 'harassing' behaviour. Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• "Hounding" obviously can't apply. That applies to not only aggressively and pointedly following another editor around, but actually disruptively taunting them and/or disturbing edits they have made which were uncontroversial and proper. (Watching disruptive editors, socks, and vandals and fixing their errors is not hounding, even though it involves following them around. That is actually our duty as editors. We must protect the encyclopedia.) An editor's subpage which is not advertised and only known to a few is not a threat or hounding. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree - I've known instances where one editor starts the diff page, then follows the target editor to collect "add-as-you-go" diffs each time they "believe" the target editor does something they don't like, especially if the diff collector is a seasoned editor who knows how to game the system. I've even seen diffs collected that were not representative of incivility at all - just content disputes, and even legitimate actions were added to the collection, knowing few admins have/take the time to read them all but it looks bad nonetheless - and that is HOUND. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Quietly collecting diffs is not hounding. Hounding involves public action negative to their target, which the target immediately knows about, as described above. And it doesn't include what the target "perceives" as simply negative, but what normal others would perceive as "unjustly" negative. The perceptions of paranoid people, or those with a guilty conscience, don't count. You're misusing the term.

It especially doesn't apply to the situation upon which this whole thread is about, a target going to the diff collector's private userpage and loudly and publicly complaining (Streisand effect!!), and then starting an MfD. That's like Trump complaining about the Mueller investigation, and then getting all his staff to complain as well. (He's supposed to ignore it and never talk about it.) That's what's happening. Trump (and the target here) should not talk to the diff collector about it or mention the investigation (or the diff page). Obstruction of justice is a crime (which can be committed by completely innocent people), and interfering with the collection of diffs for a possible noticeboard or AE case is a form of obstruction. It's wrong to do that. The target needs to stay away from the very topic, and the private userpage, since this was done very discreetly. It was the target who publicized it. They exercised bad faith by making it public.

Having some reasonable time limit is another matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is a difference between privately collecting diffs for a complaint and keeping a bunch of diffs or quotes around to shame, harass or poison the well for others dealing with an editor. The later, which includes keeping unattributed quotes and/or quotes stripped of context on one's user page is much, much worse than collecting diffs on a page which no one who is not looking for it will see it. Jbh ^Talk 20:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• I tend to use this template for nearly everything in my userspace:

• {{NOINDEX|visible = yes}}

I suggest it should be used for the type of page under discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User pages and subpages already have <meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow"/> in their HTML heads.- MrX 🖋 13:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Atsme and Bullrangifer: I take it this is related to an ongoing dispute involving some sort of "target"? –dlthewave ☎ 22:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a proposed change for a guideline based on a history of disputes for the same/similar issues and it has become clear that the guideline needs clarity. Read the options and cast your iVote - try to imagine yourself in the shoes of the page owner and the targeted editor, and make your decision. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That is nonsense. The issue concerns this MfD. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you considering it nonsense based on your personal experiences as a targeted editor, Johuniq? If the latter is the case, please substantiate your "nonsense" position by providing the diffs so others can weigh-in. It would be quite helpful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's just a CIVIL auto-response that evades the issue. Someone asked if the proposal here was related to a dispute, and I provided the link to show where the dispute can be seen. The close of the MfD specified a date beyond which the diff-collection will be regarded as polemic and deleted so, once again, Wikipedia's model of not trying to specify rules that precisely cover every situation is shown to be working. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your preconceived notions are not helpful. My position is still NO, and your naming that MfD for WP:POINT was not only wrong, it was disruptive. Stop reflecting your POV onto me. This RfC is the product of other incidents I recalled with a measure of trepidation, dating back at least 3 years - an accumulation of incidents that have caused disruption. I’m of the mind that waiting and watching one’s opposition for the purpose of collecting diffs-on-the-fly is the same as HOUNDING, and an impediment to an editor’s ability to express free thought for fear it will be misconstrued or taken out of context and wrongfully used against them. It’s one thing to collect diffs that already exist in preparation of filing at AE or ANI which should not take more than 30 days...not to mention the fact that a simple text program off-WP will serve the same pupose without creating a hostile environment in an effort to rid oneself of the opposition. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion about what is and isn't hounding is far from being a reasonable interpretation of the policy. And frankly, someone who has a history of problematic behaviour refraining from said behaviour because they know it will be recorded is a good thing. There should be a hostile environment for them. Oh and lastly: you have no right to express free thought on Wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

