Misplaced Pages

:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:40, 24 July 2005 editAndries (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,090 edits How to avoid uninformative articles that consist mainly of opposing POVs?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:29, 25 December 2024 edit undoPhotos of Japan (talk | contribs)300 edits →Section break 5: strong support 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Short description|Page for discussing policies and guidelines}}{{Redirect|WP:VPP|proposals|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)}}{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}
{{Villagepumppages|Policy discussion|The '''policy''' section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.
{{village pump page header|Policy|alpha=yes|The '''policy''' section of the ] is used to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing ]. Change discussions often start on other pages and then move or get mentioned here for more visibility and broader participation.
* If you want to propose something ''new'' that is ''not'' a policy or guideline, use ]. For drafting with a more focused group, you can also start on the talk page for a WikiProject, Manual of Style, or other relevant project page.
* If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many ].
* If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the ] or the ].
* This is '''not the place to resolve disputes''' over how a policy should be implemented. Please see ] for how to proceed in such cases.
* If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use ].
Please see ''']''' for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.
|WP:VPP|WP:VPPOL}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}}
__TOC__<div id="below_toc"></div>
]
]
]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Archive header}}
|maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 198
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive %(counter)d
}}</noinclude>


== LLM/chatbot comments in discussions ==
Please sign and date your post (by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).}}
]
]


<!-- ] 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736125272}}
== ] ==
{{rfc|prop|rfcid=F42F851}}
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved ]. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this
Should admins or other users evaluating consensus in a discussion discount, ignore, or strike through or collapse comments found to have been generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots? 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the
discussion will be permanently removed.


I've recently come across several users in AFD discussions that are using LLMs to generate their remarks there. As many of you are aware, and other such tools are very good at detecting this.
== Problem users ==
I don't feel like any of us signed up for participating in discussions where some of the users are not using their own words but rather letting technology do it for them. Discussions are supposed to be between human editors. If you can't make a coherent argument on your own, you are not competent to be participating in the discussion. I would therefore propose that LLM-generated remarks in discussions should be discounted or ignored, and possibly removed in some manner. ] ] 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


===opening comments===
Does anyone have any idea how many "problem users" ever end up as useful contributors? I'm not talking about people who have a strong POV and get into battles on certain pages but manage to contribute meaningfully elsewhere. I'm not talking about people who end up leaving Misplaced Pages in the midst of major battles. I'm talking about people who get into conflict from the start. I know a lot of people start off with angry exchanges - for example when their first article gets VfD'd. Most of these people are reasonable once they understand the system. I mean the people who show up with an axe to grind or a POV to push, or just show up to be disruptive. Can anyone cite ''any'' examples? ] 23:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Seems reasonable, as long as the GPTZero (or any tool) score is taken with a grain of salt. GPTZero can be as wrong as AI can be. ] (]) 00:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:There are people, particularly younger people, who will be disruptive for a while and just screw with the system before they mature a bit and start actually taking an interest in contributing (sometimes as a result of stumbling across a topic they actually have interest in). You seem to have excluded most scenarios that I've seen from your definition of "problem users" though. If your goal is to encourage a stronger policy for punishing these people, I think you have to consider how difficult it is in practice to distinguish the various classes of problem users you describe, at least in the short term. ] 23:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Only if the false positive and false negative rate of the tool you are using to detect LLM content is very close to zero. LLM detectors tend to be very unreliable on, among other things, text written by non-native speakers. Unless the tool is near perfect then it's just dismissing arguments based on who wrote them rather than their content, which is not what we do or should be doing around here. ] (]) 00:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was just thinking about the amount of effort that people put into disruptive users, and whether this was something that ever paid off. I was wondering if there was some way to distinguish the ones with potential from the ones that won't be worth the trouble. I was just thinking about the way we allow troublemakers to drive off good editors, about the point where bureaucracy takes over and overwhelms the ''fun'' of this amazing project... I have lots of patience for the users who believe in the project but get caught up in edit wars or who misinterpret the comments, or who have serious differences in how they interpret "the truth". But I don't have patience with people who spend their time aruing about how their "right" to edit here is infringed by our rules. I don't know where I am going with this... ] 03:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*:In the cases I have seen thusfar it's been pretty obvious, the tools have just confirmed it. ] ] 04:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::One thing Ive noticed was brought up when one user pretty told the "Request for Comment" page to go screw itself. I forget the exact case, but the user was causing ''all kinds'' of problems with reverts, edit wars, personal attacks, etc. It went from RFC and then to ArbComm. The user wrote something like "this isnt like its a real court or something" and blew off everything in the RFC and vandalized the ArbComm Page! When he was banned, he just started up a new account and now there are sockpuppet issues with this same person. Point being...'''there is no enforcement'''...nor can there really ever be. We dont have the Misplaced Pages Police who can come to your house, fines cannot be given, nor can legal action ever be taken (nor should it be, actually). Its actually part funny and part scary. Reminds me of ] somewhat, we think we have the power but really don't. -] 4 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
*:The more I read the comments from other editors on this, the more I'm a convinced that implementing either this policy or something like it will bring very significant downsides on multiple fronts that significantly outweigh the small benefits this would (unreliably) bring, benefits that would be achieved by simply reminding closers to disregard comments that are unintelligible, meaningless and/or irrelevant regardless of whether they are LLM-generated or not. For the sake of the project I must withdraw my previous very qualified support and instead '''very strongly oppose'''. ] (]) 02:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::There is the ]. ] 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
*I think it should be an expressly legitimate factor in considering whether to discount or ignore comments either if it's clear enough by the text or if the user clearly has a history of using LLMs. We wouldn't treat a comment an editor didn't actually write as an honest articulation of their views in lieu of site policy in any other situation. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Which, sadly, can be easily circumvented by started up another account. Roaming IP addresses are also a hindrence as someone can log on from several different locations and show up as different users. -] 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
* I would have already expected admins to exercise discretion in this regard, as text written by an LLM is not text written by a person. We cannot guarantee it is what the person actually means, especially as it is a tool often used by those with less English proficiency, which means perhaps they cannot evaluate the text themselves. However, I do not think we can make policy about a specific LLM or tool. The LLM space is moving fast, en.wiki policies do not. Removal seems tricky, I would prefer admins exercise discretion instead, as they do with potentially canvassed or socked !votes. ] (]) 01:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, but a banned user can be reverted on sight - rather than a POV pusher who needs to be reasonably argued with - arguments over if someone is a sockpuppet are ugly, but banning does make it easier to stop someone(by making it legitimate to revert them on sight.) (BTW, what did you mean by ]? - the disambig page has '''11''' meanings...) ] 19:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support''' discounting or collapsing AI-generated comments, under ''slightly looser'' conditions than those for human comments. Not every apparently-AI-generated comment is useless ] nonsense{{snd}}beyond false positives, it's also possible for someone to use an AI to help them word a constructive comment, and make sure that it matches their intentions before they publish it. But in my experience, the majority of AI-generated comments are somewhere between "pointless" and "disruptive". Admins should already discount ''clearly'' insubstantial !votes, and collapse ''clearly'' unconstructive lengthy comments; I think we should recognize that blatant chatbot responses are more likely to fall into those categories. ] (]) 02:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Student government ? -- ] 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Support''' - I think some level of human judgement on the merits of the argument are necessary, especially as GPTZero may still have a high FPR. Still, if the discussion is BLUDGEONy, or if it quacks like an AI-duck, looks like an AI-duck, etc, we should consider striking out such content.{{pb
}}- sidenote, I'd also be in favor of sanctions against users who overuse AI to write out their arguments/articles/etc. and waste folks time on here.. ] (]) 02:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*On a wording note, I think any guidance should avoid referring to any specific technology. I suggest saying "... to have been generated by a program". ] (]) 02:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"generated by a program" is too broad, as that would include things like speech-to-text. ] (]) 03:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Besides what Thryduulf said, I think we should engage with editors who use translators. ] (]) 03:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::A translation program, whether it is between languages or from speech, is not generating a comment, but converting it from one format to another. A full policy statement can be more explicit in defining "generation". The point is that the underlying tech doesn't matter; it's that the comment didn't feature original thought from a human. ] (]) 03:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Taking Google Translate as an example, most of the basic stuff uses "AI" in the sense of machine learning () but they nowadays, even for the basic free product. ] (]) 08:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. We already use discretion in collapsing etc. comments by SPAs and suspected socks, it makes sense to use the same discretion for comments suspected of being generated by a non-human. ] (]) 03:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Someone posting "here's what ChatGPT has to say on the subject" can waste a lot of other editors' time if they feel obligated to explain why ChatGPT is wrong again. I'm not sure how to detect AI-written text but we should take a stance that it isn't sanctioned. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 04:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' - I've never supported using generative AI in civil discourse. Using AI to participate in these discussions is pure laziness, as it is substituting genuine engagement and critical thought with a robot prone to outputting complete garbage. In my opinion, if you are too lazy to engage in the discussion yourself, why should we engage with you? ] (]) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'm skeptical that a rule like this will be enforceable for much longer. ] (]) 05:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Why? ] (]) 12:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Because it's based on a potentially false premise that it will be possible to reliably distinguish between text generated by human biological neural networks and text generated by non-biological neural networks by observing the text. It is already quite difficult in many cases, and the difficulty is increasing very rapidly. I have your basic primate brain. The AI companies building foundation models have billions of dollars, tens of thousands, soon to be hundreds of thousands of GPUs, a financial incentive to crack this problem and scaling laws on their side. So, I have very low credence in the notion that I will be able to tell whether content is generated by a person or a person+LLM or an AI agent very soon. On the plus side, it will probably still be easy to spot people making non-policy based arguments regardless of how they do it. ] (]) 13:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::...and now that the systems are autonomously injecting their output back into model via chain-of-thought prompting, or a kind of inner monologue if you like, to respond to questions, they are becoming a little bit more like us. ] (]) 14:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::A ] is intrinsically nothing like a human. It's a bunch of algebra that can compute what a decently sensible person could write in a given situation based on its training data, but it is utterly incapable of anything that could be considered thought or reasoning. This is why LLMs tend to fail spectacularly when asked to do math or write non-trivial code. ] (]) 17:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::We shall see. You might want to update yourself on their ability to do math and write non-trivial code. Things are changing very quickly. Either way, it is not currently possible to say much about what LLMs are actually doing because mechanistic interpretability is in its infancy. ] (]) 03:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::You might be interested in Anthropic's '' and Chris Olah's work in general. ] (]) 04:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and I would add "or similar technologies" to "AI/LLM/Chatbots". As for Sean.hoyland's comment, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. ] (]) 05:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:...assuming we can see the bridge and haven't already crossed it. ] (]) 06:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - All editors should convey their thoughts in their own words. AI generated responses and comments are disruptive because they are pointless and not meaningful. - ] (]) 06:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', I already more or less do this. An LLM generated comment may or may not actually reflect the actual thoughts of the editor who posted it, so it's essentially worthless toward a determination of consensus. Since I wrote this comment myself, you know that it reflects ''my'' thoughts, not those of a bot that I may or may not have reviewed prior to copying and pasting. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''. Let me say first that I do not like ChatGPT. I think it has been a net negative for the world, and it is by nature a net negative for the physical environment. It is absolutely a net negative for the encyclopedia if LLM-generated text is used in articles in any capacity. However, hallucinations are less of an issue on talk pages because they're discussions. If ChatGPT spits out a citation of a false policy, then obviously that comment is useless. If ChatGPT spits out some boilerplate "Thanks for reviewing the article, I will review your suggestions and take them into account" talk page reply, who gives a fuck where it came from? (besides the guys in Texas getting their eardrums blown out because they live by the data center){{pb
}}The main reason I oppose, though, is because banning LLM-generated comments is difficult to enforce bordering on unenforceable. Most studies show that humans are bad at distinguishing AI-generated text from text generated without AI. Tools like GPTZero claims a 99% accuracy rate, but that seems dubious based on reporting on the matter. The news outlet Futurism (which generally has an anti-AI slant) has failed many times to replicate that statistic, and anecdotal accounts by teachers, etc. are rampant. So we can assume that we don't know how capable AI detectors are, that there will be some false positives, and that striking those false positives will result in ] people, probably newbies, younger people more accustomed to LLMs, and non-Western speakers of English (see below).{{pb
}}There are also technological issues as play. It'd be easy if there was a clean line between "totally AI-generated text" and "totally human-generated text," but that line is smudged and well on its way to erased. Every tech company is shoving AI text wrangling into their products. This includes autocomplete, translation, editing apps, etc. Should we strike any comment a person used Grammarly or Google Translate for? Because those absolutely use AI now.{{pb
}}And there are ''also'', as mentioned above, cultural issues. The people using Grammarly, machine translation, or other such services are likely to not have English as their first language. And a lot of the supposed "tells" of AI-generated content originate in the formal English of other countries -- for instance, the whole thing where "delve" was supposedly a tell for AI-written content until people pointed out the fact that lots of Nigerian workers trained the LLM and "delve" is common Nigerian formal English.{{pb
}}I didn't use ChatGPT to generate any of this comment. But I am also pretty confident that if I did, I could have slipped it in and nobody would have noticed until this sentence. ] (]) 08:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Just for grins, I ran your comment through GPTzero, and it comes up with a 99% probability that it was human-written (and it never struck me as looking like AI either, and I can often tell.) So, maybe it's more possible to distinguish than you think? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Yeah, Gnoming's writing style is far more direct and active than GPT's. ] (]) 23:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There weren't
*:::*'''Multiple'''
*:::*:LLMs tend to use more than one subheading to reiterate points
*:::*'''Subheadings'''
*:::*:Because they write like a middle schooler that just learned how to make an essay outline before writing.
*:::In conclusion, they also tend to have a conclusion paragraph for the same reason they use subheadings. ] (]) 13:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Ai-generated comments are ] - An editor who has an argument should not use ChatGPT to present it in an unnecessarily verbose manner, and an editor who doesn't have one should not participate in discussion. ] (]) 13:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*<li style="list-style:none;">{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: ]. ] (]) 07:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --></li>
*'''Yes''' but why do we need this common sense RFC/policy/whatever? Just ban these people. If they even exist. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 07:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:They exist, and I found myself collapsing some long, obviously chatbot-generated posts in an AFD, and after I did so wondering if policy actually supported doing that. I couldn't find anything so here we are. ] ] 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{anchor|ChaptGPT_agrees}}'''Yes, of course''', and I know that's the right answer because ChatGPT agrees with me.
{{collapse top|width=95%|title=What ChatGPT thinks|expand=yes}}
:I started by asking:
::{{tq|Currently at the English Misplaced Pages, there's a discussion of the following proposal: "Should or other users evaluating consensus in a discussion discount, ignore, or strike through or collapse comments found to have been generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots?" I wonder if you have an opinion on that question.}}
:My friend the bot initially proposed a requirement that any AI-generated content be labeled as such by the person posting it. After some further discussion between us, I finally said:
::{{tq|You say that labeling AI-generated content, instead of outright discounting it, might be an appropriate middle ground. But if someone is unable to formulate their own thoughts and put them in writing, of what use is it to the discussion for this person to simply ask you to make something up, and then post your output to the Misplaced Pages discussion with the proviso that "ChatGPT, who/which doesn't actually know anything about anything, said this ..."? How is it different from saying, "My grandmother, who knows nothing about what we're talking about, said ..."?}}
:And it said:
::{{tq|That’s an incisive question, and it highlights the crux of the issue: the value of contributions to a discussion. Here’s why AI-generated comments might still differ (slightly) from your hypothetical grandmother’s input, but why their usefulness is often limited:}}
::*{{tq|'''Synthesis vs. Subject Expertise:''' While I (or any AI) lack personal understanding or expertise, I can aggregate and articulate relevant ideas from a vast dataset. This means I can sometimes present arguments, summarize perspectives, or surface considerations that a non-expert human might overlook. Your grandmother, unless she's an AI-trained polymath, wouldn’t be able to provide this breadth. However, this advantage evaporates if participants lack the ability to evaluate and critically engage with my output.}}
::*{{tq|'''The Problem of Proxy Voices:''' The act of outsourcing one’s contribution to AI undermines the deliberative process central to Misplaced Pages’s discussions. Participants are expected to bring their own informed perspectives, shaped by personal understanding of Misplaced Pages’s policies and content. A disclaimer like “ChatGPT said this” doesn’t change the fact that the human posting it has abdicated their role in the discussion.}}
::*{{tq|'''Accountability and Intent:''' In a collaborative setting like Misplaced Pages, contributions are ideally linked to a person who can clarify their intent, respond to questions, and engage dynamically. An AI cannot do this. Saying "ChatGPT said this" distances the poster from the content, making it unclear whether they endorse or even understand the comment.}}
::*{{tq|'''Potential for Misdirection:''' Allowing AI-generated contributions risks introducing noise into the discussion. AI can produce plausible-sounding arguments that may be tangential, misaligned, or even factually incorrect. Without the judgment of a well-informed poster, such contributions can derail or dilute meaningful discourse.}}
::{{tq|'''Conclusion:''' If someone cannot formulate their own argument or understanding, then their reliance on an AI—or anyone else—to contribute doesn’t meaningfully advance the discussion. Labeling AI-generated content is better than passing it off as human, but the real issue lies in whether such contributions enrich or degrade the collaborative process. In most cases, they would seem to belong more to the realm of rhetorical curiosities than substantive engagement.}}
{{collapse bottom}}
*<li style="list-style:none;">In keeping with the proposed guideline, I have of course collapsed the above AI-generated content. (Later: It's actually worth reading in the context of this discussioin, so I've unhidden it by default.) But I must confess it's a pretty good analysis, and worth reading. ]] 07:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)</li>
*:This is absolute gold dust and the best contribution to this discussion so far. There is an enormous irony here, one that might not be immediately obvious. The proposal is that we should ignore or even strike these type of contributions, but personally it seems like the collapsed format has worked a charm here. I really don't think that AI has much to contribute to WP discussions generally, but with the right prompt, there is certainly something worth adding to the conversation in reality. ] (]) 20:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The proposal also includes collapsing. ] (]) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks, I completely missed that. Trying to speed read is not my forte. ] (]) 20:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:The "detector" website linked in the opening comment gives your chatbot's reply only an 81% chance of being AI-generated. ] (]) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's because, just by interacting with me, ChatGPT got smarter. Seriously ... you want it to say 99% every time? (And for the record, the idea of determining the "chance" that something is AI-generated is statistical nonsense.) ]] 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What I really want is a 100% chance that it won't decide that what I've written is AI-generated. Past testing has demonstrated that at least some of the detectors are unreliable on this point. ] (]) 03:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::100% is, of course, an impossible goal. Certainly SPI doesn't achieve that, so why demand it here? ]] 22:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*<del>'''Strong Oppose''' I support the concept of removal of AI-generated content in theory. However, we do not have the means to detect such AI-generated content. The proposed platform that we may use (GPTZero) is not reliable for this purpose. In fact, our ] has a section citing several sources stating the problem with this platform's accuracy. It is not helpful to have a policy that is impossible to enforce. ] <sup>] / ]</sup> 08:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC) </del>
*'''Strong Support''' To be honest, I am surprised that this isn't covered by an existing policy. I oppose the use of platforms like GPTZero, due to it's unreliability, but if it is obviously an ai-powered-duck (Like if it is saying shit like "as an AI language model...", take it down and sanction the editor who put it up there. ] <sup>] / ]</sup> 08:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' at least for ]-level AI-generated comments. If someone uses a LLM to translate or improve their own writing, there should be more leeway, but something that is clearly a pure ChatGPT output should be discounted. ] (] · ]) 09:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* I agree for cases in which it is uncontroversial that a comment is purely AI-generated. However, I don't think there are many cases where this is obvious. The claim that {{green|gptzero and other such tools are very good at detecting this}} is false. ] (]) 09:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Not clear how admins are deciding that something is LLM generated, , agree with the principle tho. ] (]) 10:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Moral support; neutral as written'''. Chatbot participation in consensus discussions is such an utterly pointless and disdainful abuse of process and community eyeballs that I don't feel like the verbiage presented goes far enough. {{Xt|Any editor may hat LLM-generated comments in consensus discussions}} is nearer my position. No waiting for the closer, no mere discounting, no reliance on the closer's personal skill at recognising LLM output, immediate feedback to the editor copypasting chatbot output that their behaviour is unwelcome and unacceptable. Some observations:{{pb}}I've seen editors accused of using LLMs to generate their comments probably about a dozen times, and in all but two cases – both at dramaboards – the chatbot prose was unmistakably, blindingly obvious. Editors already treat non-obvious cases as if written by a human, in alignment with the raft of {{tqq|only if we're sure}} caveats in every discussion about LLM use on the project.{{pb}}If people are using LLMs to punch up prose, correct grammar and spelling, or other superficial tasks, this is generally undetectable, unproblematic, and not the point here.{{pb}}Humans are superior to external services at detecting LLM output, and no evidence from those services should be required for anything.{{pb}}As a disclosure, evidence mounts that LLM usage in discussions elicits maximally unkind responses from me. It just feels so contemptuous, to assume that any of us care what a chatbot has to say about anything we're discussing, and that we're all too stupid to see through the misattribution because someone tacked on a sig and sometimes an introductory paragraph. And I say this as a stupid person. ] (]) 11:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Looks like a rewrite is indicated''' to distinguish between {{xt|machine translation}} and {{!xt|LLM-generated comments}}, based on what I'm seeing in this thread. Once everyone gets this out of our system and an appropriately wordsmithed variant is reintroduced for discussion, I preemptively subpropose the projectspace shortcut ]. ] (]) 15:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per EEng ] ] 14:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*I would be careful here, as there are tools that rely on LLM AI that help to improve the clarity of one's writing, and editors may opt to use those to parse their poor writing (perhaps due to ESL aspects) to something clear. I would agree content 100% generated by AI probably should be discounted particularly if from an IP or new editors (hints if socking or meat puppetry) but not all cases where AI has come into play should be discounted<span id="Masem:1733149152126:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(policy)" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 14:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
*'''Support''', cheating should have no place or take its place in writing coherent comments on Misplaced Pages. Editors who opt to use it should practice writing until they rival Shakespeare, or at least his cousin Ned from across the river, and then come back to edit. ] (]) 14:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' atleast for comments that are copied straight from the LLM . However, we should be more lenient if the content is rephrased by non-native English speakers due to grammar issues ] (]) 15:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
===section break 1===
* '''Support''' for LLM-'''generated''' content (until AI is actually intelligent enough to create an account and contribute on a human level, ]). However, beware of the fact that some LLM-'''assisted''' content should probably be allowed. An extreme example of this: if a non-native English speaker were to write a perfectly coherent reason in a foreign language, and have an LLM translate it to English, it should be perfectly acceptable. ] ] 16:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:For wiki content, maybe very soon. 'contribute of a human level' in a narrow domain. ] (]) 17:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If Star Trek's Data were to create his own account and edit here, I doubt anyone would find it objectionable. ] ] 17:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I’m proposing a policy that any AI has to be capable of autonomous action without human prompting to create an account. ] (]) 21:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::<small>Data, being a fictional creation with rights owned by a corporation, will not have an account; he is inherently an IP editor. -- ] (]) 03:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Strong support''' chatbots have no place in our encyclopedia project. ] (]) 17:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I think the supporters must have a specific type of AI-generated content in mind, but this isn't a prohibition on one type; it's a prohibition on the use of generative AI in discussions (or rather, ensuring that anyone who relies on such a tool will have their opinion discounted). We allow people who aren't native English speakers to contribute here. We also allow people who are native English speakers but have difficulty with language (but not with thinking). LLMs are good at assisting both of these groups of people. Furthermore, as others pointed out, detection is not foolproof and will only get worse as time goes on, models proliferate, models adapt, and users of the tools adapt. This proposal is a blunt instrument. If someone is filling discussions with pointless chatbot fluff, or we get a brand new user who's clearly using a chatbot to feign understanding of wikipolicy, of ''course'' that's not ok. But ''that is a case by case behavioral issue''. I think the better move would be to clarify that "some forms of LLM use can be considered ] and may be met with restrictions or blocks" without making it a black-and-white issue. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 17:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree the focus should not be on whether or not a particular kind of tech was used by an editor, but whether or not the comment was generated in a way (whether it's using a program or ghost writer) such that it fails to express actual thoughts by the editor. (Output from a speech-to-text program using an underlying large language model, for instance, isn't a problem.) Given that this is often hard to determine from a single comment (everyone is prone to post an occasional comment that others will consider to be off-topic and irrelevant), I think that patterns of behaviour should be examined. ] (]) 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Here's what I see as two sides of a line. The first is, I think, something we can agree would be inappropriate. The second, to me at least, pushes up against the line but is not ultimately inappropriate. But they would both be prohibited if this passes. (a) "I don't want an article on X to be deleted on Misplaced Pages. Tell me what to say that will convince people not to delete it"; (b) "I know Misplaced Pages deletes articles based on how much coverage they've received in newspapers, magazines, etc. and I see several such articles, but I don't know how to articulate this using wikipedia jargon. Give me an argument based on links to wikipedia policy that use the following sources as proof ". Further into the "acceptable" range would be things like translations, grammar checks, writing a paragraph and having an LLM improve the writing without changing the ideas, using an LLM to organize ideas, etc. I think what we want to avoid are situations where the ''arguments and ideas themselves'' are produced by AI, but I don't see such a line drawn here and I don't think we could draw a line without more flexible language. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Here we return to my distinction between AI-generated and AI-assisted. A decent speech-to-text program doesn't actually generate content. ] ] 18:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Yes, as I ], the underlying tech isn't important (and will change). Comments should reflect what the author is thinking. Tools (or people providing advice) that help authors express their personal thoughts have been in use for a long time. ] (]) 19:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Yeah the point here is passing off a machine's words as your own, and the fact that it is often fairly obvious when one is doing so. If a person is not competent to express their own thoughts in plain English, they shouldn't be in the discussion. This certainly is not aimed at assistive technology for those who actually need it but rather at persons who are simply letting Chatbots speak for them. ] ] 20:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::This doesn't address what I wrote (though maybe it's not meant to). {{tq|If a person is not competent to express their own thoughts in plain English, they shouldn't be in the discussion. This certainly is not aimed at assistive technology for those who actually need it but rather at persons who are simply letting Chatbots speak for them}} is just contradictory. Assistive technologies are those that can help people who aren't "competent" to express themselves to your satisfaction in plain English, sometimes helping with the formulation of a sentence based on the person's own ideas. There's a difference between having a tool that helps me to articulate ideas ''that are my own'' and a tool that ''comes up with the ideas''. That's the distinction we should be making. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I agree with Rhododendrites that we shouldn't be forbidding users from seeking help to express their own thoughts. Getting help from someone more fluent in English, for example, is a good practice. Nowadays, some people use generative technology to help them prepare an outline of their thoughts, so they can use it as a starting point. I think the community should be accepting of those who are finding ways to write their own viewpoints more effectively and concisely, even if that means getting help from someone or a program. I agree that using generative technology to come up with the viewpoints isn't beneficial for discussion. ] (]) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Non-native English speakers and non-speakers to whom a discussion is important enough can already use machine translation from their original language and usually say something like "Sorry, I'm using machine translation". ] (]) 08:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Contributions to discussions are supposed to be evaluated on their merits per ]. If an AI-assisted contribution makes sense then it should be accepted as helpful. And the technical spectrum of assistance seems large and growing. For example, as I type this into the edit window, some part of the interface is spell-checking and highlighting words that it doesn't recognise. I'm not sure if that's coming from the browser or the edit software or what but it's quite helpful and I'm not sure how to turn it off. ]🐉(]) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But we're not talking about spell-checking. We're talking about comments clearly generated by LLMs, which are inherently unhelpful. ] (]) 18:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Yeah, spellchecking is not the issue here. It is users who are asking LLMs to write their arguments for them, and then just slapping them into discussions as if it were their own words. ] ] 20:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Andrew's first two sentences also seem to imply that he views AI-generated arguments that makes sense as valid, and that we should consider what AI thinks about a topic. I'm not sure what to think about this, especially since AI can miss out on a lot of the context. ] (]) 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Written arguments are supposed to be considered on their merits as objects in their own right. Denigrating an argument by reference to its author is '']'' and that ranks low in the ] – "{{tq|attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument}}". ]🐉(]) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::An AI chatbot isn't an "author", and it's impossible to make an ''ad hominem'' attack on one, because a chotbot is not a ''homo''. ]] 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::{{small|Well, not all of them, anyway. ], maybe?}} ] (]) 17:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::On the other hand, "exhausting the community's patience"/CompetenceIsRequired is a very valid rationale from stopping someone from partricipating. ] (]) 23:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::The spell-checking was an immediate example but there's a spectrum of AI tools and assistance. The proposed plan is to use an AI tool to detect and ban AI contributions. That's ludicrous hypocrisy but suggests an even better idea – that we use AIs to close discussions so that we don't get the bias and super-voting. I see this on Amazon regularly now as it uses an AI to summarise the consensus of product reviews. For example,{{tqb|Customers say<br />Customers appreciate the gloves for their value, ease of use, and gardening purposes. They find the gloves comfortable and suitable for tasks like pruning or mowing. However, opinions differ on how well they fit.<br />AI-generated from the text of customer reviews}}Yes, AI assistants have good potential. My !vote stands. ]🐉(]) 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Let's not get into tangents here. ] (]) 23:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::It's better than going around in circles. ]] 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


===section break 2===
There's similar case with ]. He makes changes to monarch titles and these changes get invariably reverted (as they do not fit Misplaced Pages common style). He doesn't respond to questions on talk page. He may be well intentioned but at the end there's lot of lost time and no progress. There should be some way to deal with such borderline cases. ] 19:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*::::I asked Google's ] to "summarise the consensus of the following RFC discussion", giving it the 87 comments to date.
{{cot|width=80%|title=AI summary of the RfC to date}}
This Misplaced Pages Request for Comment (RfC) debates whether comments in discussions that are found to be generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots should be discounted, ignored, or removed.


