Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

« Older discussions, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147

Proposed Bot for tagging BadSVG files.[edit]

Example of reasonable SVG file with embedded raster image.
Which can also be scaled.

Some SVG files are no more than a bitmap file with an SVG "wrapper". When I have found them in the past, I have added {{BadSVG}} to them. There will be plenty of others I have not seen. It is proposed for a new bot to go through the SVG files we have and when it finds the start of a hex code stream (i.e. like xlink:href="http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/data:image/jpeg;base64,), it tags the file with the {{BadSVG}} template. The file names will then be in Category:SVGs for cleanup where interested editors could consider cleaning them up. Once we have examined the existing files, the bot can be adjusted just to examine new uploads. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Great idea. Embedding raster graphics in a "scalable" format is pretty pointless and may confuse readers/re-users when they don't scale as expected. -FASTILY 21:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Raster images in an SVG file should scale just like other raster images. Glrx (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
We also need a better process for getting rid of these images. Uploading a real SVG is preferable in cases where one exists, but in cases where no real SVG can be found, it is still preferable to replace a "fake" SVG with a real raster image. If it's a non-free image, it's fairly simple to swap it out in the article and then tag it as orphaned, but if it's not, I've had {{Obsolete}} tags removed since the replacement image wasn't the same file type. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 20:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
We could do with a new or expanded speedy to cover that. I've done some in the past, taken out the jpg and replaced it in the article. But there is always the risk that someone will swap it out in the 7 days that F5 takes to mature. Maybe expand G6? Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I built a tool several months ago to download the first 4 KB of every SVG on Commons. And I investigated this, finding three usages of bitmaps:
  1. The bitmap off canvas or behind an SVG traces, such as File:649th Military Intelligence Battalion Coat of Arms.svg
  2. Mixed use: Small bitmap used for a tiny element, interactive SVGs
  3. Full Bitmap in an SVG wrapper, such as File:Pst-geo.svg
I scanned the 1.2 million SVG January Commmons dump and found 2,457 SVGs with 3+ KB base64. — Dispenser 03:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is inappropriate to automatically label any file with an embedded stream as bad SVG. One application of SVG is to provide a bitmap image with editable text labels. See File:Moon names.svg, which is an image of the moon with text labels in both English and Ukrainian; there are also German, Bulgarian, Chinese, and Spanish versions. A bot could capture six reasonable images and inappropriately label them as bad. Imagine a picture of the thoracic cavity with text labels for lung, heart, and aorta. See File:Blausen 0458 Heart ThoracicCavity.png. Yes, it is a PNG, but there could be an SVG-labeled version. There's been a project to do that for many images. See the SVG text labels in c:File:Defecating into a pit (raster).svg. Admittedly, the pit image is simple enough that it should have been vectorized rather than kept as a bitmap, and the project has lost its way by spawning translated JPEGs rather than translated SVGs. Yes, there are inappropriate SVG files out there, but that does not mean all SVGs with raster data are bad. Glrx (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Glrx: Maybe the template name is wrong? (not my template!) - Template:Bad SVG - only has the word "bad" in the title. Perhaps it should be more like "SVG with Raster". My view is that, if they were tagged then it would give a list for subsequent review. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: The use of "bad" in the name is an intent to say that the SVG format has been misapplied. The text of the template ("This SVG image contains embedded raster graphics. Such images are liable to produce inferior results when scaled to different sizes.") does not explain the problem. Scaling of continuous tone images (typical photographs) is usually not a problem. Magnify the image enough and you will hit a resolution limit, but that is not a misapplication of a raster. That's why the Moon names raster is reasonable. If small, discrete tone, text characters (or curved shapes or non-Manhattan geometry shapes) are present in a raster image and then magnified, the anti-aliasing will blur the desired character, destroy the discrete tones, and fail to maintain / reconstruct the desired shape. There is nothing inherently wrong with inserting a raster image into an SVG file, so tagging an SVG file with an embedded raster seems like overkill. The problem is when the raster image contains drawn geometrical shapes. Sort of if the raster existed as a PNG, then somebody would come along and tag it with {{Convert to SVG}}. Even if somebody were to just stick such a PNG inside an SVG file, that would be a step in the right direction: maybe somebody will come along and replace the rasterized geometrical shapes with scalable vector shapes and remove the raster. There's not a compelling reason to delete such an SVG file; it might improve. On the other hand, an SVG that is just a continuous tone portrait of Winston Churchill probably has no business being an SVG file; JPEG would serve the purpose. None of these cases are simply detected with a string match. Tagging all of them for review does not seem to have a significant priority. So the SVG is bad/poor/misapplied. Why does it have to be examined/fixed/deleted right now? I blanche when I look at all the defecating-into-a-pit JPEGs. They are wrong in so many ways, but many of the African languages are not accessible, and the images don't need to be fixed today. Glrx (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Glrx:Oh, OK. I started this thread as I discovered that there were a few (it was about a dozen in a random 400) non-free SVGs which were which were just a photograph (and a high res one at that) - they were all converted back to jpg and scaled to an appropriate non-free size. Looks like it needs more of a manual examination. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Good arguments and thanks for your kind words about my moon SVG, Glrx. Another set of SVGs with embedded bitmaps are interactive renditions of GIF animations:
They could arguably be converted into video clips, but that would lose quality due to recompression. Cheers, cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 17:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • needs some work What we need is some reporting tool to tag candidates and which can be told of the apparent few where there is a larger raster which is nonetheless appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mangoe: I can't see why a bot could not work out the percentage of raster and maybe categorise into, say, low / medium / high levels of raster image. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to add there are 14222 non-free SVGs and 6815 free SVGs in en-wiki Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I ran the head download script last week. So I have 690 SVGs on the possibly bad list, but haven't time to refine it. A simple method for culling labeled or drawn over SVGs is to count the number of opening tags (<). — Dispenser 03:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
From a technical standpoint, I didn't notice any of those SVG files deserving a Bad SVG label. They are predominantly logos that have geometric shapes, so they should be SVG files. On the other hand, many of the images are non-free fair use, e.g., File:American Heart Association Logo.svg, so we may not use high resolution versions of them. That is, converting them to SVG would be a pointless exercise. The files are already tagged for fair use, so I'd just let them be.
For a non-logo example, File:Cauldron.svg is an appropriate use of SVG. It has both bitmap and vector elements; it is using SVG gradient fills. It could have been done with all SVG elements. Glrx (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Try these from the list: File:Ctvhd.svg, File:BetterWorldBooksLogo.svg, File:BSicon box.svg, and File:Akhmat Grozny logo.svg. — Dispenser 04:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dispenser: All of those files make sense as SVG files (I reverted one to an earlier non-bitmap). They are simple shapes that can be described with vectors and curves. They fit in the images "that have geometric shapes, so they should be SVG files". In a free world, it would be better if the internal bitmaps were vectorized, but imagine somebody coming along later and running a bitmap-to-vector converter on the images. If the image is non-free, then WP should not have a high-resolution version of it, but that can be achieved by applying a Gaussian blur filter to the SVG so the image looks fuzzy even when enlarged. Glrx (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Partial oppose As per Ronhjones, I think it shouldn't be called "BadSVG". A different name e.g. "SVG with embedded bitmap" is fine. cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 17:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

346 SVGs which don't use any drawing elements besides <image>. These should be tagged with one of the aforementioned templates. — Dispenser 03:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. What template would you use? It's already SVG, so {{Convert to SVG}} doesn't make sense. The images are appropriate for SVG format, so {{Bad SVG}} or its rename isn't appropriate. Yes, they have embedded bitmaps, but they are non-free logos. Most of the files are in the same limbo-land hell of File:Liga Elitelor U17 logo.svg. A {{Bad SVG}} tag is saying the file has a raster image so it is probably poor quality and should be vectorized, and another tag is saying it is a non-free image and the quality should be reduced because it is a smidgen over 100k pixels. Don't add more images to the schizo soup. Glrx (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't even get me started on {{non-free reduce}}. 0.1 megapixel is just a suggestion -- it's rediculous that we're tagging anything under 0.15 megapixels (or even 0.2). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the better solution is to write a bot to pop out the raster data, upload it as a new file, update links to the file to use the raster image, and then tag the SVG for deletion (ideally under CSD F1 since, despite having a different file extension, the underlying data is in the same file format, but it could also be a mass FFD). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think it is worthwhile to invest time and resources in massaging/improving/dressing-up non-free files. Turning SVG versions into PNG versions is make-work. Why make another copy of a crappy file? Why waste the effort of relinking and deleting the resulting orphan? The SVG will serve. Let sleeping dogs lie. Glrx (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    In the past I have found non-free svg files with a big sharp raster image inside, and I have extracted the image out and saved as a jpg - after changing the article, the svg then naturally got deleted as orphaned (these were not logos, they were proper pictures). Thanks to Dispenser for the list of image-only svg. That list will be saved - I will have a manual review and see if any do need to be extracted. I think the overall opinion is not for a bot for adding "BadSVG". Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Add a link to the Signpost to the Main Page[edit]

Yes, yes, I know, perennial proposals and all, but what about just a small link under Other areas of Wikipedia? The Signpost is definitely useful for getting up to date with what's going on in the community, and there's also a good deal of work going into it. However, it's nearly impossible to find it, and readership has been declining for several years. There have been several crises in the team itself, mainly due to a lack of contributors - which obviously get recruited from readers. Therefore, I think it's both in the interest of Wikipedia and of the Signpost to add a

- The Signpost – Stay informed on what's going on by reading the newspaper for Wikipedia.

to Other areas of Wikipedia. Thoughts? Zarasophos (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC) This proposal has been replaced by the idea of adding a notification to the watchlist as discussed further below. Zarasophos (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. It will not take up too much room on the Main Page of Wikipedia to do this. Vorbee (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - why has this never been thought of before? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - because the signpost is a bunch of navel gazing bullshit and editorials that almost always do not meet quality to be linked from the main page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose-Mainly per OED, whilst distancing from the qualifiers:).Signpost is nowhere near to Mainpage-stuff.~ Winged BladesGodric 11:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - navel gazing is enough for me.--John Cline (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Implemented already, sort of - we already have a link, "Site news". What's on the right? The template box version of the signpost. Plus you get other news sources. Bellezzasolo Discuss 12:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Add a watchlist notice instead (as I have suggested at various times and places). Add for say 3 days after a new issue is released. Now they will be monthly this should be acceptable. Signpost is most appropriate for regular (and so mostly registered) editors, for whom a watchlist notice is far more visible. Mind you, with a main page link you would benefit from the free attentions of User:The Rambling Man imposing his unique vision of the English language on you, which would make for highly entertaining talk pages. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    Another stunning contribution, laced with personalisation and offensive pinging. Well played Johnbod, you are a shining example and we should all follow your methods. You were already told over at ERRORS just how wrong you were, why you would feel it necessary to bring that up in a completely unrelated topic is beyond me. It's not a good look John, it's not a good look at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    Actually I wasn't "told" at all, until someone else informed me after the event, as you insist on the editors whose work you attack so freely at ERRORS not being notified (see over there)! And you were wrong. Unlike you I believe in pinging people when their work is being criticized - there is such a thing as unproductive and "offensive non-pinging". Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    You're just making yourself look bad here John, really really bad. Continue, by all means, but don't say you weren't warned. Tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    Note, on request I gave the signpost a 1 week trial on watchlist last issue, and asked the editors to seek wider consensus if it should be recurring in the WL. (c.f. MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages#Signpost). — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The signpost is primarily written for editors and not for our non-editing readers. --Jayron32 13:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moot As Bellezzasolo points out, we already have this. He pointed to the Site News link. Signpost is also prominent in the Community portal which is linked in the sidebar for every page, not just the Main page.Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -actually strong oppose if it means anything. Signpost is nothing more than glorified WikiProject newsletter. It is nowhere near the standard of being in the main page. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Signpost builds and indicates community which is what we want to broadcast to readers and editors. The quality is fine, better than fine considering it's volunteer grass roots with 0 budget, like most everything else on WP. Our ethos is open knowledge for all, but many have an attitude that open knowledge about Wikipedia itself is not of public interest. Far from it. -- GreenC 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for "publicity", posting the Signpost to places like the Teahouse or WP:AN would be better. For the mainpage itself, making the link to Wikipedia:News more prominent would be most helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above - Do we really think our non-editors would care about "Admin reports board under criticism", " WikiProject Military History" or "ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide" ? ... No ofcourse they wont, The Signpost is more of an editor thing than a reader thing. –Davey2010Talk 21:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Before some smart-arse comments on the "Reader" part - When I say Reader I mean Non-editor. –Davey2010Talk 21:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional - if it receives recurring watchlist notification, as was trialled with the last edition courtesy of xaosflux, then I don't think it needs Main Page publication (Personally I'd like it, but I see the arguments against). If it isn't going to have the watchlist, then I "vote" support. There is discussion on the recurring bit at MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages#Signpost Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support From my experience with newbies in public wiki workshops, I think a lot of readers will actually find the Signpost informative and a fascinating insight into the community.--Pharos (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -Indy beetle (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - I like the idea of the watchlist notice, to involve more editors who might not otherwise be looking, but I don't think the content of the Signpost is appropriate to try to put in front of people who don't understand the context. The Signpost frequently contains editorializing/commentary/humor that, while well and good within the community, would be confusing to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia process who comes to it through the main page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The Signpost is geared mostly toward editors so I wouldn't place it on the Main Page. However, I'm fine with placing the notice on centralized discussion, or AN, or other place where editors frequently congregate. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Epicgenius; non-editors don't have any reason to see it. Unlike other editing-related things on the Main Page (e.g. the link to WP:CP in the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section), it's not something that's intended to arouse editing interest in non-editors. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Maaaaayyybe It might help give non-editing readers some insight into how things work, and whether they want to stick a toe into the editing side of things. What they'll think of that, well, who knows. --Trovatore (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - long-running community initiative that deserves an audience and that showcases how Wikipedia works. Amisom (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

New article template[edit]

When someone starts a new article, there is a template with useful links above the editing box, one that starts with "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article". The last line says "You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/Article. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready".

What about adding a link to Draft/Article as well? The text may mention that it would be preferred for drafts that would be worked by several users (at least, that's the idea), and that the userspace is more suited for personal projects. Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Support. I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. I propose changing this
'You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/Example. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.'
to something similar to this,
'You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/Example or Draft:Example. There, you can develop the article... (etc.)'
this,
'You can also start your new article at Draft:Example. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready. Additionally, you can do the same thing in your personal user space, by going to Special:Mypage/Example.
or this.
'You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/Example. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready. Additionally, you can start the article in the draft namespace, by going to Draft:Example.
If somebody else has another suggestion, please comment here, as I'm not the best when it comes to writing stuff like this.--SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cambalachero: Do you want to start an RfC for this? It's been up for almost a week, and I'm the only person who has replied. Also, an administrator will have to see this post before it can be implemented, as changing this would involve editing a page in the MediaWiki namespace (which can only be edited by admins).--SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 19:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Which is the name of the template we are talking about? Perhaps someone else will notice if I ask at its talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Aha! I finally found it, Cambalachero (I've been looking for it for a while). {{Newarticletext-confirmed}}, which is used on MediaWiki:newarticletext. However, I can tell you that you're likely going to get more traffic here than on the talk page of the template. If you start an RfC either here or there, though, users are probably more likely to see it. Of course, submitting an edit request would result in admins seeing it the soonest, but it's probably best to get the support of more users before we use that.--SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 17:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Text of new article template[edit]

Should {{Newarticletext-confirmed}} include a link to the draft namespace? Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Expanded explanation: {{Newarticletext-confirmed}} is the template that shows up above the edit box when someone tries to start a new article. The last line says "You can also start your new article at [link to page name in userspace]. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready." I propose to replace it with the following lines:

  • You can also start your new article at [link to page name in draft namespace]]. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.
  • Another alternative, if you want to manage the draft mostly on you own before making it ready, is to start the page at [link to page name in userspace]. Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Modified support. Like I've said before, I definitely like this idea, but I don't think that the two options should be on separate lines or take up a lot of space. I currently support one of the 3 options I provided above, but I may change my mind if anybody else has some other ideas of how to word it.--SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 13:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

“What links here”[edit]

When I’m expanding an existing Wikipedia article, one way to find good info to add is by using the “What links here” button. But this is ruined if the article that I want to expand is in a template that’s used in a ton of articles. For example, consider Picket Lake, Minnesota. If you go to that article and click on “what links here” you get a ton of useless search results that are listed merely because they each use a template that happens to include a link to Picket Lake, Minnesota and it’s impossible to tell which of the search results will actually provide further substantive info about Picket Lake. So, I suggest that the “what links here” button should exclude search results that merely have templates mentioning the article in question, although the template itself would be a valid search result that would not cause any difficulties. Or else the search results should indicate which ones result merely from a template. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a question that probably needs to be added WP:PERENNIAL. The answer is, yes, it could be so-modified, but no, it probably won't happen, because it is marginal utility for some probably-large amount of software work to make the search and WLH functions work inconsistent with expectation. --Izno (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, the above example can still be "handled" as the total number of incoming links is still limited, but there are examples with hundred-thousands such incoming links making it a complete nightmare to reverse-lookup stuff through WLH. So, some options to filter and/or sort the WLH output in useful ways would be highly appreciated, and any time spent into developing a solution is time well-spent: Solved once, used often.
In some cases, however, there is a good working and easily applicable (although not perfect) solution to this problem already:
The link through the template should go through a (specially crafted) redirect rather then point to the target article directly. This way, incoming links through that redirect are easily distinguishable from "normal" links (and links through other redirects) in WLH.
At present this isn't really applicable to navigation box links as we try to avoid redirects there so that the navigation link is displayed in boldface on the page itself (a practice with IMO only marginal value and that could IMO be abandoned).
However, there are other use cases where it is applicable without any backdraws: For example, some of the templates linking some kind of numerical identifiers to a common article use this through special redirects ending on …" (identifier)" as parenthetical extension of the subject's name, see {{CVE}} for an example. This nicely groups all those links under a single redirect in WLH and allows a user to optionally ignore or even focus on them depending on what kind of information s/he's trying to look up through WLH. Also, unlike navigation boxes these templates aren't normally used on the target page and so the desire (if any) for boldface links doesn't exist. Of course, this only catches links going through the template (but that could be easily solved by bots), so, depending on how consistently such identifiers are routed through such templates in related articles, it might help to remove more or less clutter from WLH and thereby help reverse lookup of relevant stuff. It was also used by {{ISBN}} thereby helping to remove a lot (!) of clutter from the ISBN article's WLH list - but one editor decided to edit-war over it. It would help even more, if the citation template would use it as well (which would be trivially easy to adapt).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
In the case given, would it help to do a "Search Wikipedia" for containing... "Picket Lake"? (The quotation marks are necessary.) There would be fewer results and they may be more relevant. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear Anythingyouwant, you may publish your request later this year at the 2018 Community Wishlist Survey. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It might be helpful to sort the results. Sometimes I copy the results to a text editor so I can sort them, see the namespaces separately, and easily scan the one I'm interested in. Bob Webster (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
If you install User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js then Picket Lake, Minnesota gets a link below What links here saying Source links. {{Source links|Picket Lake, Minnesota}} produces Source links.
Adding this issue to WP:PERENNIAL may be a good idea considering these requests:
PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality[edit]

After two weeks of discussion, and multiple comments from both the support and oppose sides, regardless of any good intentions made in this discussion, with a near-even split in !votes (55 supports and 56 opposes as of this closure), it's clear that there is no clear consensus to post this at this point. I'm aware that I participated in this discussion, but given that discussion has slowed down and the !vote count, keeping this open longer would likely not have affect the final outcome regardless. Any further discussion is welcomed in the subsequent sections, which remain open. (non-admin closure). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is the principle that service providers should treat all Internet traffic as equal, and not discriminate on the basis of origin, destination, or type of data. Net Neutrality protects people's access to knowledge by prohibiting internet service providers from blocking, slowing, or prioritizing data traffic for a fee.