RfCs don't usually come out of the blue, and anyone proposing a change to a guideline should present a compelling reason to do so. @Atsme: If you're aware of a history of issues related to this, or a particular discussion that your concerns arose from, it would be helpful to post links here. This is usually done as part of opening the RfC. –dlthewave ☎ 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No one said this RfC came out of the blue, but I’m not going to mislead anyone by saying it was the result of one specific MfD. I already explained my reason...and quite frankly, I see some of these polemic pages as nothing more than “opposition research” but I’m just 1 iVote. The community will decide, and it doesn’t require me providing links to deleted pages or past MfDs that once caused some editors grief. I’m trying to avoid disruption and retain editors, which happens to be my main motivation for this RfC - eliminating the ambiguity by setting a time limit or disallowing the practice all together. Based on my years editing here, it is quite obvious that when an editor is truly disruptive, it won’t be difficult to provide 4 or 5 diffs as evidence without any need for explanation, and that’s something that can be kept in a text file off-WP. If it takes months to collect diffs, and you’re doing it on the fly in an effort to provide evidence that isn’t plainly evident, that’s the first 🚩. It’s a poop or get off the pot process. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems that I am in the minority but I feel pretty strongly that these sorts of pages should not exist. It cannot be a nice feeling to have a page in existence that is accumulating evidence of your supposed misdeeds, when you have no way of challenging this evidence or otherwise defending yourself. Even if the page is not being publicly waved around, if the editor in question knows of its existence then the effect is nearly the same. Editors who want to complain about other editors' behavior should assemble a case in private, take it expediently through the proper channels, and obtain a swift resolution. They shouldn't be allowed to make public lists of others' behavior that they don't like with the threat of someday using it to lodge a complaint. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone concerned about the existence of polemic pages (aka diff collections or shit lists) can relax because they are prohibited and will be deleted. The only point of contention concerns the period of time allowed before such a compilation is used on a noticeboard, whereupon the original compilation should be deleted (and will be deleted if taken to MfD). Clearly six months is too long, and one week is too short. The closing statement for the MfD that led to this discussion has it exactly correct. Another potential problem concerns someone who makes it known that they have a diff collection, for example, by posting a link to it. That would be a sign of battleground behavior that would encourage deletion of the page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand the difference between what is being discussed here and a diff collection. Even if someone doesn't advertise that they have a collection, it still shows up in recent changes and so may be noticed by others. These lists should be private, i.e. off-wiki. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Lots of sub-optimal things happen at Wikipedia and collecting evidence in public is one of them. However, such activity is accepted as sometimes necessary because it is important to get the wikitext correct and tested before inflicting it on a noticeboard. If anyone knows of a page like that which is more than a couple of months old, please provide a link for assessment in order to have the page deleted per WP:POLEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't find this argument at all convincing. Checking that the wiki text is correct is what page preview is for. Fixing the formatting definitely doesn't take weeks or months as is being discussed. It seems to me that the benefit of creating these sorts of public diff lists is the psychological feeling that other people are reading the evidence that one is compiling, even if outwardly one says they aren't advertising it. This strikes me as behavior that should be banned. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Getting the wikitext for complex evidence correct is a lot harder than it appears, however my purpose in posting in this section was merely to report current procedure and I wouldn't mind a speedy-delete category for a page with a diff collection older than 7 days. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Johnbod - see #2. It removes the time frame. Also, MfD is used to delete dubious collections and there appears to be some concern for anything longer than 2 wks to a month is obliquely used to HOUND. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No!!! "Replace with: ‘’...is not permitted as it could be misused or misconstrued as a threat or WP:HOUND" - it removes the possibility entirely, changing "is permitted" to "is not permitted"! Unbelievable. The !votes so far suggest that "some concern" is restricted to you and one other editor who have between you taken up most of this section. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspend page move rights for new editors?