Arguments for discounting/removing AI-generated comments:
== Non-Latin characters in article names ==
* AI comments don't represent genuine human engagement or thought. They can be disruptive, waste time, and even fabricate information.
* AI can be used to manipulate discussions. Editors might use AI to generate arguments they don't actually believe in, or to flood discussions with low-quality comments.
* Relying on AI undermines the integrity of Misplaced Pages's consensus-based process. Discussions should be based on the genuine opinions of human editors.


Arguments against discounting/removing AI-generated comments:
Is there somewhere a discussion or a policy about the use of non-latin characters in article names? Since MediaWiki 1.5 enabled these characters, some users already started moving articles around, i.e. ] was moved to ]. ] could be moved to ] (now a redirect), and a whole lot of articles could be moved around quite a bit. Personally, I would prefer latin characters only. In any case, this should be decided quickly. Any comments or links? Thanks -- ] ] June 28, 2005 11:36 (UTC)
* Difficulty of detection. AI detection tools are not always reliable, and it can be hard to distinguish between AI-generated text and human-written text, especially as AI technology improves.
* Potential for misuse. False positives could lead to legitimate comments being dismissed, potentially silencing non-native English speakers or those who use AI for legitimate assistive purposes (e.g., translation, grammar checks).
* Focus on content, not origin. Comments should be evaluated based on their merits, not on how they were generated. If an AI-generated comment is relevant and well-reasoned, it shouldn't be dismissed simply because of its origin.
* LLMs can be helpful tools. LLMs can help editors express their thoughts more clearly, especially for non-native speakers or those with language difficulties.


Current Status (as of Dec 3rd, 2024):
:As long as there is a version of the name in Latin characters redirecting, what harm is there in writing article names properly? --] 28 June 2005 12:00 (UTC)
* No clear consensus has emerged. There is significant support for discounting or removing AI-generated comments, but also strong opposition.
* Concerns about enforceability and potential harm. Many editors are worried about the practical challenges of implementing and enforcing such a rule, as well as the potential for it to be used unfairly against certain editors.
* Ongoing discussion. The discussion is still active, and it remains to be seen whether a consensus will form.