The Wikimedia Foundation and several US Wikimedia affiliates have come out in support of Net Neutrality in the United States, as well as the efforts in Congress to keep the Open Internet rules in place. Just as the Foundation considers Net Neutrality as essential for access to knowledge, the Wikimedia community should realize that equal access to knowledge is important to our mission and knowledge equity and act accordingly. The concern is that if access to Wikipedia and/or its sources is slowed, or allowed only as part of a paid premium, this could gravely harm our fundamental mission to provide free access to knowledge for all. Any restricted access could reduce the quality of articles and reduce the diversity of contributors who create and maintain Wikipedia’s content. If access is limited in a way that restricts access to sources we use to create Wikipedia articles, that hinders our mission of delivering free knowledge.

This proposal is to gauge the community's interest in presenting a banner to US-based viewers of the English Wikipedia, which would show the importance of Net Neutrality to Wikipedia's mission and encourage further reading and action. A landing page with more details has been produced here. A proposed banner with expandable information is previewable here, with a preview of its unexpanded form as follows:


Free knowledge depends on net neutrality.
We are asking for your support.

LEARN WHY AND TAKE ACTION

The reason this proposal is being brought up now is that on May 9, a petition will be filed in the U.S. Senate to force a vote on a bill to block the FCC's December repeal of net neutrality rules. The bill currently has bipartisan support from half the Senators, and only one more vote is needed for the bill to pass in the Senate.

In general, Wikipedia should remain non-partisan and non-political; however, Wikipedia's own mission of free and open knowledge for all is a political one, and the community must support public policy when that policy is vital to protecting its mission. Just this week the German Wikipedia ran a banner to support European Union copyright reform; in the past, banners were run in South Africa in support of freedom of panorama, and banners were run in Australia to support fair use. This proposed Net Neutrality geo-targeted banner would be in line with previous community efforts to support policies in the best interest of Wikimedia.

Some may remember SOPA and PIPA, two other laws that would have radically altered how the internet is used in the United States in a way that negatively impacted our mission. A Wikipedia blackout and banner was instrumental in turning public and legislative opinion against these detrimental bills. We're not going for a blackout this time, but hope that a US-focused banner can direct attention to the issue and preserve Net Neutrality by promoting a grassroots effort to convince Congress to act.

Thank you.

Further reading:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talkcontribs) 19:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality[edit]

  • Support Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Blervis (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as co-writer. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Granato31415 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose net neutrality is not in the interest of the global Wikimedia movement (see Wikipedia Zero, which is bring wound down, but is the exact opposite of net neutrality.) Even with Wikipedia Zero being done away with, the Foundation will likely gave future projects that would benefit from net neutrality not existing, and that would serve our readership in the US and around the world. We should not be promoting political concepts that hurt the global movement. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled by the assertion that "net neutrality is not in the interest of the global Wikimedia movement". Wikipedia Zero was a necessary step in countries where the situation is not ideal and net neutrality is not in place, but I doubt anyone participating in that would trade real net neutrality for a workaround like WZ. The Foundation (was in charge of WZ) has publicly come out strongly in favor of NN, so they seem to think it *is* in the best interest of our global movement, as do many in the Wikimedia volunteer community. Gamaliel (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As a political reality in the states, the Foundation has to support net neutrality , but as a large player in the online marketplace, we are much more likely to benefit from Net Neutrality not existing than be hurt by it. We are the website run by a large organization that people complain about getting preferential treatment. The simple fact is that by our size and reputation, the ability to get preferential treatment from ISPs could actually help our mission of spreading free knowledge. We aren't the small startup website that someone is running from their home. We're an international organization that is the 5th most visited website in the world. People could use us as the reason to oppose Net Neutrality if they were trying to set up rival projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We should look beyond the end of our own noses and support what is right. The possibility that Wikimedia may not benefit from net neutrality should not prevent us from supporting it. Surely an open Internet is more important. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't get an open internet by giving government censors more power. As Reuters points out, "The FCC ... has introduced a so-called 'general conduct' provision in the latest version of the rules ... In the general conduct provision, the FCC will say that Internet providers’ actions cannot be harmful to consumers or content providers ... "A 'general conduct rule,' applied on a case-by-case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice 'harms' consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of 'harm' (for those who can afford to engage in it)," the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a net neutrality advocate, said in a filing submitted on Thursday."' --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Net neutrality is key to the interest of the global free knowledge movement of which we're a part - Wikipedia's birth would never have been possible without it, and we'd be foolish to forget that.--Pharos (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, Wikipedie grew in an environment in which large-scale net neutrality was so much a given that the concept was not explicitly discussed - it just was. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • With that statement made—which is exactly the opposite of what existed—I don't think the US Net Neutrality law is what you think it is. The free market has driven the internet in America since the inception of the net. Why would you want to give the government more control now when nothing is broken? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Then start a PAC or other advocacy group and lobby for it that way. Using an organization that has in the past benefited from the lack of Net Neutrality around the world to lobby for Net Neutrality in the United States is a bad idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Whether it's the problematic grammar or the confusing line of thought, I don't understand your point. I'm not trying to be argumentative – I honestly don't understand it. Care to clarify? -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For whatever it's worth, former WMF General Counsel Mike Godwin has in the past defended zero-rating alongside net neutrality. For lack of a better summary, it's an important nuance. I haven't asked him lately, but at any rate, even if you do think W0 and net neutrality are at odds, W0 is done with, so this shouldn't be a concern. ~ Amory (utc) 21:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is an important enough issue not just in the US, but globally, and one where the community should have a voice of conscience. The modest proposal is not an extreme one like the SOPA blackout – it is a nondisruptive awareness campaign to highlight a troubling trend that could affect more than just daily traffic to Wikimedia projects but everything from multimedia uploads to bulk data contributions to GLAM collaboration – all the types of things have gotten Wikimedia to where we are today. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Richard0612 19:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Also show to users with IPs from Canada and Mexico, as some ISPs near the borders serve both sides. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 19:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Megs (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong oppose. Wikipedia should not take stands on political issues. SOPA was arguably an existential threat; this is not. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    All existential threats were once non-existential. Should we fold our arms until when we are aimed directly then we start running non-dismmisable banners across all WMF projects indefinitely?... –Ammarpad (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    We should not be involved in politics, period. Even the SOPA thing I have come to see, in retrospect, as a mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as coauthor. I've been researching this one and may have lots of further comment. -- econterms (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Free knowledge depends on an environment that does not privilege large commercial websites.--Pharos (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We can't keep running political ads so frequently. The primary objective of this website is to provide a free encyclopedia, and the frequency of CentralNotice use is becoming very disruptive. (Also, the summary above re the US Senate vote is misleading. Passing the Senate alone will not determine the repeal, and the bill does nothing without the approval of the House and the President.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The last time we took a comparable action was over 6 years ago. True, it does not feel very long ago to those who were heavily involved at the time, but this is hardly a frequent occurrence.--Pharos (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    It has been 56 days since we had a CentralNotice pushing political action on the Turkish Wikipedia block. --Yair rand (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The Internet is not broken, and does not need to be "fixed" by giving the US government more control over the internet. The recently repealed Obama-era net neutrality rules adopted a vague but sweeping "general conduct" standard that gave the FCC the power to crack down on perceived bad behavior by internet providers without providing clear guidance about what would trigger enforcement. Wikipedia was built on internet freedom, not government regulations. Please at least try to read and understand the reasons who so many people oppose this: [1][2][3][4] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Guy Macon: I actually wrote a large comment below that explains that the net neutrality rules were not just enacted in 2015. The FCC simply codified what they had been doing for twenty plus years. The Trump FCC's repeal was not simply a rollback of the Obama FCC's rules; it also took away other things as well, such as the FCC's ability to enforce anything. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
      • You are wrong. From our article on Net neutrality; "U.S In April 2015, the FCC issued its Open Internet Order, which reclassified Internet access - previously classified as an information service - as a common carrier telecommunications service; i.e. a public utility. But on December 14, 2017, the Commission, which was led by Chairman Ajit Pai, voted to partially repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order, classifying Internet access once again as an information service." At no time in the previous twenty plus years did the FCC classify ISPs as common carrier telecommunications services / public utilities. Prior to 2015 the FCC always classified ISPs as information services, and all regulation was done according to the rules for regulating information services. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Look, I'm not going to argue with you, because obviously we have different opinions. However, your rebuttal is a straw man argument, because Title II wasn't my argument; the FCC's net neutrality enforcement was. Look at Net neutrality in the United States#FCC attempts at enforcing net neutrality (2005–2010). The FCC did try to enforce net neutrality (anti-throttling) against Comcast, and this is where it got them. Title II was a result of Verizon's similar suit against the FCC, which ended up in a dispute over whether the FCC had the power to keep enforcing its regulations. Title II only reclassified the ISPs so the FCC could continue to enforce these laws. Nothing happened to the enforcement process itself until Ajit Pai stepped in. The 2017 rollback took away the FCC's ability altogether to enforce these statutes; whereas before 2015, the FCC could still enforce the statutes against ISPs. All of this is according to the Net Neutrality in the US article. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: The Internet is not broken, and we should state that we are in favor of keeping it that way. And this proposal is not similar to the previous one at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_147#Net_neutrality that asked people for overt political action; this one just encourages support for the principal. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Dicklyon: There's a huge red button saying "Take action" linking to a page asking for "your support" and "your voice" to preserve Net Neutrality, as well as linking to a tool for contacting members of congress by phone, email, and Twitter. I think that counts as "asking for overt political action". --Yair rand (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --denny vrandečić (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - net neutrality regulation is a partisan issue, with the left arguing that regulation is necessary and the right arguing that the same state of affairs can be achieved without regulation and that unnecessary regulation in this area is more harmful than good. I personally think that regulation is good here, but we aren't the internet wing of the Democratic party and I don't think we should be taking a side on this American political issue. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No partisan issue is supported by all of one side and opposed by all of the other. My point is that this is a political issue and we shouldn't be involved. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Except it is; the existing rule was removed by a vote along party lines. And none of this refutes my key point that this is a political issue and we shouldn't be involved. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ajraddatz: It actually isn't as clear cut as "the left supports net neutrality and the right opposes it". Some Democrats have voted against net neutrality legislation in the past. Conversely many Republican citizens support such an action. I elaborated on this point in a comment below. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course. As I said, partisan issues are rarely support entirely by one side and opposed entirely by the other, especially in the American political system which is characterized by weak party discipline compared with parliamentary systems. But from what I can see, there is a clear Democratic position and a clear Republican position here, and I don't think we should be involved. Political matters are for the politicians. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is there an actual problem here that needs to be fixed. I don't support extending governmental power over the private sector (citizenry) without some clear specific justification based upon a serious detrimental problem (not theoretical musing) and a clear specific belief that regulation will bring improvements. This is really fear of monopolistic control that must be "regulated" by the government, when monopolies really inspire competition which brings about more choices and better results than regulation. This is a political issue and WP should take no position. MB 21:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you generally, but this is clearly a special situation. Scrapping net neutrality wouldn't encourage new ISP's to start up because the costs of starting a new network are simply too high. Removing it wouldn't have any affect on potential new competitors, just allow the existing duopoly to charge more for the same service. I doubt that anyone is sitting around wanting to start a new internet service but just can't because of net neutrality. It is a political issue, but we have a duty to do what we can to ensure Wikipedia continues to be a valuable resource into the future. --Blervis (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support If we are going to take a historic stand for something which is likely to get media coverage then at least we need to assess what we have and what we are doing. I appreciate this RfC and I want to support this project but I think we should plan this a little better. Here are some things which I would want to see done:
    • Develop the right external partnerships
      • Someone needs to initiate on-wiki conversation with partners and get them to post to Wiki. A prerequisite for a Wikimedia partnership is that organizations should either have an on-wiki presence or a wiki community project here which is capable of two way communication. If they want a wiki call out then maybe someone can ask them if they can bring expert review and community engagement to wiki.
      • The proposal promotes Battle for the Net and Public Knowledge, a non-notable organization and an organization with a wiki page which probably would not pass AfD. It is not helpful to the Wikipedia community to associate with fringe organizations for which readers cannot get information on Wikipedia.
      • Wikipedia is the single most single most consulted source of information about net neutrality. These organizations have a communication strategy which does not include bringing expertise to Wikipedia, and they are making a mistake by not directing their staff to promote the development of the Wikipedia articles. I know these are small organizations but they are still funded, and there is nothing that they could do to better achieve their communication goals than give attention to wiki. If they develop wiki articles then they should claim wiki's audience to their funders, who almost certainly already require them to report impact and reach. Someone needs to tell them and they need to respond.
      • Battle for the Net organizes community events which they do not document. They should catalog their images and photos and get them into Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately the many dozens of public demonstrations which they organize typically are not leaving behind a media record.
    • Develop the Wikipedia articles:
      • "Net neutrality" is in poor shape. For the amount of attention this article gets (it is high traffic by Wikipedia standards) I am a little embarrassed that so many people read it without it being well developed. Can we confirm that the wiki community wants this article to get media attention? It is intimidating for many editing to review high traffic complicated topics like this and I have doubts that we should showcase it without a cleanup effort.
      • We need to sort out {{Net neutrality}} and the articles in it. These are not good articles to promote on the world stage when we are asking for scrutiny and engagement
    • Have a community discussion about the circumstances under which we will endorse other organizations' work
I want to support this proposal. I would change my "oppose" to "support" if asked, but I wish that we could be thoughtful about the problems with this and plan to collect whatever resources we can to make this work. I do not want to set a high standard for what we need to begin an awareness campaign. However, I think that Wikipedia should have a minimal standard, however we define it, and I think that what I am proposing above about making an effort to improve wiki content and to consider our relationship to and the notability of partners when calling their names is reasonable.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm on board for improving Net neutrality and related articles. Will work on this soon. I do not think people in other orgs have an obligation to participate on our platform, but your arguments are significant and I'm processing them. -- econterms (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you are saying, but the time to act on this issue is limited. We can work towards improving what you mentioned, but if we don't act on the current situation now, any future efforts may be in vain. I also don't think this is a partnership with any of the above mentioned groups, we simply share the same goal. --Blervis (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Blervis and Econterms: How would you feel about removing mention of or links to other organizations? I would support this without the inactive partners, and if the wiki community came up with a few people to spend a few hours to revise the articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Bluerasberry: Re. the links to Fight for the Future and Public Knowledge, those can be removed - they're there simply as supplemental readings and are minor points in the proposal. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@SuperHamster: I changed to support if the non-wiki partner organizations are removed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@SuperHamster, Econterms, and Blervis: I did a little article cleanup this morning as described at Talk:Net_neutrality#Split_of_content_to_Net_neutrality_by_country. I hope that what I did improves the article's readability, advances its development, and prepares it for any future education effort. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Last month, I noted that this was political, and shouldn't be broadcast through the entire encyclopedia. I like this pared-down version: it's significantly clearer, even if the technical issues involved are somewhat murky to this layman. However, the Wikimedia Foundation has already spoken about this, and no matter how much I agree with net neutrality, I cannot, in good conscience, support this proposal. Quite simply, it's a political issue, and there are other fora for issues of a political nature, including message boards, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, calling your Senators and leaving polite messages with the aides and staff, &c., &c., ad infinitum. So, the long and the short of it: again, no, it's too political. — Javert2113 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: I agree with Blue Rasberry; I'd love to support this, but it seems slightly unorganized. If we do go about this (that is, if this proposal passes), we cannot do so haphazardly, and that means planning (dun dun dun); and while I have some minor quibbles with Blue's notes, by and large, he's not wrong, though I do balk at the mention of a Wikipedia community endorsement (at least, that's how this editor understood it). One thing I'd like to emphasize, if I may, is his final point: community and collaboration. At all times, we must strive for consensus, even if we don't all agree. — Javert2113 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Erratum: Not "last month", but, rather, in late March. See the below challenge to validity from Guy Macon. — Javert2113 (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's okay for us to occasionally take targeted action against particularly egregious threats to the site. SOPA/PIPA were good examples. Process-wise, this is a significantly different proposal, so I am okay with it, although admittedly this is a bit soon after that one (and a bit down to the wire). More substantively, and I can say this at meta as well, but "We are asking for your support" in a banner looks awful similar to asking for a donation. I would worry many folks would dismiss it without clicking, even though it's not December. ~ Amory (utc) 21:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I didn't join Wikipedia to be a party to politics, and not every Wikipedia editor is either for/against Net neutrality. Adding this disenfranchises many people for that reason. For me personally, I have no interest in participating here if Wikipedia gets involved in ANY political issue. We are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not champion a political cause, any political cause. This constant RFC after RFC is akin to shaking the magic 8 ball until it gives you the answer you want, and frankly, seems to be a form of bludgeoning the point. Dennis Brown - 22:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Javert2113 and Dennis Brown and this is a political issue and feel there other fora are better for this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Wikipedia should not meddle in political issues, not only because many editors are not here for this but also because of the unwanted attention this kind of stance is likely to generate. Building an encyclopedia has nothing to do with that. José Luiz talk 22:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It is tempting to use Wikipedia as a means to promote public policy. However, I would advise extreme caution whenever we consider doing it. There is a very good reason why we don't normally get involved in politics, and that is because it is also part of our mission to provide a neutral resource where readers can find out more about a topic without getting the feeling that someone is trying to sway their views in a particular direction. It is our goal to create a place where readers can decide for themselves what they should believe based on a neutral description of what reliable sources have said. The moment our editorial community forms a consensus to take a stance on a political topic, we are betraying that mission by admitting that we have a conflict of interest with respect to some political topics, so we better be certain that if we don't take the stance, Wikipedia's ability to function will be fatally compromised. That, in my view, is the cost of taking political stances for Wikipedia, and I'm not sure enough evidence has been presented thus far to justify that cost for this issue. Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support If we're not prepared to lend exposure to issues that threaten it, we can't claim to be working for free knowledge available to all. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @OwenBlacker: On what basis do you assume that giving the US Government increased control over the Internet in some vague way "working for free knowledge available to all"? And why the US government? Why not the EU? The Internet is not broken and does not need fixing, and Wikipedia was built on internet freedom, not government regulations. The recently repealed Obama-era net neutrality rules adopted a vague but sweeping "general conduct" standard that gave the FCC the power to crack down on perceived bad behavior by internet providers and web site owners without providing any real details about what would trigger enforcement. How is this good for Wikipedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Net neutrality does not give "increased control over the Internet", no matter how many times you repeat it. If you oppose any law whatsoever that might help the weak, that's fine, but let's not get ridiculous. --Nemo 20:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Fuck yeah. Net neutrality is 100% in alignment with Wikipedia's core mission. The only reason not to do this would be if the Foundation say it jeopardises 501(c)(3) status. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment on the false dichotomy underlying statements like "Wikipedia shouldn't get involved with politics" or "Wikipedia shouldn't be political" - The question should be whether this is something that furthers the mission of Wikipedia or is otherwise in the best interests of the people involved with writing/reading Wikipedia. Wikipedia is political, and not just because of this kind of initiative. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit is political, the way we use sources and define which sources are reliable is political, how we understand neutrality is political, the decision to cover a subject one way rather than another is political, not running ads on the site is political, having as part of our mission being accessible to everyone is political, not privileging academic credentials is political, our consensus-building processes are political... it's just that these politics are not, for parts of the world most participants here live in, nicely split along partisan lines in contemporary discourse. For many other parts of the world, however, these things we take for granted are explicitly political in a similar sense. Climate change has been politicized in the United States, too, and we have dealt with that in a way that really bugs one side because we determined that doing so is in accordance with Wikipedia's principles/mission/purpose, not because we decided to get political. This is likewise not a decision of whether to "get political." We are already political. The question isn't whether this is relevant to American politics, but whether this is or is not something that matters for Wikipedia's principles/purpose. Oppose if you decide that it is not, oppose if you think net neutrality isn't all that meaningful or if you think this particular aspect of net neutrality isn't something that matters for Wikipedia, oppose if you don't think we should have messages outside of articles that don't themselves follow Wikipedia content policies, oppose if you think our article needs to improve first, but don't oppose "because politics." It's just more nuanced than that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly! "Everything is political", and that's fine. Not posting this banner is a political decision. Thus, I agree that !opposing this because "it's political" is invalid. Davey2116 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No, it really really isn't. We shouldn't be taking political stands as an encyclopedia. Period. --Trovatore (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with disagreement but this doesn't address at all any of Rhododendrites' thoughtful remarks, it just says "uh-uh". In many parts of the world, the encyclopedia's very existence is a political stand. We are a neutral encyclopedia but we don't exist in a neutral world, unfortunately. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Rhododentrites instructed me not to oppose the initiative because it's political, but I do oppose it because it's political. It really is just that simple. We should not be taking political stands as an encyclopedia. As for the existence being a political stand, I'm sorry, I think that's nonsense. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Agreed. In fact, the attitude expressed above "... Wikipedia is political..." is part of the problem, because such bias constantly and consistently finds it's way into articles, and must be regularly fought against. Wikipedia can't even keep it's own entries neutral, why then should it try to take on the internet? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
            • such bias - what bias are you talking about? The idea that Wikipedia is political is a bias? It's naive/simplistic to think there's some "politics" bogeyman that has infested our encyclopedia that can/should be contained before it dashes some objectivist fantasy about platonic apolitical truths. My point wasn't just about articles, but articles as part of the larger Wikipedian enterprise -- its own qualities and the world it exists in. You have extracted the words "Wikipedia is political" from what I wrote, but responded to those words as though I used them in the way I was arguing against. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I read the first of the four articles linked above by Guy Macon — the debate between Yoo and Wu. While I personally think the Yoo's arguments were more compelling, This discussion is not (or should not be) a simple vote on whether, on balance, regulation and supportive net neutrality is a good idea. In my opinion, there are some decent arguments on both sides, and as is almost always the case when considering a regulatory proposal the devil is in the details. Delivering a banner in support of net neutrality is not simply a statement that a majority of Wikipedia editors support the concept, but that the support is so overwhelming that we feel it is appropriate to make that statement in the voice of Wikipedia (as was the case with SOPA). I don't think that's remotely the case. On page 577 of the linked article, Yoo makes a similar point:

At this point, it is impossible to foresee which architecture will ultimately represent the best approach. When it is impossible to tell whether a practice would promote or hinder competition, the accepted policy response is to permit the practice to go forward until actual harm to consumers can be proven. This restraint provides the room for experimentation upon which normal competitive processes depend. It also shows appropriate humility about our ability to predict the technological future

--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think that Wikipedia should be involved in any kind of activism, period. It isn't clear that Net Neutrality is going to have any detriment on Wikipedia's goals or functionality, and we should not get involved. This RfC is also too soon after the last one. The proposal is in violation of Wikipedia's core concept of conveying information from a neutral pint of view; picture the proposed banner at the top of the Net neutrality page. Does anyone accept that as being NPOV? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose possible as a US citizen without resorting to armed rebellion Not that I dont support net neutrality, and I am taking steps to protect it, its the 2018 mid terms and I have plans to vote against my current representatives due to their ambivalence regarding the issue. Keep politics off Wikipedia. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that unlike GM I support Net Neutrality as the only way to save us from the whims of for-profit ISPs, but this is the en.wiki not the US.wiki, something our Tommy editor friends love to remind us. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@L3X1: To clarify, the proposal is for a banner that will only be shown to US viewers, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
...which is yet another reason for opposing the idea. The resulting increased US government control over the Internet will affect pretty much all English-speaking countries. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Wintonc7 (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stop trying to involve wikipedia in politics. Natureium (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia should remain non-partisan and non-political. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I'm baffled by the folks above saying that net neutrality wouldn't affect Wikipedia. As for involving Wikipedia in politics, the existence of Wikipedia itself is political. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm going to flat contradict you on that. The existence of Wikipedia is not political. --Trovatore (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
      • And you likewise. Everything is political. We aren't above that. Our licensing, our mission, our assessment of sources, protection of individuals by our BLP policies, the concept of neutrality itself, where we are hosted, where we can't be hosted. All of it is political. We're kidding ourselves by denying that. Seddon talk 03:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
        • This is rapidly becoming a very silly argument about definitions. Perhaps we could say that Wikipedia is not about advocating, implementing, or influencing government policy, hm? These things can be tangentially related to our goals under certain circumstances, but participating in activism related to these topics can be problematic. Our differing definitions of "political" do not change that. --Yair rand (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
            • In my view there is only a single political question: How, if at all, should the state's monopoly on the use of force be used? Net neutrality is a position on that question. It says that the state should use its monopoly on the use of force to prevent certain economic transactions, by players deemed to have market power, to prevent certain results deemed undesirable.
              The existence of Wikipedia, per se, takes no position on how the state's monopoly should be used.
              Now, it is true that some people have a more expansive notion of "political" than I do. They're entitled to that view. As Yair rand says, we can still formulate the view that Wikipedia should not take political positions in a narrower sense. --Trovatore (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Freedom of speech and open access licensing are political in a sense, but they are far from partisan politics. Net neutrality is similar. I believe this is the kind of policy that is directly tied to Wikipedia's core values, and that we should feel proud to share our views on in a public way once every few years.--Pharos (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just as I opposed the SOPA/PIPA blackout years ago, Wikipedia must remain above the politics of any one (or group of) country. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Guy Macon. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We are here to build an encyclopedia, and nothing else. That mission is better served by maintaining our impartial image than picking fights. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 02:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Mozucat (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose while it's tempting to say that Wikipedia shouldn't take political positions, I feel that's largely unrealistic. However, I don't support this proposal, which seems to be unilaterally encouraging people to contact their senators about a bill that is unlikely to be signed by Trump. It is too low-impact to justify a promo of this sort, which must remain rare. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would disagree, it is only a few votes away in the senate, and if it were to pass there, attitudes throughout Washington would be changed. It already has significant popular support, and a "Yes" vote in the senate could signal that. Ultimately our support or lack thereof may prove the deciding factor. -Blervis (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I share the same view as Fuzheado, above. Rehman 05:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Power~enwiki Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Javert2113 MT TrainTalk 09:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipeda should not be promoting political causes or legislation. —Farix (t | c) 10:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Kellyjeanne9 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The cat's out of the bag re: politics (see above about WMF response), and this is an important issue that could affect the internet in a significant way. I see this as like the SOPA blackout, but less disruptive. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC) on semi-wikibreak
We are not the WMF. We are the English Wikipedia community. We can, and sometimes do, disagree with the Foundation with regards to what best serves our shared mission. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- the Australia Fair Use campaign demonstrates that these targeted communications activities, act as a way to communicate to a very focused audience the importance of an open public forum/environment for making Wikipedia work. Wikipedia is political, in that it radically challenges a number of assumptions about knowledge: one of them, "what is the purpose of the internet". Like SOPA/PIPA, net neutrality is an important pre-requisite for our mission -- and its appropriate for our communities in the United States to support it, when it becomes a political issue. Sadads (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was a controversial effort to increase the power of the United States government to control and censor the Internet (including the Internet in Australia), so you opposed it, and Net Nuetrality is a controversial effort to increase the power of the United States government to control and censor the Internet (including the Internet in Australia), so you... support it?
  • Support - while I'm generally adverse to slippery slope arguments, it certainly is easier to ensure net neutrality now rather than risk something being problematic in the future (whether related to usage speeds or an alternate area of governmental action regarding net usage). Regarding certain discussion points arguing a futile action due to X & Y, a campaign can influence people other than US senators, so there is benefit to be gained in more than one frontline.
Purely out of interest, does the WMF have an opinion on individual wikis campaigning in this fashion? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
From The Fear-Based Campaign to Control the Net:
"Unfortunately, as the internet has taken on an ever more central role in our personal and economic lives, the temptation to seize control apparently became too much for the FCC. The political left is invested in the narrative of internet service providers as privacy-violating boogeymen—and the FCC as a heroic digital guardian—not because there is any evidence to support the position but as a means to exercise more control."
From Here’s why the Obama FCC Internet regulations don’t protect net neutrality:
"The FCC staff did their best with what they were given but the resulting Order was aimed at political symbolism and acquiring jurisdiction to regulate the Internet, not meaningful 'net neutrality' protections. [...] Aside from some religious ISPs, ISPs don’t want to filter Internet content. But the Obama FCC, via the 'net neutrality' rules, gives them a new incentive: the Order deregulates ISPs that filter."
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per what is becoming a perennial request, that is a call to a political-ized action by Wikipedia. Most of us are here to make an encyclopedia. As the proposer/supporter, what is YOUR agenda? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
To ensure we can keep writing this encyclopedia and to ensure people can keep reading it. Seddon talk 13:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
And giving the US government more power and control over the Internet accomplishes this ... how? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia was getting along just fine before the net neutrality law went into effect, and seems to be getting along just fine since the expiration of it. I don't understand where this nebulous 'ensurance' of which you speak comes from. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The only reason net neutrality even had to become a law was because of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2014). Beforehand, the FCC could enforce net neutrality statutes without it specifically being a law, but the lawsuit made it so the FCC might not be able to enforce the statutes anymore. The law just formalized this enforcement. The repeal of the net neutrality law does not allow the FCC to enforce the statutes anymore, not even informally. Therefore, your comparison of pre-2015 and now is incorrect. epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What statutes? There were no statutes. Lumbering, idiotic bureaucracy maybe, but no statutes. And the free market is working/will work just fine without further US government or FCC control of the internet. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, let's say there were no net neutrality statutes that restricted ISPs prior to 2015. I'd expect that if I were an ISP and I had no regulations, I'd be pretty happy. Yet that's clearly not the case: the ISPs kept suing the FCC up through 2015 (e.g. Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 2010), so there's gotta be something must have had pissed off these ISPs. Anyhow, it's not as if the FCC sat back while the big ISPs were all well behaved companies who voluntarily enforced net neutrality. Case in point, in 2005, Madison River had to pay the FCC a fine because it blocked VOIP communications through certain providers - clearly a violation of net neutrality standards. Therefore, it's incorrect that the FCC didn't have net neutrality before 2015, or that it never enforced net neutrality prior to that date.
As for the free market in action, the internet is not like the healthcare or energy sectors where you have a wide range to choose from. The market of ISPs right now, is composed of a half dozen huge ISPs and a smattering of comparatively tiny ISPs. There are smaller ISPs in TN and NC who were prohibited from expanding their services because they would have competed against bigger ISPs. As far as I'm aware, these bans are still in place. If these small ISPs can't compete, then obviously the market is not "free".
TL;DR - Obviously this isn't relevant to the original discussion about whether the banner about net neutrality is appropriate. But if you're going to argue in favor of deregulation, at least get the facts in order. I'm not trying to convince you that the FCC regulation is going to be the cure-all to net neutrality, or that it's even the correct step. I'm simply refuting the misconceptions. epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You've made my point. Because there are very few examples of ISPs behaving badly in the past. But, with business being business, sometimes lawsuits ensue and sometimes government has to get involved. Let's take your Verizon example. When Verizon started their throttling shenanigans, the free market actually worked as it was supposed to. That behavior drove subscribers to their (often) much smaller competitors, and actually strengthened the marketplace. Saying ISPs won't be able to compete is simple fear-mongering which can be found on any progressive website out there. Doesn't make it so. News Flash: the internet isn't broken. It's working just fine. No need to man the life boats.
Back when I had my small business, if the big guys did something stupid, I capitalized on that and gained business. It's how competition works. The same thing happened to Verizon. They lost customers and eventually reversed their badly thought-out decisions. Things worked out, in a free market. I for one really, really don't want the US government to have any more bureaucratic control over our internet.
There is also no need for an unnecessary, non-neutral, devisive, controversial-at-best banner placed anywhere around an encyclopedia which touts its neutral voice. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I concede that you are correct that the free market worked in the particular case of Verizon. I myself am a supporter of small business: my family are small business owners, and we don't want to get crushed by the big businesses. The concept of net neutrality is the same thing. Net neutrality forces ISPs to treat small businesses' traffic the same way as big businesses', regardless of whether the ISP is a multinational corporation or a small outlet like the local public library.
When you say I for one really, really don't want the US government to have any more bureaucratic control over our internet, that is a laissez-faire approach, not necessarily a free market. A free market allows companies to thrive, even with some regulation, while the laissez-faire approach is a lack of any meaningful intervention by the government.
Now the problem here is that, with the laissez-faire approach, larger companies can snuff out smaller competitors, which is the opposite of a free market. There are still state laws that prohibit small ISPs or municipal ISPs from expanding, which actually prevents a free market from happening. Even if a small outlet like Greenlight wanted to expand, they couldn't, because it would be illegal. The larger ISPs are usually the only choices available to most of the population in these states, as I mentioned. Net neutrality makes the playing field easy for everyone from the start; you still have a free market, but the big ISPs aren't just going to be allowed to bully smaller ISPs. Net neutrality includes the concept that if you wanted to create your own ISP, the big ISPs would not be able to block your traffic - which is good for free market competition.
TL;DR: Wikimedia is not being non-neutral by advocating for a neutral position. A laissez-faire approach is not necessarily the same as a free market; the free market will still exist with net neutrality. epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. There seems to be too much focus among respondents on the goals of net neutrality and not the specific effects. I did research over the net neutrality debate for a speech class not particularly long ago, and I confess not being impressed by what I read. The ban on paid prioritization is pointless, as its effects already exist and are implemented without a paywall; instead it depends on the ability to purchase the relevant hardware. For example, it is relatively common for major websites to purchase dedicated servers at ISPs to expedite the speed at which they are processed. This website does a good job of explaining the details. Proposed net neutrality regulations fail to address this aspect of prioritization. The second issue raised, content blocking, is also not particularly important; I have only found one instance when an ISP used its status as an ISP to disrupt access to a website, and that's with Comcast throttling BitTorrent because the latter is extensively used to host copyright violations of movies. Wikipedia does a satisfactory job of policing copyright problems, and its popularity and humanitarian mission would make any attempt to throttle it deeply unpopular.
Consequently, I don't believe that Wikipedia is threatened by the issues purported by net neutrality supporters, and agree with TonyBallioni's statements that it could feasibly benefit from the regulations not existing. I will also argue that US regulatory agencies have histories of issuing absurd, impossible orders to enforce regulations, and that in this regard Wikipedia may actually be threatened by regulatory creep. I will also echo the sentiments expressed by numerous editors above: using Wikipedia to host a banner gives the impression that net neutrality is supposed by the Wikipedia community as a whole, and the controversy of this and previous RfCs clearly indicates that this is not the case. Furthermore, wading into activism for political issues undermines the project's appearance of being a neutral, independent source of information. Between the sacrifice of perceived neutrality and the lack of tangible benefits to the project, I must consider the promotion of net neutrality to be a net malus. Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: The entire discussion is turning into a political soapbox. While the Wikimedia Foundation can make political statements on behalf of itself, Wikipedia is a community project, and all of its decisions should reflect the consensus of its users and our core policies. In fact, a proliferation of support for net neutrality would actually place undue weight on the corresponding POV, as it will not equally promote counterarguments. Unlike SOPA, which was a much more clear-cut issue, Net neutrality is a more contentious issue, and in fact, the WMF had previously been involved in initiatives that blatantly violate its principles. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for all the reasons mentioned above. Contact me for further information. Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support There are plenty of times when one would be right to worry about "expansion of government power", but this is not one of them. Regulating industry for the purpose of protecting the citizens is a good thing for a government to do. (And, no, we can't trust the Free Market(TM) to save us when consumers have no choice among providers; nor is it all hypothetical: Comcast throttling BitTorrent — which blocked legitimate content as well as piracy — is only one example of ISP bad behavior [5].) I'm here to build an encyclopedia, but I'd like for people to be able to read that encyclopedia without Wikimedia having to slide cash under the table to Comcast and Verizon. And, frankly, in the current climate of the United States, wanting to build an encyclopedia — that is, holding education to be worthy and facts to be important — is itself a political act. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I assume your reference to Comcast-BitTorrent is partially directed at me, as I'm the one who mentioned it, so I should take the time to reply. I'm aware of the ACLU page, and in fact relied extensively on it in my research. But the other examples provided there aren't relevant, and I'll explain why:
  • AT&T's censoring of portions of the Eddie Vedder concert utilized the fact that AT&T was the official sponsor and sole provider of that concert. Their censoring actually made sense and was in my view justified, as the fact that they were a sponsor would have made it appear as though they were endorsing that political message when they weren't.
  • Verizon's discrimination against NARAL Pro-Choice America affected their text-messaging service, meaning that it involved their status as a cellular provider, not an ISP. Cell services are already regulated for this, and fall outside the scope of net neutrality anyway.
  • Telus is a Canadian ISP, so any regulations passed here don't seriously affect them.
The other claims you make have already been addressed elsewhere. Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Expanding a little. tl:dr; The personal is political. "free knowledge is inherently radical"
Here's my reasoning. I'm a socially left (US left) leaning person living out the outskirts of a moderately sized urban center. Grew up rural. I'm more central (US central) when it comes to government, regulation, capitalism, etc.
I have two choices for my ISP. Both are large companies. Most folks, across the United States where this proposal will be most impactful, have an ISP like mine. ISPs, the large ones especially, can be considered government approved monopolies. Decades ago, taxpayers funded the initial cable to wire up the country. In exchange these companies are given exclusive status to prevent other companies from laying down their own wire. AT&T, as one of the oldest telecom companies in the country, just rents use of their wires to other ISPs, big and small.
I don't like the government sanctioning monopolies. That's a little libertarian sounding, I realize. If the government is going to do it though? They better regulate them. A government-sanctioned monopoly should follow the same restriction the government itself does for it's own utilities. That includes this kind of neutrality. I want companies like Comcast to have less power to coerce and distort the market. This is a complex, nuanced matter. While you might be against regulation in other areas, such as energy, or financial markets, or whatever - accepting this one actually works in our favor as a community, project, and movement. Ckoerner (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Question - Maybe I'm missing it, but what is the timeline for this discussion? If the event people would "take action" about is on the 9th, today is the 7th. Is there a plan for a specific point to stop discussion ans assess consensus about this? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Answer It doesn't have the votes here, desn't have the votes in congress[6], would likely be vetoed if it did have the votes, and would not accomplish what this RfC claims that it would accomplish.[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The question was not "Would someone be willing to restate their opinion, but with the word 'answer' in front of it?" Alternatively, someone quoted Inigo Montoya elsewhere in this thread in a way that seems relevant re: "answer". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think these things normally run for 30 days or so? It would take a truly extraordinary consensus to justify accelerating the timeline to two or three days, just because of the timing of the vote in the Senate. I don't see that here; it's not clear there will be a consensus at all, but certainly there is no evidence of the sort of overwhelming consensus that could justify such a radical departure from our normal procedures. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • An RfC typically runs for 30 days, yes. This is not technically an RfC, and I imagine that's intentional, given the time constraints. It would not be the first time we have had a discussion on a shorter timescale, but I do tend to agree that there should be a pretty clear consensus in such cases. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for political statements supported by a majority of the few editors who happen to show up in a discussion on this page. That's regardless of the merits of the issues or how Wikipedia might be affected by them. We are Wikipedia editors, not political activists (although each of us is free to be a political activist off-wiki). In my view, this proposal should go the way of the proposal to show an anti-Trump statement before the U.S. presidential election. Furthermore, I think we should consider an explicit policy against using the encyclopedia as a platform for political statements. ―Mandruss  19:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as critical to Wikipedia's mission. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • So it is your position that a US government regulation that did not exist until 26 February 2015 and was repealed on 14 December 2017 (and pretty much not enforced during most of the 2 years, 9 months and 19 days it was on the books) is somehow "critical to Wikipedia's mission"? Critical?' In the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Net neutrality has de facto existed since the beginning of the internet. Net neutrality law is a more recent response to threats to the status quo that made a crazy project like Wikipedia possible, and you can disagree about any specific regulation, but the principle indeed remains critical to an open internet.--Pharos (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
      • My position is that net neutrality was in effect for pretty much the entire existence of the internet, until corporate interests decided to attack it, and now it needs defending. The principle was first enshrined into law/regulation in 2015, but it existed before. The issue is that the regulation/law has been since overturned to allow for violations of the principle. And yes, critical. Because otherwise a carrier may very well decide to have a surcharge for Wikipedia traffic, so they can send their subscribers to a Wikipedia mirror full of ads instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: This issue affects Wikipedia and its users directly. It also has significant impacts for users who access the internet via smaller ISPs who are not affiliated with the major telecom companies. While in general WP needs to remain NPOV, it does not need to be silent on matters that relate to its core mission. Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support shoy (reactions) 20:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose One of the pillars Wikipedia is built on is having a neutral POV. There are many other outlets that can voice opinions on Net Neutrality, however I do not feel that Wikipedia should be one of them with this message front and center as this proposal would be. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - let twitter and facebook do things like this. This feels too close to an ad or as Rick above says, a POV statement. I like WP because it is above politics or conflicts - it is a font of knowledge, nothing more. There ARE exceptions, mainly during the donation drive. But, this should not be an exception, imo. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is an apolitical project, as much sympathy as I might have for this. The SOPA/PIPA blackout set a bad precedent that shouldn't be repeated. Mélencron (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Net Neutrality is just a means to allow big content providers to dictate what gets distributed. Indyguy (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Am agnostic about NN, but I find the apocalyptic scenarios unpersuasive and often tinged by hysteria. Wikipedia's neutrality shouldn't be thrown away for such a hobby-horse. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's best for the WMF not to get involved in matters that can be perceived as being political issues. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support - In the interest of being accessible to all, it would be remiss for Wikipedia to not get involved in issues of accessibility to the Internet. You can't be neutral on a moving train. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 21:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia isn't everything. It doesn't have to take a stance on a question external to Wikipedia. We shouldn't speak as a united voice because essential to our nature is objectivity. Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Napplicable (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Accessibility is extremely important. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per User:Fuzheado. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I am sympathetic to net neutrality, the debate about it is a partisan matter, and with extreme exceptions, Wikipedia should remain neutral and not involve itself in political affairs. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, while I'm opposed to the idea of Wiki(p|m)edia being involved in politics or activism in general, the exception is when something is a direct threat to our mission. A lack of net neutrality threatens efforts like Wikipedia, for not-for-profit entities to make information and knowledge freely available. In this case, then, we should speak in favor of net neutrality and against any type of preferred traffic being permissible. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per NPalgan2. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - making knowledge freely accessible to everybody is the most political, the most power changing, act that anybody can do. And it is our mission. Making all internet content equally accessible is the only way we can accomplish our mission - otherwise we can be censored for "economic reasons", i.e we may not be profitable to ISPs. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to be making political statements. And for the record, I do strongly support net neutrality. -FASTILY 03:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Complete and utter Oppose this is an encyclopaedia, not a political party, an activist group nor a debating society. Let us concentrate on the task of making the sum of human knowledge available and leave the politics out of it. No matter how much some of us feel that some political issue is important, it does not belong here. -Nick Thorne talk 07:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Very, Very Strong Support. Wikimedia's mission depends in part to net neutrality, so if they support it, this banner is fine. I don't get what all of the opposes are about. Are people being bought out by ISPs and big businesses? This is sarcastic, just so people don't take this last comment at face value.