 Administrator note The account in question below was autoconfirmed, having been registered for 4 days with at least 10 edits, just noting that "new editors" below the confirmation threshold are already prevented from moves. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

L_O_M_G_B_O_Y_E registered 3 days ago and was able to do this. While I appreciate that we don't want to make editing too restrictive for new users I can't think of any good reason why we would want a brand new account to start moving around articles. Is it worth considering suspending page move rights for a month or two until the editor beds in? Betty Logan (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's still the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I doubt this is necessary just because of occasional vandalism from Milly on Mheels. They'll find other things to do if we block this. (those things not listed per WP:BEANS) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It happens far too often with India-related stuff. No idea about other topic areas. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's just another form of the low level of vandalism that's inherent in being an open encyclopedia. I don't see any reason to block this particular form of it. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn't always low level, eg: articles with few watchers being moved to POV titles. - Sitush (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

To add to that it is a specific type of vandalism that sometimes causes massive inconvenience. For example, if they had simply vandalised those pages in the conventional sense then any run of the mill editor could have reverted the edits, but sometimes page moves can be a real hassle to get fixed. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Betty's is a key point. If page moves were always easy to revert, there would be little problem, but too often these moves create a significant mess, one which an average, even experienced user cannot fix with ease. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A recent example was Mannanars (Thiyya Dynasty), which was one of several pov moves made at that time. - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Some functions should be reserved for experienced editors, and that doesn't impinge on the ability of unregistered and new editors to make actual edits. This is one function which should be off-limits to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. L_O_M_G_B_O_Y_E was able to move 20 pages to nonsense names within 5 minutes, and I guess would have continued if he hadn't been caught and blocked at the end of that time. As Betty says, 'ordinary' vandalism is a nuisance, but page-move vandalism can be a real pain; and as BullRangifer says, there's no particular reason for new users to be instantly able to move pages.
L_O_M_G_B_O_Y_E was presumably autoconfirmed. Perhaps page move rights should be delayed until a user reaches extended-confirmed status? — Stanning (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

One user moved a couple dozen pages. Not the end of the world. As has been alluded to above, we've faced far worse and managed to stay afloat. AC is a fine limit, and while EC would certainly be harder to get to, it would stop a lot of good, new editors from contributing. Besides, vandals gonna vandal. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Amory, let's not use the exact same "logic" the NRA uses to keep AR-15s in the hands of those who can use them to cause much damage. Newbies will not suffer from a lack of the ability to move pages. It will not impinge on their ability to edit and improve the encyclopedia at all. If they really feel the need to move an article, they can ask on the talk page and it will be done, if it's a good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Nice sarcasm. NRA does exactly what Amory opposes. Guns only for the experienced, mature, clean and documented civilians. wumbolo ^^^ 14:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