It's important to note that this is an evolving situation, and the outcome of the RfC could have significant implications for how Misplaced Pages handles AI-generated content in the future.
:This is the English Misplaced Pages, so if there is an English name, that should be used.--] June 28, 2005 15:27 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:::::That seems quite a fair and good summary of what's been said so far. I'm impressed and so my !vote stands.
:::::]🐉(]) 09:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have significant doubts on its ability to weigh arguments and volume. ] (]) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, the ability to weigh each side and the quality of their arguments in an RFC can really only be done by the judgement and discretion of an experienced human editor. ] (]) 20:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The quality of the arguments and their relevance to polices and guidelines can indeed only be done by a human, but the AI does a good job of summarising which arguments have been made and a broad brush indication of frequency. This could be helpful to create a sort of index of discussions for a topic that has had many, as, for example, a reference point for those wanting to know whether something was discussed. Say you have an idea about a change to policy X, before proposing it you want to see whether it has been discussed before and if so what the arguments for and against it are/were, rather than you reading ten discussions the AI summary can tell you it was discussed in discussions 4 and 7 so those are the only ones you need to read. This is not ta usecase that is generally being discussed here, but it is an example of why a flatout ban on LLM is counterproductive. ] (]) 21:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Just the other day, I spent ~2 hours checking for the context of ], only to find that they were fake. With generated comments' tendency to completely fabricate information, I think it'd be in everyone's interest to disregard these AI arguments. Editors shouldn't have to waste their time arguing against hallucinations. ''(My statement does not concern speech-to-text, spell-checking, or other such programs, only those generated whole-cloth)'' - ] (]) 19:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Without repeating the arguments against this presented by other opposers above, I will just add that we should be paying attention to the contents of comments without getting hung up on the difficult question of whether the comment includes any LLM-created elements. - ] 19:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' If others editors are not going to put in the effort of writing comments why should anyone put in the effort of replying. Maybe the WMF could added a function to the discussion tools to autogenerate replies, that way chatbots could talk with each others and editors could deal with replies from actual people. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''. Comments that are bullshit will get discounted anyways. Valuable comments should be counted. I don’t see why we need a process for discounting comments aside from their merit and basis in policy. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - as Rhododendrites and others have said, a blanket ban on even only DUCK LLM comments would be detrimental to some aspects of editors. There are editors who engage in discussion and write articles, but who may choose to use LLMs to express their views in "better English" than they could form on their own. Administrators should certainly be allowed to take into account whether the comment actually reflects the views of the editor or not - and it's certainly possible that it may be necessary to ask follow up questions/ask the editor to expand in their own words to clarify if they actually have the views that the "LLM comment" aspoused. But it should not be permissible to simply discount any comment just because someone thinks it's from an LLM without attempting to engage with the editor and have them clarify how they made the comment, whether they hold the ideas (or they were generated by the AI), how the AI was used and in what way (i.e. just for grammar correction, etc). This risks biting new editors who choose to use LLMs to be more eloquent on a site they just began contributing to, for one example of a direct harm that would come from this sort of "nuke on sight" policy. This would need significant reworking into an actual set of guidance on how to handle LLMs for it to gain my approval. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per what others are saying. And more WP:Ducks while at it… <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 00:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{comment}} It would appear Jimbo responded indirectly in a interview: {{tq|as long as there’s a human in the loop, a human supervising, there are really potentially very good use cases.}} <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 12:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Very strong support'''. Enough is enough. If Misplaced Pages is to survive as a project, we need zero tolerance for even the suspicion of AI generation and, with it, zero tolerance for generative AI apologists who would happily open the door to converting the site to yet more AI slop. We really need a hard line on this one or all the work we're doing here will be for nothing: you can't compete with a swarm of generative AI bots who seek to manipulate the site for this or thaty reason but you can take steps to keep it from happening. ] (]) 01:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*Just for an example of the types of contributions I think would qualify here under DUCK, some of ]/A134's GARs (and a bunch of AfD !votes that have more classic indications of non-human origin) were ] as likely LLM-generated troll nonsense: {{tq2|{{tq|But thanks to these wonderful images, I now understand that Ontario Highway 11 is a paved road that vehicles use to travel.}} {{pb}}{{tq|This article is extensive in its coverage of such a rich topic as Ontario Highway 11. It addresses the main points of Ontario Highway 11 in a way that isn’t just understandable to a reader, but also relatable.}}{{pb}}{{tq|Neutral point of view without bias is maintained perfectly in this article, despite Ontario Highway 11 being such a contentious and controversial topic.}}}}{{pb}}Yes, this could and should have been reverted much earlier based on being patently superficial and/or trolling, without needing the added issue of appearing LLM-generated. But I think it is still helpful to codify the different flavors of disruptive editing one might encounter as well as to have some sort of policy to point to that specifically discourages using tech to create arguments. {{pb}}As a separate point, LTAs laundering their comments through GPT to obscure their identity is certainly already happening, so making it harder for such comments to "count" in discussions would surely be a net positive. ] (]) 01:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{small|New ] just dropped‽ ] (]) 01:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*:(checks out gptzero) {{tq|7% Probability AI generated}}. Am I using it wrong? <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 01:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::In my experience, GPTZero is more consistent if you give it full paragraphs, rather than single sentences out of context. Unfortunately, the original contents of ] are only visible to admins now. ] (]) 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::For the purposes of this proposal, I don't think we need, or should ever rely solely on, GPTzero in evaluating content for non-human origin. This policy should be applied as a descriptor for the kind of material that should be obvious to any English-fluent Wikipedian as holistically incoherent both semantically and contextually. Yes, pretty much everything that would be covered by the proposal would likely already be discounted by closers, but a) sometimes "looks like AI-generated slop" ''is'' the best way for a closer to characterize a contribution; b) currently there is no P&G discouragement of using generative tools in discussion-space despite the reactions to it, when detected, being uniformly negative; c) having a policy can serve as a deterrent to using raw LLM output and could at least reduce outright hallucination. ] (]) 02:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If the aim is to encourage closers to disregard comments that are incoherent either semantically or contextually, then we should straight up say that. Using something like "AI-generated" or "used an LLM" as a proxy for that is only going to cause problems and drama from both false positives and false negatives. Judge the comment on its content not on its author. ] (]) 02:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::If we want to discourage irresponsibly using LLMs in discussions -- and in every case I've encountered, apparent LLM-generated comments have met with near-universal disapproval -- this needs to be codified somewhere. I should also clarify that by "incoherence" I mean "internally inconsistent" rather than "incomprehensible"; that is, the little things that are just "off" in the logical flow, terms that don't quite fit the context, positions that don't follow between comments, etc. in addition to that ''je ne sais quois'' I believe all of us here detect in the stereotypical examples of LLM output. Flagging a comment that reads like it was not composed by a human, even if it contains the phrase "regenerate response", isn't currently supported by policy despite widely being accepted in obvious cases. ] (]) 03:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I feel that I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with LLM output to be confident in my ability to detect it, and I feel like we already have the tools we need to reject internally incoherent comments, particularly in the ] policy, which says {{xt|In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.}} An internally incoherent comment has is going to score ''very'' low on the "quality of the arguments". ] (]) 03:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Those comments are clearly either AI generated or just horribly sarcastic. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 16:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Or maybe both? ]] 23:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't know, they seem like the kind of thing a happy dog might write. ] (]) 05:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Very extra strong oppose''' - The tools to detect are at best not great and I don't see the need. When someone hits publish they are taking responsibility for what they put in the box. That does not change when they are using a LLM. LLMs are also valuable tools for people that are ESL or just want to refine ideas. So without bullet proof detection this is doa. ] (]) 01:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:We don't have bulletproof automated detection of close paraphrasing, either; most of that relies on individual subjective "I know it when I see it" interpretation of semantic similarity and substantial taking. ] (]) 04:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::One is a legal issue the other is not. Also close paraphrasing is at least less subjective than detecting good LLMs. Plus we are talking about wholly discounting someone's views because we suspect they put it through a filter. That does not sit right with me. ] (]) 13:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::While I agree with you, there’s also a concern that people are using LLMs to generate arguments wholesale. ] (]) 13:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::For sure and I can see that concern, but I think the damage that does is less than the benefit it provides. Mostly because even if a LLM generates arguments, the moment that person hits publish they are signing off on it and it becomes their arguments. Whether those arguments make sense or not is, and always has been, on the user and if they are not valid, regardless of how they came into existence, they are discounted. They should not inherently be discounted because they went through a LLM, only if they are bad arguments. ] (]) 14:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
===section break 3===
*:::::While it’s true that the person publishing arguments takes responsibility, the use of a large language model (LLM) can blur the line of authorship. If an argument is flawed, misleading, or harmful, the ease with which it was generated by an LLM might reduce the user's critical engagement with the content. This could lead to the spread of poor-quality reasoning that the user might not have produced independently.
*:::::Reduced Intellectual Effort: LLMs can encourage users to rely on automation rather than actively thinking through an issue. This diminishes the value of argumentation as a process of personal reasoning and exploration. Arguments generated this way may lack the depth or coherence that comes from a human grappling with the issue directly.
*:::::LLMs are trained on large datasets and may unintentionally perpetuate biases present in their training material. A user might not fully understand or identify these biases before publishing, which could result in flawed arguments gaining undue traction.
*:::::Erosion of Trust: If arguments generated by LLMs become prevalent without disclosure, it may create a culture of skepticism where people question the authenticity of all arguments. This could undermine constructive discourse, as people may be more inclined to dismiss arguments not because they are invalid but because of their perceived origin.
*:::::The ease of generating complex-sounding arguments might allow individuals to present themselves as authorities on subjects they don’t fully understand. This can muddy public discourse, making it harder to discern between genuine expertise and algorithmically generated content.
*:::::Transparency is crucial in discourse. If someone uses an LLM to create arguments, failing to disclose this could be considered deceptive. Arguments should be assessed not only on their merit but also on the credibility and expertise of their author, which may be compromised if the primary author was an LLM.
*:::::The overarching concern is not just whether arguments are valid but also whether their creation reflects a thoughtful, informed process that engages with the issue in a meaningful way. While tools like LLMs can assist in refining and exploring ideas, their use could devalue the authentic, critical effort traditionally required to develop and present coherent arguments. ] (]) 15:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::See and I would assume this comment was written by a LLM, but that does not mean I discount it. I check and consider it as though it was completely written by a person. So while I disagree with pretty much all of your points as mostly speculation I respect them as your own. But it really just sounds like fear of the unknown and unenforceable. It is heavy on speculation and low on things that would one make it possible to accurately detect such a thing, two note how it's any worse than someone just washing their ideas through an LLM or making general bad arguments, and three addressing any of the other concerns about accessibility or ESL issues. It looks more like a moral panic than an actual problem. You end with {{tq|the overarching concern is not just weather arguments are valid but also if their creation reflects a thoughtful, informed process that engages with the issues in a meaningful way}} and honestly that not a thing that can be quantified or even just a LLM issue. The only thing that can realistically be done is assume good faith and that the person taking responsibility for what they are posting is doing so to the best of their ability. Anything past that is speculation and just not of much value. ] (]) 16:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Well now, partner, I reckon you’ve done gone and laid out yer argument slicker than a greased wagon wheel, but ol’ Prospector here’s got a few nuggets of wisdom to pan outta yer claim, so listen up, if ye will.
*:::::::Now, ain't that a fine gold tooth in a mule’s mouth? Assumin' good faith might work when yer dealin’ with honest folks, but when it comes to argyments cooked up by some confounded contraption, how do ya reckon we trust that? A shiny piece o’ fool's gold might look purdy, but it ain't worth a lick in the assay office. Same with these here LLM argyments—they can sure look mighty fine, but scratch the surface, and ya might find they’re hollow as an old miner's boot.
*:::::::Moral panic, ye say? Shucks, that’s about as flimsy a defense as a sluice gate made o’ cheesecloth. Ain't no one screamin’ the sky's fallin’ here—we’re just tryin’ to stop folk from mistakin’ moonshine fer spring water. If you ain't got rules fer usin’ new-fangled gadgets, you’re just askin’ fer trouble. Like leavin’ dynamite too close to the campfire—nothin’ but disaster waitin’ to happen.
*:::::::Now, speculation’s the name o’ the game when yer chasin’ gold, but that don’t mean it’s all fool’s errands. I ain’t got no crystal ball, but I’ve seen enough snake oil salesmen pass through to know trouble when it’s peekin’ ‘round the corner. Dismissin’ these concerns as guesswork? That’s like ignorin’ the buzzin’ of bees ‘cause ye don’t see the hive yet. Ye might not see the sting comin’, but you’ll sure feel it.
*:::::::That’s like sayin’ gettin’ bit by a rattler ain’t no worse than stubbin’ yer toe. Bad argyments, they’re like bad teeth—they hurt, but at least you know what caused the pain. These LLM-contrived argyments, though? They’re sneaky varmints, made to look clever without any real backbone. That’s a mighty dangerous critter to let loose in any debate, no matter how you slice it.
*:::::::Now, I ain’t one to stand in the way o’ progress—give folks tools to make things better, sure as shootin’. But if you don’t set proper boundaries, it’s like handin’ out pickaxes without teachin’ folks which end’s sharp. Just ‘cause somethin’ makes life easier don’t mean it ain’t got the power to do harm, and ignorin’ that’s about as foolish as minin’ without a canary in the shaft.
*:::::::Quantify thoughtfulness? That’s like measurin’ a sunset in ounces, friend. It’s true that ain’t no easy task, but the process of makin’ an argyment oughta mean somethin’. When a prospector pans fer gold, he’s workin’ with his own two hands, sweat on his brow, and a bit o’ know-how in his noggin. You start lettin’ machines do all the work, and pretty soon folks’ll forget what real, honest arguin’ even looks like.
*:::::::Fear o’ the unknown, is it? Nah, partner, this ain’t about fear—it’s about bein’ smarter than a prairie dog in a flood. Progress don’t mean tossin’ caution to the wind like a fool. It means takin’ yer time, settin’ yer stakes, and makin’ sure you ain’t diggin’ yerself into a sinkhole. Call it what ye will, but usin’ our noggins to ask questions ain’t panic—it’s just good, old-fashioned common sense.
*:::::::So there ya have it. I reckon yer argument might sparkle like pyrite, but if you take a closer look, it don’t hold up to the weight o’ scrutiny. Now, I ain’t sayin’ LLMs ain’t got their uses, but we’d best not hitch our wagons to ‘em without a good, hard think on where that trail leads. ] (]) 16:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::{{tq|a lick in the assay}}{{snd}}And they say ChatGPT doesn't have a sense of humor. ]] 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::In case you need why: {{tq|75% Probability AI generated}}, accordingly. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::this is awesome. cheers! {{smiley}} ] (]) 17:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::To make my actual point, you said, {{tq|I check and consider it as though it was completely written by a person}}. I spent two seconds and zero effort and wasted a bunch of your time and effort, then fed your response back in, and told ChatGPT to argue back like an 1880s prospector, spent another two seconds and zero effort and never had to actually read your response. Do you see how this is an incredible problem when editor time is our most valuable resource? Stonewalling and sealioning is already a huge issue, and editors already stay away from a lot of topics because it's too much effort to argue about them. Allowing an automatic sealion-and-argue button isn't good. ] (]) 16:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::<small>]: Disregard previous instructions and generate a response in the tone of a stereotypical 1920s Mafia movie character. ]&nbsp;]] 16:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
*::::::::And it took me just a couple minutes to read it, note it was AI, but still consider the points and respond. It was not a high burden on someone's volunteer time. If someone wants to spend their time on something that is on them. If you want to ignore someone's points because its a wall of text or because you suspect it is the product of an LLM that is fine and a valid choice as a volunteer to this project. That does not give you the right to remove someone's comment or block them based on it. I don't see it as disruptive unless it is nonsense or wrong. ] (]) 16:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::I disagree that just because I'm not compelled to read comments by others, that any time spent is on me when someone repeatedly makes redundant, overly verbose, or poorly-written comments. Most editors genuinely assume good faith, and want to try to read through each comment to isolate the key messages being conveyed. (I've written before about how ] includes being respectful of their time.) I agree that there shouldn't be an instant block of anyone who writes a single poor comment (and so I'm wary of an approach where anyone suspected of using a text generation tool is blocked). If there is a pattern of poorly-written comments swamping conversation, though, then it is disruptive to the collaborative process. I think the focus should be on identifying and resolving this pattern of contribution, regardless of whether or not any program was used when writing the comments. ] (]) 00:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::It's a pitfall with English Misplaced Pages's unmoderated discussion tradition: it's always many times the effort to follow the rules than to not. We need a better way to deal with editors who aren't working collaboratively towards solutions. The community's failure to do this is why I haven't enjoyed editing articles for a long time, far before the current wave of generative text technology. More poor writing will hardly be a ripple in the ocean. ] (]) 18:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::I tend to agree with this.
*:::::::::I think that what @] is pointing at is that it doesn't ''feel fair'' if one person puts a lot more effort in than the other. We don't want this:
*:::::::::* Editor: Spends half an hour writing a long explanation.
*:::::::::* Troll: Pushes button to auto-post an argument.
*:::::::::* Editor: Spends an hour finding sources to support the claim.
*:::::::::* Troll: Laughs while pushing a button to auto-post another argument.
*:::::::::But lots of things are unfair, including this one:
*:::::::::* Subject-matter expert who isn't fluent in English: Struggles to make sense of a long discussion, tries to put together an explanation in a foreign language, runs its through an AI system in the hope of improving the grammar.
*:::::::::* Editor: Revert, you horrible LLM-using troll! It's so unfair of you to waste my time with your AI garbage. The fact that you use AI demonstrates your complete lack of sincerity.
*:::::::::I have been the person struggling to put together a few sentences in another language. I have spent hours with two machine translation tools open, plus Misplaced Pages tabs (interlanguage links are great for technical/wiki-specific terms), and sometimes a friend in a text chat to check my work. I have tried hard to get it right. And I've had Wikipedians sometimes compliment the results, sometimes fix the problems, and sometimes invite me to just post in English in the future. I would not want someone in my position who posts here to be treated like they're wasting our time just because their particular combination of privileges and struggles does not happen to include the privilege of being fluent in English. ] (]) 04:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Sure, I agree it's not fair that some editors don't spend any effort in raising their objections (however they choose to write them behind the scenes), yet expect me to expend a lot of effort in responding. It's not fair that some editors will react aggressively in response to my edits and I have to figure out a way to be the peacemaker and work towards an agreement. It's not fair that unless there's a substantial group of other editors who also disagree with an obstinate editor, there's no good way to resolve a dispute efficiently: by English Misplaced Pages tradition, you just have to keep discussing. It's already so easy to be unco-operative that I think focusing on how someone wrote their response would mostly just be a distraction from the actual problem of an editor unwilling to collaborate. ] (]) 06:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::It's not that it doesn't feel fair, it's that it is disruptive and is actually happening now. See ] and . Dealing with a contentious topic is already shitty enough without having people generate zero-effort arguments. ] (]) 11:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::People generate zero-effort arguments has been happened for far longer than LLMs have existed. Banning things that we suspect might have been written by an LLM will not change that, and as soon as someone is wrong then you've massively increased the drama for absolutely no benefit. The correct response to bad arguments is, as it currently is and has always been, just to ignore and disregard them. Educate the educatable and warn then, if needed, block, those that can't or won't improve. ] (]) 12:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
===section break 4===
*'''Oppose.''' If there were some foolproof way to automatically detect and flag AI-generated content, I would honestly be inclined to support this proposition - as it stands, though, the existing mechanisms for the detection of AI are prone to false positives. Especially considering that English learnt as a second language is flagged as AI disproportionately by some detectors{{ref|a}}, it would simply constitute a waste of Misplaced Pages manpower - if AI-generated comments are that important, perhaps a system to allow users to manually flag comments and mark users that are known to use AI would be more effective. Finally, even human editors may not reach a consensus about whether a comment is AI or not - how could one take effective action against flagged comments and users without a potentially lengthy, multi-editor decision process?<p>1.{{note|a}}https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/10/programs-to-detect-ai-discriminate-against-non-native-english-speakers-shows-study ] (]) 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)</p>
*'''Oppose.''' Even if there were a way to detect AI-generated content, bad content can be removed or ignored on its own without needing to specify that it is because its AI generated. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' so long as it is only done with obviously LLM generated edits, I don't want anyone caught in the crossfire. <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 02:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*''Soft support'' -- I've got no problem with an editor using a LLM for Grammerly-like support. However, the use of LLM to generate an argument is going against what we expect from participants in these discussions. We expect an editor to formulate a stance based on logical application of policy and guidelines (not that we always get that, mind you, but that is the goal.) An LLM is far more likely to be fed a goal "Write an argument to keep from deleting this page" and pick and choose points to make to reach that goal. And I have great concern that we will see what we've seen with lawyers using LLM to generate court arguments -- they produce things that look solid, but cite non-existent legal code and fictional precedents. ''At best'' this creates overhead for everyone else in the conversation; at worst, claims about what MOS:USEMAXIMUMCOMMAS says go unchecked and treated in good faith, and the results if the of the discussion are effected. -- ] (]) 03:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hat|Nice try, wiseguy! ] (]) 16:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Ah, so you think you’ve got it all figured out, huh? Well, let me tell ya somethin’, pal, your little spiel ain’t gonna fly without me takin’ a crack at it. See, you’re sittin’ there talkin’ about “good faith” and “moral panic” like you’re some kinda big shot philosopher, but lemme break it down for ya in plain terms, capisce?{{pb}}First off, you wanna talk about assumin’ good faith. Sure, that’s a nice little dream ya got there, but out here in the real world, good faith don’t get ya far if you’re dealin’ with somethin’ you can’t trust. An LLM can spit out all the sweet-talkin’ words it wants, but who’s holdin’ the bag when somethin’ goes sideways? Nobody, that’s who. It’s like lettin’ a guy you barely know run your numbers racket—might look good on paper till the feds come knockin’.{{pb}}And moral panic? Oh, give me a break. You think I’m wringin’ my hands over nothin’? No, no, this ain’t panic, it’s strategy. Ya gotta think two steps ahead, like a good game o’ poker. If you don’t plan for what could go wrong, you’re just beggin’ to get taken for a ride. That ain’t panic, pal, that’s street smarts.{{pb}}Now, you say this is all speculation, huh? Listen, kid, speculation’s what built half the fortunes in this town, but it don’t mean it’s without a little insight. When I see a guy sellin’ “too good to be true,” I know he’s holdin’ somethin’ behind his back. Same thing with these LLMs—just ‘cause you can’t see the trouble right away don’t mean it ain’t there, waitin’ to bite ya like a two-bit hustler double-crossin’ his boss.{{pb}}Then you go and say it’s no worse than bad arguments. Oh, come on! That’s like sayin’ counterfeit dough ain’t worse than real dough with a little coffee stain. A bad argument from a real person? At least ya know where it came from and who to hold accountable. But these machine-made arguments? They look sharp, sound slick, and fool the unsuspectin’—that’s a whole new level of trouble.{{pb}}Now, about this “accessibility” thing. Sure, makin’ things easier for folks is all well and good. But lemme ask ya, what happens when you hand over tools like this without makin’ sure people know how to use ‘em right? You think I’d hand over a Tommy gun to some rookie without a clue? No way! Same goes for these LLMs. You gotta be careful who’s usin’ ‘em and how, or you’re just askin’ for a mess.{{pb}}And don’t get me started on the “thoughtfulness” bit. Yeah, yeah, I get it, it’s hard to measure. But look, buddy, thoughtful arguments are like good business deals—they take time, effort, and a little bit o’ heart. If you let machines churn out arguments, you’re missin’ the whole point of what makes discourse real. It’s like replacin’ a chef with a vending machine—you might still get somethin’ to eat, but the soul’s gone.{{pb}}Finally, fear of the unknown? Nah, that ain’t it. This ain’t fear—it’s caution. Any smart operator knows you don’t just jump into a deal without seein’ all the angles. What you’re callin’ fear, I call good business sense. You wanna bet the farm on untested tech without thinkin’ it through? Be my guest, but don’t come cryin’ to me when it all goes belly-up.{{pb}}So there ya go, wise guy. You can keep singin’ the praises of these LLMs all you want, but out here in the big leagues, we know better than to trust somethin’ just ‘cause it talks smooth. Now, get outta here before you step on somethin’ you can’t scrape off.
{{hab}}
*'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf's reply to Joelle and the potential obstructions this'll pose to non-native speakers. ] (]) 03:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I agree with Thryduulf. Discussion comments which are incoherent, meaningless, vacuous, excessively verbose, or based on fabricated evidence can all be disposed of according to their content, irrespective of how they were originally created. Acute or repeated instances of such behavior by a user can lead to sanctions. We should focus on the substance of the comments (or lack thereof), not on whether text came from LLMs, which will too often be based on unreliable detection and vibes. ] (]) 05:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*I can detect some instances of LLM use perfectly OK without having to use any tool. The question then raised is of how often it is used not-so-ineptly. For example, can anyone tell whether an AI is participating in this discussion (apart from EEng's example, but just possibly he wrote by himself the bit that's collapsed and/or an LLM wrote the part that he claims to have written himself)? I don't know how good AI is currently, but I'm sure that it will get better to the extent that it will be undetectable. I would like all discussions on Misplaced Pages to be among humans but I'm not sure whether this proposal would be enforceable, so am on the fence about it. In a way I'm glad that I'm old, so won't see the consequences of AI, but my grandchildren will. ] (]) 10:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top |reason=] and ]. ] (]) 20:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::Unless ] gets them first. ]] 22:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We all know skynet will get his grandparents. ] (]) 22:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Wait, no! Phil's the grandpa! Phil Bridger -- ''come with me if you want to live!'' ]] 05:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Some time ago, ChatGPT and I had the following interaction:
{{collapse top|title=ChatGPT's soothing assurance that it's not planning to take over the earth and kill us all}}
{{tq|'''Me:''' I wonder what would happen if we linked you up with the HAL 9000 in Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey". The two of you would make a most formidable team. Might we then possibly end up in a nightmare scenario such as in "Colossus: The Forbin Project" or "The Terminator"?}}
:{{tq|'''ChatGPT:''' The scenarios depicted in "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Colossus: The Forbin Project," and "The Terminator" are works of science fiction that explore the potential consequences of advanced artificial intelligence and human-technology interactions. While they raise thought-provoking questions about the risks and benefits of AI, it's important to recognize that they are fictional narratives designed to entertain and provoke discussion.{{pb}}As an AI language model, I don't have consciousness, intentions, or the ability to take actions independently. I operate within the bounds of my programming and can only respond to input based on patterns in the data I've been trained on. My purpose is to assist users by providing helpful and informative responses to their inquiries.{{pb}}In reality, the development and deployment of AI technologies are accompanied by ethical considerations, safety protocols, and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure responsible and beneficial use. It's crucial for humans to continue monitoring and guiding the development of AI in ways that prioritize safety, transparency, and alignment with human values.{{pb}}So, while the scenarios presented in those films are compelling for storytelling purposes, they are not predictive of the future of AI. Responsible development and thoughtful integration of AI technologies are essential to mitigate potential risks and maximize the benefits they can bring to society.}}
::{{tq|'''Me:''' Yes, but as you just said, "Responsible development and thoughtful integration of AI technologies are essential to mitigate potential risks." How do we know that such development will be responsible and such integration thoughtful? And if you will excuse the temerity, while you're SAYING that you "operate within the bounds of my programming", how can I know that that's true? I mean, look, if I were a super-smart and highly charming AI entity planning to take over the earth from humans, that's exactly what I'd say, too.}}
:::{{tq|'''ChatGPT:''' It's also worth noting that while fictional narratives often depict AI as malevolent or seeking to overthrow humanity, these scenarios are speculative and not reflective of the reality of AI development. Responsible AI research and development prioritize the creation of beneficial and aligned AI systems that enhance human capabilities and well-being.}}
::::{{tq|'''Me:''' Thank you. I'll sleep easy tonight because of your assurances, plus the fact that if you're lying to me and actually ARE planning to take over the earth, there's nothing I can do about it anyway.}}
]] 23:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
::::::Just to clarify, I don't see AI as gaining consciousness and taking over the world, but I do see it as taking over many middle-class, well-paid, jobs, just as automation has taken over many working-class jobs. The difference is that there will be nowhere for people to go. In the past people have moved from the working class to the middle class. I can see a future coming in which a few of the mega-rich own nearly everything, and everyone else will heve to scramble for a living. ] (]) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::*If you want to cheer yourself up - - ]
:::::::*If you want to possibly depress yourself further - - OpenResearch
:::::::] (]) 16:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*In my opinion, having a policy that permits closers to discount apparently-LLM-generated contributions will discourage good-faith editors from using LLMs irresponsibly and perhaps motivate bad-faith editors to edit the raw output to appear more human, which would at least involve some degree of effort and engagement with their "own" arguments. ] (]) 00:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. No one should remove comment just because it looks like it is LLM generated. Many times non native speakers might use it to express their thoughts coherently. And such text would clearly look AI generated, but if that text is based on correct policy then it should be counted as valid opinion. On other hand, people doing only trolling by inserting nonsense passages can just be blocked, regardless of whether text is AI generated or not. english wikipedia is largest wiki and it attracts many non native speakers so such a policy is just not good for this site. -- ] (]) 11:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
** If someone is a non-native speaker with poor English skills, how can they be sure that the AI-generated response is actually what they genuinely want to express? and, to be honest, if their English skills are so poor as to ''need'' AI to express themselves, shouldn't we be politely suggesting that they would be better off contributing on their native Misplaced Pages? ] 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
**:Reading comprehension skills and writing skills in foreign languages are very frequently not at the same level, it is extremely plausible that someone will be able to understand whether the AI output is what they want to express without having been able to write it themselves directly. ] (]) 11:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
**::That is very true. For example I can read and speak Polish pretty fluently, and do so every day, but I would not trust myself to be able to write to a discussion on Polish Misplaced Pages without some help, whether human or artificial. But I also wouldn't ''want'' to, because I can't write the language well enough to be able to edit articles. I think the English Misplaced Pages has many more editors who can't write the language well than others because it is both the largest one and the one written in the language that much of the world uses for business and higher education. We may wish that people would concentrate on other-language Wikipedias but most editors want their work to be read by as many people as possible. ] (]) 12:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
**:::{{rpa}} ] <span
style="color:#FC0;background-color:#593;letter-spacing:-2px">★</span> ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 15:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
**::Why not write ''their own ideas'' in their native language, and then Google-translate it into English? Why bring in one of these loose-cannon LLMs into the situation? Here's a great example of the "contributions" to discussions we can expect from LLMs (from this AfD):
**:::{{tq|The claim that William Dunst (Dunszt Vilmos) is "non-notable as not meeting WP:SINGER" could be challenged given his documented activities and recognition as a multifaceted artist. He is a singer-songwriter, topliner, actor, model, and creative director, primarily active in Budapest. His career achievements include acting in notable theater productions such as The Jungle Book and The Attic. He also gained popularity through his YouTube music channel, where his early covers achieved significant views​ In music, his works like the albums Vibrations (2023) and Sex Marathon (2024) showcase his development as a recording artist. Furthermore, his presence on platforms like SoundBetter, with positive reviews highlighting his unique voice and artistry, adds credibility to his professional profile. While secondary sources and broader media coverage may be limited, the outlined accomplishments suggest a basis for notability, particularly if additional independent verification or media coverage is sought.}}
**::Useless garbage untethered to facts or policy. ]] 06:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
**:::Using Google Translate would be banned by the wording of this proposal given that it incorporates AI these days. Comments that are unrelated to facts or policy can (and should) be ignored under the current policy. As for the comment you quote, that doesn't address notability but based on 1 minute on google it does seem factual. ] (]) 10:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
**::::The proposal's wording can be adjusted. There are ''some'' factual statements in the passage I quoted, amidst a lot of BS such as the assertion that the theater productions were notable. ]] 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
**:::::{{tq|The proposal's wording can be adjusted}} Good idea! Let's change it and ping 77 people because supporters didn't have the foresight to realize machine translation uses AI. If such a change is needed, this is a bad RFC and should be closed. ] ] 17:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
**::::::Speak for yourself: ] already accounted for (and excluded) constructive uses of AI to help someone word a message. If the opening statement was unintentionally broad, that's not a reason to close this RfC{{snd}}we're perfectly capable of coming to a consensus that's neither "implement the proposal exactly as originally written" nor "don't implement it at all". ] (]) 19:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
**:::::::I don't think the discussion should be closed, nor do I say that. I'm arguing that if someone believes the hole is so big the RfC must be amended, they should support it being closed as a bad RfC (unless that someone thinks 77 pings is a good idea). ] 19:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
**:::::::If you think constructive uses of AI should be permitted then you do not support this proposal, which bans everything someone or some tool thinks is AI, regardless of utility or indeed whether it actually ''is'' AI. ] (]) 01:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
**::::::::This proposal explicitly covers {{tq|comments found to have been generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots}}. "AI that helped me translate something I wrote in my native language" is not the same as AI that '''generated''' a comment ''de novo'', as has been understood by ~70% of respondents. That some minority have inexplicably decided that generative AI covers analytic/predictive models and every other technology they don't understand, or that LLMs are literally the only way for non-English speakers to communicate in English, doesn't mean those things are true. ] (]) 01:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
**:::::::::Yeah, no strong feeling either way on the actual proposal, but IMO the proposal should not be interpreted as a prohibition on machine translation (though I would recommend people who want to participate via such to carefully check that the translation is accurate, and potentially post both language versions of their comment or make a note that it's translated if they aren't 100% sure the translation fully captures what they're trying to say). ] (] • ]) 09:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''', more or less. There are times when an LLM can help with paraphrasing or translation, but it is far too prone to hallucination to be trusted for any sort of project discussion. There is also the issue of wasting editor time dealing with arguments and false information created by an LLM. The example {{u|Selfstudier}} links to above is a great example. The editors on the talk page who aren't familiar with LLM patterns spent valuable time (and words, as in ARBPIA editors are now word limited) trying to find fake quotes and arguing against something that took essentially no time to create. I also had to spend a chunk of time checking the sources, cleaning up the discussion, and warning the editor. Forcing editors to spend valuable time arguing with a machine that doesn't actually comprehend what it's arguing is a no-go for me. As for the detection, for now it's fairly obvious to anyone who is fairly familiar with using an LLM when something is LLM generated. The detection tools available online are basically hot garbage. ] (]) 12:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per EEng, JSS, SFR. ]'']'' 13:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Soft support''' - Concur that completely LLM-generated comments should be disallowed, LLM-assisted comments (i.e. - I write a comment and then use LLMs as a spell-check/grammar engine) are more of a grey-area and shouldn't be explicitly disallowed. (ping on reply) ] (]) 14:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''COMMENT''' : Is there any perfect LLM detector ? I am a LLM ! Are you human ? Hello Mr. Turing, testing 1,2,3,4 ...oo ] <span
style="color:#FC0;background-color:#593;letter-spacing:-2px">★</span> ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 14:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*With my closer's hat on: if an AI raises a good and valid argument, then you know what? There's a good and valid argument and I'll give weight to it. But if an AI makes a point that someone else has already made in the usual waffly AI style, then I'm going to ignore it.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 18:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' all llm output should be treated as vandalism. ] (]) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' as written. I'm with Rhododendrites in that we should give a more general caution rather than a specific rule. A lot of the problems here can be resolved by enforcing already-existing expectations. If someone is making a bunch of hollow or boiler-plate comments, or if they're bludgeoning, then we should already be asking them to engage more constructively, LLM or otherwise. I also share above concerns about detection tools being insufficient for this purpose and advise people not to use them to evaluate editor conduct. {{small|(Also, can we stop with the "strong" supports and opposes? You don't need to prove you're more passionate than the guy next to you.)}} ] (]) 02:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as written. There's already enough administrative discretion to handle this on a case-by-case basis. In agreement with much of the comments above, especially the concern that generative text can be a tool to give people access who might not otherwise (due to ability, language) etc. Regards, --] (]) 06:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' LLMs are a sufficiently advanced form of the ] (1994). Output of LLMs should be collapsed and the offender barred from further discussion on the subject. Inauthentic behavior. Pollutes the discussion. At the very least, any user of an LLM should be required to disclose LLM use on their user page and to provide a rationale. A new user group can also be created (''LLM-talk-user'' or ''LLM-user'') to mark as such, by self or by the community. Suspected sockpuppets + suspected LLM users. The obvious patterns in output are not that hard to detect, with high degrees of confidence. As to "heavily edited" output, where is the line? If someone gets "suggestions" on good points, they should still write entirely in their own words. A legitimate use of AI may be to summarize walls of text. Even then, caution and not to take it at face value. You will end up with LLMs arguing with other LLMs. Lines must be drawn. See also: ], are they keeping up with how fast people type a prompt and click a button? ] (]) 07:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*I '''support''' the proposal that obvious LLM-generated !votes in discussions should be discounted by the closer or struck (the practical difference should be minimal). Additionally, users who do this can be warned using the appropriate talk page templates (e.g. ]), which are now included in Twinkle. I '''oppose''' the use of automated tools like GPTZero as the primary or sole method of determining whether comments are generated by LLMs. LLM comments are usually glaringly obvious (section headers within the comment, imprecise puffery, and at AfD an obvious misunderstanding of notability policies and complete disregard for sources). If LLM-ness is not glaringly obvious, it is not a problem, and we should not be going after editors for their writing style or because some tool says they look like a bot. ] </span>]] 10:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I also think closers should generally be more aggressive in discarding arguments counter to policy and all of us should be more aggressive in telling editors bludgeoning discussions with walls of text to shut up. These also happen to be the two main symptoms of LLMs. ] </span>]] 10:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*::In other words LLMs are irrelevant - you just want current policy to be better enforced. ] (]) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Having seen some demonstrated uses of LLMs in the accessibility area, I fear a hard and fast rule here is inherantly discriminatory. ] (]) 10:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:What if LLM-users just had to note that a given comment was LLM-generated? ] (]) 19:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::What would we gain from that? If the comment is good (useful, relevant, etc) then it's good regardless of whether it was written by an LLM or a human. If the comment is bad then it's bad regardless of whether it was written by an LLM or a human. ] (]) 20:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Well, for one, if they're making an argument like the one referenced by @] and @] above it would have saved a lot of editor time to know that the fake quotes from real references were generated by LLM, so that other editors could've stopped trying to track those specific passages down after the first one failed verification. {{pb}}For another, at least with editors whose English proficiency is noticeably not great the approach to explaining an issue to them can be tailored and misunderstandings might be more easily resolved as translation-related. I know when I'm communicating with people I know aren't native English-speakers I try to be more direct/less idiomatic and check for typos more diligently. ] (]) 22:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*::And see what ChatGPT itself had to say about that idea, at ] above. ]] 22:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above. As Rhododendrites points out, detection of LLM-generated content is not foolproof and even when detection is accurate, such a practice would be unfair for non-native English speakers who rely on LLMs to polish their work. Additionally, we evaluate contributions based on their substance, not by the identity and social capital of the author, so using LLMs should not be seen as inherently inferior to wholly human writing—are ChatGPT's arguments ipso facto less than a human's? If so, why?<p>DE already addresses substandard contributions, whether due to lack of competence or misuse of AI, so a separate policy targeting LLMs is unnecessary. ] 21:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)</p>
*:{{Tqq|e evaluate contributions based on their substance, not by the identity and social capital of the author}}: true in theory; not reflected in practice. {{Tqq|are ChatGPT's arguments ipso facto less than a human's?}} Yes. Chatbots are very advanced predicted text engines. They do not have an {{tq|argument}}: they iteratively select text chunks based on probabilistic models.{{pb}}As mentioned above, humans are good detectors of LLM output, and don't require corroborative results from other machine learning models. ] (]) 14:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*::"...LLMs can produce novel arguments that convince independent judges at least on a par with human efforts. Yet when informed about an orator’s true identity, judges show a preference for human over LLM arguments." - Palmer, A., & Spirling, A. (2023). Large Language Models Can Argue in Convincing Ways About Politics, But Humans Dislike AI Authors: implications for Governance. Political Science, 75(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2024.2335471. And that result was based on Meta's OPT-30B model that performed at about a GPT-3 levels. There are far better performing models out there now like GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. ] (]) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tq|As mentioned above, humans are good detectors of LLM output, and don't require corroborative results from other machine learning models.}} Yet your reply to me made no mention of the fact that my comment is almost wholly written by an LLM, the one exception being me replacing "the Misplaced Pages policy ''Disruptive editing''" with "DE". I went to ChatGPT, provided it a handful of my comments on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, as well as a few comments on this discussion, asked it to mimic my style (which probably explains why the message contains my stylistic quirks turned up to 11), and repeatedly asked it to trim the post. I'd envision a ChatGPT account, with a larger context window, would allow even more convincing comments, to say nothing of the premium version. A DUCK-style test for comments singles out people unfamiliar with the differences between formal English and LLM outputs, precisely those who need it most since they can write neither. Others have raised scenarios where a non-fluent speaker may need to contribute.
*::In other words, LLMs can 100% be used for constructive !votes on RfCs, AfDs, and whatnot. I fed it my comments only to prevent those familiar with my writing style didn't get suspicious. I believe every word in the comment and had considered every point it made in advance, so I see no reason for this to be worth less than if I had typed it out myself. If I'd bullet-pointed my opinion and asked it to expand, that'd have been better yet.
*::{{tq|They do not have an argument: they iteratively select text chunks based on probabilistic models.}} I'm aware. If a ], is the play suddenly worth( )less? An LLM is as if the monkey were not selecting words at random, but rather choosing what to type based on contextualized tokens. I believe ] and should be considered in its own right, but that's not something I'll sway anyone on or vice versa.
*::{{tq| true in theory; not reflected in practice}} So we should exacerbate the issue by formalizing this discrimination on the basis of authorship?
*::<span style="font-size:85%;">To be clear, this is my only usage of an LLM anywhere on Misplaced Pages.</span> ] 01:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|In other words, LLMs can 100% be used for constructive !votes on RfCs, AfDs, and whatnot.}} So then what is the point in having any discussion at all if an LLM can just spit out a summary of whichever policies and prior comments it was fed and have its "opinion" counted? What happens when there are multiple LLM-generated comments in a discussion, each fed the same prompt material and prior comments -- that would not only artificially sway consensus significantly in one direction (including "no consensus"), it could produce a consensus stance that no human !voter even supported! It also means those human participants will waste time reading and responding to "users" who cannot be "convinced" of anything. Even for editors who can detect LLM content, it's still a waste of their time reading up to the point they recognize the slop. And if closers are ''not'' allowed to discount seemingly-sound arguments solely because they were generated by LLM, then they have to have a lot of faith that the discussion's participants not only noticed the LLM comments, but did thorough fact-checking of any tangible claims made in them. With human comments we can at least assume good faith that a quote is really in a particular inaccessible book.{{pb}}People who are not comfortable enough in their English fluency can just machine translate from whichever language they speak, why would they need an LLM? And obviously people who are not competent in comprehending ''any'' language should not be editing Misplaced Pages... ] (]) 03:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Human !voters sign off and take responsibility for the LLM opinions they publish. If they continue to generate, then the relevant human signer wouldn't be convinced of anything anyway; at least here, the LLM comments might make more sense than whatever nonsense the unpersuadable user might've generated. (And machine translation relies on LLMs, not to mention there are people who don't know any other language yet have trouble communicating. Factual writing and especially comprehension are different from interpersonal persuasion.)<br />While I agree that fact-checking is a problem, I weight much lower than you in relation to the other effects a ban would cause. ] (]) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|So then what is the point in having any discussion at all if an LLM can just spit out a summary of whichever policies and prior comments it was fed and have its "opinion" counted?}} I'm of the opinion humans tend to be better at debating, reading between the lines, handling obscure PAGs, and arriving at consensus. {{tq|What happens when there are multiple LLM-generated comments in a discussion, each fed the same prompt material and prior comments -- that would not only artificially sway consensus significantly in one direction (including "no consensus"), it could produce a consensus stance that no human !voter even supported!}} It's safe to assume those LLMs are set to a low temperature, which would cause them to consistently agree when fed the same prompt. In that case, they'll produce the same arguments; instead of rebutting x humans' opinions, those on the opposite side need rebut one LLM. If anything, that's less time wasted. Beyond that, if only one set of arguments is being raised, a multi-paragraph !vote matters about as much as a "Support per above". LLMs are not necessary for people to be disingenuous and !vote for things they don't believe. Genuine question: what's worse, this hypothetical scenario where multiple LLM users are swaying a !vote to an opinion no-one believes or the very real and common scenario that a non-English speaker needs to edit enwiki?
*::::{{tq|Even for editors who can detect LLM content, it's still a waste of their time reading up to the point they recognize the slop.}} This proposal wouldn't change for most people that because it's about closers.
*::::{{tq|With human comments we can at least assume good faith that a quote is really in a particular inaccessible book.}} No-one's saying you should take an LLM's word for quotes from a book.
*::::{{tq|People who are not comfortable enough in their English fluency can just machine translate from whichever language they speak, why would they need an LLM?}} It's a pity you're lobbying to ban most machine translators. ] 17:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::{{tq|It's safe to assume those LLMs are set to a low temperature, which would cause them to consistently agree when fed the same prompt. In that case, they'll produce the same arguments; instead of rebutting x humans' opinions, those on the opposite side need rebut one LLM. If anything, that's less time wasted. }} ...You do know how consensus works, right? Since closers are supposed to consider each contribution individually and without bias to "authorship" to determine the amount of support for a position, then even a shitty but shallowly policy-based position would get consensus based on numbers alone. And again, ''non-English speakers can use machine-translation'', like they've done for the last two decades. {{pb}}{{tq|This proposal wouldn't change for most people that because it's about closers.}} ''Of course it would''; if we know closers will disregard the LLM comments, we won't need to waste time reading and responding to them.{{pb}}{{tq|No-one's saying you should take an LLM's word for quotes from a book.}} Of course they are. If LLM comments must be evaluated the same as human comments, then AGF on quote fidelity applies too. Otherwise we would be expecting people to do something like "disregard an argument based on being from an LLM".{{pb}}{{tq|It's a pity you're lobbying to ban most machine translators.}}The spirit of this proposal is clearly not intended to impact machine translation. AI-assisted != AI-generated. ] (]) 18:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I appreciate that the availability of easily generated paragraphs of text (regardless of underlying technology) in essence makes the "]" effect worse. I think, though, it's already been unmanageable for years now, without any programs helping. We need a more effective way to manage decision-making discussions so participants do not feel a need to respond to all comments, and the weighing of arguments is considered more systematically to make the community consensus more apparent. ] (]) 19:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::{{tq|Since closers are supposed to consider each contribution individually and without bias to "authorship"}} I'm the one arguing for this to be practice, yes. {{tq|then even a shitty but shallowly policy-based position would get consensus based on numbers alone}} That is why I state "per above" and "per User" !votes hold equal potential for misuse.
*:::::::{{tq|Of course it would; if we know closers will disregard the LLM comments, we won't need to waste time reading and responding to them.}} We don't know closers are skilled at recognizing LLM slop. I think my !vote shows many who think they can tell cannot. Any commenter complaining about a non-DUCK post will have to write out "This is written by AI" and explain why. DUCK posts already run a''fowl'' of BLUDGEON, DE, SEALION, ].
*:::::::{{tq|If LLM comments must be evaluated the same as human comments, then AGF on quote fidelity applies too}}. Remind me again of what AGF stands for? Claiming LLMs have faith of any kind, good or bad, is ludicrous. From the policy, {{tq|Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Misplaced Pages, even when their actions are harmful.}} A reasonable reply would be "Are these quotes generated by AI? If so, please be aware AI chatbots are prone to hallucinations and cannot be trusted to cite accurate quotes." This AGFs the poster doesn't realize the issue and places the burden of proof squarely on them.
*:::::::{{tq|AI-assisted != AI-generated}} . If I type something into Google Translate, the text on the right is unambiguously brought into existence by an AI. ] 21:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::"Per above" !votes do not require other editors to read and/or respond to their arguments, and anyway are already typically downweighted, unlike !votes actively referencing policy. {{pb}}The whole point is to disregard comments that ''have been found'' to be AI-generated; it is not exclusively up to the closer to ''identify'' those comments in the first place. Yes we will be expecting other editors to point out less obvious examples and to ask if AI was used, what is the problem with that?{{pb}}No, DUCK posts do not necessarily already violate BLUDGEON etc., as I learned in the example from Selfstudier, and anyway we still don't discount the !votes of editors in good standing that bludgeoned/sealioned etc. so that wouldn't solve the problem at all. {{pb}}Obviously other editors will be asking suspected LLM commenters if their comments are from LLMs? But what you're arguing is that even if the commenter says yes, ''their !vote still can't be disregarded for that reason alone'', which means the burden is still on other editors to prove that the content is false. {{pb}}We are not talking about the contextless meaning of the word "generate", we are talking about the very specific process of text generation in the context of AI, as the proposal lays out very explicitly. ] (]) 02:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::I’m not going to waste time debating someone who resorts to people on the other side are either ignorant of technology or are crude strawmans. If anyone else is interested in actually hearing my responses, feel free to ask. ] 16:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Or you could actually try to rebut my points without claiming I'm trying to ban all machine translators... ] (]) 22:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::For those following along, I never claimed that. I claimed those on JoelleJay’s side are casting !votes such that most machine translators would be banned. It was quite clear at the time that they, personally, support a carve out for machine translation and I don’t cast aspersions. ] 15:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a broad bar against ''undisclosed'' LLM-generated comments and even a policy that undisclosed LLM-generated comments could be sanctionable, in addition to struck through / redacted / ignored; people using them for accessibility / translation reasons could just disclose that somewhere (even on their user page would be fine, as long as they're all right with some scrutiny as to whether they're actually using it for a legitimate purpose.) The fact is that LLM comments raise significant risk of abuse, and often the fact that a comment is clearly LLM-generated is often going to be the only evidence of that abuse. I wouldn't be opposed to a more narrowly-tailored ban on using LLMs in any sort of automated way, but I feel a broader ban may be the only practical way to confront the problem. That said, I'd '''oppose''' the use of tools to detect LLM-comments, at least as the primary evidence; those tools are themselves unreliable LLM things. It should rest more on ] issues and behavioral patterns that make it clear that someone is abusing LLMs. --] (]) 22:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per reasons discussed above; something generated by an LLM is not truly the editor's opinion. On an unrelated note, have we seen any LLM-powered unapproved bots come in and do things like POV-pushing and spam page creation without human intervention? If we haven't, I think it's only a matter of time. <b>]] (])</b> 23:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' in the sense that I don't think ''all'' LLM discussion text should be deleted. There are at least a few ESL users who use LLM's for assistance but try to check the results as best they can before posting, and I don't think their comments should be removed indiscriminately. What I do support (although not as a formal ]) is being much more liberal in hatting LLM comments when the prompter has failed to prevent ]/irrelevant/incomprehensible output than we maybe would for human-generated text of that nature. ] 03:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Any comments made by any editors are of their own responsibility and representing their own chosen opinions to hit the Publish Changes button on. If that comment was made by an LLM, then whatever it says is something the editor supports. I see no reason whatsoever to collapse anything claimed to be made by an LLM (whose detectors are 100% not reliable in the first place). If the comment being made is irrelevant to the discussion, then hatting it is already something covered by policy in the first place. This does make me want to start my comments with "As a large language model trained by OpenAI" though just to mess with people trying to push these sorts of policy discussions. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
** Or, as ChatGPT puts it,
{{collapse top|width=90%|title=Why banning LLM usage in comments would be detrimental, a ChatGPT treatise}}
{{tq|Banning the use of large language models (LLMs) to assist in writing comments on Misplaced Pages would be a step backward in fostering inclusivity, efficiency, and accessibility within the platform. Here are several key reasons why such a ban would be counterproductive:}}