    But in all seriousness, this isn't a political question. It's a question about whether ISPs can throttle access to sites like Wikipedia, thereby compromising its mission. And it's not really even a political question with that much opposition from the general public. Polls have shown that more than 80% of Americans do support net neutrality. epicgenius (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This is certainly a political question because it boils down to an issue of free enterprise vs government regulation. ISPs provide services people want and if people want access to Wikimedia or anything else they will get it. As far as your 80% poll, I suggest that if that is true, it can be attributed to the benevolent-sounding name and ignorance. The US has supported spending on reducing poverty for over 50 years, but if you asked people if they would support "Spending $22 trillion with no improvement" [9] would they support that? How you ask the question is important. MB 12:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the wording is definitely important. But it doesn't change the concept of net neutrality which is to protect against unethical practices such as some content being prioritized over others. Here are some more surveys with different wording that support the idea that the vast majority of those who know about net neutrality support it. Net neutrality opponents argue that ISPs can self-police, but that's obviously not true. The truth is that without net neutrality, there is theoretically nothing to stop ISPs from burying Wikipedia links in favor of sponsored content, or even fake news stories. That really is against Wikipedia's mission.
In regards to being a political question, normally I'd agree that this would be a political dispute that should be kept off Wikipedia. However, net neutrality is an issue that directly affects this project. A banner is not even asking much. If net neutrality is such a politically charged situation, by that reasoning we shouldn't have had that huge anti-SOPA and anti-PIPA blackout six years ago. That was basically the same thing, except the entire project was inaccessible for 24 hours. A banner is not as obtrusive, it's simply asking to consider how Wikimedia projects would be like without net neutrality. epicgenius (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not need the Federal government to protect me from unethical practices by ISPs. Government regulation really means transferring more power from the citizenry to the government. Since the government is far more corrupt than businesses which have to provide services people are willing to pay for in order to survive, it should be kept to a minimum as envisioned in the US Constitution. You have no idea what the would happen without "net neutrality" - your fears are purely theoretical. I happen to believe it will continue to get better at a faster rate with less regulation. MB 15:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@MB: I don't agree with these points or think they make total sense, and I'm not trying to change your mind on this, but I'll just say my piece so others can understand my position: epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The rules reclassifying internet traffic under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 were codified in 2015; but before that, it had been a de facto assumption that the ISP would act ethically. The FCC did not need to explicitly say that the ISP had to act ethically; it simply enforced ethical standards. But in 2015 the FCC enacted the rules due to lawsuits from Verizon (Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 2014) and other ISPs that claimed the FCC was overreaching. Title II was the recourse because all the other methods of enforcement failed. The "net neutrality repeal" was not just a counteraction to the Title II classification; it also made it so that the FTC, not the FCC, was in charge of enforcing net neutrality standards. It just transfers enforcement from one government agency to another, but the FTC also doesn't have as much resources to enforce such rules.
As to your other points, they are political arguments so they are subjective. However, I will address them with factual evidence. To be fair, I may be a little biased because I did all of this research while writing the article on Net Neutrality (Last Week Tonight).
  • Regarding government is far more corrupt than businesses which have to provide services people are willing to pay for in order to survive - you are allowed to your opinion that the government is corrupt. But let's look at the facts: in large parts of the US, there is very limited choice in broadband providers. A 2010 study by broadband.gov showed that 96% of Americans have, at most, 2 providers to choose from. Here's another article from June 2017 which states that many people only have one high speed provider, or none at all.
  • You have no idea what the would happen without "net neutrality" - your fears are purely theoretical. - This is factually wrong. ISPs have blocked or slowed down access to competitors, promoted their own items, and even forced companies to paid for higher speeds. There are many examples of this. I think the most prominent is when Comcast slowed down Netflix speeds back in 2014 until Netflix agreed to pay a fee to Comcast.
  • I happen to believe it will continue to get better at a faster rate with less regulation. - Again, you are entitled to your opinion. Under normal circumstances, I would agree that if you leave the companies be, then they will be allowed to grow. But you are also missing an important point: the larger ISPs have successfully lobbied for laws that effectively shut out competition. In Wilson, NC, Greenlight tried to expand but they were blocked by a statewide restriction against municipal broadband - sponsored by private ISPs like Time Warner. And mind you, this restriction had bipartisan support. Same thing happened in Chattanooga, TN.
TL;DR - There are a lot of factors in play here. While the FCC's actions should technically be growth-inspiring and innovation-supporting, other actions at the state and federal level have made it so that this is essentially a monopolistic competition between a few large ISPs. I think everyone would agree that it would be better if a greater competition among ISPs was allowed, but this is unfortunately not the case right now. I would like to repeat that you are entitled to your opinion, MB. I'm not trying to change your mind, but I think there are many things to take into account here. epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Addendum to previous comment: A lot of the political controversy boils down to "Obama/Democrats/liberals/the left likes net neutrality so therefore I hate it". This shouldn't be one side versus the other. In reality, there is nothing not neutral about something that literally has the word "neutrality" in its name. Some of the strong opposers are arguing that this Central Notice is not a neutral message. This is true to some extent, but for political reasons, not because the concept of net neutrality itself is wrong. However, as I have personally observed, this is based on a lot of mistaken thoughts or suppositions about what should be the case (i.e. political views about laissez faire market), and not a lot of what's actually the case (i.e. the difficulties that smaller competitors face in a non-neutral internet). This issue is more complex than what is being presented as face value. epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Admittingly I'm divided between the 2 - On one hand Net Neutrality is important, On the other we're not a platform for political statements ..... Whilst I did support the whole SOPA/PIPA thing compared to 2012 social media is used a hell of a lot more now (and SOPA/PIPA was different) and as noted above we should remain neutral on this (Not everyone's going to agree with Net Neutrality),
In short if anyone agrees or disagrees with it then they're more than welcome to sign petitions and use social medias - I know the project is American and all that but in my eyes as I said we should remain neutral on this and this project should not be used for political things. –Davey2010Talk 13:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Davey2010, I don't believe we've interacted before, but I have a curious question I hope you can help me with. You, and others in this conversation, have said, we're not a platform for political statements. I've always understood that the content of the Wikipedia project should be neutral, well cited, from reliable sources. Free from politics as it were. I think we all agree on that. :)
The confusion, and why I'm asking this question, is about the movement of people behind the projects. The work we do as a community is a political statement. We say, "Free knowledge for all". That is a rather radical statement to make (much less actually do) when you look at how, and by whom, knowledge was created and shared in the past. I think it's this last part we seem to have the most disagreement on as a community and particularly in this conversation. I would love to understand more why that is. From yourself and others if they're willing to humor me here or on my talk page. Yours, Ckoerner (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I support Net Neutrality, but we are not a political platform. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Net neutrality is crucial to our goals in WP. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia should only take a political position in response to an existential threat. A very credible argument can be made that SOPA/PIPA rose to these levels, but I don't see the severity here. I'm happy to flip if the argument that net neutrality is an existential threat to WP can be made, but I haven't seen it made yet. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Direct advocacy on a political matter is about the farthest you can get from maintaining neutrality. "Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles", to quote {{uw-npov2}}. Go start a blog if you want to publicize your opinions about political matters, whether in your own country or another. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Let's not get Wikipedia in the habit of advocating the progressive cause du jour. It's not going to convince anyone who isn't already sympathetic to the viewpoint, but it will alienate those who oppose it.—Chowbok 06:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm on this project to reduce walls between people and knowledge. Quiddity (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly per Ajraddatz's remark. --Vogone (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The Wikimedia Foundation should be less hypocritical. They spearheaded the anti-netneutrality Wikipedia Zero program knowing full well Facebook and Google would use it to justify their own Zero-rated programs. Refusing to entertain arguments that parts of the US have as much need for WP0 as existing deployments. Their actions speak louder than words and if this run it should rewritten to reflect their past actions ("Rules for thee, not me"). — Dispenser 11:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've shown my support in the past for this, and still support it now. Esp. with something as low key as a geofenced banner. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I appreciate that editors feel strongly about this issue and share many of their concerns. But on Wikipedia the impartial credibility and integrity of this project should be our primary concern - advocacy activities should be a very rare exception reserved for imminent direct threats to Wikipedia's core mission. Also, some of the outlined speculative scenarios seem exaggerated or are still under discussion among experts. The net neutrality dispute, while serious and concerning, is not a direct imminent threat to Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • strong support It is important that we speak up for this, as one of the only non-profits and public spaces on the internet that is *not* beholden to corporate interests, and thus as a project that can speak with authority on behalf of *users* of the internet -- not on behalf of companies trying to make a buck. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 12:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This project is made possible by the free and open internet. 10Eleventeen 13:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, while Wikipedia should stay neutral on almost all everyday political topics, Internet regulation (or lack thereof) directly affects us, so we should take a stand and defend our position so we can continue to be neutral in the future. —Kusma (t·c) 14:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we are not a political platform. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - is not in accord with the WP:Five pillars, specifically Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. -- Netoholic @ 20:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although I have rarely edited recently, I still frequently read articles, and I find CentralNotice and other banners to be very distracting. I also believe that this would constitute using Wikipedia as a soapbox, which I disagree with. Finally, the rules change is not nearly as disastrous as some people have indicated, as it is only restoring similar regulations to 2013, and Wikipedia had no difficulty existing then. Gluons12 | 17:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose Per Guy Macon and WP:NOT. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, and especially support identifying now, gradually over time (and not in response to any particular campaign), the areas of policy around copyright, the Internet, and other topics which are core to wikimedia's work and not generic advocacy. – SJ + 03:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. xplicit 04:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This proposal links readers to a relevant page where they can learn about an important ongoing political topic. I think that is by itself a benefit to our readers, and one that in my mind outweighs the nuisance of a banner (at least this one's somewhat unintrusive with the coloring). An additional benefit is that the Wikimedia Foundation has come out in favor of this position, meaning it would help inform readers about something the WMF thinks will be good for the encyclopedia (and the readers by extension). Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Andrevan@ 06:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I favor net neutrality and dislike many of Ajit Pai's opinions (and his lame videos), WP is not the place for politics. Glrx (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC
  • Oppose Per Dennis Brown, TonyBallioni, Guy Macon, Ajraddatz, ICPH, Mandruss, Nyttend, and others, without prejudice to Net Neutrality. Granted, the WMF and most of its servers are based in the US, but all the encyclopedia users and contributors are in the clouds - and not only above the US but also throughout the whole world. Wikipedia encyclopedias should not be dominated by American politics - who or whatever the WMF is, Wikipedia is already a global thing. The only way political action of this kind would be tolerable would be if the WMF owned server farm and its connectivity were physically threatened by any US policy, in which case, along with the WMF corporate identity and staff, it would then have to relocate to a more traditionally neutral territory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I support net neutrality in terms of government policy, Wikipedia should stay out of partisan politics in view of our own policy of WP:NPOV. Sandstein 07:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • <Troll/sock comment removed and troll/sock blocked.> Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Why don't you log into your real account instead of using sockpuppetry to avoid scrutiny. Had I not already opined, I would remove this as trolling. Dennis Brown - 09:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support Important issue not just to the U.S. but to Wikipedia as well. There are many benefits to doing this, and virtually no drawbacks. Davey2116 (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Commment there are very big drawbacks - offending volunteer editors who do not support increased government regulation of private activity. If you want to lobby for this policy, by all means go do so in any way to want to personally. But don't do so under WP's name which implicitly makes me a supporter. MB 19:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Your argument would be more convincing if the subject were something like tax or healthcare policy. But we're talking about net neutrality, which directly affects Wikipedia, so I think this banner is justified, as it was for SOPA/PIPA in 2012. Davey2116 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree net neutrality directly affects Wikipedia. However you think it is positive while I think the effect would negative - there will be unintended consequences and it will slow the rate of technological progress. I don't believe "Free knowledge depends on net neutrality" and don't want to forced to be part of the "we" that is asking for support. WP should not take any position.MB 19:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what "unintended consequences" you are referring to. Net neutrality has been the status-quo since the beginning of the Internet, and it has not been a hindrance to technological progress. If anything, covert 'bandwidth throttling' by ISPs (as has already been done by Comcast to BitTorrent, by AT&T to Apple, by Verizon to Netflix, etc.) would slow technological progress, and this is exactly the type of activity that net neutrality laws were formalized to prevent. Wikipedia would like to ensure that it does not become the next victim of such oligopolistic tactics; the reader should interpret "we" as the Wikipedia, not its entire base of editors. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The status-quo since the beginning of the internet has been Laissez-faire which allowed great technological progress. Net-neutrality is the opposite of that, putting the industry under the regulatory purview of the FCC which will have negative consequences as explained here. I have no fear that WP will become a "victim" of free-market capitalism but rather a benefactor. MB 22:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • How is that? Where would Wikipedia procure the funds necessary to gain access to the "speedy service" lane? I am 100% sure that Wikipedia will be hurt by the repeal of net neutrality; how many more $3 donations per year do you think there can be? Also, net neutrality has been the status quo (you can't argue with that fact) and the laws passed in 2015 only formalized those principles. Net neutrality and laissez-faire are not completely incompatible; net neutrality is not the abolition of the free market. On the contrary, net neutrality ensures a fair market, so that not too much power is concentrated at the hands of a few large ISPs. Your talking point is that the whole purpose of laissez-faire is competition, which drives innovation and efficiency; I completely agree with that, and I think repealing net neutrality hurts those goals by stifling such competition and allowing unfair business practices. (Further reading.) Davey2116 (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Davey2116: I agree with the gist of your argument. However, I don't think you should try to convince opponents to switch to "support". Most of the editors who post here with an opinion on net neutrality are set in their beliefs, and trying to convince them will result in the backfire effect. Regarding Also, net neutrality has been the status quo [...] net neutrality is not the abolition of the free market. I had actually mentioned a very similar thing in my comments above.
    (Side note: MB's comment about the pre-2015 Internet being laissez-faire is totally wrong. The FCC enforced net neutrality by filing lawsuits against violators such as Verizon. This is the opposite of what laissez-faire means, which is "leave things be and don't intervene".) epicgenius (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Even if the notice were implemented, it would have to include a prominent disclaimer similar to: This message is supported by 59% of 0.8% of the active editors of English Wikipedia.Mandruss  21:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think this disclaimer is necessary. The message is made on behalf of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, not its entire base of editors. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how many causal readers are able to discern this. Any such banner should have a disclaimer.MB 22:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
1. WMF can advocate any position it wishes to advocate without using the encyclopedia as a delivery vehicle. 2. Wikipedia is its entire base of editors. Not the self-selected few. We will not make any statement on any political issue without making it crystal clear that it is the opinion of a minuscule fraction of the editing population, period. ―Mandruss  23:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not completely opposed to such a disclaimer; I was just going on the SOPA precedent, where the banner had no such disclaimer (so your claim that we always put a "crystal clear" disclaimer is categorically false). Also, as the Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia, it can advocate any position using Wikipedia as the vehicle as it wishes (though doing so for any position other than those that directly concern Wikipedia (i.e., other than Internet law) would obviously damage its reputation). Davey2116 (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. What I meant, which I thought was obvious enough, is that I will vigorously oppose any such use of the encyclopedia on the say-so of the self-selected few. It's patently wrong, but I can't force anybody to see that. Thankfully, it looks like I'll have plenty of self-selected company. ―Mandruss  01:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay. Don't get me wrong, I'm also annoyed that a (relatively) small group of people are 'deciding' for the whole of Wikipedia in this survey (especially since newcomers may find the village-pump very obscure). But this is the system we have, and we'd have to move mountains to change it. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia has been built by volunteers from all walks of life and political alignments, and it never should be hijacked for a political campaign. --Pudeo (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia and politics should not mix. We have editors who support the governmental initiative, we have editors who oppose it, and we have editors who are neutral. We should--in this forum--be neutral. Editors should feel free to express their views any way they choose outside of Wikipedia. For Wikipedia to take a position would imply to the outside world that there is a voting system and a majority polling took place when really it could be just whatever a passing closing admin (or user) decided a conversation built as consensus from those who participate. We should avoid taking a position on issues like this as a matter of policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Paul McDonald, are you aware that Overwhelming Bipartisan Public Opposition to Repealing Net Neutrality Persists («Eighty-six percent oppose the repeal of net neutrality, including 82% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats)»? There is only one fringe extremist political position here, and it's the idea to repeal net neutrality. Not speaking against the repeal of net neutrality means, in fact, to acritically adopt a party line. To be neutral, Wikimedia needs to support net neutrality. Then, of course, one can say that there are different degrees at which we can support the bipartisan view. --Nemo 04:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I disagree that "to be neutral, Wikimedia needs to support net neutr4ality." That's the opposite of "neutral" -- that's taking a position. And we shouldn't do that as a community.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems very against the policy of being Here to build an encyclopedia, bordering even on WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia, not as a platform for points of view. [Username Needed] 08:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Saying that if one USA party adamantly opposes something then an issue automatically becomes partisan and all sides must be considered equal is bothsidesism. --Nemo 19:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, because even if Wikipedia was created at a time when the rules were dodgier, I believe that allowing ISPs to throttle back on certain services is laying the groundwork for future trouble for us. Also, the comments about us being apolitical are completely off the mark. Yes, we're a non-partisan resource, and we should continue to be. But we're not "neutral" in some abstract sense of the term; we have our definition of neutrality, based on presenting what reliable third-party sources say. The sources are literally all that matters; the views of political parties anywhere really don't matter a damn. So we write about climate change and Darwinian evolution as facts, we write most of our articles within a human rights framework (because that's what most scholars use), we're critical of the anti-GMO movement, critical of eugenics, etc, etc. A political party taking a stand on an issue is not a reason for us not to do so. Politicians can say what they like; this could threaten our mission, and that's all that matters. Vanamonde (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. We weren't always one of the top 5 websites in the world, and the only way we became that is because of effective net neutrality, because we would not have had the money to pay providers for speedy treatment. Same for most every other nonprofit, or startup, and especially nonprofit startup. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What the proposer is actually asking is whether he can use Wikipedia to promote his own political viewpoint, and the answer to that ought to be a resounding NO! --Ykraps (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree. Even if a full audit was taken of all registered editors and active users that are not registered, and it could be validated, and exactly 100% of everyone supported the issue--if it were truly unanimous--Wikipedia should still remain neutral on all topics.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have already !voted above, but I urge an immediate close as 1) there is clearly no consensus, and 2) the vote in the Senate has already happened, making this proposal as stated moot. Gluons12 | 14:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC).
The senate is not the only governing body that has to approve this. It still has to pass in the House and be signed by the president. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has no interest with Wikipedia. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've read every comment, and after deliberating I strongly support this. This is beyond a political statement, it is about freedom and equal rights to access knowledge. If this is allowed to stay it is purely to maintain a manufactured social divide based on wealth and that is not why we are here. Mramoeba (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Wikipedia depends on Net Neutrality. Allowing ISPs to pick and choose winners online is dangerous and should never happen. The Wikimedia Foundation clearly supports Net Neutrality. So why doesn't Wikipedia? Retroity (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I have personal feelings about the issue, but, this issue doesn't matter in the slightest to my work here as a Wikipedian. We are here to build an encyclopedia. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:17, 20 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.