​Would you kindly rephrase? You seem to be comparing a silly vandal to mass murderers, with me abetting such crimes. That's inflammatory at best, and insulting at worst, and I do not believe it helps your argument. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm only referring to the logic being used. That's all. Change the names and it becomes a combination of NRA talking points, especially the last do-nothingism because vandals/criminals will always do what they're going to do, so let's not do a thing to prevent it. That type of logic isn't useful when we can easily prevent this type of problem without impinging on their ability to do actual editing. BTW, from what's written below about a filter, this may all be a moot point now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Except guns kill people, and page moves don't kill people. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Except guns don't kill people, people kill people. wumbolo ^^^ 22:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Way to parrot an NRA talking point. People kill people, but guns broadly and greatly expand the number of people who can kill other people. Seriously, a bit of critical thinking wouldn't hurt.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@WaltCip: and therefore minimize the number of people killed, by preventing violence. wumbolo ^^^ 12:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Page moves for the last ten years have been well managed by Filter 68. I suspect the feature is currently experiencing a bug, else it would have been picked up, prevented, AND auto-reported to AIV. In any case the filter is the ideal tool for this as opposed to various blunt restrictions; requested adjustments to the filter can be made at WP:EFR, but like I say, I think it's just experiencing a bug. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, having looked a bit deeper there may or may not be a bug, but all that's required is a subtle adjustment to the filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason why page moves can't be pushed to EC, as long as article creation is still at AC. Creating a new page doesn't damage anything, while page moves can screw up a lot if the editor is intent to disrupt. If an AC editor needs a non-controversial page move, that should be handled by a edit request. --Masem (t) 15:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I will also totally support upping the ability to move pages to Extended Confirmed. There's no urgent need that can make it necessary to allow a 4-day old account and 10 edits to just start moving pages, some of which cannot be reversed by established editor of 10 years who is not an admin and not a pagemover. "It is encyclopedia, everyone can edit" is a banal cliche which is being far and far from the truth evey day, the reality is "you can only edit what you're allowed". And restricting page-move to EC will not leave us with " hundreds of misnamed pages". –Ammarpad (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that mainspace-to-mainspace moving should require EC (moving isn't "editing", so Wikipedia would still the encyclopedia anyone can edit), but limiting draftspace-to-mainspace and userspace-to-mainspace moves would essentially be turning ACREQ into ECREQ, as it would force non-EC users to either create ther articles directly in mainspace (and get them speedied), going through AfC, or doing a copy-and-paste move (which is discouraged for copyright reasons). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose no real reason for this. Page move vandalism is a pain, but the ability to move pages is key to editing: typos, realizing a page you created could be at a better title, actually knowing more about the MOS and title change policy than established editors and doing uncontroversial moves (this is a thing). Restricting a core function of the MediaWiki software to extended confirmed on all pages is too much for me to swallow. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose yeah, EC is too much for just the ability to move a page. Also, all this appears to be over an issue that is fixed, at-least according to Zzuuzz, per his comment about "it would have been picked up, prevented, AND auto-reported to AIV" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Question: Would those editors opposed to the proposal support a confirmed account being allowed to perform an A->B->C move then? If a new account performs a vandalistic page move isn't the ability to revert the move also "key to editing"? It seems to me that if we are going to permit new editors to make such moves then it is equally reasonable to expect the software not to bar reverting these moves. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • So long as the auto-created redirects haven't been edited, anyone can just move it back C->B->A. At least half of the page-move requests I see in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion and never, ever touch (due to bad experiences with people complaining at me about the move afterward, instead of the person who requested it) could have been moved by any autoconfirmed user if they hadn't been tagged with {{db-move}} instead. —Cryptic 15:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • This. I think perhaps folks don't know about overwriting a redirect? At any rate, it's maddening to see. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Seems to me that the solution we're looking for is to throttle page moves - say, to one per minute (+talk page) for autoconfirmed and five or ten per minute for extended-confirmed - rather than bumping the permission up to EC outright. I had vague recollections of this being made configurable back in the bad old days of WoW, but I can't find any evidence of it now in mediawiki source, alas. —Cryptic 15:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Abusefilter ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Making it part of the EC rights package seems sane. There is very little utility in a user moving a page on their first day. After a month and 500 edits, that would filter out 99% of the vandalism while the overwhelming majority of new users wouldn't even know their right was restricted. Moving pages just isn't something new users do a lot of legitimately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems like an ad hoc solution to a nonexistent problem to me. I am also not convinced that there is a benefit, and the attitude that new editors' rights have to be restricted more and more ad nauseam with never any good justification is bothering me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - is seems like a properly configured edit filter resolves this. Endorse Jo-Jo Eumerus's bothersome observation. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support have seen 3 hijacking moves in last couple of days, all reverted, user blocked but it is an ongoing problem and no bot recognised it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

• Here's another case of an account doing disruptive moves with just autoconfirm. KyrosFan (talk · contribs). --Masem (t) 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A common use case for an autoconfirmed user needing to move a page is the cross-namespace move to article space of something they started in draft or user space. If they've worked on it with anyone else, we want the page history preserved, we don't want to drive them to making cut-and-paste moves. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I think that allowing editors with 4 days and 10 edits to rename articles is an excessively low bar. It could be increased to 7 days and 50 edits at the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaBUru38 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose I have always gone for higher restrictions on recent discussions, but am strongly against this - it is a vastly higher limit that would remove many good edits. It would also seem out of line to have page creation at a lower level. I suppose articles that would fall into the big delete group (50k edits) could have higher restrictions on their move.