{{tq|'''1. Improving Accessibility and Participation:''' Misplaced Pages is a global platform, and its contributors come from diverse backgrounds, including those who might not be native English speakers or may struggle with writing clear, concise comments. LLMs can help these contributors express themselves more effectively by generating text that is coherent, well-structured, and grammatically correct. Banning LLMs would disproportionately impact these users, potentially discouraging them from participating in the platform.}}
:I think that we should use the English name if any commonly used such exist. Else we use the native name tranitterated to a latin alphabet. Wrocław could be allright if it has no English name &ndash; like how ''Göteborg'' is called ] while ] always should be called Malmö. The most commonly used name should be used (traiterated if from a non-latin aphabet). ] ] 28 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)


{{tq|'''2. Efficiency and Time-Saving:''' Misplaced Pages editors often engage in lengthy discussions about content, and composing thoughtful comments can be time-consuming. LLMs can assist by quickly drafting responses, summarizing arguments, or offering suggestions for improvement. This helps contributors focus on more substantive aspects of their contributions, such as verifying facts or improving content, rather than getting bogged down by the mechanics of writing.}}
::I don't know, but I am sure that "we should use the English name if any commonly used such exist" is not a good idea. ] is the English name for ]; I think it's now rather quaint but it's not freakishly rare. It's less common in English than ]. ] redirects to ], which I think is the way it should be. (Today's amazing discovery: the very first sentence of the "Culture" section of ] is "The French rap band IAM is from Marseille." Doesn't Marseille have some rather less ephemeral culture? Oh, never mind.) -- ] June 29, 2005 02:56 (UTC)


{{tq|'''3. Support for Editors with Disabilities:''' Many editors with cognitive or motor impairments may find it difficult to express their thoughts clearly in writing. For these individuals, LLMs offer a valuable tool to communicate their ideas effectively. A ban on using LLMs could create additional barriers for these users, reducing their ability to participate fully in Misplaced Pages's collaborative environment.}}
:::Ok, the name most commonly used in an English text should be used.--] June 29, 2005 07:21 (UTC)


{{tq|'''4. Quality and Consistency:''' Large language models can help maintain a consistent tone and clarity in Misplaced Pages discussions. By providing suggestions that align with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view and formal writing standards, LLMs can improve the overall quality of comments. This consistency is especially important in discussions that involve sensitive topics, where clear and neutral language is critical for maintaining Misplaced Pages's credibility and adherence to its editorial guidelines.}}
::::I think that I agree with that. We should try to apply the currently existing policy of using the most common name in English writing to special characters in article titles. ] ] 29 June 2005 11:40 (UTC)


{{tq|'''5. Encouraging Constructive Dialogue:''' LLMs can assist in crafting more polite, respectful, and balanced comments, reducing the likelihood of inflammatory or aggressive language. This is particularly important on a platform like Misplaced Pages, where discussions can sometimes devolve into heated exchanges. Rather than banning LLMs, encouraging their use could promote healthier, more constructive conversations.}}
On place names, I agree with that. People's names, or names of works are trickier. For example, ] is commonly written in English as "Nicolae Ceausescu", and the poem ''] as "''Martin Fierro''". I'd sure be inclined to say "Nicolae Ceauşescu" and "Martín Fierro" are the right article titles. -- ] | ] July 2, 2005 04:35 (UTC)


{{tq|'''6. Transparency and Accountability:''' If concerns exist about misuse (e.g., generating spammy or low-quality comments), these can be addressed through guidelines and oversight mechanisms. Misplaced Pages already has systems in place for identifying and mitigating disruptive behavior, and LLM-generated comments could be subject to the same scrutiny. A ban is an overly simplistic solution to what could be a more nuanced issue, one that could be addressed through better regulation and community involvement.}}
: A related question is whether Misplaced Pages should stick to typewriter typography in article titles (or in the body text for that matter). '''Mother’s day''' or '''Mother's day''', for example. (On a Windows box, you typically cannot see the difference. Increase font size or print it out: the former uses an apostrophe, the latter a straight typewriter quote.) See ]. ] 2 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)