I challenge the validity of this too-soon RfC[edit]

It has only been a month since the last time this proposal was rejected. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. Editors should not be allowed to ask the same question over and over, hoping for a different result. This RfC should be closed and the proponent should be asked to wait at least a few months before asking again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding any meaningful difference between
Could we perhaps link to www.businessesfornetneutrality.com in a banner at the top of all pages?
...and...
Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality.
What makes them different? Is it the added US-only provision, or the slightly different wording in support on Net Neutrality? I didn't see any responses to the previous RfC that said "I would support it if the notice was US only" or "I would support it if you dropped the businessesfornetneutrality.com link". Generally, for a new RfC to be posted after a month, one would expect the new RfC to address some issue identified in the previous RfC. In my considered opinion, this is substantively the same proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I would support the banner which states: "Wikipedians are opposed to the advancement of government control over our internet!". Wikipedia, however, does not speak with one voice here. Let's get over it, and get back to writing an encyclopedia. Can someone close this waste of editor time and energy which will NEVER REACH CONSENSUS and is beating a dead horse? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia, however, does not speak with one voice here. Can someone close this waste of editor time? Pot, meet kettle. Just let the discussion play out first. Maybe there will be consensus for one side or the other, but no one will know unless the discussion runs its course. epicgenius (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment No matter what issue exists, on any topic at all, it is likely unwise for Wikipedia to take any stance on any issues based on "consensus of editors" on any Wikipedia page. The potential morass is vast. The gain is de minimis. And where iterated versions of such things get placed here on a monthly basis, the value of any "consensus" is Wertlos. Guy Macon is correct. Collect (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • This proposal is substantially different, and the discussion should continue. Megs (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course it is too soon. Saying "Plenty of editors above disagree." is either disingenuous because you want your side to "win at any cost", or moronic. Bludgeoning the community until it grows weary of these discussions is not how you form a consensus. In the past it has been clear that a majority do not want to get involved in ANY politics. Saying the slightly different wording changes everything is bunk. Dennis Brown - 20:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • While not technically against the rules, There is a strong appearance of a conflict of interest when the person who posted an RfC reverts a (at that time uninvolved) editor hatting it.[10][11]. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You opposed the previous proposal so you weren't uninvolved Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You are saying that the proposals are in fact the same thing? Natureium (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say they were different anyhow; but presuming the proposals aren't the same, the proposals would still be on a similar enough topic that it'd be hard to call Guy Macon uninvolved Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
But whether or not I am involved because of my participation in another RfC, you do agree that the person who posted this RfC is involved, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This would not accomplish what this RfC claims that it would accomplish[edit]

According to this legal analyses,
"The CRA would not undo the FCC’s decision to classify broadband internet access service as an information service. That classification decision was the result of an adjudication and is embodied in an order, not a 'rule' subject to the CRA. Nor would the CRA permit Congress to restore the net neutrality rules that the FCC eliminated in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order.
Thus, the CRA joint resolutions of disapproval recently introduced in the Senate (S.J.Res.52) and House (H.J.Res.129) can neither return broadband Internet access service providers to Title II regulation nor restore prohibitions on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. In fact, the result of an enacted CRA resolution in this case would be to disapprove the FCC’s transparency rule — the only substantive rule adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order — and prevent the FCC from adopting substantially similar transparency requirements in the future. In short, the CRA resolution exercise represents nothing more than empty political theater rather than a serious legislative effort to preserve Internet openness."
Related: The Process for Using the Congressional Review Act to Protect Net Neutrality, Explained. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
So, a blog post written on a law firm's website, by a lawyer that represents communications companies against the FCC. Always nice to grab extra attention with a new subsection for such things.. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
(Snark ignored.) Actually, it was published on Law360. As a convenience to the reader I searched out a non-paywall version.
Do you have a source that disputes the sourced claim that the CRA allows review and possible overruling of new federal regulations issued by government agencies and does not allow the overruling of a repeal of an old regulation as a result of an adjudication?
Do you have a single example of the CRA being used to force an agency to adopt a rule as opposed to disapproving a rule? See Congressional Review Act. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
(Psst...saying something is ignored is the opposite of ignoring it.) ―Mandruss  23:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist Geonotice[edit]

A watchlist geo-notice targeted to the US is now in effect advertising this discussion, saying "Please participate in a discussion about whether to temporarily display a banner in support of Net Neutrality to U.S. readers only." As there is a very tight timeframe here and the notice is neutrally worded, this seems acceptable to me, though I assume some of the other participants here will disagree. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I've asked this this be removed from watchlists ASAP. I view this as an attempt to get around the obvious no consensus here as it all but adevrtises this banner despite the fact that there is no consensus for it. This is already advertised on CENT. There is no need to further advertise it, and IMO, doing so undermines the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion update[edit]

IntelligenceSquared Debate on Net Neutrality[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAJabAjoK08

The Federal Communications Commission’s recent decision to end Obama-era net neutrality regulations has sparked contentious national debate about the future of the web. Is net neutrality necessary to preserve a free, open internet for all?

For the Motion:

  • Mitchell Baker Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation & Mozilla Corporation
  • Tom Wheeler Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School and Former Chairman, FCC

Against the Motion:

  • Nick Gillespie Editor at Large, Reason
  • Michael Katz Professor, Berkeley & Former Chief Economist, FCC

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Policy based RfC[edit]

An RfC of probable interest is published at Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block#RfC about appealing a block and Wikipedia "standard offer". Thank you and please act accordingly.--John Cline (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Parameter for subject area in certain templates[edit]

What I am proposing is the following:

  1. Certain cleanup templates that require subject-area knowledge to effectively respond to should accept a parameter marking the subject area of the article being tagged.
  2. This information should be used to categorize tagged articles into subcategories by subject area (as is currently done by month).
  3. [this item added on May 14th] Alternatively: The creation of more subject-specific maintenance templates and categories (like the existsing {{LawUnref}} and Category:Law-related articles lacking sources) should be encouraged, but not implemented through template parameters.
Background

Many of our cleanup templates (and some other types of templates) tag articles for the kinds of attention that only editors familiar with the subject matter will be able to effectively provide (e.g., {{lead rewrite}}, {{context}}, {{expand section}}, {{missing information}}, {{confusing}}, {{disputed}}, {{undue weight}}, {{clarify}}, {{dubious}}, {{original research}}, {{more citations needed}}, {{citation needed}}, and several others). While the dating of templates (using |date=) has become almost universal, indicating the subject matter in a similar way has not (although {{expert needed}} does have a mechanism for associating the tag with a WikiProject). As far as I know, only stub templates are routinely marked with the subject area, allowing "sorting" into an appropriate stub category, but this is done by creating a separate template for each subject area.

The proposal
[edit: ignore the above line… — see explanation below for the odd ending here. - dcljr (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcljr (talkcontribs) 18:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

But more importantly, there is an external tool that does this for all imaginable maintenance problems by checking tagged articles against WikiProjects (not limited to geographical scope by the way) see e.g. Germany. It's super useful and automated and basically does what you want, and more. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:Petscan can also do the same as the tool provided by Finn. --Izno (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Yes, I was trying to say {{expert needed}} was an exception. To my knowledge, all the other templates I listed ({{lead rewrite}}, etc.) do not have a way of marking the subject area. @Izno: The template version of {{PetScan}} looks quite useful, especially for linking to lists of articles needing attention in, say, WikiProjects and "Portal:" pages. Unfortunately, it doesn't really replace the functionality of categories. I'm sorry but I literally cannot take the time to talk about this right now. Tomorrow I can say more. - dcljr (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
…Or not. [grin] sorry for the delay… - dcljr (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Natureium, Finnusertop, and Izno: OK, basically what I'm saying here is, the current system of (sub-) categorizing article-improvement issues by date is useful only, perhaps, in tracking the lack of progress in dealing with them, not in effectively getting editors to notice the issues and address them. In cases where some degree of familiarity with the subject matter significantly improves the chances of being able to actually deal with the tagged issue (see partial list in my original post above), it makes sense to "sort" the request into subcategories by subject. So, for example, if I put {{unreferenced|date=September 2017|subject=sports and games}} (or whatever) on the article American Poolplayers Association, it would be listed at Category:Articles lacking sources in subject area sports and games (or whatever), as well as Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2017 and Category:All articles lacking sources. This would allow related WikiProjects, portals, etc., to link to such (subject-based) categories to direct the attention of those editors most likely to be able to fix the problems. As things stand now, only the users interested in sports/games who happen to visit or are watching the article American Poolplayers Association will notice the tagging. Relatively few (or possibly none) of those users will ever look through Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2017 and Category:All articles lacking sources looking for things to fix (since the vast majority of articles there have nothing to do with sports and games). And those users who notice the tagging of that article will not see a category link to other related articles tagged the same way, only to a mass of articles on completely different topics. If this kind of subject-based subcategorizing is implemented/popularized, as it becomes better known more users could start regularly looking through categories such as Category:Articles lacking sources in subject area sports and games looking for things they can fix. Now, granted, there are issues with this approach, including most obviously (1) creating the required categories (/avoiding redlinks), and (2) controlling which subjects deserve a subcategory (like sports and games) and which don't (like Power Snooker). Thus, perhaps a template-parameter approach may not be the right way to go (although templates can detect things like missing categories automatically, and issue warnings). In light of these considerations, I have added a third alternative above (so, either do #1–2 or #3). Finally, to return to {{PetScan}}, like I said before, this could be useful for WikiProjects and portals to link to (although the user interface of the tool itself is slightly intimidating—i.e., you don't get the list you want until you submit a form), but using an external tool like that is of little use to the vast majority of users who are just looking at articles. (Of course, one could say that the vast majority of editors never look at the maintenance categories anyway, but I'd think that more of them would use categories over external tools than the other way 'round.) - dcljr (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I realize I screwed up the initial posting of this proposal, but now that I've fleshed out my idea a bit, it would be nice to see some kind of discussion about this. Comments? Questions? Suggestions? I don't think an {{rfc}} tag is necessary here, but if that's the only way I'm going to get this noticed… - dcljr (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Deletion of drafts[edit]

The deletion of drafts via MfD was previously discussed over two years ago in this RfC that concluded that drafts should not be subject to the notability criteria, but that there may be other valid reasons for the deletions of drafts. Reading the comments of the RfC and the close, there also seemed to be agreement that drafts should be works in progress, eventually expected to meet mainspace standards. Currently, it is possible to continually resubmit a declined draft to AfC with no changes while not meeting any of the CSD criteria or failing WP:NOTWEBHOST and effectively stay in draft space forever. This has caused some back and forth at MfD as what to do with these articles. To help provide clarity for this situation, I am proposing WP:NMFD be modified to read the following (updated text in red):

Drafts are not subject to article deletion criteria like "no context" or no indication of notability so creators may have time to establish notability. Drafts may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but not solely based upon a concern about notability. A draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Drafts RfC Survey[edit]