NaBUru38 - while that would make perfect sense as an edit/time requirement, Wiki has been rather staunchly against a proliferation of rights boundaries in the past Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. As pointed out above, AC users moving a lot of pages in short time can and should be caught by an edit filter. That's no reason to ban all AC users from moving. Regards SoWhy 14:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

I know that the Wikipedia policies declare social media as an unreliable source and I understand why, but what if an original post from the official account of the subject was used as a source, what then? Is it still not reliable?--◂ ‎épine Ⓥ 17:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is an officially attributed account of a notable person X, it can reliably source what the opinion of X on the subject is.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Note, however, that this would be a primary source for their opinion, which would be less preferred than a secondary source. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@CapitalSasha: it doesn't necessarily have to be an opinion. Let's say for example it's an album release date disclosed on Facebook, it is acceptable to use it, right?--◂ ‎épine Ⓥ 02:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Épine. Self-published sources (including social media) are generally considered reliable sources about themselves, provided that they are not being used to source controversial or exceptional claims. You can read more about this at WP:ABOUTSELF. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding upcoming release dates... make sure to read WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:NOTPROMO... Reliability is not the only question here. While we may be able to use an official Facebook page to reliably source a statement like: "According to the band's official facebook page, they plan to release a new album in June of 2018 <cite facebook page>"... that does not answer the more fundamental question of whether we should mention the new album in the first place. If the only source to mention that a band is planning to release an album is the the band's own self-published facebook page, we should at least question whether it is appropriate to mention that album. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source." That policy surely applies to social media. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Titles in Spanish

Greetings to all. I do not usually contribute here, since I do not speak English. I am a Spanish user 12 years ago. I write here since the works of creation of the articles in Spanish do not respect the Spanish spelling and write everything "to the English". For example, they write "Échame la Culpa" instead of "Échame la culpa" because it is written in English. In Spanish, we only write the first letter in capital letters (with the exception of proper names). I leave the reference here, since previously I left it to a user, and it did not produce much fruit.[1] I ask to review section 4.17 that indicates what I am indicating. Therefore, yes, I must mention that ALL articles that refer to a work of creation are poorly written in Wikipedia in Spanish and must be translated. The latter I say with the best of intentions and hoping to be a contribution to this great encyclopedia. Penquista (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a valid point (the user obviously meant small letters, not capital). Do we have anything in MOS about it?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spain & Spanish-related articles, an incomplete draft, but nothing else. TeraTIX 08:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble working out exactly what Penquista is saying here. If it's about the titles of notable works in Spanish, we generally use the English translation of the title, and capitalize it the English way. Then the original Spanish title is given parenthetically, with the Spanish capitalizaiton. For example:

Life Is a Dream (Spanish: La vida es sueño [la ˈβiða es ˈsweɲo]) is a Spanish-language play by Pedro Calderón de la Barca.

Penquista, are you arguing that we should be doing something different from this? --Trovatore (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought Penquista was talking about the Spanish wikipedia, which is beyond our scope. --Golbez (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

They were specifically addressing Échame la Culpa, arguing that since this is a Spanish name anyway, Culpa should not be capitalized.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct. From MOS:FOREIGNTITLE: "Retain the style [of sentence/title caps] of the original for modern works. For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, it is very exhausting to be editing for a good time and undo my edits that I have struggled to do. See , here or here, for example. Penquista (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, we have got a new link, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 40#Capitalization of foreign-name albums and songs, which I did not yet have time to read but which should be posted here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:TemplateStyles#RFC: Adopt as a guideline

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:TemplateStyles#RFC: Adopt as a guideline. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#RfC: Enabling TemplateStyles for background. - Evad37 [talk] 08:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