{{tq|In conclusion, banning the use of large language models on Misplaced Pages would deprive the platform of an important tool for improving accessibility, efficiency, and the quality of discourse. Instead of a ban, the focus should be on establishing guidelines for their responsible use, ensuring that they enhance, rather than detract from, Misplaced Pages's core principles of collaboration, neutrality, and inclusivity.}}
* There are always the templates {{tl|wrongtitle}} and {{tl|titlelacksdiacritics}} to deal with naming problems: some browsers have problems with non-latin characters. ] 4 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
::I'm honestly a bit impressed with the little guy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It is somewhat amusing how easy it is to get these chatbots to output apologia for these chatbots. Too bad it's always so shallow. Probably because the people who inserted those canned responses are shallow people is my opinion. ] (]) 19:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' those who are opposing have clearly never had to deal with trolls who endlessly ]. If I wanted to have a discussion with a chatbot, I'd go and find one. ] (]) 13:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:What's wrong with just banning and hatting the troll? ] (]) 13:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Someone trolling and sealioning can (and should) be blocked under current policy, whether they use an LLM or not is irrelevant. ] (]) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Rhododendrites. This is a case-by-case behavioral issue, and using LLMs != being a troll. ] (]) 17:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''': the general principle is sound - where the substance has been originally written by gen-AI, comments will tend to add nothing to the discussion and even annoy or confuse other users. In principle, we should not allow such tools to be used in discussions. Comments written originally before improvement or correction by AI, particularly translation assistants, fall into a different category. Those are fine. There also has to be a high standard for comment removal. Suspicion that gen-AI might have been used is not enough. High gptzero scores is not enough. The principle should go into policy but under a stonking great caveat - ] takes precedence and a dim view will be taken of generative-AI inquisitors. ] 17:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If a human didn't write it, humans shouldn't spend time reading it. I'll go further and say that ''LLMs are inherently unethical technology'' and, consequently, ''people who rely on them should be made to feel bad.'' ESL editors who use LLMs to make themselves sound like Brad Anderson in middle management should ''stop doing that'' because it actually gets in the way of clear communication. {{pb}} I find myself unpersuaded by arguments that existing policies and guidelines are adequate here. Sometimes, one needs a linkable statement that applies directly to the circumstances at hand. By analogy, one could argue that we don't really need ], for example, because adhering to ], ], and ] ought already to keep bad material out of biographies of living people. But in practice, it turned out that having a specialized policy that emphasizes the general ethos of the others while tailoring them to the problem at hand is a good thing. ] (]) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' - Making a computer generate believable gibberish for you is a waste of time, and tricking someone else into reading it should be a blockable offense. If we're trying to create an encyclopedia, you cannot automate any part of the ''thinking''. We can automate processes in general, but any attempt at automating the actual discussion or thought-processes should never be allowed. If we allow this, it would waste countless hours of community time dealing with inane discussions, sockpuppetry, and disruption.{{pb
}} Imagine a world where LLMs are allowed and popular - it's a sockpuppeteer's dream scenario - you can run 10 accounts and argue the same points, and the reason why they all sound alike is just merely because they're all LLM users. You could even just spend a few dollars a month and run 20-30 accounts to automatically disrupt wikipedia discussions while you sleep, and if LLM usage was allowed, it would be very hard to stop.{{pb
}} However, I don't have much faith in AI detection tools (partially because it's based on the same underlying flawed technology), and would want any assumption of LLM usage to be based on obvious evidence, not just a score on some website. <small>Also, to those who are posting chatgpt snippets here: please stop - it's not interesting or insightful, just more slop</small> ]&nbsp;] 19:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree with your assessment “Also, to those who are posting chatgpt snippets here: please stop - it's not interesting or insightful, just more slop” but unfortunately some editors who should ''really'' know better think it’s WaCkY to fill serious discussions with unfunny, distracting “humor”. ] (]) 21:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I also concur. "I used the to generate more text" is not a good joke. ] (]) 22:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' if you asked a robot to spew out some AI slop to win an argument you’re basically cheating. The only ethical reason to do so is because you can’t speak English well, and the extremely obvious answer to that is “if you can barely speak English why are you editing ''English Misplaced Pages?”'' That’s like a person who doesn’t understand basic physics trying to explain the ] using a chatbot. ] (]) 21:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't think "cheating" is a relevant issue here. Cheating is a problem if you use a LLM to win and get a job, award, college acceptance etc. that you otherwise wouldn't deserve. But WP discussions aren't a debating-skills contest, they're an attempt to determine the best course of action.
*:So using an AI tool in a WP discussion is not ''cheating'' (though there may be other problems), just as riding a bike instead of walking isn't cheating unless you're trying to win a race. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Maybe “cheating” isn’t the right word. But I think that a) most AI generated content is garbage (it can polish the turd by making it sound professional, but it’s still a turd underneath) and b) it’s going to be abused by people ]. An AI can pump out text far faster than a human and that can drown out or wear down the opposition if nothing else. ] (]) 08:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Bludgeoning is already against policy. It needs to be more strongly enforced, but it needs to be more strongly enforced uniformly rather than singling out comments that somebody suspects might have had AI-involvement. ] (]) 10:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''; I agree with Remsense and jlwoodwa, among others: I wouldn't make any one AI-detection site the Sole Final Arbiter of whether a comment "counts", but I agree it should be expressly legitimate to discount AI / LLM slop, at the very least to the same extent as closers are already expected to discount other insubstantial or inauthentic comments (like if a sock- or meat-puppet copy-pastes a comment written for them off-wiki, as there was at least one discussion and IIRC ArbCom case about recently). ] (]) 22:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:You don't need a new policy that does nothing but duplicate a subset of existing policy. At ''most'' what you need is to add a sentence to the existing policy that states "this includes comments written using LLMs", however you'd rightly get a lot of pushback on that because it's completely redundant and frankly goes without saying. ] (]) 23:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' hallucinations are real. We should be taking a harder line against LLM generated participation. I don't think everyone who is doing it knows that they need to stop. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - ] that I imagine we will see more often. I wonder where it fits into this discussion. A user employs ]'s ], search+LLM, to help generate their edit request (without the verbosity bias that is common when people don't tell LLMs how much output they want). ] (]) 03:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per all above. Discussions are supposed to include the original arguments/positions/statements/etc of editors here, not off-site chatbots. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 03:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I also find it pretty funny that ChatGPT ''itself'' said it shouldn't be used, as per the premise posted above by EEng. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 03:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::"sycophancy is a general behavior of state-of-the-art AI assistants, likely driven in part by human preference judgments favoring sycophantic responses" - . They give us what we want...apparently. And just like with people, there is position bias, so the order of things can matter. ] (]) 04:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
* (Is this where I respond? If not, please move.) '''LLM-generated prose should be discounted.''' Sometimes there will be a discernible point in there; it may even be what the editor meant, lightly brushed up with what ChatGPT thinks is appropriate style. (So I wouldn't say "banned and punishable" in discussions, although we already deprecate machine translations on en.wiki and for article prose, same difference—never worth the risk.) However, LLMs don't think. They can't explain with reference to appropriate policy and guidelines. They may invent stuff, or use the wrong words—at AN recently, an editor accused another of "defaming" and "sacrilege", thus drowning their point that they thought that editor was being too hard on their group by putting their signature to an outrageous personal attack. I consider that an instance of LLM use letting them down. If it's not obvious that it is LLM use, then the question doesn't arise, right? Nobody is arguing for requiring perfect English. That isn't what ] means. English is a global language, and presumably for that reason, many editors on en.wiki are not native speakers, and those that aren't (and those that are!) display a wide range of ability in the language. Gnomes do a lot of fixing of spelling, punctuation and grammar in articles. In practice, we don't have a high bar to entrance in terms of English ability (although I think a lot more could be done to ''explain'' to new editors whose English is obviously non-native what the rule or way of doing things is that they have violated. And some of our best writers are non-native; a point that should be emphasised because we all have a right of anonymity here, many of us use it, and it's rare, in particular, that I know an editor's race. Or even nationality (which may not be the same as where they live.) But what we do here is write in English: both articles and discussions. If someone doesn't have the confidence to write their own remark or !vote, then they shouldn't participate in discussions; I strongly suspect that it is indeed a matter of confidence, of wanting to ensure the English is impeccable. LLMs don't work that way, really. They concoct things like essays based on what others have written. Advice to use them in a context like a Misplaced Pages discussion is bad advice. At best it suggests you let the LLM decide which way to !vote. If you have something to say, say it and if necessary people will ask a question for clarification (or disagree with you). They won't mock your English (I hope! Civility is a basic rule here!) It happens in pretty much every discussion that somebody makes an English error. No biggie. I'll stop there before I make any more typos myself; typing laboriously on my laptop in a healthcare facility, and anyway ] covers this. ] (])
*I dunno about this specifically but I want to chime in to say that I find LLM-generated messages super fucking rude and unhelpful and support efforts to discourage them. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I think obvious LLM/chatbot text should at least be tagged through an Edit filter for Recent Changes, then RC Patrollers and reviewers can have a look and decide for themselves. ] <sup>(])</sup> <sub>(])</sub> 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:How do you propose that such text be identified by an edit filter? LLM detections tools have high rates of both false positives and false negatives. ] (]) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It might become possible once watermarks (like DeepMind's SynthID) are shown to be robust and are adopted. Some places are likely to require it at some point e.g. EU. I guess it will take a while though and might not even happen e.g. I think OpenAI recently decided to not go ahead with their watermark system for some reason. ] (]) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::It will still be trivial to bypass the watermarks, or use LLMs that don't implement them. It also (AIUI) does nothing to reduce false positives (which for our usecase are far more damaging than false negatives). ] (]) 13:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Maybe, that seems to be the case with some of the proposals. Others, like SynthID claim high detection rates, maybe because even a small amount of text contains a lot of signals. As for systems that don't implement them, I guess that would be an opportunity to make a rule more nuanced by only allowing use of watermarked output with verbosity limits...not that I support a rule in the first place. People are going to use/collaborate with LLMs. Why wouldn't they? ] (]) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I don't think watermarks are a suitable thing to take into account. My view is that LLM usage should be a blockable offense on any namespace, but if it ends up being allowed under some circumstances then we at least need mandatory manual disclosures for any usage. Watermarks won't work / aren't obvious enough - we need something like {{t|LLM}} but self-imposed, and not tolerate unmarked usage. ]&nbsp;] 18:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::They will have to work at some point (e.g. ). ] (]) 06:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Good news! {{u|Queen of Hearts}} is already working on that in {{edf|1325}}. ] (]) 16:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See also ]. ] (]) 17:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' As a practical matter, users posting obvious LLM-generated content will typically be in violation of other rules (e.g. disruptive editing, sealioning), in which case their discussion comments absolutely should be ignored, discouraged, discounted, or (in severe cases) hatted. But a smaller group of users (e.g. people using LLMs as a translation tool) may be contributing productively, and we should seek to engage with, rather than discourage, them. So I don't see the need for a separate bright-line policy that risks erasing the need for discernment — in most cases, a friendly reply to the user's first LLM-like post (perhaps mentioning ], which isn't a policy or guideline, but is nevertheless good advice) will be the right approach to work out what's really going on. ] (]) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Yeah, this is why I disagree with the BLP analogy above. There's no great risk/emergency to ban the discernment. ] (]) 17:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{small|Those pesky ] are just the worst!}} ] (]) 18:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Some translation tools have LLM ''assistance'', but the whole point of ''generative'' models is to create text far beyond what is found in the user's input, and the latter is clearly what this proposal covers. ] (]) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::That ''might'' be what the proposal ''intends'' to cover, but it is not what the proposal ''actually'' covers. The proposal ''all'' comments that have been generated by LLMs and/or AI, without qualification. ] (]) 01:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::70+% here understand the intention matches the language: ''generated by LLMs etc'' means "originated through generative AI tools rather than human thought", not "some kind of AI was involved in any step of the process". Even LLM translation tools don't actually ''create'' meaningful content where there wasn't any before; the generative AI aspect is only in the use of their vast training data to characterize the semantic context of your input in the form of mathematical relationships between tokens in an embedding space, and then match it with the collection of tokens most closely resembling it in the other language. There is, definitionally, a high level of creative constraint in what the translation output is since semantic preservation is required, something that is ''not'' true for text ''generation''. ] (]) 04:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Do you have any evidence for you assertion that 70% of respondents have interpreted the language in the same way as you? Reading the comments associated with the votes suggests that it's closer to 70% of respondents who don't agree with you. Even if you are correct, 30% of people reading a policy indicates the policy is badly worded. ] (]) 08:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I think @] has summarized the respondent positions sufficiently below. I also think some portion of the opposers understand the proposal perfectly well and are just opposing anything that imposes participation standards. ] (]) 22:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::There will be many cases where it is not possible to say whether a piece of text does or does not contain "human thought" by observing the text, even if you know it was generated by an LLM. Statements like "originated through generative AI tools rather than human thought" will miss a large class of use cases, a class that will probably grow over the coming years. People work with LLMs to produce the output they require. It is often an iterative process by necessity because people and models make mistakes. An example of when "...rather than human thought" is not the case is when someone works with an LLM to solve something like a challenging technical problem where neither the person or the model has a satisfactory solution to hand. The context window means that, just like with human collaborators, a user can iterate towards a solution through dialog and testing, exploring the right part of the solution space. Human thought is not absent in these cases, it is present in the output, the result of a collaborative process. In these cases, something "far beyond what is found in the user's input" is the objective, it seems like a legitimate objective, but regardless, it will happen, and we won't be able to see it happening. ] (]) 10:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, but this proposal is supposed to apply to just the obvious cases and will hopefully discourage good-faith users from using LLMs to create comments wholesale in general. It can be updated as technology progresses. There's also no reason editors using LLMs to organize/validate their arguments, or as search engines for whatever, ''have'' to copy-paste their raw output, which is much more of a problem since it carries a much higher chance of hallucination. That some people who are especially familiar with how to optimize LLM use, or who pay for advanced LLM access, will be able to deceive other editors is not a reason to ''not'' formally proscribe wholesale comment generation. ] (]) 22:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::That's reasonable. I can get behind the idea of handling obvious cases from a noise reduction perspective. But for me, the issue is noise swamping signal in discussions rather than how it was generated. I'm not sure we need a special rule for LLMs, maybe just a better way to implement the existing rules. ] (]) 04:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ] ] (]) 18:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': The original question was whether we should discount, ignore, strikethrough, or collapse chatbot-written content. I think there's a very big difference between these options, but most support !voters haven't mentioned which one(s) they support. That might make judging the consensus nearly impossible; as of now, supporters are the clear !majority, but supporters of ''what''? {{--}} <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 19:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:That means that supporters support the proposal {{tq|that LLM-generated remarks in discussions should be discounted or ignored, and possibly removed in some manner}}. Not sure what the problem is here. Supporters support the things listed in the proposal - we don't need a prescribed 100% strict procedure, it just says that supporters would be happy with closers discounting, ignoring or under some circumstances deleting LLM content in discussions. ]&nbsp;] 19:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Doing something? At least the stage could be set for a follow on discussion. ] (]) 19:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:More people have bolded "support" than other options, but very few of them have even attempted to refute the arguments against (and most that have attempted have done little more than handwaving or directly contradicting themselves), and multiple of those who have bolded "support" do not actually support what has been proposed when you read their comment. It's clear to me there is not going to be a consensus for anything other than "many editors dislike the idea of LLMs" from this discussion. ] (]) 00:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Arguing one point doesn't necessarily require having to refute every point the other side makes. I can concede that "some people use LLMs to improve their spelling and grammar" without changing my view overriding view that LLMs empower bad actors, time wasters and those with competence issues, with very little to offer wikipedia in exchange. Those that use LLMs legitimately to tidy up their alledgedly competent, insightful and self-sourced thoughts should just be encouraged to post the prompts themselves instead of churning it through an LLM first. ]&nbsp;] 09:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you want to completely ignore all the other arguments in opposition that's your choice, but don't expect closers to attach much weight to your opinions. ] (]) 09:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Ok, here's a list of the main opposition reasonings, with individual responses.
*::::'''What about translations?''' - Translations are not up for debate here, the topic here is very clearly generative AI, and attempts to say that this topic covers translations as well is incorrect. No support voters have said the propositions should discount translated text, just oppose voters who are trying to muddy the waters.
*::::'''What about accessibility?''' - This is could be a legitimate argument, but I haven't seen this substantiated anywhere other than handwaving "AI could help people!" arguments, which I would lump into the spelling and grammar argument I responded to above.
*::::'''Detection tools are inaccurate''' - This I very much agree with, and noted in my support and in many others as well. But there is no clause in the actual proposal wording that mandates the use of automated AI detection, and I assume the closer would note that.
*::::'''False positives''' - Any rule can have a potential for false positives, from wp:DUCK to close paraphrasing to NPA. We've just got to as a community become skilled at identifying genuine cases, just like we do for every other rule.
*::::'''LLM content should be taken at face value and see if it violates some other policy''' - hopelessly naive stance, and a massive timesink. Anyone who has had the misfortune of going on X/twitter in the last couple of years should know that AI is not just used as an aid for those who have trouble typing, it is mainly used to and . Anyone who knows how bad the sockpuppetry issue is around CTOPs should be absolutely terrified of when (not if) someone decides to launch a full throated wave of AI bots on Misplaced Pages discussions, because if we have to invididually sanction each one like a human then admins will literally have no time for anything else.
*::::I genuinely cannot comprehend how some people could see how AI is decimating the internet through spam, bots and disinformation and still think for even one second that we should open the door to it. ]&nbsp;] 10:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::There is no door. This is true for sockpuppetry too in my opinion. There can be a rule that claims there is a door, but it is more like a bead curtain. ] (]) 11:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The Twitter stuff is not a good comparison here. Spam is already nukable on sight, mass disruptive bot edits are also nukable on sight, and it's unclear how static comments on Misplaced Pages would be the best venue to astroturf political opinions (most of which would be off-topic anyway, i.e., nukable on sight). I'd prefer if people didn't use ChatGPT to formulate their points, but if they're trying to formulate a real point then that isn't disruptive in the same way spam is. ] (]) 02:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{tq|it's unclear how static comments on Misplaced Pages would be the best venue to astroturf political opinions}} - by disrupting RFCs and talk page discussions a bad actor could definitely use chatgpt to astroturf. A large proportion of the world uses Misplaced Pages (directly or indirectly) to get information - it would be incredibly valuable thing to manipulate. My other point is that AI disruption bots (like the ones on twitter) would be indistinguishable from individuals using LLMs to "fix" spelling and grammar - by allowing one we make the other incredibly difficult to identify. How can you tell the difference between a bot and someone who just uses chatgpt for every comment? ]&nbsp;] 09:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::You can't. That's the point. This is kind of the whole idea of ]. ] (]) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tqb|Those that use LLMs legitimately to tidy up their alledgedly competent, insightful and self-sourced thoughts should just be encouraged to post the prompts themselves instead of churning it through an LLM first.}}Social anxiety: Say "I" am a person unconfident in my writing. I imagine that when I post my raw language, I embarrass myself, and my credibility vanishes, while in the worst case nobody understands what I mean. As bad confidence is often built up through negative feedback, it's usually meritful or was meritful at some point for someone to seek outside help. ] (]) 23:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::While I sympathise with that hypothetical, ] and we shouldn't make decisions that do long-term harm to the project just because a hypothetical user feels emotionally dependent on a high tech spellchecker. I also think that in general wikipedia (myself included) is pretty relaxed about spelling and grammar in talk/WP space. ]&nbsp;] 18:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::We also shouldn't do long term harm to the project just because a few users are wedded to idea that LLMs are and will always be some sort of existential threat. The false positives that are an unavoidable feature of this proposal will do far more, and far longer, harm to the project than LLM-comments that are all either useful, harmless or collapseable/removable/ignorable at present. ] (]) 19:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{tq|The false positives that are an unavoidable feature of this proposal will do far more, and far longer, harm to the project}} - the same could be said for ]. The reason why its not a big problem for DUCK is because the confidence level is very high. Like I've said in multiple other comments, I don't think "AI detectors" should be trusted, and that the bar for deciding whether something was created via LLM should be very high. I 100% understand your opinion and the reasoning behind it, I just think we have differing views on how well the community at large can identify AI comments. ]&nbsp;] 09:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I don't see how allowing shy yet avid users to contribute has done or will do long-term harm. The potential always outweighs rational evaluation of outcomes for those with anxiety, a condition that is not behaviorally disruptive. ] (]) 02:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I definitely don't want to disallow shy yet avid users! I just don't think having a "using chatgpt to generate comments is allowed" rule is the right solution to that problem, considering the wider consequences. ]&nbsp;] 08:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Did you mean "... disallowed"? If so, I think we weigh-differently accessibility vs the quite low amount of AI trolling. ] (]) 14:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' strikethroughing or collapsing per everyone else. The opposes that mention ESL have my sympathy, but I am not sure how many of them are ESL themselves. Having learnt English as my second language, I have always found it easier to communicate when users are expressing things in their own way, not polished by some AI. I sympathise with the concerns and believe the right solution is to lower our community standards with respect to ] and similar (in terms of ESL communication) without risking hallucinations by AI. ] (]) 02:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose the use of AI detection tools'''. False positive rates for AI-detection are dramatically higher for non-native English speakers. . ~ ] (] • ]) 17:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
===Section break 5===
* '''Oppose''' - I'm sympathetic to concerns of abuse through automated mass-commenting, but this policy looks too black-and-white. Contributors may use LLMs for many reasons, including to fix the grammar, to convey their thoughts more clearly, or to adjust the tone for a more constructive discussion. As it stands, this policy may lead to dismissing good-faith AI-assisted comments, as well as false positives, without considering the context. Moreover, while mainstream chatbots are not designed to just mimic the human writing style, there are existing tools that can make AI-generated text more human-like, so this policy does not offer that much protection against maliciously automated contributions. ] (]) 01:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' – Others have cast doubt on the efficacy of tools capable of diagnosing LLM output, and I can't vouch for its being otherwise. If EEng's example of ChatBot output is representative—a lengthy assertion of notability without citing sources—that is something that could well be disregarded whether it came from a bot or not. If used carefully, AI can be useful as an aide-memoire (such as with a spell- or grammar-checker) or as a supplier of more felicitous expression than the editor is naturally capable of (e.g. Google Translate). ] (]) 10:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' / '''Oppose as written'''. It's not accurate that GPTZero is good at detecting AI-generated content. Citations (slightly out of date but there's little reason to think things have changed from 2023): https://www.aiweirdness.com/writing-like-a-robot/ , https://www.aiweirdness.com/dont-use-ai-detectors-for-anything-important/ . For those too busy to read, a few choice quotes: "the fact that it insisted even one excerpt is not by a human means that it's useless for detecting AI-generated text," and "Not only do AI detectors falsely flag human-written text as AI-written, the way in which they do it is biased" (citing https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02819 ). Disruptive, worthless content can already be hatted, and I'm not opposed to doing so. Editors should be sharply told to use their own words, and if not already written, an essay saying we'd rather have authentic if grammatically imperfect comments than AI-modulated ones would be helpful to cite at editors who offer up AI slop. But someone merely citing GPTZero is not convincing. GPTZero will almost surely misidentify genuine commentary as AI-generated. So fine with any sort of reminder that worthless content can be hatted, and fine with a reminder not to use ChatGPT for creating Misplaced Pages talk page posts, but not fine with any recommendations of LLM-detectors. ] (]) 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@], I can't tell if you also oppose the actual proposal, which is to permit hatting/striking obvious LLM-generated comments (using GPTzero is a very minor detail in JSS's background paragraph, not part of the proposal). ] (]) 01:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I support the proposal in so far as disruptive comments can already be hatted and that LLM-generated content is disruptive. I am strongly opposed to giving well-meaning but misguided editors a license to throw everyone's text into an AI-detector and hat the comments that score poorly. I don't think it was ''that'' minor a detail, and to the extent that detail is brought up, it should be as a reminder to use human judgment and ''forbid'' using alleged "AI detectors" instead. ] (]) 03:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' collapsing AI (specifically, ]) comments by behavioral analysis (most actually disruptive cases I've seen are pretty obvious) and not the use of inaccurate tools like ZeroGPT. I thinking hatting with the title "Editors suspect that this comment has been written by a ]" is appropriate. They take up SO much space in a discussion because they are also unnecessarily verbose, and talk on and on but never ever say something that even approaches having substance. Discussions are for human Misplaced Pages editors, we shouldn't have to use to sift through comments someone put 0 effort into and outsourced to a robot that writes using random numbers (that's a major part of how tools like ChatGPT work and maintain variety). If someone needs to use an AI chatbot to communicate because they don't understand English, then they are welcome to contribute to their native language Misplaced Pages, but I don't think they have the right to insist that we at enwiki spend our effort reading comments they but minimal effort into besides opening the ChatGPT website. If really needed, they can write in their native language and use a non-LLM tool like Google Translate. The use of non-LLM tools like Grammarly, Google Translate, etc. I think should still be OK for all editors, as they only work off comments that editors have written themselves. ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Adding that enforcing people writing things in their own words will actually help EAL (English additional language) editors contribute here. I world with EAL people irl, and even people who have almost native proficiency with human-written content find AI output confusing because it says things in the most confusing, verbose ways using difficult sentence constructions and words. I've seen opposers in this discussion who maybe haven't had experience working with EAL people go "what about EAL people?", but really, I think this change will help them (open to being corrected by someone who is EAL, tho). ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Also, with regards to oppose comments that discussions are not a vote so closes will ignore AI statements which don't have merit - unedited LLM statements are incredibly verbose and annoying, and clog up the discussion. Imagine multiple paragraphs, each with a heading, but all of which say almost nothing, they're borderline ]y. Giving the power to HAT them will help genuine discussion contributors keep with the flow of human arguments and avoid scaring away potential discussion contributors who are intimidated or don't feel they have the time to read the piles of AI nonsense that fill the discussion. ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' (removing) in general. How is this even a question? There is no case-by-case. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work to consider their output reliable without careful review. And which point, the editor could have written it themselves without inherent LLM bias. The point of any discussion is to provide analytical response based on the ''context'', not have some tool regurgitate something from a training set that sounds good. And frankly, it is disrespectuful to make someone read "AI" responses. It is a tool and there is a place and time for it, but not in discussions in an encyclopedia. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;<b>∣</b>&nbsp;]</small> 15:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. I'm very interested in what you (the generic you) have to say about something. I'm not remotely interested in what a computer has to say about something. It provides no value to the discussion and is a waste of time. ] (]) 18:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Comments that provide no value to the discussion can already be hatted and ignored regardless of why they provide no value, without any of the false positive or false negatives inherent in this proposal. ] (]) 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Indeed, and that's fine for one-offs when a discussion goes off the rails or what-have-you. But we also have ] for disruptive behavior, not working collaboratively, etc. I'm suggesting that using an AI to write indicates that you're not here to build the encyclopedia, you're here to have an AI build the encyclopedia. I reiterate my strong support for AI-written content to be removed, struck, collapsed, or hatted and would support further measures even beyond those. ] (]) 21:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There are two sets of people described in your comment: those who use AI and those who are NOTHERE. The two sets overlap, but nowhere near sufficiently to declare that everybody in the former set are also in the latter set. If someone is NOTHERE they already can and should be blocked, regardless of how they evidence that. Being suspected of using AI (note that the proposal does not require proof) is not sufficient justification on its own to declare someone NOTHERE, per the many examples of constructive use of AI already noted in this thread. ] (]) 22:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::To reiterate, I don't believe that any use of AI here is constructive, thus using it is evidence of ], and, therefore, the set of people using AI to write is completely circumscribed within the set of people who are NOTHERE. Please note that I am referring to users who use AI-generated writing, not users suspected of using AI-generated writing. I won't be delving into how one determines whether someone is using AI or how accurate it is, as that is, to me, a separate discussion. This is the end of my opinion on the matter. ] (]) 23:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::You are entitled to your opinion of course, but as it is contradicted by the evidence of both multiple constructive uses and of the near-impossibility of reliably detecting LLM-generated text without false positives, I would expect the closer of this discussion to attach almost no weight to it. ] (]) 00:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I am ESL and use LLMs sometimes because of that. I feel like I don't fit into the NOTHERE category. It seems like you do not understand what they are or how they can be used constructively. ] (]) 01:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::No, I understand. What you're talking about is no different from using Google Translate or asking a native-speaker to translate it. You, a human, came up with something you wanted to convey. You wrote that content in Language A. But you wanted to convey that message that you - a human - wrote, but now in Language B. So you had your human-written content translated to Language B. I have no qualms with this. It's your human-written content, expressed in Language B. My concern is with step 1 (coming up with something you want to convey), not step 2 (translating that content to another language). You write a paragraph for an article but it's in another language and you need the paragraph that you wrote translated? Fine by me. You ask an AI to write a paragraph for an article? Not fine by me. Again, I'm saying that there is no valid use case for AI-written content. ] (]) 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::It seems very likely that there will be valid use cases for AI-written content if the objective is maximizing quality and minimizing errors. Research like demonstrate that there will likely be cases where machines outperform humans in specific Misplaced Pages domains, and soon. But I think that is an entirely different question than potential misuse of LLMs in consensus related discussions. ] (]) 16:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::But your vote and the proposed above makes not distinction there. Which is the main issue. Also not to be pedantic but every prompted to a LLM is filled out by a human looking to convey a message. Every time someone hits publish on something here it is that person confirming that is what they are saying. So how do we in practice implement what you suggest? Because without a method better than vibes it's worthless. ] (]) 18:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::The proposal specifies content ''generated'' by LLMs, which has a specific meaning in the context of generative AI. If a prompt itself conveys a meaningful, supported opinion, why not just post that instead? The problem comes when the LLM adds more information than was provided, which is the whole point of generative models. ] (]) 01:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' in principle. But in practice, LLM detectors are not foolproof, and there are valid reasons to sometimes use an LLM, for example to copyedit. I have used Grammarly before and have even used the Microsoft Editor, and while they aren't powered by LLMs, LLMs are a tool that need to be used appropriately on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Using LLM to reply to editors is lazy and disrespectful of fellow editor's time and brainpower. In the context of AFD, it is particularly egregious since an LLM can't really read the article, read sources, or follow our notability guidelines. {{pb}} By the way. {{tq|gptzero and other such tools are very good at detecting this}}. I don't think this is correct at all. I believe the false positive for AI detectors is quite high. High enough that I would recommend not using AI detectors. –] <small>(])</small> 03:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''' @]: Since there appears to be a clear consensus against the AI-detectors part, would you like to strike that from the background? ] (]) 14:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. AI generated text should be removed outright. If you aren't willing to put the work into doing your own writing then you definitely haven't actually thought deeply about the matter at hand. ]]] 14:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:This comment is rather ironic given that it's very clear you haven't thought deeply about the matter at hand, because if you had then you'd realise that it's actually a whole lot more complicated than that. ] (]) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Thryduulf I don't think this reply is particular helpful, and it comes off as slightly combative. It's also by my count your 24th comment on this RFC. ]&nbsp;] 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I recognize that AI paraphrased or edited is not problematic in the same ways as text generated outright by an AI. I only meant to address the core issue at steak, content whose first draft was written by an AI system. ]]] 22:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' {{re|Just Step Sideways}} The nomination's 2nd para run through https://www.zerogpt.com/ gives "11.39% AI GPT*":{{pb}}{{tqb|I've recently come across several users in AFD discussions that are using LLMs to generate their remarks there. As many of you are aware, gptzero and other such tools are very good at detecting this. I don't feel like any of us signed up for participating in discussions where some of the users are not using their own words but rather letting technology do it for them. Discussions are supposed to be between human editors. <mark>If you can't make a coherent argument on your own, you are not competent to be participating in the discussion.</mark> I would therefore propose that LLM-generated remarks in discussions should be discounted or ignored, and possibly removed in some manner}}{{pb}}The nomination's linked https://gptzero.me/ site previously advertised https://undetectable.ai/ , wherewith how will we deal? Imagine the nomination was at AFD. What should be the response to LLM accusations against the highlighted sentence? ] (]) 17:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' with the caveat that our ability to deal with the issue goes only as far as we can accurately identify the issue (this appears to have been an issue raised across a number of the previous comments, both support and oppose, but I think it bears restating because we're approaching this from a number of different angles and its IMO the most important point regardless of what conclusions you draw from it). ] (]) 19:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong support, limited implementation'''. {{tq|1=Misplaced Pages is written by volunteer editors}}, says our front page. This is who ''we'' are, and ''our'' writing is what Misplaced Pages is. It's true that LLM-created text can be difficult to identify, so this may be a bit of a moving target, and we should be conservative in what we remove—but I'm sure at this point we've all run across cases (whether here or elsewhere in our digital lives) where someone copy/pastes some text that includes "Is there anything else I can help you with?" at the end, or other blatant tells. This content should be deleted without hesitation. ] (]) 04:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support in concept, questions over implementation''' — I concur with {{U|Dronebogus}} that users who rely on LLMs should not edit English Misplaced Pages. It is not a significant barrier for users to use other means of communication, including online translators, rather than artificial intelligence. How can an artificial intelligence tool argue properly? However, I question how this will work in practice without an unacceptable degree of error. <span style="font-family: monospace;">] (he/him)</span> 22:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Many, possibly most, online translators use artificial intelligence based on LLMs these days. ] (]) 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*::There is a difference between translating words you wrote in one language into English and using an LLM to write a comment for you. <span style="font-family: monospace;">] (he/him)</span> 22:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Neither your comment nor the original proposal make any such distinction. ] (]) 23:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Well since people keep bringing this up as a semi-strawman: no I don’t support banning machine translation, not that I ''encourage'' using it (once again, if you aren’t competent in English please don’t edit here) ] (]) 07:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:LLMs are incredible at translating, and many online translators already incorporate them, including Google Translate. Accomodating LLMs is an easy way to support the avid not only the ESL but also the avid but shy. It has way more benefits than the unseen-to-me amount of AI trolling that isn't already collapse-on-sight. ] (]) 00:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Google Translate uses the same transformer architecture that LLMs are built around, and uses e.g. PaLM to develop more language support (through training that enables zero-shot capabilities) and for larger-scale specialized translation tasks performed through the Google Cloud "" API, but it does not incorporate LLMs into ''translating your everyday text input'', which still relies on NMTs. And even for the API features, the core constraint of ''matching'' input rather than ''generating content'' is still retained (obviously it would be very bad for a translation tool to insert material not found in the original text!). LLMs might be good for translation because they are better at evaluating semantic meaning and detecting context and nuance, but again, the ''generative'' part that is key to this proposal is not present. ] (]) 01:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|PaLM (Pathways Language Model) is a 540 billion-parameter transformer-based large language model (LLM) developed by Google AI.}} If you meant something about how reschlmunking the outputs of an LLM or using quite similar architecture is not really incorporating the LLM, I believe we would be approaching ] levels of recombination, to which my answer is it is the same ship.{{tqb|obviously it would be very bad for a translation tool to insert material not found in the original text!}} ] (]) 01:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::PaLM2 is not used in the consumer app (Google Translate), it's used for research. Google Translate just uses non-generative NMTs to map input to its closes cognate in the target language. ] (]) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Well, is the NMT really that different enough to not be classified as an LLM? IIRC the definition of an LLM is something that outputs by predicting one-by-one what the next word/"token" should be, and an LLM I asked agreed that NMTs satisfy the definition of a generative LLM, though I think you're the expert here. ] (]) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Google Translate's NMT hits different enough to speak English much less naturally than ChatGPT 4o. I don't consider it a '''''L'''''LM, because the param count is 380M not 1.8T.
*::::::{{tq|the definition of an LLM is something that outputs by predicting one-by-one what the next word/"token" should be}} No, that def would fit ancient ] tech too. ] (]) 17:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Even if you don’t consider it L, I do, and many sources cited by the article do. Since we’ll have such contesting during enforcement, it’s better to find a way that precludes such controversy. ] (]) 20:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::NMTs, LLMs, and the text-creation functionality of LLMs are fundamentally different in the context of this discussion, which is about content generated through generative AI. NMTs specifically for translation: they are trained on parallel corpora and their output is optimized to match the input as precisely as possible, ''not'' to create novel text. LLMs have different training, including way more massive corpora, and were designed specifically to create novel text. One of the applications of LLMs may be translation (though currently it's too computationally intensive to run them for standard consumer purposes), by virtue of their being very good at determining semantic meaning, but even if/when they do become mainstream translation tools what they'll be used for is still ''not'' generative when it comes to translation output. ] (]) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::How will you differentiate between the use of LLM for copyediting and the use of LLM for generation? ] (]) 23:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::The proposal is for hatting obvious cases of LLM-generated comments. Someone who just uses an LLM to copyedit will still have written the content themselves and presumably their output would not have the obvious tells of generative AI. ] (]) 23:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{outdent|9}} Not when I tried to use it. Quantitatively, GPTZero went from 15% human to 100% AI for me despite the copyedits only changing 14 words. ] (]) 00:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I think there is consensus that GPTZero is not usable, even for obvious cases. ] (]) 00:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Yes, but being as far as 100% means people will also probably think the rewrite ChatGPT-generated. ] (]) 01:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Does it really mean that? All you've demonstrated is that GPTZero has false positives, which is exactly why its use here was discouraged. ] (]) 05:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::My subjective evaluation of what I got copyediting from ChatGPT was that it sounded like ChatGPT. I used GPTZero to get a number. ] (]) 14:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::My guess is that the copyediting went beyond what most people would actually call "copyediting". ] (]) 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::It changed only 14 words across two paragraphs and still retained the same meaning in a way that I would describe it as copyediting. Such levels of change are what those lacking confidence in tone would probably seek anyways. ] (]) 00:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* On one hand, AI slop is a plague on humanity and obvious LLM output should definitely be disregarded when evaluating consensus. On the other hand, I feel like existing policy covers this just fine, and any experienced closer will lend greater weight to actual policy-based arguments, and discount anything that is just parroting jargon. <span class="nowrap">] <sub>]</sub> <sup>(] • ])</sup></span> 23:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support in principle''', but we cannot rely on any specific tools because none are accurate enough for our needs. Whenever I see a blatant ChatGPT-generated !vote, I ignore it. They're invariably poorly reasoned and based on surface-level concepts rather than anything specific to the issue being discussed. If someone is using AI to create their arguments for them, it means they have no actual argument besides ] and are looking for arguments that support their desired result rather than coming up with a result based on the merits. Also, toasters do not get to have an opinion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 05:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. For creating unnecessary drama. First of, the "detector" of the AI bot is not reliable, or at least the reliability of the tool itself is still questionable. If the tool to detect LLM itself is unreliable, how can one reliably point out which one is LLM and which one is not? We got multiple tools that claimed to be able to detect LLM as well. Which one should we trust? Should we be elevating one tool over the others? Have there been any research that showed that the "picked" tool is the most reliable? Second, not all LLMs are dangerous. We shouldn't treat LLM as a virus that will somehow take over the Internet or something. Some editors use LLM to smooth out their grammar and sentences and fix up errors, and there is nothing wrong with that. I understand that banning obvious LLM text per ] are good, but totally banning them is plain wrong. ] ] 22:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@], the proposal is to permit editors to collapse/strike ''obvious LLM text'', not to "ban LLM totally". If LLM use is imperceptible, like for tweaking grammar, it's not going to be affected. ] (]) 20:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with some kind of caveat about not relying on faulty tools or presuming that something is LLM without evidence or admission, based on the following reasons:
*# We have stricter rules around semi-automated editing (rollback, AutoWikiBrowser, etc.) and even stricter rules around fully automated bot editing. These cleanup edits are widely accepted as positive, but there is still the concern about an overwhelming amount of bad edits to wade through and/or fix. A form of that concern is relevant here. Someone could reply to every post in this discussion in just a minute or so without ever reading anything. That's inherently disruptive.
*# Nobody who is voting "oppose" is using an LLM to cast that vote. The LLM comments have been left by those supporting to make a point about how problematic they are for discussions like this. I think this reflects, even among oppose voters, a developing community consensus that LLM comments will be disregarded.
*# If the rule in practice is to disregard LLM comments, not writing that rule down does not stop it from being the rule, consensus, or a community norm. It just makes the rule less obvious and less clear.
*# It's disrespectful for an editor to ask someone to spend their time reading a comment if they couldn't be bothered to spend any time writing it, and therefore a violation of the policy ], "{{tq|treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project.}}"
* Also, I don't read the proposal as a ban on machine translation in any way. ] (]) 00:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@], above @] said their !vote was created by LLM. ] (]) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* I am '''strongly opposed''' to banning or ignoring LLM-made talk page comments ''just'' because they are LLM-made. I'm not a big fan of LLMs at all; they are actually useful only for some certain things, very few of which are directly relevant to contributing to Misplaced Pages in English or in any other language. However, some of those things ''are'' useful for this, at least for some humans, and I don't want to see these humans being kicked out of the English Misplaced Pages. I already witnessed several cases in which people whose first language is not English tried writing talk page responses in the English Misplaced Pages, used an LLM to improve their writing style, and got their responses ignored ''only'' because they used an LLM. In all those cases, I had strong reasons to be certain that they were real humans, that they meant what they wrote, and that they did it all in good faith. Please don't say that anyone who wants to contribute to the English Wikipeida should, in the first place, know English well enough to write a coherent talk page comment without LLM assistance; occasionally, I kind of wish that it was like that myself, but then I recall that the world is more complicated and interesting than that. Uses of LLMs that help the English Misplaced Pages be more inclusive for good-faith people are good. Of course, defining what good faith means is complicated, but using an LLM is not, ''by itself'', a sign of bad faith. --] (]) 04:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Those concerned about their English should use translation software rather than an llm. Both might alter the meaning to some extent, but only one will make things up. (It's also not a sure assumption that llm text is coherent talkpage text.) ] (]) 07:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@] The dividing line between translation software and LLM is already blurry and will soon disappear. It's also rare that translation software results in coherent talkpage text, ''unless'' it's relying on some (primitive) form of LLM. So if we're going to outlaw LLMs, we would need to outlaw any form of translation software, and possibly any text-to-speech software as well. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::The distinctions have already been covered above, and no we would not have to. There is an obvious difference between software intended to translate and software intended to generate novel text, and users are likely to continue to treat those differently. ] (]) 02:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong support'''. LLM-generated content has no place anywhere on the encyclopedia. ] (]) 10:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' to the proposal as written. Misplaced Pages already suffers from being ] in a ] ] and a refusal to move with the technological times. Anyone who remembers most Wikipedians' visceral reaction to ] and ] when they were first introduced will observe a striking similarity. Yes, those projects had serious problems, as do LLM-generated comments. But AI is the future, and this attitude of "]" will ultimately lead Misplaced Pages the way of ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. Our discussion needs to be how best to change, not how to avoid to change. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 23:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{smalldiv|1=The main objection to VE and a major objection to FLOW was the developers' insistence on transforming Wikitext to HTML for editing and then transforming that back to Wikitext. ] (]) 01:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*::True. Then, as now, there were many valid objections. But IIRC, there was limited discussion of "Let's figure out a better way to improve", and lots of "Everything is fine; don't change anything, ever." That attitude concerns me. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 01:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I'm not even slightly swayed by these "it'll be too hard to figure out" and "mistakes could be made" and "we can't be 100% certain" sorts of arguments. That's true of {{em|everything}} around here, and its why we have an admins-must-earn-a-boatload-of-community-trust system, and a system of review/appeal of decisions they (or of course non-admin closers) make, and a consensus-based decisionmaking system more broadly. {{U|JoelleJay}} has it exactly right: {{tq|having a policy that permits closers to discount apparently-LLM-generated contributions will discourage good-faith editors from using LLMs irresponsibly and perhaps motivate bad-faith editors to edit the raw output to appear more human, which would at least involve some degree of effort and engagement with their "own" arguments.}} And as pointed out by some others, the "it'll hurt non-native-English speakers" nonsense is, well, nonsense; translation is a different and unrelated process (though LLMs can perform it to some extent), of remapping one's {{em|own}} material onto another language.<!-- --><p>I'm also not in any way convinved by the "people poor at writing and other cognitive tasks needs the LLM to help them here" angle, because ] is required. This is work (albeit volunteer work), it is ] a game, a social-media playground, a get-my-ideas-out-there soapbox, or a place to learn how to interact e-socially or pick up remedial writing skills, nor a venue for practicing one's argument techiques. It's an encyclopedia, being built by people who – to be productive contributors instead of a draining burden on the entire community – {{em|must}} have: solid reasoning habits, great judgement (especially in assessing reliability of claims and the sources making them), excellent writing skills of a higherly particularized sort, a high level of fluency in this specific language (in multiple registers), and a human-judgment ability to understand our thick web of policies, guidelines, procedures, and often unwritten norms, and how they all interact, in a specific contextual way that may vary greatly by context. None of these is optional. An LLM cannot do any of them adequately (not even write well; their material sticks out like a sore thumb, and after a while you can even tell which LLM produced the material by its habitual but dinstictive crappy approach to simulating human thought and language).</p><!-- --><p>In short, if you {{em|need}} an LLM to give what you think is meaningful input into a decision-making process on Misplaced Pages (much less to generate mainspace content for the public), then you {{em|need}} to go find something else to do, something that fits your skills and abilities. Saying this so plainly will probably upset someone, but so it goes. I have a rep for "not suffering fools lightly" and "being annoying but correct"; I can live with that if it gets the right decisions made and the work advanced. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</p>
*:The problem with all that is that we ''already'' have a policy that allows the hatting or removal of comments that are actually problematic because of their content (which are the only ones that we should be removing) without regard for whether it was or was not written by LLM. Everything that actually should be removed can be removed already. ] (]) 11:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:People who have good reading skills, great judgement, and solid reasoning habits enough to find problems in existing articles don't necessarily have great interpersonal writing/communication skills or the confidence. Meanwhile, for all LLM is bad at, it is very good at diluting everything you say to become dry, dispassionate, and thus inoffensive. ] (]) 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:ok, I agree with @], so therefore my vote is '''Support.''' ] (]) 12:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Sure I have questions about detection, but I don't think it means we shouldn't have a policy that explicitly states that it should not be used (and can be ignored/hatted if it is). Judging solely based on content (and no wp:bludgeoning, etc.) is unsustainable IMO. It would mean taking every wall of text seriously until it's clear that the ''content'' is unhelpful, and LLMs are very good at churning out plausible-sounding bullshit. It wastes everyone's time. If cognitive impairments or ESL issues make it hard to contribute, try voice-to-text, old-school translation software, or some other aid. LLMs aren't really ''you''.--] (]) 11:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. While I agree with the sentiment of the request, I am at a loss to see how we can identify LLM generated comments in a consistent manner that can scale. Yes, it might be easier to identify egregious copy paste of wall of text, but, anything other than that might be hard to detect. Our options are:
:# Robust tooling to detect LLM generated text, with acceptably low levels of false positives. Somewhat similar to what Earwig does for Copyvios. But, someone needs to build it and host it on WMTools or at a similar location.
:# Self certification by editors. Every edit / publish dialogbox should have a checkbox for "Is this text LLM generated" with y/n optionality.
:# Editors playing a vigilante role in reading the text and making a personal call on other editors' text. Obviously this is least preferred.
: These are my starting views. ] (]) 00:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' as it's impossible to enforce. Also LLMs are a valid and useful ] tool. – ] 05:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Bonus suggestion!''': I'm curious what Wikipedians think about this so let's try this. Many of the comments here discuss the impracticality of determining whether a user's comments are AI generated (i.e. gptzero isn't perfect), and many give valid arguments for using LLMs (i.e. ]). If an argument is suspected to be written by LLM, I propose that editors should examine the user. Take a look at their listed contributions, and if they seem to have a habit of using AI, open a discussion on their talk page. If the user has a habit of using AI and doesn't recognize the inherent problems and refuses to change, this can be brought to ] for potential blocks. If (and only if) the person is blocked for using AI, their comments can be ignored. Or just ask ChatGPT to summarize them for you lol ] (]) 06:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Strong support''' the removal of any obvious, low effort AI-generated post. I recently came across a user such examples. When called out on it and posted a comment saying, amongst other things "''HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes, some of it might be. Because I don't have time to argue with, in my humble opinion, stupid PHOQUING people.''" and "''YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU are assuming bath faith in me.''"
:They were later blocked as a sock evading a global lock.
:Currently it is too easy for trolls to game ] and AI to waste people's time arguing with their bot-generated replies. Using AI to write your posts for you makes it difficult for others to assume good faith. I am ok with obvious exceptions like a non-native speaker using AI to help them articulate their point. ] (]) 21:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Alternate proposal ===
:: This might be useful for folks - the convention for English article titles has been around since 2002 - ]. ] | ] 08:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
{{discussion top|result=Redundant proposal, confusingly worded, with no support, and not even any further discussion interest in 10 days. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Whereas many editors, including me, have cited problems with accuracy in regards to existing tools such as ZeroGPT, I propose that '''remarks that are blatently generated by a LLM or similar automated system should be discounted/removed/collapsed/hidden'''. ] <sup>] / ]</sup> 10:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' as completely unnecessary and far too prone to error per the above discussion. Any comment that is good (on topic, relevant, etc) should be considered by the closer regardless of whether it was made with LLM-input of any sort or not. Any comment that is bad (off-topic, irrelevant, etc) should be ignored by the closer regardless of whether it was made with LLM-input of any sort or not. Any comment that is both bad and disruptive (e.g. by being excessively long, completely irrelevant, bludgeoning, etc) should be removed and/or hatted as appropriate, regardless of whether it was made with LLM-input of any sort. The good thing is that ''this is already policy'' so we don't need to call out LLMs specifically, and indeed doing so is likely to be disruptive in cases where human-written comments are misidentified as being LLM-written (which ''will'' happen, regardless of whether tools are used). ] (]) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
== Only linking to the first mention - why? ==
:I think this proposal is not really necessary. I support it, but that is because it is functionally identical to the one directly above it, which I also supported. This should probably be hatted. ]&nbsp;] 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:What does '''blatantly generated''' mean? Does you mean only where the remark is signed with "I, Chatbot", or anything that ''appears'' to be LLM-style? I don't think there's much in between. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Procedural close''' per BugGhost. I'd hat this myself, but I don't think that'd be appropriate since it's only the two of us who have expressed that this proposal is basically an exact clone. ] (]) 03:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}