  • Support as proposer as it will clarify what has de facto become a delete reason at MfD, deal with cases that will never be G13 or G11 eligible but also have no chance of ever becoming an article, and also provides protection to drafts so that they are still not eligible solely because of notability and requires that they be given more time to develop. This also has the potential to lighten the load on MfD because it would set the standard as repeated resubmissions (read 3 or more times) and would leave the others alone to develop or meet G13. I think this wording is a good way of splitting the baby of protecting drafts from overeager while remembering that at the end of the day, we are ultimately an encyclopedia first and foremost, and that the end goal of the draft space is to build that encyclopedia. Content that doesn't have a chance of meeting that goal shouldn't be kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Drafts that are tendentiously resubmitted without improvement are an unnecessary waste of volunteer time and should be deleted. Some submitters evidently have difficulty in understanding the word "no" (let alone "encyclopedia"). Deletion makes that message clear. I'd like to see some article CSDs (A11 in particular) apply to submitted drafts, as the act of submission indicates that the submitter believes their draft should be treated as an article. MER-C 18:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    • User:MER-C, the resubmitters are never told “no”. Have a look at some. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
      • In some sense, yes -- I strongly agree with you that we waste far too much time sending the wrong message to and accommodating those who aren't here to improve Wikipedia. But having a draft declined stating that further improvement is necessary and not doing that before resubmitting is still failing to understand a very simple concept. MER-C 11:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Mer-C & Tony but is not strong enough. I like Robert's idea of A7 for draft articles.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I noted at AN before the thread was closed, resubmitting a draft multiple times is a conduct issue not a content issue and should be handled by sactioning the user in question instead. Once the user has been banned/blocked, the problem posed by the RFC is solved. This proposal would allow a single editor to decline a draft three times and then nominate it for MFD for being declined three times, effectively circumventing the whole reason why we have Draft-space in the first place (which is also why I strongly oppose any attempts to expand A7 to drafts). Regards SoWhy 19:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    SoWhy I would be in complete agreement, except Tony has inserted the phrase "without any substantial improvement". If there is question about what "substantial improvement" here constitutes, an per-case discussion happens at MfD. This is not a "Speedy" process, although I also think there should be such a process for egregious cases. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    I just don't see it as solely a conduct issue. The reason why a draft may be repeatedly declined is because the subject simply isn't suitable for an encyclopedia and has no foreseeable chance at becoming suitable in the future (WP:OVERCOME); that's a valid content issue, if I did hear one. Although it might work, the problem I see with treating it as a behavioral problem is WP:BITE. Threatening to block should be a last resort, and I see deletion as the neatest solution that saves the most time and doesn't unnecessarily personalize the issue for new editors. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    How does deletion stop a user from recreating the same page? BITE problems are a big reason why I don't favor deletion of drafts at all (I see it as a fool's errand to devote energy to pages whose existence does not pose an actual problem in terms of outside visibility) but even BITE has its limits. We block users who don't get the message after being warned multiple times in other areas as well, so how is AFC different? Deleting a page someone has worked hard on is usually as BITEy as blocking them because both send the message that they are not welcome. But only sanctioning the user will actually address the problem posed by Tony. If we agree to sanction users, we could easily create an edit filter that prevents those users from resubmitting drafts (which would be less BITEy than blocking them without being less effective). Regards SoWhy 09:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    Off topic uninformed oppose Vote! on a clarification of policy to match existing practice at MfD from a user with 17 visits to MfD in their last 50,000 edits over a decade. Sanctioning new throwaway accounts is a fools errand and does nothing to remove the bad Draft from the system. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Legacypac: An ad hominem argument obscures the points you are trying to make. You should stop attempting to discredit users by who they are or what they've done and instead discredit their points by answering their points directly. --Izno (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I appreciate the nuance given here to those editors who make good-faith efforts to improve their draft, even if it takes 3 or more or many more attempts. Tendentious resubmissions with no effort to address the concerns of the declining editor, however, should be cause for deletion. Even speedy per Dlohcierekim. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as redundant addition. I don't see the slightest effect that this will have on what we currently have. Also agree with SoWhy. Changed to support. As I already made it clear, I am not against the substance of this proposal but the amount of difference it can make to what currently exists. After TonyBallioni's response, I am convinced supporting this will surely be a one step forward and the impact will (hopefully) be seen in the long-term. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It makes “repeatedly resubmitted with no improvements, has no chance of being in mainspace, and has no sourcing for uninvolved editors to show notability.” an unambiguously valid reason for deletion at MfD. I think it should be already per NOTWEBHOST. This makes that clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: I generally agree with the principle of any proposal that will hasten deletion of non-notable drafts that otherwise didn't meet any of our extant WP:GCSD. But I would like to support something that will make impact. Many proposals nowadays are just collection of random support without short term or long term effect. Even now, that this proposal is not in effect, one can nominate non-notable, hopeless and repeatedly submitted draft and it will surely be deleted. But considering your points;
    1. repeatedly resubmitted
    2. with no improvements,
    3. has no chance of being in mainspace, and
    4. has no sourcing for uninvolved editors to show notability
    Shouldn't this be clear need for speedy deletion criterion? If a draft meet all these criteria what else people will discuss? How many people participate in MfD these days? –Ammarpad (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    Hi, Ammarpad, thanks for pinging me. The reason I didn't propose those here is because those would be a lot bigger changes than this, I don't think they have consensus at this time, and I hadn't done any work into looking at what a process there might look like.
    My general approach to policy reform is that policy is meant to be descriptive of practice, not prescriptive. That means I typically only propose RfCs where I think there is a pre-existing consensus. Here, I'd heard enough complaints about how we deal with drafts through MfD, I was aware that previous attempts to get a CSD criterion approved had not been successful, and that draft PROD would be more controversial than this and would probably have a 50/50 chance of passing. I think this proposal addresses a concern that people have, already has consensus, and will improve the encyclopedia as a whole.
    There may be other reform ideas in this area that could be successful, such as Kudpung's suggestion for DfD or yours for Draft PROD. I'd likely support those. That's not the intent of this proposal though. This is an attempt to be a first step in making the process easier by documenting what people already bring up at MfD pretty frequently in policy. If you support the idea generally, like Mz7 below, I hope you'll consider supporting. This doesn't pretend to be the perfect solution, just a viable step forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, TonyBallioni, I now understand you better. Hopefully, although this doesn't mean much now (my concern), it is a stepping stop to something more impactful in the future, instead of ignoring/opposing it now and end up discussing it again at the time we ought to be discussing measures beyond it. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    MfD receives reasonably high participation actually; for a CSD you'd need an A7-esque standard, as what counts as "no sourcing" for notability and not suitable for mainspace is contentious Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I think if you look at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion and its archives, you'll see that the current wording of this section has resulted in a lot of confusion and debate. For that reason, I do not see this clarification as redundant, and if you think it is descriptive of current practice, I think you should consider supporting. Mz7 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, I see it as that. That means it will have no solid impact. It merely repeats what already exists. Any draft that meet what was described above will surely be deleted at MfD. See my reply to TonyBallioni above. The current problem as described requires only speedy criterion to make sense and for us to know we're moving forward. Or to a lesser extant, to establish special "sticky prod" for drafts. I will shortly describe it in General comment section. comments below. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support see User:JJMC89_bot/report/AfC_decline_counts where drafts are declined as many as 11 times! It is a serious waste of effort and gums up AfC. This can help the actually notable draft stuck in AfC as well because it will expose the page to a discussion where someone can make a case for promotion, but mostly it will provide an exit path for the hopeless repeated reviewer free spin of the wheel style resubmissions. I also support applying A style CSDs to submitted drafts. The act of submission is a request to apply mainspace criteria to the page so treat the page as such. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Why should notability not be considered for drafts? The point of drafts is to develop into articles, and articles require notability. What then is the purpose of allowing drafts on non-notable subjects? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We should not be spending time in deletion discussions about drafts. These discussions and administrative actions take unnecessary resources, are WP:BITEY, and feed trolls. Please let these submissions wait their turn in the queue for a few weeks before rejecting them. Authors will get the message and the drafts will eventually be deleted under G13. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Kvng. This proposal comes across as a punitive measure, too. --Doncram (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The other working proposal to deal with this is to block them and let G13 take hold. I consider that much more bitey and puntative. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I proposed above that we basically put these drafts in timeout. Can we put that on the table too? No change to process is required, just a change to reviewer behavior. ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not really sure if there is a way to prevent them from submitting the AfC draft. I'm also not sure what good it does to keep them for 6 extra months if we've already made the determination we don't want them. If the main reason is BITE, I'll somewhat echo Seraphimblade below in noting that most of these are not actually good faith users who are trying to contribute something encyclopedic that they find interesting to Wikipedia. Most of these are people who have a financial incentive to keep resubmitting and take advantage of our good faith. I'm not sure BITE is really a good argument in dealing with people we don't want contributing anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose arguments such Kvng's are admirable in their assumption of good faith, but practical AfC data shows that there are far too many bad-faith article creators. This reality is the reason that we have made ACTRIAL permanent, after all. The proposed language is a common-sense way to address bad-faith resubmitters. The difference between good-faith and bad-faith article creators is often disclosed by their response to AfC rejection. The former will at least query the rejection and its feedback, while the latter will just send the exact same article back into the queue. This proposal only targets the latter behavior, something that should be dissuaded in any event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Eggishorn: Can you provide some details about this "practical AfC data"? ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kvng:, I suggest starting with the meta:Research:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial and wp:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Post-trial Research Report. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: I've read those and they don't support what you're saying here. There is nothing in the report about draft author behavior. Also the WMF is only now gaining an understanding of how AfC works. The AfC-related conclusions in the report are disputed. There were more submissions to AfC but there is no evidence there was a "struggle" to keep up with it. See Wikipedia_talk:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial/Post-trial_Research_Report#AfC_backlog_"struggle". ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support – It is true that in the wide majority of cases, the notability guidelines that justify the deletion of articles do not automatically justify the deletion of drafts. This is because one of the purposes of the draft space is to serve as an incubator for drafts about non-notable subjects that have a high likelihood of becoming notable in the near future (e.g. film actors who are about to star in a significant role, upcoming films from major studios, athletes who are about to debut in the top tier of their sport). The draft space is the successor to Wikipedia:Article Incubator in this respect. Articles that were in the incubator did not stay there forever, however; they either were moved back to mainspace or were nominated to MFD or userfied (see WP:GRADUATE).
    I've long held the view that there are two general cases where notability should and does factor in as a part of a decision to delete a draft (see this July 2017 discussion). The first is repeatedly submitted AfC drafts with no foreseeable chance at acceptance due to lack of notability, and the second is long-abandoned non-AFC drafts about non-notable subjects with no foreseeable chance at becoming notable in the future. The second case has largely been mitigated with the expansion of CAT:G13 to all drafts, but I see MfD as the natural place where repeatedly submitted AfC drafts should be sent. I don't see blocking or other conduct sanctions as the best solution because the issue is indeed fundamentally with the subject of the article: no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a few reasons, although mostly this is just echoing SoWhy. First, AfC doesn't own the entire Draft namespace, so constant submission is a project problem. In that case, I think SoWhy's response (i.e., it becomes a behavior/cluefulness issue) is appropriate. Second, the purpose of draftspace is for folks to work on pages that are inappropriate for mainspace; this would defeat the whole purpose of treating something as a "draft" rather than an article. I've said elsewhere that I am unconvinced of the damage or harm a large draftspace would supposedly cause, and that remains true. Finally, I think the proposed text weakens WP:NMFD to a degree that it will cease to be a barrier. ~ Amory (utc) 20:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, AfC doesn't own the draft namespace, Amorymeltzer, but it was created with them in mind and with the hope that ACTRIAL would take place one of the days. Well, ACTRIAL took place, and has since become ACREQ and there has been the anticipated (but slightly lower than feared) increase in the number of drafts. Nevertheless, SoWhy's argument (i.e., it becomes a behavior/cluefulness issue) is indeed also appropriate, because the reviewing needs to be much improved so that even if they have clue, they will be singing from the same page of the same hymn book, and at the moment they do not appear to be doing either. And that's a much longer story. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I would qualify your description of the purpose of the draft space in this way: the purpose of the draft space is for folks to work on pages that are inappropriate for mainspace but will soon be appropriate for mainspace. The draft space is not a dumping ground for articles about just any topic that doesn't meet mainspace standards to remain indefinitely – that would be using Wikipedia as a web host. We expect drafts to be actively worked on and improved so that they will eventually be a part of the encyclopedia. If a draft is about a topic that is inherently non-notable and has no foreseeable chance at becoming notable in the future, then more community time is wasted when we allow it to be repeatedly submitted at AfC than if we allow it to be deleted at MFD. Fundamentally, it is not just a conduct issue, but an issue with the subject of the draft. If the real solution is to threaten to block a user if they don't stop submitting, and let it be deleted after waiting out 6 months via G13, then isn't that WP:BITEy and perhaps even more time wasting than if we just waited out 7 days at MfD? Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)(edit conflict) Support strongly - in fact I would go one further and suggest the creation of DfD - Drafts for Deletion. Since ACREQ was rolled out, there are going to be a lot more drafts for deletion. As one of the editors who works a lot in these areas I prefer pragmatic solutions rather than philosophical ones. Being BITEY is not part of the equation , telling a troll his trash is not wanted is not being bitey, nor is telling an obvious paid editor that Wikipedia was not conceived as a platform for blatently making a career from making money out of our volunteer-created encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a business directory either or a register for rappers. What is really needed are a better set of instructions (without TL:DR, but more than just a quick click-through of four four-line pages) at the Article Wizard, and more consistent reviewing at AfC; and above all, more truly active AfC reviewers Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I would say, personally, I would like a DfD system, but I've heard arguments that it won't have nearly enough traffic to work properly. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Kudpung, User:Jjjjjjdddddd - I am genuinely puzzled by the idea of Drafts for Deletion. My question is why drafts need a separate deletion process from MFD, especially since MFD is primarily used for drafts anyway. Why do drafts require their own deletion process? Why not do at MFD whatever would be done at DFD? I hope that this isn't considered a stupid question, but I really don't understand why a new process would solve the known problems with cruddy drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support In my experience, G13 is just not good enough to deal with this issue. Drafts that are truely not notable, which are just cruft should be able to be deleted rather than going after x months of no edits and instantly undeletable. Additionally, at MfD/DfD/whatever it is called, there will be the chance for more people to look over nominations than one reviewer every few weeks. While I'm an advocate for a more engagement-based approach on paid editing, in cases where companies are non-notable, we do need to be less wishy-washy on the message we send out. Mdann52 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but I like Kudpungs idea a lot - Having "DFD" would be a much better place for all of these as IMHO Drafts are unrelated to MFD, Anyway support this proposal. –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (edit conflict) - I understand SoWhy's concern but I think that if the article is undergoing substantial improvements there is no concern with this affecting the draft. -- Dane talk 21:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a step in the right direction, although it is still insufficient. Blatantly non-notable drafts (one where no reasonable editor can make a case for notability) should be eligible for deletion either as a speedy or through a XfD process without the need to show anything else. Endorse Kudpung's DfD process. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In-the-end Support but not yet, not when the resubmissions followed a face reading of the saccharine decline template that encourages the author to edit improve and, with a big blue box, “resubmit”. The template confuses the newcomers who think this is how to communicate. The root fault lies with the AfC template and this deletion process does nothing to address it. Support for resubmissions that follow removal of the saccharine resubmit template only. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The prerequisites to precede are (1) Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Applying_A*_criteria_to_submitted_drafts and (2) fixing the AfC practice of the confusing rejection template. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I also wouldn't mind having a Drafts-for-Deletion notice board, but would prefer to save DFD for a Disambiguations for Discussions notice board. Also, if we are going to separate drafts from MfD, we should create a master deletion noticeboard where editors can see all discussions going on at AfD, MfD, CfD, RfD, and any others that are made. bd2412 T 21:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
DAB pages are dealt with at MfD. They may need to be deleted occasionally, but rarely for the reasons that junk that is received at AfC needs to specially treated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, DAB pages are usually dealt with at AfD - if the issue is deletion. More importantly, however, there are a number of non-deletion issues for which disambiguation pages require a central noticeboard, including move requests, and proposals to change an existing article or redirect to a disambiguation page (or to turn an existing disambiguation page into an article). bd2412 T 22:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
DAB pages are never dealt with at MfD but are immediately referred to AfD. DAB discussions would be better as RM discussions on the DAB talk page, except if an outcome is deletion the discussion would be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
In that case you'd better send this to RfD ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
With four incoming links, and before today an average of less than one view per ten days, rfding it would be busywork. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kvng and SoWhy. I don't agree with deleting drafts that are declined multiple times after many resubmissions since it may come off as WP:BITEY and completely unnecessary. Just undo/revert the submitter to solve the issue easily instead of MFD-ing which is a waste of time or reviewers should just leave them alone for a few weeks before declining since no one outside the community cares about the draft space and keeping the drafts around will not be detrimental to WP. What is already written is sufficient and the proposed addition could actually make it more confusing rather than give clarity. KingAndGod 22:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    You are free to vote bow you like but basing your vote on the reasoning of an editor with no AfC and extremely limited MfD experience is less convincing. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Legacypac: See above your comment to SoWhy re ad hominem. --Izno (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, absolutely, per Tony. Volunteer time is our most precious resource; we should not be forcing wasting it on reviewing and declining drafts that are tendentiously resubmitted by people not acting in good faith. ♠PMC(talk) 23:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Resubmitting the same draft over and over is a behavioral issue. Deal with the user. If it's a recurring problem, disallow it via AfC processes. If AfC allows resubmitting the same draft over and over again, don't defer to another process to fix it by deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Sanctioning new throwaway SPA accounts does not solve much. MfD is no more a seperate process from Draft space than AfD is a seperate process for Mainspace. I am unaware of any way to prevent someone from adding the AfC submit code to any page other than to block them. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, draft space should be used for things for which there's a reasonable likelihood that they can one day be an article. It should not be a dumping ground for people to write about their pet dog, nor (and I've seen this tried on multiple occasions) for an undisclosed spammer to see just how much promotional language they can get away with by making small changes and resubmitting. We either need this, or a "______ strikes, you're out" speedy criterion. At some point, repeated failed resubmissions indicate that either the author is not acting in good faith, or lacks the competence to write an article. In either case, there comes a point at which we need to say we've spent enough time on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – this is a no-brainer: this is an encyclopedia devoted to articles on notable subjects – if a draft has been determined to insufficently notable at something like AfC multiple times, and is unlikely to ever be notable, it does not belong as part of this project, even in Draftspace. WP:NOTAWEBHOST. --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - While I understand the good faith aspect here, and indeed whenever possible, if a draft has potential to become an article, they should be kept as long as they're being worked on. But unfortunately, there are many drafts on subjects that simply would be deleted quickly if they were an article. It would be better to put them out of their misery quickly as opposed to keeping them in the limbo of waiting for them to become G13 eligible. This is especially with ACTRIAL becoming permanent after all. With that said, perhaps MfD would be a better compromise as opposed to extending certain CSD criteria to drafts, since many drafts are still potential articles, and it's necessary to see which is workable and which needs to go. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Most people that repeatedly submit the same bad submission are either not acting in good faith, or are ignoring the decline reason. AfC is already heavily backlogged as it is, and besides, the MfD discussion will either have the bad-faith trash deleted, or give the (presumably somewhat good-faith) submitter a push to improve their draft. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. We are WP:NOTWEBHOST for material unsuited to our project. Sandstein 07:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this seems reasonable, it allows for people to try to bring a draft up to acceptable standards without turning draftspace into a webhost for pages which will never become articles. Hut 8.5 10:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Hut 8.5. This doesn't stop people from using user space for longer term storage, but it does give us the appropriate tool to deal with the few drafts that need to be cleaned up. Dennis Brown - 10:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This proposal makes a very bold assumption: that AFC reviewers are infallible and that if a draft has been rejected by them three times then "obviously" the draft must be worthless. the problems with AFC's lack of accountability have been discussed many times on Wikipedia and I fail to see how this does anything bu increase the lack of accountability.

    AFC reviewers are declining articles for incredibly petty reasons like not formatting a reference correctly, or "this looks notable, but can you make the article perfect", or the most obnoxious, which is the dreaded copy-pasted boilerplates that say the draft is not good, but do nothing to advise the draftee on how to improve it.