External links and cryptocurrency mining

I saw this edit today, which removed an external link (probably not an overly useful one anyway) with the summary, "http://exampleproblems.com is currently employing coinhive miner without disclosure. The miner is able consume visitor's computer resources without consent. This is considered bad practice hence the link is removed." I hadn't actually heard of this before, so I looked at the source for the site and it does seem to be using Coinhive. I'm more than happy to leave this link removed, but is this something people could be made more aware of? If any sites are found like this, should they be blacklisted? Would it be worth adding to WP:ELNO? Are there any technical measures that could check for this? Sorry for the vague, open-ended questions here, but it was nothing I had run across before today. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe this would fall under WP:ELNO#3, "Sites containing malware". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Film Notability

I was just asked on my talk page about film notability by User:Barkeep49. This is something of a blast from the past because it has to do primarily with NPP practice, and I haven't worked NPP nearly as often as I did before ACTRIAL. However, the question has to do with films that are in principal photography. I sometimes nominated film articles for deletion if the film was in principal photography and the article said nothing about actual news about the filming, and a Google search didn't turn up news about the filming. The notability guideline says that films that are in principal photography are only notable if principal photography itself has been notable, as in reported on. However, a typical result at AFD was that !voters would !vote Keep because the film was in principal photography. In other words, what is said in the notability guideline is not the same as what is done at AFD. I happen to think that the guideline is right, and that the problem is that the AFD voters are being easy or subjective. One option would be to change the guideline to match the practice, but I don't agree. I see no neutral reason why unreleased films should be included in Wikipedia unless the photography has been reported on. I personally think that the system is working the way COI editors want it to work, which is that they want to be able to use Wikipedia to pre-publicize films, but is only the cynical opinion of a reviewer. Another possibility would be to change how the !voters !vote at AFD, but how do we do that? An OUTCOMES essay was suggested, but I don't like the idea of an Outcomes essay that states that we usually ignore the guideline.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There has to be WP:V-meeting sources to justify a subject-specific notability guideline. Eg: while NSPORT grants any player that played a professional game is presumed notable, we still require a source to show that that player played in that game. Same with films (or any other subject). I think we need to add to WP:ATA for this situation; you don't claim a topic can't be deleted because you say it meets a notability guide, you have to prove it with sources per the non-negotiable terms of WP:V. --Masem (t) 01:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The best way to change how people !vote at AFD, on this or just about any other subject, is to be more active at AFD yourself, and to argue convincingly enough that you change the other participants' minds. Trying to get your way by changing the guidelines, and using that to convince closing admins to discount opposing opinions, is a far-distant second. —Cryptic 01:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sage advice that. Personally I read the notability policy like Robert does and thus would suggest most films shouldn't have pages until around release. The exception would be those with truly notable coverage, e.g. Untitled Avengers film. I also have a hard time seeing our current practice as a reasonable interpretation of the guideline. However, if there is a consensus, such as that demonstrated by AfD participants, that our guideline is wrong then it feels like maybe the guideline needs to change and that would be fine. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To weigh in, it definitely is not enough to say that a film being in principal photography is sufficient for there to be a Wikipedia article. It may be that a film's IMDb page with its status of "Filming" or "Post-production" is being referenced by editors. It's not enough; there needs to be significant coverage from reliable and independent sources about the film, even if it is from before filming. If sources write about a film's development, they pretty much always write about its release and reception (unless the development never goes anywhere). The point of having the threshold of the start of principal photography is to prevent creating unnecessary articles since not all films that begin development actually start production. An example is Shantaram (film) (a redirect) because there is coverage about it but no actual film resulting per se. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's position on disputed grammar of Standard English

I am wondering what exactly is Wikipedia's position on disputed grammar of Standard English, the language in which Wikipedia and other encyclopedias are written, and is the position justified? The MOS page does not address this issue.