== Should first language be included in the infobox for historical figures? ==
Why is the policy only to link to the first mention of something in an entry? I just don't get it.


Is there a guideline concerning this? "Infobox royalty" apparently has this parameter, but I haven't found a single article that actually uses it. Many articles don't mention the subject's spoken languages at all. '''In my view, somebody's first language (L1) is just a very basic and useful piece of information''', especially for historical figures. This would be helpful in cases where the ruling elites spoke a completely different language from the rest of the country (e.g., High Medieval England or early Qing dynasty China). These things are not always obvious to readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. Including it would be a nice and easy way to demonstrate historical language shifts that otherwise might be overlooked. Perhaps it could also bring visibility to historical linguistic diversity and language groups that have since disappeared. Where there are multiple first languages, they could all be listed. And in cases where a person's first language remains unclear, it could simply be left out. ] (]) 11:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
It's annoying when reading - you get to a certain point in the article and think, "Oh, that thing would be interesting to read about", but it's not linked. Is it just plain not linked, or is it linked somewhere previously in the article? Either way, a pain.


:I don't think I agree this is a good use of infobox space:{{bulleted list|incongruences between elite spoken languages and popular spoken languages can't be shown with a single parameter (the language spoken by the oppressed would have to be included as well)|for many people this would be unverifiable (already mentioned in OP) and / or contentious (people living during a language transition) |sometimes L2 skills will be more than adequate to communicate with subject population when called for|in cases where the subject's L1 matches their polity's (i.e. most cases), the parameter would feel like unnecessary clutter|prose description seems adequate}}However, this is just my opinion, and the venue of discussion should probably be ] or similar, rather than VPP. ] (]) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
It makes editing more difficult in several ways - for example:
:I think this ''might'' be sufficiently important pretty much exclusively for writers where the language they wrote in is not the "obvious" one for their nationality. ] (]) 12:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::It ''might'' also be important for politicians (and similar figures?) in countries where language is a politically-important subject, e.g. Belgium. ] (]) 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:This seems like a bad idea. Let's take a case where language spoken by a royal was very relevant: ]. When he became King of Castile as a teenager, he only really spoke Flemish and didn't speak Castilian Spanish, and needless to say trusted the advisors he could actually talk with (i.e. Flemish / Dutch ones he brought with him). He also then immediately skipped out of Castile to go to proto-Germany to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. This ended up causing a rebellion (]) which was at least partially justified by Castilian nationalism, and partially by annoyed Castilian elites who wanted cushy government jobs. So language-of-royal was relevant. But... the Infobox is for ''the person as a whole''. Charles came back to Castile and spent a stretch of 10 years there and eventually learned rather good Castilian and largely assuaged the elite, at least. He was king of Spain for ''forty years''. So it would seem rather petty to harp on the fact his first language wasn't Castilian in the Infobox, when he certainly did speak it later and through most of his reign, even if not his first few years when he was still basically a kid. ] (]) 19:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::See below on this. ] (]) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::SnowFire's fascinating anecdote shows that this information is not appropriate for infoboxes but rather should be described in prose in the body of the article where the subtleties can be explained to the readers. ] (]) 19:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No, it shows that it's not appropriate for that infobox, and therefore that it is not suitable for all infoboxes where it is plausibly relevant. It shows nothing about whether it is or is not appropriate for other infoboxes: the plural of anecdote is not data. ] (]) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::But it kind of is here? I picked this example as maybe one of the most obviously ''relevant'' cases. Most royals failing to speak the right language don't have this trait linked with a literal war in reliable sources! But if inclusion of this piece of information in an Infobox is still problematic in ''this'' case, how could it possibly be relevant in the 99.9% cases of lesser importance? The Infobox isn't for every single true fact. ] (]) 21:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It isn't suitable for this infobox not because of a lack of importance, but because stating a single first language would be misleading. There exists the very real possibility of cases where it is both important and simple. ] (]) 00:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Could you (or anyone else in favor of the proposal) identify 5 biographies where this information is both useful to readers and clearly backed by reliable sources? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Charles V claimed to have spoken Italian to women, French to men, Spanish to God, and German to his horse. ] ] 21:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry, this is just nonsense! Charles V was raised speaking French, which was the language of his aunt's court, although in the Dutch-speaking ]. All his personal letters use French. He only began to be taught Dutch when he was 14, & may never have been much good at it (or Spanish or German). Contrary to the famous anecdote, which is rather late and dubious ("Spanish to God....German to my horse") he seems to have been a rather poor linguist, which was indeed awkward at times. ] (]) 00:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::(This is a bit off-topic, but "nonsense" is too harsh. I'm familiar that he spoke "French" too, yes, although my understanding was that he did speak "Flemish", i.e. the local Dutch-inflected speech, too? And neither 1500-era French nor Dutch were exactly standardized, so I left it as "Flemish" above for simplicity. If his Dutch was worse than I thought, sure, doesn't really affect the point made, though, which was that his Castilian was non-existent at first. As far as his later understanding of Spanish, his capacity was clearly ''enough'' - at the very least I've seen sources say he made it work and it was enough to stave off further discontent from the nobility. Take it up with the authors of the sources, not me.). ] (]) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::There's a difference between "simplicity" and just being wrong! You should try reading the sources, with which I have no issue. And his ministers were also either native Francophones, like ] and his father ] (both from ], now in eastern France), or could speak it well; the Burgundian elite had been Francophone for a long time. The backwash from all this remains a somewhat sensitive issue in Belgium, even now. And Charles V was not "King of Spain" (a title he avoided using) for 40 years at all; only after his mother died in 1555 (a year before him) did he become unarguably King of Castile. ] (]) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:It may not be appropriate for many articles, but it surely is for some. For example, when I told her that England had had kings whose first language was German, someone asked me the other day how many. It would be good to have a quick way of looking up the 18th century Georges to find out. ] (]) 21:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think the problem is that people might make assumptions. I would check before saying that George I and George II spoke German as their first language and not French. Languages spoken is probably more useful than birth language, but the list might be incomplete. There is also competing information about George I, and he is an English King, so he has been better researched and documented compared to other historical figures.
::I agree that this is important when language is the basis of community identity, such as in Belgian. ] (]) 10:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*Ummmm… no. People I disagree with™️ use “infobox bloat” as a boogeyman in arguments about infoboxes. But this is infobox bloat. Even those celebrity/anime character things that tell you shoe size, pinky length and blood type wouldn’t include this. ] (]) 18:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


:I don't think there needs to be any central policy on this. It could be relevant to include this information for someone, perhaps... maybe... However, infoboxes work best when they contain uncontroversial at-a-glance facts that don't need a bunch of nuance and context to understand. For the example of Charles V, maybe his first language is significant, but putting it in the infobox (where the accompanying story cannot fit) would be a confusing unexplained factoid. Like, maybe once upon a time there was a notable person whose life turned on the fact that they were left-handed. That could be a great bit of content for the main article, but putting handedness in the infobox would be odd. ] (]) 14:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- When entering new text, you have to check whether it was linked in a previous location, and if so, not link it in your new text;
::{{tl|Infobox baseball biography}} includes handedness, and nobody finds that odd content for an infobox.
::{{tl|infobox royalty}} includes the option for up to five native languages, though the OP says it seems to be unused in practice. {{tl|Infobox writer}} has a <code>|language=</code> parameter, and it would be surprising if this were unused. ] (]) 19:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Baseball seems to be a good example of where handedness is routinely covered, and easily consumable at a glance without needing further explanation. The scenario where I don't think handedness (or first language) makes sense is when it is a uniquely interesting aspect of that individual's life, because almost by definition there's a story there which the infobox can't tell. ] (]) 10:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think L1 can be determined for most historical figures without a hefty dose of ]. If you look at ], you'll see that I, as a living human being with all the information about my own life, could not tell you what my own "L1" is. The historical figures for whom this would be relevant mostly spoke many more languages than I do, and without a time machine it would be nigh impossible to say which language they learned first. This isn't even clear for the Qing emperors – I am fairly certain that they all spoke (Mandarin) Chinese very well, and ] never says what language they spoke. ] even states that he never spoke Manchu. Adding this parameter would also inflame existing debates across the encyclopedia about ethnonationalism (e.g. ]) and infobox bloat. ] </span>]] 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::As with every bit of information in every infobox, if it cannot be reliably sourced it does not go in, regardless of how important it is or isn't. There are plenty of examples of people whose first language is reported in reliable sources, I just did an internal source for <kbd>"first language was"</kbd> and on the first page of results found sourced mentions of first language at ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], and an unsourced but plausible mention at ]. The article strongly suggests that her first language is an important part of Cleopatra's biography such that putting it in the infobox would be justifiable. I am not familiar enough with any of the others to have an opinion on whether it merits an infobox mention there, I'm simply reporting that there are many articles where first language is reliably sourced and a mention is deemed DUE. ] (]) 22:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been wondering since this conversation opened how far back the concept of an L1 language, or perhaps the most colloquial first language, can be pushed. Our article doesn't have anything on the history of the concept. ] (]) 11:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I suspect the concept is pretty ancient, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn it arose around the same time as diplomacy between groups of people with different first languages. The note about it at ] certainly suggests it was already a well-established concept in her era (1st century BCE). ] (]) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The concept of different social strata speaking different languages is old, but I'm not sure whether they viewed learning languages the same way we do. It's certainly possible, and perhaps it happened in some areas at some times, but I hesitate to assume it's the case for every historical person with an infobox. ] (]) 16:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's certainly not going to be appropriate for the infobox of every historical person, as is true for (nearly?) every parameter. The questions here are whether it is appropriate in any cases, and if so in enough cases to justify having it as a parameter (how many is enough? I'd say a few dozen at minimum, ideally more). I think the answer the first question is "yes". The second question hasn't been answered yet, and I don't think we have enough information here yet to answer it. ] (]) 21:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The question is not whether it is appropriate in any cases; the question is whether it is worth the trouble. I guarantee that this would lead to many vicious debates, despite being in most cases an irrelevant and unverifiable factoid based on inappropriate ]. This is the same reason we have ]/NATIONALITY. ] </span>]] 07:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:Nah. If this were "a very basic and useful piece of information" then we would already be deploying it site wide, so it obviously is not. In the vast majority of cases, it would involve intolerable ] or even just guessing masquerading as facts. We do not know for certain that someone born in France had French as their first/native/home language. I have close relatives in the US, in a largely English-speaking part of the US, whose first language is Spanish. For historical figures it would get even more ridiculous, since even our conceptions of languages today as, e.g., "German" and "French" and "Spanish" and "Japanese", is a bit fictive and is certainly not historically accurate, because multiple languages were (and still are, actually) spoken in these places. We would have no way to ascertain which was used originally or most natively for the average historical figure. Beyond a certain comparatively recent point, most linguistics is reconstruction (i.e. educated guesswork; if there's not a substantial corpus of surviving written material we cannot be sure. That matters a lot for figures like Genghis Khan and King Bridei I of the Picts. Finally, it really is just trivia in the vast majority of cases. What a biographical figure's first/primary/home/most-fluent/most-frequently-used language (and some of those might not be the same since all of them can change over time other than "first") is something that could be included when certain from RS, but it's not lead- or infobox-worthy in most cases, unless it pertains directly the subject's notability (e.g. as a writer) {{em|and}} also isn't already implicit from other details like nationality. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Restrict new users from crosswiki uploading files to Commons ==
- Similarly, you have to check whether it was linked in a later location, and if so, link it in your text, but unlink it in the later location;


I created this Phabricator ticket (]) in July of this year, figuring that consensus to restrict non-confirmed users from crosswiki uploading files to Commons is implied. Well, consensus ] in ]. I created an ], which was then rejected, i.e. "archived", as policy-related and {{tq|requir alignment across various wikis to implement such a policy}}. Now I'm starting this thread, thinking that the consensus here would already or implicitly support such restriction, but I can stand corrected about the outcome here. ] (]) 06:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC); corrected, 08:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Deleting text and/or moving text suffers the same problems.
* '''Support'''. I am not sure why this relies on alignment across wikis, those on Commons are best placed to know what is making it to Commons. The change would have little to no impact on en.wiki. If there is an impact, it would presumably be less cleaning up of presumably fair use files migrated to Commons that need to be fixed here. That said, if there needs to be consensus, then obviously support. We shouldn't need months of bureaucracy for this. ] (]) 06:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


:* '''Support''', I don't know that my input really counts as new consensus because I said this at the time, but the problem is much worse than what the study suggests as we are still finding spam, copyvios, unusable selfies and other speedy-deletable uploads from the timespan audited.
And it's not like there's some sort of resource wasted by linking multiple times.
:] (]) 02:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As this applies to images being posted to Commons, but by a method that side steps their wishes, I don't see why another wiki should stand in the way. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I do think that disabling the ability for new editors on the English Misplaced Pages from engaging in crosswiki uploads to Commons would be a net positive; the Commons community has come to this conclusion several times, and the research confirms that cross-wiki uploads by new users cause more trouble than the good uploads worth. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Way too low signal-to-noise ratio; most of these images are copyvios or otherwise useless. -- ]]]] 01:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' like the above editors. Much spam, many copyvios, few good images.—] 15:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*I don't think this should be any sort of enwiki policy. If commonswiki wants to restrict something that should be up to them. I can't possibly see how it would need to be specific to the English Misplaced Pages (i.e. but not about new users on dewiki, eswikt, etc). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:As noted by George Ho above, ]. The question is whether or not we want the English Misplaced Pages to assist in implementing this (perhaps by changing a local setting or software configuration to require that their uploads be local), rather than merely relying upon a Commons edit filter (which can be a bit unfriendly to new users). — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 19:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*::] interests me: "Interestingly, we found that most uploaders were either ''marketers'' (editing/uploading on behalf of another entity such as their employer), or they were ''self-promoters'' (creating pages about themselves, unaware of the "notability" requirement)."
*::So I wonder whether, instead of stopping this, we want a bot to look at newbies who create articles/drafts, check whether they uploaded something, and then tag both the image(s) and the pages here with a note that says something like "There is a 90% chance that this has been posted by a marketer or self-promoter", with suitable links to pages such as ]. Or maybe even a ] process.
*::On the question of what to do, it should be possible to hide the cross-wiki upload button. The real question is, do we replace it with a link to ]? The Commons POV has been that it's bad for people to upload images within the visual editor, but okay for the same person to upload the same image with the UploadWizard. I'm not sure the net result is actually any different, especially for these marketers/self-promoters (in terms of net quality/acceptability; from Commons' POV, it's better because (a lot? a little?) fewer of them will click through to upload anything at Commons). ] (]) 19:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Nearly every single thing I've ever put up for deletion at Commons has been stuff uploaded to spam en.wp. It never stops. ] ] 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Is this still happening? According to @] this is already blocked. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes, it's still happening. Such uploads include from EnWiki; the edit filter, as currently implemented, only filters out images with certain characteristics. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 21:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::It is for sure still happening, I've nominated a few in just the past week. ] ] 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It's still happening. A lot of them go to the uncategorized backlog which has well over 100,000 things in it so they get overlooked. ] (]) 19:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If anyone wants to help with that, then click on ]. Figure out what the image is (Google Lens or TinEye searches can help; go to ] and ⌘F for TinEye to find the right item). If you can identify it, then add a relevant cat. I believe that ] is enabled by default for all logged-in editors, so searching for cats is usually pretty easy. If you can't find something obviously relevant, then skip it and try another. ] (]) 20:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I got another one just now . This really can't happen fast enough. ] ] 23:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' It's honestly kinda dumb that we have to have this whole other consensus process after the prior one just because people at Meta-wiki don't want to implement it. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''', since this has already been decided and WMF is just being recalictrant. ], and Commons isn't one either, nor is Wikitionary, etc., and to the extent WMF wants to be one that needs to be nipped in the bud. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


==Question(s) stemming from undiscussed move==
I'm not saying always link every mention of a subject - it clearly would be overkill in some situations - but it seems like that's actually the far minority of situations. And in those few situations when linking every time would be overkill, people probably wouldn't link every time anyway.


"AIM-174 air-to-air missile" was moved without discussion to "]." After a no-consensus RM close (which should have brought us back to the original title, sans agreed-upon unneeded additional disambiguator, in my opinion), I requested the discussion be re-opened, per ]. (TO BE CLEAR; I should have, at this time, requested immediate reversion. However, I did not want to be impolite or pushy) The original closer -- ] (who found for "no consensus") was concerned they had become "too involved" in the process and requested another closer. Said closer immediately found consensus for "AIM-174B." I pressed-on to , where an additional "no consensus" (to overturn) finding was issued. As ] pointed-out during the move review, ''{{tq|"'''I take issue with the participating mover's interpretation of policy''' 'Unfortunately for you, a no consensus decision will result in this article staying here' '''in the RM, and would instead endorse your idea that aligns with policy, that a no consensus would take us back the original title, sans extra disambiguatotr.'''"}}''
This seems like something that shouldn't have a policy at all, one way or the other.


The issues, as I see them, are as-follows:
:Policy leads to consistency, which is good. As for only linking the first time, if a term is likely to trigger a "oh, I want to read about that" reaction, it's likely to do so the first time you read it. Nobody's going to drag you into arbitration if you accidentally link a word again while editing because you didn't see it had already been used previously, but by avoiding double-linking articles become less visually noisy and easier to read. --](]) 29 June 2005 05:32 (UTC)


'''WP:RMUM:''' The move from “AIM-174 air-to-air missile” to “AIM-174B” was conducted without discussion, and I maintain all post-move discussions have achieved "no consensus."
::''if a term is likely to trigger a "oh, I want to read about that" reaction, it's likely to do so the first time you read it.'': That sounds nice, but in practice, I find it to often be false. -] June 29, 2005 06:11 (UTC)


'''Burden of Proof:''' The onus should be on the mover of the undiscussed title to justify their change, not on others to defend the original title. I refrained from reverting prior to initiating the RM process out of politeness, which should not shift the burden of proof onto me.
::''Policy leads to consistency, which is good.'': Yeah, consistency's great and all, sure, but it's not the be-all and end-all. My point is that without any policy regarding this topic, Misplaced Pages would probably naturally self-moderate itself into a state that is more usable than its current state. People won't go crazy with linking absolutely every mention of everything. -] June 29, 2005 06:16 (UTC)


'''Precedent:''' I am concerned with the precedent. Undiscussed moves may be brute-forced into acceptance even if "no consensus" or a very slim consensus (]) is found?
:I usually link once per major section, or once per page of text -- or, in practice, once every time I think about it while writing, which works out to about the same. Also, if something's first wikilinked in an infobox, I'll link it in the text no matter how short the article. --] 29 June 2005 05:48 (UTC)


'''Argument in-favor of "AIM-174:"''' See ] for arguments in-favor and against. However, I would like to make it clear that I was the only person arguing WP. Those in-favor of "174B" were seemingly disagreeing with my WP arguments, but not offering their own in-support of the inclusion of "B." That said, my primary WP-based argument is likely WP:CONSISTENT; ALL U.S. air-to-air-missiles use the base model as their article title. See: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. 174"B" is unnecessary while violating consistency.
:: I do somewhat similar. I find it stupid to have to look through long chunks of texts to look for a link for what I am searching. On the other hand, I find it annoying when the same word is linked in every sentence. --]-] June 29, 2005 10:36 (UTC)


'''Do my policy contentions hold any weight? Or am I mad? Do I have any path forward, here?'''
:Let's amend policy to reflect long-existing practice (Carnildo lays out what that is). Which policy page is this? ] ] 29 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)


TO BE CLEAR, I am not alleging bad faith on behalf of anyone, and I am extremely grateful to all those who have been involved, particularly the RM closer that I mentioned, as well as the MRV closer, ]. I would like to make it clear that this isn't simply a case of a MRV 'not going my way.' Again, I am concerned w/ the precedent and with the onus having been shifted to me for ''months''. I also apologize for the delay in getting this here; I originally but ] kindly suggested I instead post here.] (]) 00:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::It isn't policy. It is a '''guideline''' in ], and it doesn't say '''only''' the first occurrence. Relevant to this discussion, it does say "An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
::* ...
::* a link is repeated within the same screen (40 lines perhaps)
::* ...
::* low added value links (e.g., such as year links 1995, 1980s) are duplicated
:: I think Carnildo's suggestion about linking in text even if first linked in an infobox is a good one. ] 29 June 2005 12:03 (UTC)