    Something many older reviewers don't realise is that new users are corralled into AFC. AFC is not mandatory for creating a page, but if you are a new user, the instructions you receive to everything to convince you that the only way to create a new page is to make a draft and submit it for review. This has given the reviewers of AFC an incredible amount of power, in a way that goes against the entire spirit of the Wiki (Collaboration). Many AFC reviewers instead of looking to improve articles, have appointed themselves unilateral quality editors and continually reject drafts that AFD would never delete. This proposal seeks to increase the power of AFC editors, but I suggest that this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Egaoblai (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Egaoblai this isn't a CSD so they aren't automatically deemed worthless. Having an MfD for those drafts declined spuriously means that they'll get attention from multiple editors and more accountability and an accept in those cases where the declines are spurious Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
At MfD we can discuss and save if the AfC reviewers are wrong Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your concerns Egaoblai but a timely MfD is likely to be an improvement on the draft ageing out and being quietly deleted G13 after 6 months. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I see this as a genuine problem and this seems like a practical way to solve it. WP:MFD will get extra eyes on them in case there's a consensus that the AFC reviewers have erred, and there's always WP:DRV as a backup as with other deletion processes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Tony and Mer-C; blocking the accounts is hard to do when they are likely in good faith etc; you'd need first need to leave specific warnings rather than encouraging AfC messages and it is basically much more effort overall. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - this seems like a measured solution to the problem. Richard0612 13:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no physical limit requiring deletion. If resubmission is an issue, it is better to retain drafts as a record of previous versions. If you start deleting versions, then further submissions will seem to be starting afresh, so causing the process to loop indefinitely. So, just as we keep our discussions and archives indefinitely, we should keep draft versions too. If they don't seem to be going anywhere, then use a category or other tag to mark their status. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Measured oppose "Repeatedly" is an interesting word, and the criterion should not be "repeatedly" but "repeatedly without prospective changes in notability" - that is, we ought to avoid burning up a draft where the notability of the topic or person has a decent chance of being altered substantially. Collect (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
if that is true for a draft that can be discussed at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - a measured proposal that doesn't try to go too far. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Something needs to be done about tendentious resubmission. Either the drafts can be deleted, or the resubmitters can be blocked, or both. Something needs to be done. I don't see a practical way to request that the fools and flacks be blocked, because WP:ANI isn't worth the drama and will probably wind up with a warning anyway, and they aren't vandals. I don't think it goes far enough, but it is better than nothing. I would like to be able to speedy drafts that have no credible claim of significance, but I know that I am in the minority there. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The issue of a draft being submitted too many times would be better addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. For example, a process of barring a draft from resubmission for a certain period of time or barring a user from submitting draft(s) to be considered for a certain period of time could be established. Let the AfC process govern itself; the problem should not be thrust directly on MfD. If AfC establishes a guideline that such drafts should be deleted (as opposed to my examples above which I believe are better options), they can cite it at MfD. WP:NMFD is not the place for such guidance to reside. All drafts inducted into the AfC process become eligible for speedy deletion per G13 after 6 months of inactivity anyhow, so I fail to see the necessity of early deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
If they get repeatedly resubmitted they never get to G13 Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per User:Robert McClenon Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a separate "drafts for discussion" page, as well as a CSD for drafts that have been declined more than 3 times without any plausible improvement. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 19:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a working solution to a real problem of NOTWEBHOST content that otherwise falls between the cracks. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support just formalizing my own personal view. If the same submission gets repeatedly submitted without correcting the problem I go from friendly to not-so-friendly in my comments with the last comment being to the effect of Do not resubmit this without correcting the issues already raised otherwise I will nominate this for deletion at MFD. It doesn't threaten the user directly, it simply explains what the consequence of them failing to read/understand/correct will be. Hasteur (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SoWhy and Amory. Besides, draftspace is exactly the place to put not-article-worthy-yet drafts. This would defeat the whole purpose of it. Besides, there are some AfC reviewers that will acept draft with lower standards, while others will wait for them to be GA-class to accept them. L293D ( • ) 02:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but only under a specific set of criteria. I agree that drafts that aren't likely to go anywhere need to be shown the door, but I'm not sure just doing it by MfD'ing everything that gets power-submitted is the way. I'd actually think a valid case could be made for drafts that fit all of the following criteria:
    1. The draft has been rejected at least five times, or has been resubmitted and rejected with no substantial edits to it three times. If someone is working on a draft and at least trying to make it work out, the likelihood of it getting rejected five times is slim to nil. On the other hand, someone who's just spamming the submit button is likely doing it for Google exposure, not to build an encyclopaedia.
    2. The draft's sources are unacceptable, and no acceptable sources are available online or off. Oftentimes the biggest hurdle to a draft is finding usable third-party sources, and newer users are less likely to understand what we deem acceptable. I would also suggest amending the decline message for lack of notability to include a link to a plain explanation of acceptable sources (which I'll probably dope up soon, since this is almost universally THE main sticking point as far as helpees in -en-help go).
    3. The draft, in addition to the above, has not been (substantially) edited for at least three months since the last decline or edit. Given that the usual backlog for AfC at present is in the neighbourhood of months (as an acknowledged consequence of ACTRIAL and ACPERM) this gives time for sources to come into existence and thus subvert the second bullet above. This is also why a WP:BEFORE check must be done before a draft gets taken to MfD. While I suggest three months (as a fair chunk of drafts are made in anticipation of a topic) this should be considered a suggestion and not a hard-and-fast rule, but it should be no less than ten weeks and no more than 6 months (when G13 kicks in anyways). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is not an area where I have a great deal of experience, but it seems to me that the "support" !votes present better arguments than do the "oppose" !votes. Having no strong personal reason to oppose, and trusting in TonyB's judgment, I support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Regardless of whether resubmitting a draft repeatedly is a behavioural issue as some argue it should be treated as, this will make it easier to get rid of problem drafts via MfD. If it is a substantive draft that is actually worth keeping, MfD will see it as such. Draftspace has been a mess for a while, and the problem isn't with the potentially publishable drafts; it's with the repeatedly resubmitted corporate spam and self-published non-notable bios. I don't see the issue here. Kb.au (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I will ask a going further, for those where consensus is at MFD that there is no clear case at mainspace WP:SNOW - then admins should be able to SALT the page. I have been seeing people recreating their useless drafts and then repeatedly recreating. Banning individual users may be in need, but we need warnings, final warnings and etc. And the user maybe able to contribute in other areas, so sometime can't ban also. Therefore, to solve the content issue, SALT the page. --Quek157 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • G4 is applicable if they blindly re-create it after an XfD debate without fixing any of its issues. We shouldn't salt the earth unless and until they prove themselves unwilling or incapable of listening to criticism of their article by repeatedly growing a new one from the ashes. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jéské Couriano:, I declined a draft with 2 - 3 can't remember previous deletion, CSD G11 (Advertising) with G4 (SALT). The admin who process initially did G4, but then said "unnecessary for draft" so then reallow creation for G4. G4 can only be used for mainspace, not draftspace, I am thinking to extend it to here. --Quek157 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
"It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion."(emphasis in italics). This is the big problem NOW at the draftspace which is this entire RfC is for. It is quite protected and is not like others. I just came back after a long hiatus and apparently it is now like that, FYI too=) --Quek157 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- I'd personally go further, in terms of Notability as a criterion, but the proposal would certainly be an improvement on the current position. KJP1 (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I do think that this would address a need. What makes it work for me is that it is directed at drafts that keep getting resubmitted without "getting the message", and that it makes it possible to decide that a draft should be deleted, as opposed to saying that a draft must be deleted. In other words, it still leaves discussion and editorial judgment in place. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is already how discussions at MfD are turning out: the community (or, at least, the portion of the community that regularly votes at MfD) feels that it is appropriate to delete tendentious resubmissions that utterly fail to address the reasons for their rejection as a way of communicating to the user that their disruption won't be tolerated without going to the extreme of bans or blocks. Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Anything not in one of the "normal" namespaces can already be nominated for MFD, and any such page will be deleted if consensus favor deletion. This isn't adding any new ideas or procedures to policy; it's simply saying what's already happening. WP:PPP. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, also support Drafts for Deletion. Having drafts with no hope of becoming articles is helpful to no one; having a dedicated drafts for deletion space will allow people specializing in drafts to watch it, as shepherding a draft into an article is a skill. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Kudpung. Amorymeltzer is exactly wrong; draft space only exists as the location for AfC's backlog. SoWhy is correct insofar as problem editors are behind the repeated submissions. Because these drafts are of interest to businesses or fan collectives where meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry is likely, deleting the draft is a more efficient practice. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: no chance of ever becoming an article & tendentious resubmissions which take up volunteer time. This is a suitable approach to addressing the issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Drafts Discussion[edit]

TBD, the whole Draft system itself, should be abolished. IMHO, it's best to let an editor create an article as a stub, then let the community gradually evolve that article. Meanwhile, individual editors can use their own sandbox to construct what they want to put into an article created by themselves or somebody else. The Draft system is just an extra layer, for editors to fight over. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that is an appropriate suggestion at all. Coming from a user who has a very high count of minor edits and not in the areas under discussion here, I wonder on what experience you actually base your comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Up until a few weeks ago, there were quite a few Draft-related disputes concerning behavior being brought to ANI. This wouldn't have occurred, if there were no Draft system. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
'Quite a few' is quantitively subjective. I'm no friend of statistics where concrete empirical evidence exists, but I would like to see that claim supported by some numbers. Are you an admin? Do you frequent ANI regularly? I do. Those issues would probably have been brought to ANI under some other reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talkcontribs)
Abolish the Draft system & the community just might be happier for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Heh, I remember the days when AfC drafts were stored in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace because the draft namespace just did not exist. Let us not return to those days. Mz7 (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Re: "Up until a few weeks ago, there were quite a few Draft-related disputes concerning behavior being brought to ANI. This wouldn't have occurred, if there were no Draft system." On those grounds, if we abolish article space we'll have no article concerns brought to ANI, and if we abolish User space we'll have no User space concerns... perhaps we should just abolish Wikipedia? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - the interpretation of the RfC that "notability criteria don't apply to draft space" continues to be tone-deaf, overly simplistic, and harmful. Of course drafts should be on notable topics; anything else fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. Deciding which is which is a task for MfD (or perhaps drafts should be handled at AfD since they're supposed to be articles) but just setting another completely arbitrary draft working limit (like "six months") is not going to do anything to address the problems identified by this proposal (which are real problems which should be addressed). It's just inviting fights about what constitutes meaningful improvement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I also endorse GoodDay's comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree but 1) I never propose RfCs that I don’t think have pre-existing consensus, and I think making N apply to all drafts at the beginning doesn’t have a chance of passing. 2) This actually expands the force of N to drafts more than it is now, while still shielding them from the brunt of it initially. It can’t be the sole reason for deletion, but a repeatedly deleted draft that fails the notability criteria and doesn’t have a chance of being in mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I just think the implementation of the RfC has been very poorly done; I get the intent, but, ugh. The notion that the draft space should be an incubating space for content intended to form part of an article, and not a junk space to hold whatever bits of writing anyone wants to drop there, seems to be a minority opinion. It's absurd to me that we allow editors to post basically anything they want in draft space, like the thousands of drafts that are nothing more than SEO listings for entirely non-notable businesses. We keep telling the authors of these articles that they "don't demonstrate notability" but our AfC messages encourage them to try again by adding more references, as though we'll decide to accept their article that's just a list of directors of their tech startup if they just pay for enough copies of their own press release, and so of course they resubmit over and over again with no meaningful improvement. There's no meaningful improvement to be made, the topic is not notable. We should empower our AfC reviewers to just come out with it and say, "this isn't notable" and punt the drafts to MfD immediately. And we can word that response as gently as we need to, we've been rejecting and deleting articles on non-notable topics for, oh, 17 years now? But if everyone who's been here a month can see that a draft on a non-notable topic is going to end up being deleted, is it more bitey to string an editor along for months and possibly years with messages telling them they just need to improve the draft a bit more before it can be an article when it never will be, or just delete it outright and say "thanks, but no"? I realize I'm ranting here and I'm probably not even really addressing the proposal at this point, but if anyone wants to really consider this, my talk page is probably a good place to respond.
Tony, to reply to your comment more briefly, a draft that doesn't have a chance of being in mainspace shouldn't need to be repeatedly [declined] before we pull the plug and delete it. In my opinion we should be able to make that determination much earlier in the process. To GoodDay's point, when a draft is reviewed we should be able to determine its article-worthiness on the first go-round, and either promote it or delete it. If it's notable but poor quality, promote it and let the usual community improvement process proceed. If it's not notable, delete it. Somehow AfC has evolved into a highly arbitrary quality pre-screening process, and I'm pretty sure that was never the intent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Ivanvector, The notion that the draft space should be an incubating space for content intended to form part of an article, and not a junk space to hold whatever bits of writing anyone wants to drop there, seems to be a minority opinion, is in fact very much a majority opinion. Our CSD criteria are very strict and narrow but there is no catchall for cases that don't completely match a criterion. I agree entirely that when a draft is reviewed we should be able to determine its article-worthiness on the first go-round, and either promote it or delete it. But we don't even do that in the harsh reality of the front-line trenches at at NPP where there are borderline cases that have to be sent to AfD, or inappropriate CSDs that admins have to decline and send to AfD. Contrary to GoodDay's point, it's not the Draft namespace that should be deprecated - it's more likely that AfC should be abolished or merged into NPP - but we're trying to come up with a compromise that will prevent that happening). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Kudpung, User:Ivanvector - I honestly didn't know that the common sense stated above was a majority opinion. It often seems that I am in the minority in thinking that draft space should be kept free of crud that will never be ready for mainspace. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but it does appear that Ivanvector and Kudpung and I are in the minority in wanting to apply common sense to what can be in drafts. Perhaps the problem is that AGF and BITE are carried to such extremes that they are allowed to override judgment about drafts. As User:Legacypac said today at my talk page, there is a culture of busybodies who have no practical experience at AFC or MFD but show up to express opinions. This is unfortunately part of a larger Wikipedia culture that it is a good idea to dump on the reviewers for not being sufficiently welcoming to new editors (even if they are fools or flacks). I honestly didn't know that Ivanvector and Kudpung and I were in a majority, when there is a culture of editors who preach platitudes about AGF and BITE without seeing the fools and flacks. (Of course new editors who have clues should be welcomed. Some do, many don't.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree. When reviewing pages at NPP, there are a lot of articles that could potentially be articles with a lot of work, but aren't good enough for article space. For example, an "article" of thoughts in bullet form with a list of references. Without the option to move this to draft space, are you suggesting that this be kept in article space or be deleted? Natureium (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, or at least extending ACTRIAL to DraftSpace. On the whole it is a big negative, mostly due to the silent cold reception given to the newcomers. They should edit mainspace before starting new topics. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course it would be better extend it to all users. We could do away with AfC altogether then, but that would defeat 50% of the object of having ACTRIAL - allowing IPs and non-confirmed user to create drafts was part of the plea bargain in order to get ACTRIAL approved at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be a possible idea to have a ClueBot NG style bot monitoring drafts and reverting resubmissions without substantial changes? I guess an edit filter won't work because it probably can't detect resubmissions but a bot could and that would be a potential time saver if human editors weren't forced to check those pages manually. Regards SoWhy 10:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    Hmm, this is beyond AI at this time. SoWhy. "What is substantial changes"? Lot of text? Lot of references?. Number of sections?. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, ClueBot NG is pretty good at spotting vandalism. But that's why I asked. A bot could at least handle cases where no changes were made, couldn't it? Regards SoWhy 11:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Actually, this isn't a bad idea. There's one draft currently being debated at MfD, where it was rejected for the seventh time for notability with the note that the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, so the person removed the Daily Mail and then re-submitted. I've also seen drafts where it was re-submitted immediately after the rejection with literally no changes. It would very easy for a bot to detect and reject these submissions. Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really have any idea what this is all about. But from a purely technical viewpoint I could quite easily train an AI program to scan for substantial changes to an article, measured by a weighted quality score rather than using any one measure. Such a program could be programed to automatically detect whether sources have been added or just slightly altered. And it would be feasible for it to detect and warn reviewers of policy violations in the text. The only reservations I have is that since no program is perfect I would not recommend you have an AI editing articles all on it's own. JLJ001 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding MfD of drafts and G13[edit]

I've heard that G13 is supposed to delete the junk from draftspace, but there's a better way. I propose that we repeal G13 and expand *some* CSD to draftspace, possibly write up new draft-specific CSD and PRODs, without actually expanding the normal PROD to draftspace (because it wouldn't be patrolled enough). Why? First off, G13 is simultaneously too fast and too slow. Too slow to delete the obvious garbage (and does nothing for repeat, unchanged, AfC submissions), and too fast to accommodate an abandoned-but-workable draft. Second, G13 is arbitrary. 6 months means nothing (see also WP:NODEADLINE). In a nutshell, more specific deletion criteria, less G13 dragnet. Thoughts? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep G13 and extend PROD to drafts. After all, it's no worse than PRODing a new article at NPP. Again, however, I come back to what I've been saying several times: Improve the Wizard so that it provides some useful instructions for new users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
G13 actually sorks in favor of good drafts. A non-AfC Draft gets the attention of an experienced user working the G13 elegable list and, if tagged for deletion, an Admin's attention. I've sent many pages to mainspace from the G13 list (but 99% that reach G13 need to go in the dust bin). Rejected AfC Drafts may be bot nominated.
MfD can function as an advertised PROD for Draftspace. If no one objects a week after nomination an Admin deletes. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
How would some sort of PROD be helpful for drafts if they're being resubmitted? That just sounds like you want to take G13 down from 6 months to 1 week. Nobody but the occasional AfC participant looks at any given draft, so any PROD-like system is just an attempt to mass-delete drafts. I don't think we have a rash of people who take a week or two off from their draft but come back and "ruin" G13 five months later. Either these pages are resubmitted to the point of disruption or they're not. ~ Amory (utc) 13:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
G13 is one of the most bizarre rules on Wikipedia. I still don't know the reason it was instituted. These arguments about "clogging" the wiki are bizarre when you consider that it's all online. Also many of the deleting admins at g13 don't even look at what they are deleting, which to me is ludicrous for a wiki that claims to be a repository of the world's knowledge. Again, what exactly is the problem here and why are people looking for ever more unilateral ways to delete potential content?Egaoblai (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you on G13, but I think it should be easier to delete drafts without potential, and other junk, so there are less junk drafts to get in the way of viable drafts. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Egaoblai, Also many of the deleting admins at g13 don't even look at what they are deleting, which to me is ludicrous, that's a strong claim. Please state on what experience you base your assumption. Provide concrete examples. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I was looking through the G13 pages in December and saw one that I thought might be worth looking at, or at the very least not deleted without a conversation. The next day I went back to find it, but it had gone. I posted on deleting user's talkpage and asked them what the reason for deletion was, they said that it was because it hadn't been edited in 6 months and that was the only reason needed to delete an article.
I posted on the admin board about this as I believed that this was not the spirit of the rule and that deleting admins at g13 were supposed to check the articles before deleting them. The incident was closed and I messaged the closing admin about it, which actually led to this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/User_talk:Primefac/Archive_14#Closing_the_Incident whereI was told that deleting admins can and do delete articles at g13 without looking at them. Winged Blades of Godric even stated that "even a GA-standard article, that for some reason has been lingering for over 6 months in draft space, could be G13-ed." Not that they neccesarily agreed with that, but that is the system that is happening right now. Do we really want the same lack of oversight to be applied to PROD too? Egaoblai (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


This is commonly known, Kudpung. It may be that most admins who patrol G13 are diligent, but – as often happens – the vast majority of G13 deletions are carried out by the minority of admins who aren't. – Uanfala (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary when I nominate G13 I save the occasional useful page and the Deleting Admins occasionally save a page I nominated so they are looking at them. We have a G13 postponed category too. We definately need G13 or the rejected and abandoned would pile up. G13 sweeps up all kinds of problematic pages, including link spam. Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow... just wow... Time for a history lesson. G13 was originally created when we had One hundred and thirty thousand pages in the space Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/ that had been created by 15-minutes-of-fame editors that had zero interest in coming back and correcting the issues raised with their submission. G13 was originally written to address AfC pages that had been 100% unedited for 6 months. Editors went through and did bulk nominations causing admins to be upset with the amount of pages G13 nomination category and with the overall size of the CSD nominations set. I developed a bot script that would procedurally go through all the pages and warn the author that the page was in danger of being deleted under G13, how they could prevent the deletion, how they could get the page back with a very low effort, and if they were a user the option of WP:USERFICATION. The bot limited the number of pages in the G13 sub-category to 50 pages at once so as to not overflow the admins. Over time the backlog was addressed, AfC moved to Draft space, Incubator moved to draft space, the G13 rule got finessed to be "unedited for 6 months (barring bot edits or trivial changes)" (which I think opens it up to discretion and uphold the more strict interpertation of the rule), and finally G13 got expanded to encompass all of Draft space. G13 was written to be a binary question Has this page been unedited for at least 6 months? If so, you may nominate for CSD:G13. The amount of Good will that is expended towards the authors whose pages get swept up by G13 is far more than any other area in Wikipedia for the simple reason that these authors are supposedly the newbies and shouldn't be bitten by not knowing all the esoteric rules of mainspace. Abolishing G13 will only create more MFD nominations. Hasteur (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • G13 was logically required, and still is. G13 cannot be repealed for as long as newcomers are encouraged to start drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • G13 is certainly required but I've found ~5% of G13-ed abandoned drafts are on notable topics which might be salvageable with work but aren't ready for mainspace. I wish there were some way of dealing with these and bringing them to the attention of a wider editor base. Robotically deleting G13s because they are eligible feels wasteful to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sticky PROD for drafts (idea)[edit]

TonyBallioni expressed these 4-points in the above proposal.

  1. repeatedly resubmitted
  2. with no improvements,
  3. has no chance of being in mainspace, and
  4. has no sourcing for uninvolved editors to show notability

There are many, many drafts that currently possess the above characteristic squarely. However, I (previously) largely opposed because, it just repeats what exists, and will not make any solid difference to how MfD is run now. Because any draft that clearly possess these characteristics, it will surely be deleted at MfD. Now we are looking for way to move forward. To agree on more process that will hasten deletion of utterly non notable drafts that otherwise didn't met any of our CSD criterion and at the same time be courteous to these new users. One of the option can be clear need for Speedy criterion for them, which has been repeatedly discussed but lacked support. So I think why should we not try special PROD for that kind of drafts?. I know something like this was discussed before, but I am outlining it more explicitly below for more thought.

  1. A draft meet all the above four characteristics.
  2. A special sticky Draft Proposed Deletion tag (DPROD) is placed by user.
  3. Once draft is tagged with DPROD tag, then it cannot be removed unless if the person wishing to remove it has thoroughly rewrote the article and moved it to mainspace. (This will serve two purposes: It will be an incentive to save salvageable drafts and at the same time any non-notable draft moved to mainspace without development will now be subjected to both WP:ACSD and AfD.)
  4. If the tag, remains in the draft after say 1 week, 2 weeks or 1 month at most; then it will be summarily deleted as expired DPROD. Any recreation is subject to rule of G4 since it is determined not notable at all and no one is willing to explain why it should stay here.

Through this method, a large number of these hopeless draft will be easily shown the way out without exhausting editors' time at MfD and at the same time ample chance is given for anybody to prove why they should stay here.