The disputed grammar of Standard English includes:

• Split infinitive
• Whether or not one needs to use the subjunctive mood (the neutral tone of Wikipedia makes this issue irrelevant)
• Preposition stranding (ending a sentence with a preposition is a subset of preposition stranding)

VarunSoon (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If they aren't addressed in the MOS, these constructions are in general probably not discouraged. Split infinitives and stranded prepositions are quite common in modern academic English so I see no reason to ban Wikipedia from using them. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a side note, but I see the subjunctive come up in articles reasonably often. I mostly edit math stuff, but I'd guess there are other places where it has its uses too. I've seen people change something in the subjunctive back to the indicative, and I generally revert changes like that. When it's appropriate, I'd argue that the subjunctive sounds more formal, so it's generally good to use for encyclopedia articles. But there's probably some flexibility in a lot of cases. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Split infinitives are fine. Nearly every widely used modern style guide does not object to them. There is no dispute among reliable sources on that issue. Similarly, preposition stranding is a non-issue. Style guides and grammars widely agree that there is no issue with such a matter in English. None of these matters are real disputes among academic grammarians or style guides or anything like that. --Jayron32 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll just drop a link to Common English usage misconceptions#Grammar here. Anomie⚔ 16:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

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.

---

(non-admin closure) Closing thread on GDPR per WP:NLT and because none of the people commenting are lawyers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Coming to a computer near you tomorrow The European Commission, in a list of "Examples of personal data" included in its explanation of the General Data Protection Regulation, has the following bullet: an Internet Protocol (IP) address; Some editors compile lists of IP addresses which they think belong to the same person. On a reading of the GDPR, absent specific consent from the users of these IP addresses the publication of these lists will be illegal. Although up to now specific consent to the publication of the IP address for a particular edit has been given by the act of clicking the "Publish your changes" button the website has not said that by clicking "publish" or in the Terms of Use that by using the site the editors agree to the publication of these lists - they are as illegal on Thursday as they will be on Friday. On Friday, however, huge penalties for non-compliance will come in. What is likely to happen to (a) the editors who contribute to these lists and (b) the Foundation if they are not deleted by midnight? 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:84C2:83DA:8FCC:5838 (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Surely the person would have to be identifiable from the IP address, no? Wikipedia already has a policy against outing people. If editors were prohibited from compiling lists of IP addresses shared by a single user then that would severely limit the effectiveness of SPI. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC) The Foundation has lawyers whose job it is handle these issues. This is decidedly not the sort of thing that a bunch of rubes like us are supposed to make decisions about one way or the other. If the Foundation's lawyers come to some way to deal with this, they will probably not keep it a secret. Until then, we don't need to change anything. --Jayron32 12:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Reading this Wikipedia may have a problem: "Personal data that has been de-identified, encrypted or pseudonymised but can be used to re-identify a person remains personal data and falls within the scope of the law." I think for dynamic IP addresses you could reasonable argue that the "window" of re-identification is pretty small, but this is definitely a problem for static IP addresses if editors leave a public electronic trail across the internet. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that this information will anonymous elsewhere. This legislation comes into force tomorrow; are we sure that Wikipedia's lawyers have considered this angle? Betty Logan (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) The full list is: a name and surname; a home address; an email address such as name.surname.acompany.com; an identification card number; location data (for example the location data function on a mobile phone)*; an Internet Protocol (IP) address; a cookie ID*; the advertising identifier of your phone; data held by a hospital or doctor, which could be a symbol that uniquely identifies a person. IP addresses don't identify people, they make them identifiable, same as the other pieces of information on the list. As the Commissioners put it: Personal data is any information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual. Different pieces of information, which collected together can lead to the identification of a particular person, also constitute personal data. IP addresses are the most potent sources of all, because they link to edits going back many years, and each address linked to multiplies the probability of this happening. It doesn’t matter how dynamic the IP addresses are because they are all being linked up. 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:84C2:83DA:8FCC:5838 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't legally have to do a thing at the moment because it is outside the EU. However I agree there is a problem with displaying IPs which needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. The easiest way round I can see is to make them more anonymous by securely encrypting them. This would still mean an IP remained the same but it would be far harder to argue that it identified a particular person except as yet another contributor to Wikipedia. Trusted officers of Wikipedia with special rights should still be able to check actual IPs to aid in identifying trolls and suchlike. Specific edits that give away personal information can be redacted as at present. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC) The esams server is in Haarlem, Netherlands. 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:84C2:83DA:8FCC:5838 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) If they haven't, they aren't doing the job they are paid for. Regardless, you and I and everyone else here are not lawyers employed by the foundation to advise the Foundation on their legal responsibilities to comply with such laws. There are lawyers whose job it is to do so, they can be found here. Unless and until they tell us to do something, it's not our responsibility or our problem. Let lawyers lawyer. Our job is to write encyclopedia articles. --Jayron32 12:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC) You and I are users though, and from tomorrow EU users will have a completely new set of rights. If a user asks you to delete their contribution record from a particular article on the basis it includes their personal data (an IP address), how would you respond to such a request? Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC) (Not legal advice, IANAL) I would decline the request, as (1) there is no way to verify that an IP's contributions were all made by the same person, or by any person in particular, and (2) per the edit window notice which reads: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." If you edit without logging in there is an additional notice that "Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits." If the requester invoked GPDR or any other law, I would still decline the request but refer them to the instructions to email WMF Legal. It can technically be done, painfully, but would violate the license and thus I suspect you'll never see it done unless as an office action. I think we broke threading here, I don't know where the list below this comment originated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC) It would be silly to depend on some lawyers for ideas on how best to deal with this. And I do think we should proactively deal with IPs tending to locate people. I don't think there is any practical problem even with a server in the EU. There are bigger fishb to fry than trying to prove something about Wikipedia's use of IPs and if somehow the worst came to the worst the EU could be told to go jump and it would have big difficulties if it did try to do anything about it. It is a moral problem for us and we should deal with it. Dmcq (talk)