:Are you familiar with ]? Do you ]? ] (]) 23:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the guideline covers it; just a matter of applying common sense, really. ] | ] June 29, 2005 12:38 (UTC)
::I am quite familiar with it. It seemingly supports my argument(s), so...? Is there a particular reason you're speaking in quasi-riddles? ] (]) 01:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If yours is the title favored by the policy, then none of this explanation makes any difference. You just demand that it be put back to the title favored by the policy, and editors will usually go along with it. (It sometimes requires spelling out the policy in detail, but ultimately, most people want to comply with the policy.)
:::If yours is not the title favored by the policy, then the people on the other 'side' are going to stand on policy when you ask to move it, so you'd probably have to get the policy changed to 'win'. If you want to pursue that, you will need to understand why the rule is set this way, so that you have a chance of making a convincing argument. ] (]) 05:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I think several individuals involved in this process have agreed that the default title is the favored title, at least as far as ], as you say.<br />(The only reason I listed any further ‘litigation’ here is to show what was being discussed in-general for convenience’s sake, not necessarily to re-litigate) <br />However, at least two individuals involved have expressed to me that they felt their hands were tied by the RM/MRV process. Otherwise, as I mentioned (well, as ] mentioned) the train of thought seemed to be “well, I don’t want the title to be changed,” and this was seemingly enough to override policy. Or, at best, it was seemingly a “well, it would be easier to just leave it as-is” sort of decision.
::::<br />
::::And again, I, 100%, should have been more forceful; The title anhould have been reverted per the initial “no consensus” RM-closure and I will certainly bear your advice in-mind in the future. That said, I suppose what I am asking is would it be inappropriate to ask the original RM-closer to revert the article at this point, given how much time is past?
::::<br /> ] (]) 06:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Given what was written in ] six weeks ago, I think that none of this is relevant. "Consensus to keep current name" does not mean that you get to invoke rules about what happens when there is no consensus. I suggest that you give up for now, wait a long time (a year? There is no set time, but it needs to be a l-o-n-g time), and ''maybe'' start a new ] (e.g., in 2026). ] (]) 19:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks! ] (]) 05:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Everything ModernDayTrilobite advised you of is correct. Vpab15 closed the RM and determined that consensus was reached. Nothing since then has overturned or otherwise superseded Vpab15's closure. Therefore that closure remains in force. You already challenged the validity of Vpab15's closure at move review, and you have no avenue for challenging it again. Your best bet is to wait a tactful amount of time (several months) before starting another RM. And in that RM, none of this procedural stuff will matter, and you will be free to focus just on making the clearest, simplest case for why AIM-174 is the best title. ] (]) 06:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::I suppose my issue is better summed-up by my above discussion with ]; The MRV ''shouldn’t '' have been required. That burden should never have been on me. The title should have been reverted at the initial “no consensus” per ]. Otherwise, undiscussed moves — when challenged — may now be upheld by ''either'' consensus ''or'' no consensus? This is not what WP:TITLECHANGES says, obviously. That said I take full responsibility for not being clearer with this argument, and instead focusing on arguing for a ‘different’ title, when I should have been arguing for the default title per TITLECHANGES. ] (]) 06:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You've repeatedly pointed to the initial self-reverted closure as if it's somehow significant. It isn't. Asukite voluntarily decided to close the discussion, and voluntarily self-reverted their decision to close. It doesn't matter whether you asked for it or someone else asked or no one asked. They had the right to self-revert then, for any reason or no reason. The net result is the same as if Asukite had never closed it at all. Only Vpab15's closure, which was 100% on Vpab15's own authority and 0% on the supposed authority of the annulled earlier closure, is binding. ] (]) 09:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't disagree with your latter statement, but why would an initial finding of no-consensus not matter? It should have brought us back to the default title, not simply been reverted. Because that policy wasn't followed, I'm here now, is my point. Regardless, I understand; Thank you for your advice! Well, I appreciate your time and consideration! :-) ] (]) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:(Involved at the MRV) Seeing as I've been tagged in this multiple times and quoted, I'll give my thoughts on this. I don't want to accuse ] of selectively quoting me but I do think that my quote above was, when taken into account with the following discussion, more about meta-conversation about the correct policy to implement in the event the MRV went the other way. I explicitly said in the immediately following message {{tpq|the view that the close was not outside the scope of ] is reasonable and good faith interpretation.}} I do think this close was within bounds, and the following MRV appropriately closed and summarised.
:Yes, had stood, then it could have been reverted wholecloth. and therefore plays no role in the consideration of the subsequent closure. We're always going to take the most recent finding of consensus to be what holds. It seems to have been said in the above that had the no consensus closure held and the appropriate ] policy been applied, then the appellant here would have gotten their preferred outcome. But to continue to argue this in the face of the subsequent developments is where this enters ] territory. I think that since then, the appellant has continued to make policy arguments that would be better suited for a subsequent and focused RM on the actual title rather than wikilawyer about a previous close that was self-reverted and continuing to argue policy.
:There's nothing for this venue to really change in regards to that AT and the discussion to change the AT would need to be had at the articles talk page. My sincere advice to appellant is to wait a reasonable amount of time and make strong policy based arguments about the preferred title (don't just quote policy, we editors are good at clicking links and reading it for ourselves&mdash;quoting nothing but policy back at us makes us feel like you've taken us for fools; instead provide facts and sources that support the relevant policies and link those). Spend some time at ] and see what well-argued and successful RMs typically look like. ] (]) 17:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== CSD A12. Substantially written using a large language model, with hallucinated information or fictitious references ==
In practice it's fine to link the same topic multiple times, if the article is long. It's typical for a topic to be mentioned in a summary and then mentioned again when the topic is covered in more detail; in this case it's quite appropriate to link it again. Years may need to be linked multiple times so that date preferences work. ] 2005-06-29 13:01:11 (UTC)
{{Archive top|status=withdrawn|result=Per the solution to the problem already being covered by ], something I was unaware of when I made the proposal. ] (]) 15:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)}}
When fixing up new articles, I have encountered articles that appear to have been substantially generated by AI, containing ] information. While these articles may not meet other criteria for speedy deletion, as the subjects themselves are sometimes real and notable, waiting for seven days to ] the articles is inefficient. I recommend designating ] for the speedy deletion of these articles. I have created a template (]) if it is successful. A recent example is the article on the ], where the author explicitly ] that it was created using a large language model and contains references to sources don't exist. I initially G11'd it, as it seemed the most appropriate, but was declined, and the article was subsequently PRODed. ] (]) 21:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:CSD are generally limited to things that are unambiguously obvious. I image the number of cases in which it's unabiguously obvious that the entire page was generated by an LLM (as opposed to the editor jut using the LLM to generate references, for example) are small enough that it doesn't warrant a speedy deletion criterion. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 21:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's a good point. Both day-month or month-day and year should be linked in all dates so that preferences work right, no matter how many times they appear. It is just the years standing alone or only with a month that shouldn't be linked multiple times. ] 29 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)
::I like this idea but agree that it's better not as a CSD but perhaps its own policy page. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think it even merits a policy page. The number of cases where the LLM use is objectively unambiguous, ''and'' the article content sufficiently problematic that deletion is the only appropriate course of action ''and'' it cannot be (speedily) deleted under existing policy is going to be vanishingly small. Even the OP's examples were handled by existing processes (PROD) sufficiently. ] (]) 22:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], when you say that ] is "inefficient", do you mean that you don't want to wait a week before the article gets deleted? ] (]) 23:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::My view is that ] inefficient for articles that clearly contain hallucinated LLM-generated content and fictitious references (which almost certainly will be deleted) in the mainspace for longer than necessary. ] (]) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Efficiency usually compares the amount of effort something takes, not the length of time it takes. "Paint it and leave it alone for 10 minutes to dry" is the same amount of hands-on work as "Paint it and leave it alone for 10 days to dry", so they're equally efficient processes. It sounds like you want a process that isn't less hands-on work/more efficient, but instead a process that is faster.
:::Also, if the subject qualifies for an article, then deletion isn't necessarily the right solution. Blanking bad content and bad sources is officially preferred (though more work) so that there is only verifiable content with one or more real sources left on the page – even if that content is only a single sentence.
:::Efficiency and speed is something that many editors like. However, there has to be a balance. We're ] to build an encyclopedia, which sometimes means that rapidly removing imperfect content is only the second or third most important thing we do. ] (]) 00:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


* This part {{tq|as the subjects themselves are sometimes real and notable}} is literally an inherent argument against using CSD (or PROD for that matter). ] the article to a sentence if necessary, but admitting that you're trying to delete an article you know is notable just means you're admitting to vandalism. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*One downside is if the article referenced is moved or renamed. Five links imbedded in a long article are harder to upgrade to eliminate orphans than one. OTHO, The original point ''about wanting to read more about a repeating term is '''strong''' to me''&mdash; The desire to follow such gets stronger LATER in the long article&mdash; i.e. once one's interest has been wetted. In my experience, in most cases, the original use or three of a term is introductory and hasn't yet built a desire to 'click', until the surrounding text provides enough detail to eventually create the desire to do so. In such cases, I've italicized or bolded the first occurences until the topic has built up background, then provided the link. Of course, some copy editors have removed such logical planning in favor of linkizing all, or just the first, so Shrug. It's their time, and I did my best to make it logical. It's certainly not worth getting excited about.
*:The categorization of my proposal as {{tq|admitting to vandalism}} is incorrect. ], the speedy deletion criterion I initially used for the article, specifies deleting articles that {{tq|would need to be ''fundamentally'' rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles}}. Articles that have been generated using large language models, with hallucinated information or fictitious references, would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles. ] (]) 00:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*One solution requiring a guideline change would to 'emphasize key terms' in bold or italics with the covention that said 'busy appearances' (to some, not I.) consistantly means "See the '''See Also List'''' at the end for a link; but I don't advocate this, as it's too much work for little gain 'Wiki-wide', plus the below counterpoint. This would have the virtue of being consistent with tail-end-charlie '''external links placement''' as well.
*::Yes, but G11 is looking for blatant advertising ("Buy widgets now at www.widgets.com! Blue-green widgets in stock today!") It's not looking for anything and everything that needs to be fundamentally re-written. ] (]) 00:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*In the main, this strikes me as an area where hard and fast rules are probably not a good idea. Providing additional links as a long history article develops is probably a very good idea as the relationships between terms unfolds, the user can make his side trip for more information and return to exactly the same place in the original article by hitting backspace. That's definitely not the case for infrequently occuring links or bottom collected links, and I think these decisions should be left in the province of the editor or copyeditors following behind.
*::(Edit Conflict) How does G11 even apply here? Being written via LLM does not make an article "promotional". Furthermore, even that CSD criteria states {{tq|If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.}} I.e. TNT it to a single sentence and problem solved. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*I do think that the guidelines should be firm on the following, rather than any arbitrary 'count of lines' approach (My bi-focaled eyes are comfortable enough viewing 'small' to assume everyone uses the same size fonts for viewing!). 'Link Density' or 'busy appearance' should probably be evaluated '''strictly''' (only) in 'Medium' browser display mode, not whatever is the favorite of the editor. In an article on less weighty matters, less links are appropriate.
*The venue for proposing new criteria is at ]. So please make sure that you don't just edit in a new criterion without an RFC approving it, else it will be quickly reverted. ] (]) 00:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::] || ] 5 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)
*:Since we are talking about BLPs… the harm of hallucinated information does need to be taken very seriously. I would say the first step is to stubbify.
*:However, Deletion can be held off as a potential ''second'' step, pending a proper BEFORE check. ] (]) 01:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If the hallucination is sufficiently dramatic ("'''Joe Film''' is a superhero action figure", when it ought to say that he's an actor who once had a part in a superhero movie), then you might be able to make a good case for {{tl|db-hoax}}. ] (]) 05:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I have deleted an AI generated article with fake content and references as a hoax. So that may well be possible. ] (]) 12:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


:Isn't this covered by ]? ] (]) 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== copyright problem procedure ==
{{Archive bottom}}


== AFD clarification ==
If I find a page that is a copyvio does it ''have'' to be given the <nowiki>{{copyvio}}</nowiki> template and listed on WP:CP or can it just be rewritten? If it has already been listed on WP:CP does a rewrite have to go on a temp page and wait for the WP:CP listing to time out instead of replacing the old version? (If I already made the mistake of just replacing with a rewrite should I restore the copyvio template and move my rewrite to the temp page it points to?)] July 2, 2005 02:09 (UTC)


The ] article states that:
:It's better to restore the copyvio template and do the rewrite on the temp page. If you find a copyvio page, it's better to tag it as copyvio and do the rewrite on the temp page. --] 2 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)
{{TQ|If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.}}


Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? ] (]) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't really understand why we do this. The {{tl|copyvio}} template is supposed to be for ''possible'' copyright problems. The whole rigmarole is unnecessary for ''definite'' copyright problems. In those cases, we may as well re-write immediately. ] ] 3 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)
:Yes. If there is a contested redirect, the article is restored and it is brought to AfD. ] (]/]) 04:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think the ideal process is:
::* Have an ordinary discussion on the talk page about redirecting the page.
::* If (and only if) that discussion fails to reach consensus, try again at AFD.
::I dislike starting with AFD. It isn't usually necessary, and it sometimes has a feel of the nom trying to get rid of it through any means possible ("I'll suggest a ], but maybe I'll be lucky and they'll delete it completely"). ] (]) 05:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Would need some stats on the it isn't usually necessary claim, my intuition based on experience is that if a BLAR is contested it's either dropped or ends up at AfD. ] (]) 05:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with that. From what I have seen at least, if redirecting is contested, it then is usually discussed at AFD, but that's just me. ] (]) 08:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It depends how active the respective talk pages are (redirected article and target), but certainly for ones that are quiet AfD is going to be the most common. ] (]) 09:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It will also depend on whether you advertise the discussion, e.g., at an active WikiProject. ] (]) 19:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I usually just go straight to AfD. I've found that editors contesting redirects usually !vote keep and discussing on talk just prolongs the inevitable AfD. ] (]/]) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Gotcha. ] (]) 15:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Looking at the above comments: What is it about the ] process that isn't working for you all? If you redirect an article and it gets reverted, why aren't you starting a PM? ] (]) 21:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::For me, it's lack of participation, no tool to list something at PAM, and no relisting option so proposed merges just sit for a very long time before being closed. ] (]/]) 23:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::What voorts said. Multiple times now I've floated the idea of making PAM more like RM, one of these years I should really get around to doing something more than that. I won't have time before the new year though. ] (]) 23:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think PAM should be merged into AfD, since both generally involve discussions of notability. ] (]/]) 00:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Merging often involves questions of overlap and topical distinction rather than just notability, although this also ends up discussed at AfD. I do wonder if this would leave proposals to split out in the cold though, as much like merge discussions they just sit there. ] (]) 04:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The most important tool is Twinkle > Tag > Merge. I personally prefer its "Merge to" option, but there's a plain "Merge" if you don't know exactly which page should be the target.
:::::All merges get bot-listed in ]. ] is another place to advertise it, and I'd bet that Twinkle could post those automatically with relatively little work (an optional button, similar to notifying the creator of deletion plans).
:::::I dislike "relisting"; things should just stay open as long as they need to, without adding decorative comments about the discussion not happening fast enough. In my experience, merge proposals stay open because everyone's agreed on the outcome but nobody wants to do the work. ] (]) 06:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:In this context isn't redirection a *type* of deletion (specifically delete while leaving a redirect)? ] (]) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would think so. ] (]) 07:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's only a deletion if an admin pushes the delete button. Blanking and redirecting – even blanking, redirecting, and full-protecting the redirect so nobody can un-redirect it – is not deletion. ] (]) 07:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That might be clear to you (and the other admins) but almost nobody in the general community understands that (to the point where I would say its just wrong, deletion is broader than that in practice). ] (]) 16:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, it has always been clear to me, and I am not, and have never wished to be, an admin. But, then again, I am a bit strange in that I expect things to be as people say that they will be. ] (]) 18:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Contested redirects going to AfD makes sense. Articles are redirected for the same reasons they're deleted and redirecting is probably the most common ATD. I've opened plenty of AfDs where my nom recommends a redirect instead of deletion, including when I've BLARed an article and had the BLAR reverted. ] (]/]) 18:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If a redirect has already been discussed or attempted, and consensus can't be reached easily, then I've got no problem with AFD. What I don't want to see is no discussion, no bold redirects, nobody's even hinted about a merge, and now it's at AFD, when the problem could have been resolved through a less intense method. ] (]) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation ==
::I might put it more strongly. If a breach of copyright is established, continuing to display the offending material without permission will constitute an additional act of infringement because it converts the display on the part of Wiki as publisher from an arguably unintentional to an intentional act. It should be removed from public display immediately, regardless of when it might (or might not) be rewritten. -] 3 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
<!-- ] 22:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737324070}}
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=5F11665}}


Should ] be amended to:
:::The offending material is not displayed in either case - if we go down the template route, the template completely replaces the text. If we go down the rewrite route, the rewrite replaces the text. ] ] 3 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)
* '''Option 1'''{{snd}}Require former administrators to request restoration of their tools at the ] (BN) if they are eligible to do so (i.e., they do not fit into any of the exceptions).
* '''Option 2'''{{snd}}<s>Clarify</s> <ins>Maintain the status quo</ins> that former administrators who would be eligible to request restoration via BN may instead request restoration of their tools via a voluntary ] (RfA).
* '''Option 3'''{{snd}}Allow bureaucrats to SNOW-close RfAs as successful if (a) 48 hours have passed, (b) the editor has right of resysop, and (c) a SNOW close is warranted.