Of course, this can be tweaked and refined. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose Every single time someone makes a proposal to increase deleting things, the argument is always "but we'll only do it for the ones that are really non notable, we swear", and every single time, the dragnet is increased and increased until you have uninvolved editors, who have zero knowledge or interest in the subject of an article or draft declaring "this will never be notable". At least with the jury system of AFD these decisions have a fighting chance, but increasing the scope of what are basically unilateral deletions is not helping the Wiki with collaborative editing. Just the other week I dePRODded an article, which the nominator then sent to AFD instead, to which the community decided that the article was notable. How many articles that the community would have seen as notable have been wiped from the Wiki because of PROD? It's undemocratic and goes against the spirit of consensus, which is supposedly how this Wiki is run.Egaoblai (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Again Egaoblai you are making some very strong assumptions. The way Wikipedia is run, some examples would be needed to give weight to your opinions. Our PROD systems were introduced on very strong consensus - are you suggesting PROD is 'undemocratic' just because you found one that was kept at AfD? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
So, I have looked at your editing history and your user page and checked out the articles. I admit that more 'BEFORE' should have been done prior to listing them for deletion. But this is not a fault of the system, it's a problem of educating the users who tag them. In the case of the school article on which your arguments were excellent, your adversary has a clear pattern of singling out schools for deletion. They generally lose the school AfDs they nominate or vote on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
A system should be evaluated by how it works in practice, not in theory. Furthermore, just because a system is established by consensus does not mean the system itself is democratic. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but perhaps a normal PROD would suffice. I am reminded of recent discussions somewhere about a 3-Strike rule, but I don't recall the outcome. Perhaps a PROD following the 3rd rejection? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Prod for drafts but I prefer simply sending them to MfD as a form of advertised Prod If no one votes keep and adopts the page in a week it gets deleted without fanfare. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I am surprised there is not already some guideline providing for the deletion of drafts resubmitted after being rejected for non-notability, and where the draft has been changed little if at all since the last rejection. I certainly think this would be helpful in helping the community delete some of these drafts that clearly have no chance of becoming actual articles. But I wonder: the proposal uses the word "repeatedly"--does that mean that a draft that was rejected once, resubmitted, and then rejected again would immediately become eligible for deletion? Does "repeatedly" mean "2 times or more" here? (BTW what the answer to this question is doesn't really matter as far as my support for this proposal is concerned.) Incidentally, I might even support the use of a new CSD criterion for drafts repeatedly rejected as non-notable, where the lack of notability is obvious. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you realise how BITEY this sounds? "Hey your draft sucks and we've put a label on that means if you don't improve it in one week it's getting deleted!" If you wish to frustrate new users or people that can't afford to spend hours a day on Wikipedia, then this is the proposal for doing that. AFC reviewers are not gods and their opinion on what is notable should not supercede the community at large. Currently drafts can be deleted through MFD, which at least puts things to a public discussion. There is also G13 which is mostly hidden and allows drafts to be deleted without discussion after 6 months. Now you want to increase that power and allow drafts to be deleted after a week? based on the opinion of one person at AFC? What is with this paranoia and hand wringing about drafts. What problems are there that this is a solution to that G13 or MFD don't already solve? Please consider that for many many users here, writing a draft is a learning process and so is submitting it for review. Not every draftee is out to try and scam the wiki, many are good faith contributers, often with English as a second language who need guidance and help and community. What ever happened to that on this wiki? As far as I can tell this proposal does not allow any chance for the community to help the draftee improve the page, nor does it offer any space for the community to discuss the merits of the draft. According to the proposal one or two AFC editors could effectively blackball a topic from wikipedia and this would go unnoticed by the majority of editors, unless they were also AFC editors who happened to look in, or people who browsed Prod. This is really unacceptable for anyone who sees this as a community project. Egaoblai (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose So you'd rather take the consensus discussion that happens at MFD to individual draft pages and put a arbitrary stickey prod on it? PROD is "I propose a uncontraversial deletion". The only exception is BLPPROD, and that is foundation policy. Hasteur (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    That is not true. BLPPROD was not created by fiat because of "foundation policy" as you're wrongly implying. It was created after community consensus was found for it. Your first point doesn't make sense either. It is still uncontroversial PROD, if you object to any DPRODDED draft, then simply develop the draft to become meaningful article, move it to mainspace and remove the tag, the same way it is done for sources in BLPROD. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for drafts that, if they were articles, would not fall under BLPPROD; support ONLY for drafts on living people that would otherwise fail BLPPROD. There's absolutely no reason to apply a sticky PROD to all drafts, and as noted above it's fairly BITEy to users for whom English may not be a language they can communicate well in. (There have been a few instances in -en-help where users seeking help have "keyworded", missing most of what was being said and responding only to certain words in the message.) That said, biographical drafts do still fall under WP:BLP, and so those can and probably should be allowed to be sticky PRODded if they have absolutely no sources (or ELs that can be made into sources) whatsoever. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Jéské Couriano: You missed the requisite points raised above. This is not meant to apply to all drafts. It is meant only for draft that:
    • is repeatedly resubmitted
    • with no improvements,
    • has no chance of being in mainspace, and appears to
    • has no sourcing for uninvolved editors to show notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    To which I'm saying that those limitations are bullshit. In essence, I'm saying "apply BLPPROD standards to biographical drafts instead of making a sticky PROD standard for all drafts". Note that my argument in favour of MfD'ing unacceptable drafts above comes with caveats more along the line of those suggestions you just threw at me. I agree with the other Opposes in that this is something that seems too half-baked and, as pointed out below, the time period the grace period provides is ludicrously short, considering most drafts tend to get abandoned due to real-life concerns. The only sticky PROD debate we should be having is whether to apply BLPPROD to drafts, not whether to BITE newcomers who may not speak very good English or who (almost invariably) have real-world commitments that make this sort of PROD so bitey. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 3.Once [a] draft is tagged with DPROD tag, then it cannot be removed unless if the person wishing to remove it has thoroughly rewrote the article and moved it to mainspace. is fairly self-evidently ridiculous, but I'll explain the fundamental flaw (among the many flaws): Deletion bar improvement should not be turned into a unilateral decision by a single editor but should remain a community decision that is made through a discussion to determine consensus. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sticky and PROD don't belong together, especially not in draft which is supposed to be a safe space for article development. ~Kvng (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Draft is for article development - you got that part right. Deletion procedure is for junk/promo that is not going to be an acceptable article. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for this to work it would have to have objective criteria, things like "no chance of being in mainspace" and no evidence of notability are very subjective. The process doesn't make any sense at all. If I take a draft which has been sticky PRODed and add two sources which demonstrate that the subject is notable then I can't remove the tag. Not unless I'm also prepared to completely rewrite the article and get it ready to move it to mainspace before the clock expires. Having recreations subject to G4 doesn't make any sense either, and we don't apply it to other types of PROD. MfD is not being inundated with deletions of hopeless drafts and if it was then something closer to normal PROD would make more sense. Hut 8.5 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I appreciate the good intent of this idea, but I think it has the problem of setting a deadline for something that doesn't need a deadline. The main proposal above is in large part about the problem of drafts that keep getting resubmitted, but the proposal here is about drafts that are just sitting there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

New version of Template:Restricted use?[edit]

I thought that the current template for restricted use looked a bit simple and needed to be more obvious than it currently is.

Templates

Original:

Category:Wikipedia restricted images

New version:

[Username Needed] 08:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Article orphan clean-up RfC[edit]

There is a massive backlog of very old article orphans. I propose that we have a clean-up of these unnecessary articles where the community gets together and clears out as much of the very old orphaned articles as we can. What do you think? [Username Needed] 08:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

orphans ≠ unnecessary at all; that's what I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
If you mean deorphaning the very old articles than yes I agree. However, being an orphaned article does not mean it is not notable. I have deorphaned multiple articles that are Good Articles, and there are currently a few orphaned Good Articles as well. It just means that there are not links to it. However, you might mean articles that are unnecessarily orphaned? I'm also confused as well based on the other comments and my additional edits to my comments. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, you mean "adding the article as bluelinks to other articles" correct? Because that is how you remove orphan status. If so, I can pitch in and help such a drive. Also, I don't see how you need an RFC to do that. Maybe set up some sort of drive organization page to encourage people to help. That's about it. --Jayron32 16:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, i mean deorphaning. When I say "Clearing out the articles" I meant clearing the orphan backlog. Specifically the feb 2009 backlog. [Username Needed] 07:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but your use of "unnecessary articles" was ambiguous. I have seen the idea around that long-term orphans are ripe for deletion, which is often not true at all, as others have said. Some articles are likely to remain orphans, but still be fine. Of course many can be linked to & so cleared. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Glad to hear you want to clear out the oldest backlog. I've participated in a backlog drive for orphaned articles in 2014. Maybe that could be used as a reference. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
One thing that certainly needs cleaning-up is the organization and categorization of the clean-up pages. I found a set of pages I'd never seen before with tagged pages by topic, and after doing quite a few yesterday now I can't find it again, after a fairly long search. The "by-date" categories don't encourage good editing by those with knowledge of particular areas. There is a lot of wreckage of long-abandoned initiatives and projects that ought to cleared away, or at least delinked. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Are you referring to WikiProject Cleanup Listings? Or it could be in one of the cleanup/maintenance categories. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it was the "by category" page from that. Very handy. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Getting an alert any time someone edits any file in your user and user talk areas[edit]

For the moment you normally do not get an alert when someone edits a file in your user and user talk areas except when they edit your talk page ("leave a message").

Is there a way/an option to get an alert any time someone edits any file in your user area and user talk area including subpages?

If there isn't, would it be possible to easily add that feature, perhaps as an option?

I don't think "just add all those files to your watchlist" would be an answer. There are reasons why you wouldn't want to clutter your watchlist with those files. And since you do get an alert when your talk page is edited even though you could "just add your talk page to your watchlist" I would say that seems to be generally understood.

Thanks.

Basemetal 10:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered filtering the watchlist result on User space? Alerts should be low-noise and user subpages can generate a lot of edits. Watchlists are for monitoring higher volume pages there are filtering options to remove clutter. -- GreenC 17:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
And those filtering options only affect files in user space. How do you do that? I've looked through the Watchlist tab in my Preferences and I could see nothing that does that. Basemetal 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You could try making yourself an index of pages you want to monitor, and then subscribing to "related changes" from that page. For example, see Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Basemetal. You can subscribe to an Atom feed from that page, although I don't know the details of how to set that up. I know that's not exactly what you're looking for but it might suit the purpose. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. I'll try to understand what you're saying. Basemetal 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
This is something I've wondered about, too. Userpages in some ways represent that person and/or their work/contributions. If someone vandalizes my userpage and I weren't someone who checks my watchlist regularly, I would want to be notified. Sure, bots/vandal fighters catch a lot of these, but not all of them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Basemetal 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Related tickets: phab:T3876 and phab:T166924 ~ Amory (utc) 11:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

American English Wikipedia[edit]

No. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

Split American English Wikipedia (let's say american.wikipedia.org) and use British English on English Wikipedia as British English is the original dialect of English. That would solve all debates on which dialect of English should be used on which article. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles currently in American dialect would be moved to American English Wikipedia. Articles written Australian, NZ and Indian varieties would be converted to British English. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Extremely bad idea. Lots of work without any gain whatsoever. Also, Australian and New Zealand Englishes are perfectly legitimate and separate varieties of English. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Erkinalp9035:, you may want to see this. The wild impracticality also applies equally to this. I also suggest reading the Manual of Style on English varieties. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR is already quite adequate to deal with it. Splitting projects would be a massively excessive "solution" to an already solved problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:45, 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.

Proposal to remove the village pump[edit]

No, and if you're a "experience Wikipedier", use your main account Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

As a United citizen of the Australia, I have a propose to remove the village pump. Why, do you ask? Because villag pump does not work. Time after time, coming from an experience Wikipedier as myself, the Village pump fails to provide any resolution or support. I propose it will be replaced with a place called the Discussion section. Milchsnuck (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here, but in my experience the Village Pump works fine. What will be different about this Discussion section? TeraTIX 03:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, strange that a user with two edits decides to make both of them a proposal to remove the village pump. I really wouldn't take this seriously. Master of Time (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm indeed.TeraTIX 03:18, 19 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.

should there be a Wipedian High Council[edit]

No. Also what is with the uptick in nonsensical proposals? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

I think a group of 10 people to govern all of Wikipedia what are your thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Government Man (talkcontribs)

No. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:11, 21 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.

At AfD, enable search on multiple names for a single person[edit]

I follow AfD nominations for articles about women, and this is a recurring problem. Our current AfD tool to find news/books/etc. about the person, to determine notability, inputs a single "name," the title of the article suggested for deletion. For example, a woman may have done notable work under a previous married name but then divorced and re-taken her maiden name. Or vice versa.

Here is a related problem, for both men and women, potentially easier to solve with an algorithm. For example, if the article title includes a middle initial (e.g. Holly M. Lewis but potentially reporters write about the person using just the first and the last name. This problem also occurs for people with Spanish last-name styles such as Gina Ortiz Jones. The algorithm could simply offer a choice of including or not including a middle initial or name that is part of the article title. Would this be possible? HouseOfChange (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The AfD process adds {{Find sources AFD}} with the article name, e.g. {{Find sources AFD|Newell W. Spicer}} at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newell W. Spicer. You can manually change the name afterwards or add a second {{Find sources AFD}} (I don't know whether this is ever done). Articles are supposed to use the common name and I don't think an automatic algorithm could make a meaningful choice to change the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, PrimeHunter, that is a very helpful suggestion. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
{{Find sources AFD}} allows for multiple parameters, so you can just replace the template in the AFD with one that contains more parameters, e.g. {{Find sources AFD|Newell W. Spicer|OR "Newell Spicer"}}. See the template's documentation for details. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete blank talk pages RfC[edit]

Should we delete talk pages that are currently blank and had never contained any actual discussions? WP:TPG says not to create empty talk pages just so that they can be used in the future. My G6 tagging of Talk:Host Healthcare has been declined by GorillaWarfare, so now we need an RfC. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, but on a case to case basis: While I agree to keeping archives of talk pages for reference's sake, there are cases when there doesn't seem to be anything beneficial with keeping them as it is, e.g. with trolls that do not deserve any attention at all. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I have done plenty of IAR applications of WP:CSD#G7 to empty, single-author, namespace_talk: pages--and would be generally supportive of expanding at least this use case. Perhaps adding a "with non-substantive history" guideline along with it. I think lacking "a discussion" alone is too broad though. — xaosflux Talk 01:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no, this is dumb, and why on earth is anyone patrolling for blank talk pages? There's no valid reason to delete them (and no, it doesn't save server space.) Blank talk pages are preferred to non-blank ones because they get rid of the annoying red link and they also encourage people to actually post compared to the red link (i.e. people are going to be more likely to post on something that exists compared to one that doesn't exist). There is no meaningful difference in terms of discussion between a blank talk page and a talk page with only WikiProject banners that has never had discussion. If you come across a blank talk page, add a WikiProject banner rather than a CSD tag. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: these days pretty much all strict talk (e.g. namespace:1) talk pages get tagged, I was considering the scope of this discussion to be any talk pages. I'm quite opposed to actually encouraging creation of every possible "talk" page. Just looking at some random new pages without talk, I can't see turning Module talk:Location map/data/Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, User talk:Copystar/sandbox/The Polish-Canadian Business and Professional Association of Windsor, or TimedText talk:Bleedingloveleona.ogg.en.srt blue just to do it as very helpful. — xaosflux Talk 01:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: if an admin wants to delete those pages, sure, I don’t see the harm, but I also don’t see any harm in having them. I was thinking of articles, where I consider blue talk pages helpful. On the flip side, I consider anyone who tags a talk page for deletion as simply wasting other people’s time: an admin has to review those, and the deletions are at best a neutral, certainly not a positive. I suppose I just don’t want to encourage “blank talk page patrol” or something as pointlsss as that. Even if it’s just tagging them when you come across them, I don’t see it as contributing anything to the encyclopedia more than busy work. I guess I’m “meh” on deleting these but strongly opposed to people going around regularly tagging them. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yea, in general "article talk" pages can usually be made in to something useful. I'd oppose any bot request etc to just create pure blank pages as wasteful though. A benefit of red talk pages is: if the main page is tagged for CSD, and the talk is red - the deleting admin doesn't have to go read it to see what's going on that could impact the CSD nomination (for example a CSD objection). — xaosflux Talk 02:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I get your point here and I understand why you would want this. However, I think I'm going to have to agree with TonyBallioni on this one - it's easier as a whole to just keep them.--SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 01:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: We already have criteria for speedy deletion, the general ones apply to all pages, including talk ones. Patent nonsense, test pages, pure vandalism, comments only by banned users, talk pages of a page that is no longer there (because deleted, moved, etc), all those can be deleted if the right conditions are met. Cambalachero (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    I'm unclear why someone is trying to delete a talkpage of a page I sent to AfD while it is still at AfD? Talk pages are regularly deleted with the article. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    The admin may commit a mistake, and delete the article but not the talk page. If such a talk page is found, it may be speedily deleted (unless it was retained on purpose for some other reason). Cambalachero (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose in most cases, "blank talk pages" should have a WikiProject template on them, and not be deleted. I thought there was a Speedy Deletion criteria already for situations where the only revisions on a talk page are article content, but don't see one. In this specific situation, a deletion (and timely re-creation with WikiProject templates) would have been appropriate, but it's rare enough I see no reason to add a rule for blank pages, relying instead on WP:IAR or a (not-yet) proposed rule about "articles on talk pages". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is makework for CSD taggers and the administrators who monitor the CSD category, and with no real gain. There is no harm in a blank talk page existing (unless this is causing considerable server load that I don't know about, which I strongly doubt...), and for most articles the talk page will eventually be used for wikiproject templates and discussion. If the article isn't worth keeping, the talk page can be quickly deleted per G8 alongside the main article. But I personally have no interest in combing through random empty talk pages of existing articles just to delete them, especially when they'll probably be recreated soonafter. This RfC seems very much like a solution in search of a problem. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose pointless, give some benefit for this, and it is as easy generally to fix it; add wikiproject banners, or redirect - Obscure talk pages can often be redirected, e.g Module talk:Location map/data/Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship can be to Module talk:Location map, and there are no masses of blank talk pages either Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose GorillaWarfare's decline of the G6 was valid, since the page had history - even if that was merely a draft of the article. The page was blank at the time of the tagging for G6, but it had not always been blank; if it had been blanked by only significant contributor to the page, and also tagged for speedy deletion by that person, it could have been deleted under G7, but the blanking was done by somebody else. The subsequent (valid) speedy deletion under G8 does not change any of those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as pointless. As GorillaWarfare said, a solution in search of a problem. Richard0612 10:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose turning good, correct sysop actions into RfCs. No reason to delete, and misapplying CSD criteria certainly isn't a valid reason to ask. I would like to revisit WP:OLDIP for IP talk pages with, say, no blocks and up to two warnings 5+ years ago, but that is neither here nor there. ~ Amory (utc) 10:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Can someone name an example of a page in Talk-namespace that ought to be red-linked when the article exists? Regards SoWhy 11:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gorillawarfare and Redrose64. Thanks for the suggestion, but I can't see the problem it's trying to solve. At best tagging this pages would be a mild waste of time, at worst it would unnecessarily clog the CSD queue and cost us a very occasional piece of relevant history. We shouldn't needlessly create blank talk pages either - just leave them alone unless validly deleted as a consequence of G8 or similar for the article they're attached to. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rather than add a {{Db-g6}} template to it, editors should be encouraged to add {{Wikiproject XYZ}} instead, so that an interested Wikiproject gets notified on the article. There may be exceptions to this, but I don't see the talk page from the original post as one of those exceptions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)