Go to meta:Talk:Privacy policy to talk about GDPR.

I will take the opportunity to point out that the Wikimedia foundation recently sent me an email linking to their blog, where they explain how the privacy policy has been updated. Judging by the date, it's to comply with whatever it is the GDPR means for Wikipedia. The forum for complaining about whether the Wikimedia lawyers have or haven't done it right is at meta:Talk:Privacy policy. Not here. JLJ001 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the link and I have expressed my deep concern about IPs there. I believe closing was wrong as the lawyers are there to serve Wikipedia not the other way round. Dmcq (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) Closing another thread on GDPR because literally nothing about this topic has changed in the last five days. JLJ001 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

GDPR According to this answer, GDPR is a huge problem for Wikipedia: [2]. Wikimedia Foundation risks a fine up to €20 million. Is Wikipedia GDPR-compliant? 109.231.234.249 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC) This is a problem for the Wikimedia Foundation, not for wikipedia editors. Natureium (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC) The compliance would require change of the current policy. So we are just waiting for the disaster to happen, because it doesn't strike us directly, only the foundation that maintains our servers? It sounds like a very short-sighted approach. 109.231.234.249 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Ultimately, none of us are lawyers. If the legal team at the WMF tells the community that we need to do something, we'll happily make sure it happens. Until then, we'll proceed under the assumption that the WMF lawyers are competent, and will adequately ensure the WMF and Wikipedia are protected. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Specific question about COI

Hi, I have no idea whether this is the right place to ask this, but I have a specific question about application of WP:OWN and WP:COI. A WP:BLP that I watch is edited by the subject to remove the date of birth (which is sourced). I restored the info and added a link on their talk page about editing your own article etc. This morning they removed the information again saying they have a right to control what data is publicly available. Who is right? The Conflict of Interest policies that I've read suggest that no-one can control what information is posted on an article, but does that apply in this case? Jdcooper (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE sorry, false alarm, I found the relevant guidelines. Jdcooper (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec) My understanding is that, in general, a BLP's DOB should be retained in the article unless there is a question of accuracy. They certainly have no "right" to control that information on Wikipedia, although we can take their request into consideration. However, because DOB is something that's very relevant to developing an understanding of the subject,there would have to be pretty unusual circumstances for me to favor removing it. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)