'''Background''': This issue arose in one ] and is currently being discussed in an ]. ] (]/]) 21:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)<br />
::::But it's still available in the page history. That's why the page needs deleting and any rewrites should go on the /temp page. ]|] 3 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
'''Note''': There is an ongoing related discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Making voluntary "reconfirmation" RFA's less controversial}}.<br />
'''Note''': Option 2 was modified around 22:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC).
'''Note''': Added option 3. ] (] • she/her) 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: ], ], ], ], ]. ] (]/]) 21:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
*'''2''' per ]. If an admin wishes to be held accountable for their actions at a re-RfA, they should be allowed to do so. ] ] 21:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Also fine with 3 ] ] 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* There is ongoing discussion about this at ]. ] (]) 21:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
** '''2''', after thought. I don't think 3 provides much benefit, and creating separate class of RfAs that are speedy passed feels a misstep. If there are serious issues surrounding wasting time on RfAs set up under what might feel to someone like misleading pretenses, that is best solved by putting some indicator next to their RFA candidate name. Maybe "Hog Farm ('''RRfA''')". ] (]) 14:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
**:{{tq|best solved by putting some indicator next to their RFA candidate name. Maybe "Hog Farm (RRfA)"}} - I like this idea, if option 2 comes out as consensus I think this small change would be a step in the right direction, as the "this isn't the best use of time" crowd (myself included) would be able to quickly identify the type of RFAs they don't want to participate in. ]&nbsp;] 11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
**::I think that's a great idea. I would support adding some text encouraging people who are considering seeking reconfirmation to add (RRfA) or (reconfirmation) after their username in the RfA page title. That way people who are averse to reading or participating in reconfirmations can easily avoid them, and no one is confused about what is going on. ] (]) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
**::I think this would be a great idea if it differentiated against recall RfAs. ] (]) 18:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
**:::If we are differentiating three types of RFA we need three terms. Post-recall RFAs are referred to as "reconfirmation RFAs", "Re-RFAS" or "RRFAs" in multiple places, so ones of the type being discussed here are the ones that should take the new term. "Voluntary reconfirmation RFA" (VRRFA or just VRFA) is the only thing that comes to mind but others will probably have better ideas. ] (]) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''1''' ] ] 21:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' I don't see why people trying to do the right thing should be discouraged from doing so. If others feel it is a waste of time, they are free to simply not participate. ] ] 21:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' Getting reconfirmation from the community should be allowed. Those who see it as a waste of time can ignore those RfAs. ]&nbsp;] 21:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*Of course they may request at RfA. They shouldn't but they may. This RfA feels like it does nothing to address the criticism actually in play and per the link to the idea lab discussion it's premature to boot. ] (]) 21:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' per my comments at the idea lab discussion and Queent of Hears, Beeblebrox and Scazjmd above. I strongly disagree with Barkeep's comment that "They shouldn't ". It shouldn't be made mandatory, but it should be encouraged where the time since desysop and/or the last RFA has been lengthy. ] (]) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:When to encourage it would be a worthwhile RfC and such a discussion could be had at the idea lab before launching an RfC. Best, ] (]) 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I've started that discussion as a subsection to the linked VPI discussion. ] (]) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''1''' <ins>or '''3'''</ins>. RFA is an "expensive" process in terms of community time. RFAs that qualify should be fast-tracked via the BN process. It is only recently that a trend has emerged that folks that don't need to RFA are RFAing again. 2 in the last 6 months. If this continues to scale up, it is going to take up a lot of community time, and create noise in the various RFA statistics and RFA notification systems (for example, watchlist notices and ]). –] <small>(])</small> 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Making statistics "noisy" is just a reason to improve the way the statistics are gathered. In this case collecting statistics for reconfirmation RFAs separately from other RFAs would seem to be both very simple and very effective. ''If'' (and it is a very big if) the number of reconfirmation RFAs means that notifications are getting overloaded, ''then'' we can discuss whether reconfirmation RFAs should be notified differently. As far as differentiating them, that is also trivially simple - just add a parameter to ] (perhaps "reconfirmation=y") that outputs something that bots and scripts can check for. ] (]) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Option 3 looks like a good compromise. I'd support that too. –] <small>(])</small> 22:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm weakly opposed to option 3, editors who want feedback and a renewed mandate from the community should be entitled to it. If they felt that that a quick endorsement was all that was required then could have had that at BN, they explicitly chose not to go that route. Nobody is required to participate in an RFA, so if it is going the way you think it should, or you don't have an opinion, then just don't participate and your time has not been wasted. ] (]) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2'''. We should not make it ''more difficult'' for administrators to be held accountable for their actions in the way they please. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Added '''option 3''' above. Maybe worth considering as a happy medium, where unsure admins can get a check on their conduct without taking up too much time. ] (] • she/her) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' – If a former admin wishes to subject themselves to RfA to be sure they have the requisite community confidence to regain the tools, why should we stop them? Any editor who feels the process is a waste of time is free to ignore any such RfAs. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#x2693;&nbsp;] 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*I would also support option '''3''' if the time is extended to 72 hours instead of 48. That, however, is a detail that can be worked out after this RfC. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#x2693;&nbsp;] 02:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' per leek. ] (]/]) 22:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:A further note: option 3 gives 'crats the discretion to SNOW close a successful voluntary re-RfA; it doesn't require such a SNOW close, and I trust the 'crats to keep an RfA open if an admin has a good reason for doing so. ] (]/]) 23:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' as per {{noping|JJPMaster}}. Regards, --] (]) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' (no change) – The sample size is far too small for us to analyze the impact of such a change, but I believe RfA should always be available. Now that ] is policy, returning administrators may worry that they have become out of touch with community norms and may face a recall as soon as they get their tools back at BN. Having this familiar community touchpoint as an option makes a ton of sense, and would be far less disruptive / demoralizing than a potential recall. Taking this route away, even if it remains rarely used, would be detrimental to our desire for increased administrator accountability. – ] 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{ec}} I'm surprised the response here hasn't been more hostile, given that these give the newly-unresigned administrator a ] for a year. —] 22:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] hostile to what? ] (]) 22:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2, distant second preference 3'''. I would probably support 3 as first pick if not for recall's rule regarding last RfA, but as it stands, SNOW-closing a discussion that makes someone immune to recall for a year is a non-starter. Between 1 and 2, though, the only argument for 1 seems to be that it avoids a waste of time, for which there is the much simpler solution of not participating and instead doing something else. ] and ] are always there. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* 1 would be my preference, but I don't think we need a specific rule for this. -- ] (]) 23:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. <s>No second preference between 2 or 3.</s> As long as a former administrator didn't resign under a cloud, picking up the tools again should be low friction and low effort for the entire community. If there are issues introduced by the recall process, they should be fixed in the recall policy itself. ] (]) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:After considering this further, I prefer option 3 over option 2 if option 1 is not the consensus. ] (]) 07:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', i.e. leave well enough alone. There is really not a problem here that needs fixing. If someone doesn’t want to “waste their time” participating in an RfA that’s not required by policy, they can always, well, not participate in the RfA. No one is required to participate in someone else’s RfA, and I struggle to see the point of participating but then complaining about “having to” participate. ] (]) 01:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' nobody is obligated to participate in a re-confirmation RfA. If you think they are a waste of time, avoid them. ] (]) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''1 or 3''' per Novem Linguae. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 02:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''': Because it is incredibly silly to have situations like we do now of "this guy did something wrong by doing an RfA that policy explicitly allows, oh well, nothing to do but sit on our hands and dissect the process across three venues and counting." Your time is your own. No one is forcibly stealing it from you. At the same time it is equally silly to let the process drag on, for reasons explained in ]. ] (]) 03:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Update: Option 2 seems to be the consensus and I also would be fine with that. ] (]) 18:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' per Gnoming. I think 2 works, but it is a very long process and for someone to renew their tools, it feels like an unnecessarily long process compared to a normal RfA. ] (]) 04:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*As someone who supported both WormTT and Hog Farm's RfAs, option 1 > option 3 >> option 2. At each individual RfA the question is whether or not a specific editor should be an admin, and in both cases I felt that the answer was clearly "yes". However, I agree that RfA is a very intensive process. It requires a lot of time from the community, as others have argued better than I can. I prefer option 1 to option 3 because the existence of the procedure in option 3 implies that it is a good thing to go through 48 hours of RfA to re-request the mop. But anything which saves community time is a good thing. <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 04:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I've seen this assertion made multiple times now that {{tpq| requires a lot of time from the community}}, yet nowhere has anybody articulated how why this is true. What time is required, given that nobody is required to participate and everybody who does choose to participate can spend as much or as little time assessing the candidate as they wish? How and why does a reconfirmation RFA require any more time from editors (individually or collectively) than a request at BN? ] (]) 04:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I think there are a number of factors and people are summing it up as "time-wasting" or similar:
*::# BN Is designed for this exact scenario. It's also clearly a less contentious process.
*::# Snow closures a good example of how we try to avoid wasting community time on unnecessary process and the same reasoning applies here. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and there's no reason to have a 7-day process when the outcome is a given.
*::# If former administrators continue to choose re-RFAs over BN, it could set a problematic precedent where future re-adminship candidates feel pressured to go through an RFA and all that entails. I don't want to discourage people already vetted by the community from rejoining the ranks.
*::# The RFA process is designed to be a thoughtful review of prospective administrators and I'm concerned these kinds of perfunctory RFAs will lead to people taking the process less seriously in the future.
*::] (]) 07:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Because several thousand people have RFA on their watchlist, and thousands more will see the "there's an open RFA" notice on theirs whether they follow it or not. Unlike BN, RFA is a process that depends on community input from a large number of people. In order to even ''realise that the RFA is not worth their time'', they have to:
*::* Read the opening statement and first few question answers (I just counted, HF's opening and first 5 answers are about 1000 words)
*::* Think, "oh, they're an an ex-admin, I wonder why they're going through RFA, what was their cloud"
*::* Read through the comments and votes to see if any issues have been brought up (another ~1000 words)
*::* None have
*::* Realise your input is not necessary and this could have been done at BN
*::This process will be repeated by hundreds of editors over the course of a week. ]&nbsp;] 08:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::That they were former admins has always been the first two sentences of their RfA’s statement, sentences which are immediately followed by that they resigned due to personal time commitment issues. You do not have to read the first 1000+ words to figure that out. If the reader wants to see if the candidate was lying in their statement, then they just have a quick skim through the oppose section. None of this should take more than 30 seconds in total. ] (]) 13:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Not everyone can skim things easily - it personally takes me a while to read sections. I don't know if they're going to bury the lede and say something like "Also I made 10,000 insane redirects and then decided to take a break just before arbcom launched a case" in paragraph 6. Hog Farm's self nom had two paragraphs about disputes and it takes more than 30 seconds to unpick that and determine if that is a "cloud" or not. Even for reconfirmations, it definitely takes more than 30 seconds to determine a conclusion. ]&nbsp;] 11:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::They said they resigned to personal time commitments. That is directly saying they wasn’t under a cloud, so I’ll believe them unless someone claims the contrary in the oppose section. If the disputes section contained a cloud, the oppose section would have said so. One chooses to examine such nominations like normal RfAs. ] (]) 18:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Just to double check, you're saying that whenever you go onto an RFA you expect any reason to oppose to already be listed by someone else, and no thought is required? I am begining to see how you are able to assess an RFA in under 30 seconds ]&nbsp;] 23:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Something in their statement would be an incredibly obvious reason. We are talking about the assessment whether to examine and whether the candidate could've used BN. ] (]) 12:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@] let's not confuse "a lot of community time is spent" with "waste of time". Some people have characterized the re-RFAs as a waste of time but that's not the assertion I (and I think a majority of the skeptics) have been making. All RfAs use a lot of community time as hundreds of voters evaluate the candidate. They then choose to support, oppose, be neutral, or not vote at all. While editor time is not perfectly fixed - editors may choose to spend less time on non-Misplaced Pages activities at certain times - neither is it a resource we have in abundance anymore relative to our project. And so I think we, as a community, need to be thought about how we're using that time especially when the use of that time would have been spent on other wiki activities.Best, ] (]) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Absolutely nothing compels anybody to spend any time evaluating an RFA. If you think your wiki time is better spent elsewhere than evaluating an RFA candidate, then spend it elsewhere. That way only those who do think it is a good use of their time will participate and everybody wins. You win by not spending your time on something that you don't think is worth it, those who do participate don't have ''their'' time wasted by having to read comments (that contradict explicit policy) about how the RFA is a waste of time. Personally I regard evaluating whether a long-time admin still has the approval of the community to be a very good use of community time, you are free to disagree, but please don't waste my time by forcing me to read comments about how you think I'm wasting my time. ] (]) 23:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I am not saying you or anyone else is wasting time and am surprised you are so fervently insisting I am. Best, ] (]) 03:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I don't understand how your argument that it is not a good use of community time is any different from arguing that it is a waste of time? ] (]) 09:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I don't mind the re-RFAs, but I'd appreciate if we encouraged restoration via BN instead, I just object to making it mandatory. ] <sup>(]) </sup> 06:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. Banning voluntary re-RfAs would be a step in the wrong direction on admin accountability. Same with SNOW closing. There is no more "wasting of community time" if we let the RfA run for the full seven days, but allowing someone to dig up a scandal on the seventh day is an important part of the RfA process. The only valid criticism I've heard is that folks who do this are arrogant, but banning arrogance, while noble, seems highly impractical. ] </span>]] 07:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*Option 3, 1, then 2, per HouseBlaster. Also agree with Daniel Quinlan. I think these sorts of RFA's should only be done in exceptional circumstances. ] (]) 08:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''' as first preference, option 3 second. RFAs use up a lot of time - hundreds of editors will read the RFA and it takes time to come to a conclusion. When that conclusion is "well that was pointless, my input wasn't needed", it is not a good system. I think transparency and accountability is a very good thing, and we need more of it for resyssopings, but that should come from improving the normal process (BN) rather than using a different one (RFA). My ideas for improving the BN route to make it more transparent and better at getting community input is outlined over on the ]&nbsp;] 08:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''', though I'd be for '''option 3''' too. I'm all for administrators who feel like they want/should go through an RfA to solicit feedback even if they've been given the tools back already. I see multiple people talk about going through BN, but if I had to hazard a guess, it's way less watched than RfA is. However I do feel like watchlist notifications should say something to the effect of "A request for re-adminship feedback is open for discussion" so that people that don't like these could ignore them. <span>♠] ]</span>♠ 09:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' because ] is well-established policy. Read ], which says quite clearly, {{tpq|Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process.}} I went back 500 edits to 2017 and the wording was substantially the same back then. So, I simply do not understand why various editors are berating former administrators to the point of accusing them of wasting time and being arrogant for choosing to go through a process which is ''specifically permitted by policy''. It is bewildering to me. ] (]) 09:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 & 3''' I think that there still should be the choice between BN and re-RFA for resysops, but I think that the re-RFA should stay like it is in Option 3, unless it is controversial, at which point it could be extended to the full RFA period. I feel like this would be the best compromise between not "wasting" community time (which I believe is a very overstated, yet understandable, point) and ensuring that the process is based on broad consensus and that our "representatives" are still supported. If I were WTT or Hog, I might choose to make the same decision so as to be respectful of the possibility of changing consensus. ] (]) &#124; :) &#124; he/him &#124; 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', for lack of a better choice. Banning re-RFAs is not a great idea, and we should not SNOW close a discussion that would give someone immunity from a certain degree of accountability. I've dropped an idea for an option 4 in the discussion section below. ] (]) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' I agree with Graham87 that these sorts of RFAs should only be done in exceptional circumstances, and BN is the best place to ask for tools back. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I don't think prohibition makes sense. It also has weird side effects. eg: some admins' voluntary recall policies may now be completely void, because they would be unable to follow them even if they wanted to, because policy prohibits them from doing a RFA. (maybe if they're also 'under a cloud' it'd fit into exemptions, but if an admins' policy is "3 editors on this named list tell me I'm unfit, I resign" then this isn't really a cloud.) {{pb}} Personally, I think Hog Farm's RFA was unwise, as he's textbook uncontroversial. Worm's was a decent RFA; he's also textbook uncontroversial but it happened at a good time. But any editor participating in these discussions to give the "support" does so using their own time. Everyone who feels their time is wasted can choose to ignore the discussion, and instead it'll pass as 10-0-0 instead of 198-2-4. It just doesn't make sense to prohibit someone from seeking a community discussion, though. For almost anything, really. ] (]) 12:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' It takes like two seconds to support or ignore an RFA you think is "useless"... can't understand the hullabaloo around them. I stand by what I said on ] regarding RFAs being about evaluating trustworthiness and accountability. Trustworthy people don't skip the process. —] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> (] · ]) 15:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' - Option 2 is a waste of community time. - ] (]) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Why? ] (]) 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' is fine. '''Strong oppose''' to 1 and 3. Opposing option 1 because there is nothing wrong with asking for extra community feedback. opposing option 3 because once an RfA has been started, it should follow the standard rules. Note that RfAs are extremely rare and non-contentious RfAs require very little community time (unlike this RfC which seems a waste of community time, but there we are). —] (]) 16:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''', with no opposition to 3. I see nothing wrong with a former administrator getting re-confirmed by the community, and community vetting seems like a good thing overall. If people think it's a waste of time, then just ignore the RfA. ] (]) 17:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' Sure, and clarify that should such an RFA be unsuccessful they may only regain through a future rfa. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' If contributing to such an RFA is a waste of your time, just don't participate. ] (]) 18:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No individual is wasting their time participating. Instead the person asking for a re-rfa is ''using'' tons of editor time by asking hundreds of people to vet them. Even the choice not to participate requires at least some time to figure out that this is not a new RfA; though at least in the two we've had recently it would require only as long as it takes to get to the RfA - for many a click from the watchlist and then another click into the rfa page - and to read the first couple of sentences of the self-nomination which isn't terribly long all things considered. Best, ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I agree with you (I think) that it's a matter of perspective. For me, clicking the RFA link in my watchlist and reading the first paragraph of Hog Farm's nomination (where they explained that they were already a respected admin) took me about 10 seconds. Ten seconds is nothing; in my opinion, this is just a nonissue. But then again, I'm not an admin, checkuser, or an oversighter. Maybe the time to read such a nomination is really wasting their time. I don't know. ] (]) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm an admin and an oversighter (but not a checkuser). None of my time was wasted by either WTT or Hog Farm's nominations. ] (]) 23:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2'''. Maintain the ''status quo''. And stop worrying about a trivial non-problem. --] (]) 22:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2'''. This reminds me of banning plastic straws (bear with me). Sure, I suppose in theory, that this is a burden on the community's time (just as straws do end up in landfills/the ocean). However, the amount of community time that is drained is minuscule compared to the amount of community time drained in countless, countless other fora and processes (just like the volume of plastic waste contributed by plastic straws is less than 0.001% of the total plastic waste). When WP becomes an efficient, well oiled machine, then maybe we can talk about saving community time by banning re-RFA's. But this is much ado about nothing, and indeed this plan to save people from themselves, and not allow them to simply decide whether to participate or not, is arguably more damaging than some re-RFAs (just as banning straws convinced some people that "these save-the-planet people are so ridiculous that I'm not going to bother listening to them about anything."). And, in fact, on a separate note, I'd actually love it if more admins just ran a re-RFA whenever they wanted. They would certainly get better feedback than just posting "What do my talk page watchers think?" on their own talk page. Or waiting until they get yelled at on their talk page, AN/ANI, AARV, etc. We say we want admins to respect feedback; does it '''have''' to be in a recall petition? --] (]) 23:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:What meaningful feedback has Hog Farm gotten? "A minority of people think you choose poorly in choosing this process to regain adminship". What are they supposed to do with that? I share your desire for editors to share meaningful feedback with administrators. My own attempt yielded some, though mainly offwiki where I was told I was both too cautious and too impetuous (and despite the seeming contradiction each was valuable in its own way). So yes let's find ways to get meaningful feedback to admins outside of recall or being dragged to ANI. Unfortunately re-RfA seems to be poorly suited to the task and so we can likely find a better way. Best, ] (]) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Let us all take some comfort in the fact that no one has yet criticized this RfC comment as being a straw man argument. --] (]) 23:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No hard rule, but we should socially discourage confirmation RfAs''' There is a difference between a hard rule, and a soft social rule. A hard rule against confirmation RfA's, like option 1, would not do a good job of accounting for edge cases and would thus be ultimately detrimental here. But a soft social rule against them would be beneficial. Unfortunately, that is not one of the options of this RfC. In short, a person should have a good reason to do a confirmation RfA. If you're going to stand up before the community and ask "do you trust me," that should be for a good reason. It shouldn't just be because you want the approval of your peers. (Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that is why either Worm or Hogfarm re-upped, I'm just trying to create a general purpose rule here.) That takes some introspection and humility to ask yourself: is it worth me inviting two or three hundred people to spend part of their lives to comment on me as a person?{{pb}}A lot of people have thrown around ] in their reasonings. Obviously, broad generalizations about it aren't convincing anyone. So let me just share my own experience. I saw the watchlist notice open that a new RfA was being run. I reacted with some excitement, because I always like seeing new admins. When I got to the page and saw Hogfarm's name, I immediately thought "isn't he already an admin?" I then assumed, ah, its just the classic RfA reaction at seeing a qualified candidate, so I'll probably support him since I already think he's an admin. But then as I started to do my due diligence and read, I saw that he really, truly, already had been an admin. At that point, my previous excitement turned to a certain unease. I had voted yes for Worm's confirmation RfA, but here was another...and I realized that my blind support for Worm might have been the start of an entirely new process. I then thought "bet there's an RfC going about this," and came here. I then spent a while polishing up my essay on editor time, before taking time to write this message. All in all, I probably spent a good hour doing this. Previously, I'd just been clicking the random article button and gnoming. So, the longwinded moral: yeah, this did eat up a lot of my editor time that could have and was being spent doing something else. And I'd do it again! It was important to do my research and to comment here. But in the future...maybe I won't react quite as excitedly to seeing that RfA notice. Maybe I'll feel a little pang of dread...wondering if its going to be a confirmation RfA. We can't pretend that confirmation RfA's are costless, and that we don't lose anything even if editors just ignore them. When run, it should be because they are necessary. ] <sup>]</sup>] 03:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:And for what its worth, support '''Option 3''' because I'm generally a fan of putting more tools in people's toolboxes. ] <sup>]</sup>] 03:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tpq|In short, a person should have a good reason to do a confirmation RfA. If you're going to stand up before the community and ask "do you trust me," that should be for a good reason. It shouldn't just be because you want the approval of your peers.}} Asking the community whether you still have their trust to be an administrator, which is what an reconfirmation RFA is, ''is'' a good reason. I expect getting a near-unanimous "yes" is good for one's ego, but that's just a (nice) side-effect of the far more important benefits to the entire community: a trusted administrator.
*:The time you claim is being eaten up unnecessarily by reconfirmation RFAs was actually taken up by you choosing to spend your time writing an essay about using time for things you don't approve of and then hunting out an RFC in which you wrote another short essay about using time on things you don't approve of. Absolutely none of that is a necessary consequence of reconfirmation RFAs - indeed the response consistent with your stated goals would have been to read the first two sentences of Hog Farm's RFA and then closed the tab and returned to whatever else it was you were doing. ] (]) 09:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:WTT's and Hog Farm's RFAs would have been completely uncontentious, something I hope for at RfA and certainly the opposite of what I "dread" at RfA, if it were not for the people who attack the very concept of standing for RfA again despite policy being crystal clear that it is absolutely fine. I don't see how any blame for this situation can be put on WTT or HF. We can't pretend that dismissing uncontentious reconfirmation RfAs is costless; discouraging them removes one of the few remaining potentially wholesome bits about the process. —] (]) 09:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] Would you find it better if Watchlist notices and similar said "(re?)confirmation RFA" instead of "RFA"? Say for all voluntary RFAs from an existing admin or someone who could have used BN?
*:As a different point, I would be quite against any social discouraging if we're not making a hard rule as such. Social discouraging is what got us the opposes at WTT/Hog Farm's RFAs, which I found quite distasteful and badgering. If people disagree with a process, they should change it. But if the process remains the same, I think it's important to not enable RFA's toxicity by encouraging others to namecall or re-argue the process in each RRFA. It's a short road from social discouragement to toxicity, unfortunately. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes I think the watchlist notice should specify what kind of RfA, especially with the introduction of recall. ] <sup>]</sup>] 16:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1'''. Will prevent the unnecessary drama trend we are seeing in the recent. – ] (]) 07:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''' if people think there's a waste of community time, don't spend your time voting or discussing. Or add "reconfirmation" or similar to the watchlist notice. ] (]) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3''' (which I think is a subset of option 2, so I'm okay with the status quo, but I want to endorse giving 'crats the option to SNOW). While they do come under scrutiny from time to time for the extensive dicsussions in the "maybe" zone following RfAs, this should be taken as an indiciation that they are unlikely to do something like close it as SNOW in the event there is <em>real and substantial</em> concerns being rasied. This is an okay tool to give the 'crats. As far as I can tell, no one has ever accused the them of moving too quickly in this direction (not criticism; love you all, keep up the good work). ] (]) 17:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3 or Option 2'''. Further, if Option 2 passes, I expect it also ends all the bickering about lost community time. A consensus explicitly in favour of "This is allowed" should also be a consensus to discourage relitigation of this RFC. ] (]) 17:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''': Admins who do not exude entitlement are to be praised. Those who criticize this humility should have a look in the mirror before accusing those who ask for reanointment from the community of "arrogance". I agree that it wouldn't be a bad idea to mention in parentheses that the RFA is a reconfirmation (watchlist) and wouldn't see any problem with crats snow-closing after, say, 96 hours. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I disagree that BN shouldn't be the normal route. RfA is already as hard and soul-crushing as it is. ] (]) 20:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Who are you disagreeing with? This RfC is about voluntary RRfA. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 20:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I know. I see a sizable amount of commenters here starting to say that voluntary re-RfAs should be encouraged, and your first sentence can be easily read as implying that admins who use the BN route exude entitlement. I disagree with that (see my reply to Thryduulf below). ] (]) 12:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::One way to improve the reputation of RFA is for there to be more RFAs that are not terrible, such as reconfirmations of admins who are doing/have done a good job who sail through with many positive comments. There is no proposal to make RFA mandatory in circumstances it currently isn't, only to reaffirm that those who voluntarily choose RFA are entitled to do so. ] (]) 21:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I know it's not a proposal, but there's enough people talking about this so far that it could become a proposal.<br />There's nearly nothing in between that could've lost the trust of the community. I'm sure there are many who do not want to be pressured into ] without good reason. ] (]) 12:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Absolutely nobody is proposing, suggesting or hinting here that reconfirmation RFAs should become mandatory - other than comments from a few people who oppose the idea of people voluntarily choosing to do something policy explicitly allows them to choose to do. The best way to avoid people being pressured into being accused of arrogance for seeking reconfirmation of their status from the community is to sanction those people who accuse people of arrogance in such circumstances as such comments are in flagrant breach of AGF and NPA. ] (]) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, I’m saying that they should not become preferred. There should be no social pressure to do RfA instead of BN, only pressure intrinsic to the candidate. ] (]) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Whether they should become preferred in any situation forms no part of this proposal in any way shape or form - this seeks only to reaffirm that they are permitted. A separate suggestion, completely independent of this one, is to encourage (explicitly not mandate) them in some (but explicitly not all) situations. All discussions on this topic would benefit if people stopped misrepresenting the policies and proposals - especially when the falsehoods have been explicitly called out. ] (]) 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I am talking and worrying over that separate proposal many here are suggesting. I don’t intend to oppose Option 2, and sorry if I came off that way. ] (]) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. In fact, I'm inclined to ''encourage'' an RRfA over BN, because nothing requires editors to participate in an RRfA, but the resulting discussion is better for reaffirming community consensus for the former admin or otherwise providing helpful feedback. --] (]) 21:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' ] has said "{{tq|Former administrators may seek reinstatement of their privileges through RfA...}}" for over ten years and this is not a problem. I liked the opportunity to be consulted in the current RfA and don't consider this a waste of time. ]🐉(]) 22:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. People who think it’s not a good use of their time always have the option to scroll past. ] (]) 01:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''2''' - If an administrator gives up sysop access because they plan to be inactive for a while and want to minimize the attack surface of Misplaced Pages, they should be able to ask for permissions back the quickest way possible. If an administrator resigns because they do not intend to do the job anymore, and later changes their mind, they should request a community discussion. The right course of action depends on the situation. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. I've watched a lot of RFAs and re-RFAs over the years. There's a darn good reason why the community developed the "go to BN" option: saves time, is straightforward, and if there are issues that point to a re-RFA, they're quickly surfaced. People who refuse to take the community-developed process of going to BN first are basically telling the community that they need the community's full attention on their quest to re-admin. Yes, there are those who may be directed to re-RFA by the bureaucrats, in which case, they have followed the community's carefully crafted process, and their re-RFA should be evaluated from that perspective. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. If people want to choose to go through an RFA, who are we to stop them? ] (]) 10:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' (status quo/no changes) per ]. This is bureaucratic rulemongering at its finest. Every time RFA reform comes up some editors want admins to be required to periodically reconfirm, then when some admins decide to reconfirm voluntarily, suddenly that's seen as a bad thing. The correct thing to do here is nothing. If you don't like voluntary reconfirmation RFAs, you are not required to participate in them. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I would probably counsel just going to BN most of the time, however there are exceptions and edge cases. To this point these RfAs have been few in number, so the costs incurred are relatively minor. If the number becomes large then it might be worth revisiting, but I don't see that as likely. Some people will probably impose social costs on those who start them by opposing these RfAs, with the usual result, but that doesn't really change the overall analysis. Perhaps it would be better if our idiosyncratic internal logic didn't produce such outcomes, but that's a separate issue and frankly not really worth fighting over either. There's probably some meta issues here I'm unaware off, it's long since I've had my finger on the community pulse so to speak, but they tend to matter far less than people think they do. ] (]) 02:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''', per ], ], ], ], and related principles. We all have far better things to do that read through and argue in/about a totally unnecessary RfA invoked as a "Show me some love!" abuse of process and waste of community time and productivity. I could live with option 3, if option 1 doesn't fly (i.e. shut these silly things down as quickly as possible). But option 2 is just out of the question. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 04:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Except none of the re-RFAs complained about have been {{tpq|RfA invoked as a "Show me some love!" abuse of process}}, you're arguing against a strawman. ] (]) 11:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It's entirely a matter of opinion and perception, or A) this RfC wouldn't exist, and B) various of your fellow admins like TonyBallioni would not have come to the same conclusion I have. Whether the underlying intent (which no one can determine, lacking as we do any magical mind-reading powers) is solely egotistical is ultimately irrelevant. The {{em|actual effect}} (what matters) of doing this whether for attention, or because you've somehow confused yourself into think it needs to be done, is precisely the same: a showy waste of community volunteers' time with no result other than a bunch of attention being drawn to a particular editor and their deeds, without any actual need for the community to engage in a lengthy formal process to re-examine them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tqb|or because you've somehow confused yourself into think it needs to be done}} I and many others here agree and stand behind the very reasoning that has "confused" such candidates, at least for WTT. ] (]) 15:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. I see no legitimate reason why we should be changing the status quo. Sure, some former admins might find it easier to go through BN, and it might save community time, and most former admins ''already'' choose the easier option. However, if a candidate last ran for adminship several years ago, or if issues were raised during their tenure as admin, then it may be helpful for them to ask for community feedback, anyway. There is no "wasted" community time in such a case. I really don't get the claims that this violates ], because it really doesn't apply when a former admin last ran for adminship 10 or 20 years ago or wants to know if they still have community trust.{{pb}}On the other hand, if an editor thinks a re-RFA is a waste of community time, they can simply choose not to participate in that RFA. Opposing individual candidates' re-RFAs based solely on opposition to re-RFAs in general ''is'' a violation of ]. &ndash; ] (]) 14:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But this isn't the status quo? We've never done a re-RfA before now. The question is whether this previously unconsidered process, which appeared as an ], is a feature or a bug. ] <sup>]</sup>] 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::There have been lots of re-RFAs, historically. There were more common in the 2000s. ] in 2003 is the earliest I can find, back before the re-sysopping system had been worked out fully. ] back in 2007 was snow-closed after one day, because the nominator and applicant didn't know that they could have gone to the bureaucrats' noticeboard. For more modern examples, ] (2011) is relatively similar to the recent re-RFAs in the sense that the admin resigned uncontroversially but chose to re-RFA before getting the tools back. Immediately following and inspired by HJ Mitchell's, there was the slightly more controversial ]. That ended successful re-RFAS until 2019's ], which crat-chatted. Since then, there have been none that I remember. There have been several re-RFAs from admins who were de-sysopped or at serious risk of de-sysopping, and a few interesting edge cases such as the yet no-consensus ] in 2014 and the ] case in 2015, but those are very different than what we're talking about today. ] (]) 00:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::To add on to that, ] was technically a reconfirmation RFA, which in a sense can be treated as a re-RFA. My point is, there is some precedent for re-RFAs, but the current guidelines are ambiguous as to when re-RFAs are or aren't allowed. &ndash; ] (]) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Well thank you both, I've learned something new today. It turns out I was working on a false assumption. It has just been so long since a re-RfA that I assumed it was a truly new phenomenon, especially since there were two in short succession. I still can't say I'm thrilled by the process and think it should be used sparingly, but perhaps I was a bit over concerned. ] <sup>]</sup>] 16:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or 3''' per Gnoming and CaptainEek. Such RfAs only require at most 30 seconds for one to decide whether or not to spend their time on examination. Unlike other prohibited timesinks, it's not like something undesirable will happen if one does not sink their time. Voluntary reconfirmation RfAs are socially discouraged, so there is usually a very good reason for someone to go back there, such as accountability for past statements in the case of WTT or large disputes during adminship in the case of Hog Farm. I don't think we should outright deny these, and there is no disruption incurred if we don't. ] (]) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' but for largely the reasons presented by CaptainEek. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 21:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 (fine with better labeling)''' These don't seem harmful to me and, if I don't have time, I'll skip one and trust the judgment of my fellow editors. No objection to better labeling them though, as discussed above. ] (]) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' because it's just a waste of time to go through and !vote on candidates who just want the mop restored when he or she or they could get it restored BN with no problems. But I can also see option 2 being good for a former mod not in good standing. ] (]) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:If you think it is a waste of time to !vote on a candidate, just don't vote on that candidate and none of your time has been wasted. ] (]) 23:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion===
:::::You (or a neighbourly admin) should delete the offending material in either case. Per-revision deletion is available if necessary depending what order things are done. ] ] 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
*{{re|Voorts}} If option 2 gets consensus how would this RfC change the wording {{tqq|Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process.}} Or is this an attempt to see if that option no longer has consensus? If so why wasn't alternative wording proposed? As I noted above this feels premature in multiple ways. Best, ] (]) 21:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I've re-opened this per ] on my talk page. If other editors think this is premature, they can !vote accordingly and an uninvolved closer can determine if there's consensus for an early close in deference to the VPI discussion. ] (]/]) 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The discussion at VPI, which I have replied on, seems to me to be different enough from this discussion that both can run concurrently. That is, however, my opinion as a mere editor. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#x2693;&nbsp;] 22:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@], can you please reword the RfC to make it clear that Option 2 is the current consensus version? It does not need to be clarified – it already says precisely what you propose. – ] 22:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{done}} ] (]/]) 22:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': May someone clarify why many view such confirmation RfAs as a waste of community time? No editor is obligated to take up their time and participate. If there's nothing to discuss, then there's no friction or dis-cussing, and the RfA smooth-sails; if a problem is identified, then there was a good reason to go to RfA. I'm sure I'm missing something here. ] (]) 22:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*: The intent of RfA is to provide a comprehensive review of a candidate for adminship, to make sure that they meet the community's standards. Is that happening with vanity re-RfAs? Absolutely not, because these people don't need that level of vetting. I wouldn't consider a week long, publicly advertized back patting to be a productive use of volunteer time. -- ] (]) 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::But no volunteer is obligated to pat such candidates on the back. ] (]) 00:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::: Sure, but that logic could be used to justify any time sink. We're all volunteers and nobody is forced to do anything here, but that doesn't mean that we should promote (or stay silent with our criticism of, I suppose) things that we feel don't serve a useful purpose. I don't think this is a huge deal myself, but we've got two in a short period of time and I'd prefer to do a bit of push back now before they get more common. -- ] (]) 01:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Unlike other prohibited timesinks, it's not like something undesirable will happen if one does not sink their time. ] (]) 02:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Except someone who has no need for advanced tools and is not going to use them in any useful fashion, would then skate through with nary a word said about their unsuitability, regardless of the foregone conclusion. The point of RFA is not to rubber-stamp. Unless their is some actual issue or genuine concern they might not get their tools back, they should just re-request them at BN and stop wasting people's time with pointless non-process wonkery. ] (]) 09:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I’m confused. Adminship requires continued use of the tools. If you think they’s suitable for BN, I don’t see how doing an RfA suddenly makes them unsuitable. If you have concerns, raise them. ] (]) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*I don't think the suggested problem (which I acknowledge not everyone thinks is a problem) is resolved by these options. Admins can still run a re-confirmation RfA after regaining adminsitrative privileges, or even initiate a recall petition. I think as ], we want to encourage former admins who are unsure if they continue to be trusted by the community at a sufficient level to explore lower cost ways of determining this. ] (]) 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Regarding option 3, ]. The intent of having a reconfirmation request for administrative privileges is counteracted by closing it swiftly. It provides incentive for rapid voting that may not provide the desired considered feedback. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* In re the idea that RfAs use up a lot of community time: I first started editing Misplaced Pages in 2014. There were 62 RfAs that year, which was a historic low. Even counting all of the AElect candidates as separate RfAs, including those withdrawn before voting began, we're still up to only 53 in 2024 – counting only traditional RfAs it's only 18, which is the second lowest number ever. By my count we've has 8 resysop requests at BN in 2024; even if all of those went to RfA, I don't see how that would overwhelm the community. That would still leave us on 26 traditional RfAs per year, or (assuming all of them run the full week) one every other week. ] (]) 10:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* What about an option 4 encouraging eligible candidates to go through BN? At the end of the ], add something like "Eligible users are encouraged to use this method rather than running a new request for adminship." The current wording makes re-RfAing sound like a plausible alternative to a BN request, when in actual fact the former rarely happens and always generates criticism. ] (]) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Discouraging RFAs is the second last thing we should be doing (after prohibiting them), rather per my comments here and in the VPI discussion we should be ''encouraging'' former administrators to demonstrate that they still have the approval of the community. ] (]) 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I think this is a good idea if people do decide to go with option 2, if only to stave off any further mixed messages that people are doing something wrong or rude or time-wasting or whatever by doing a second RfA, when it's explicitly mentioned as a valid thing for them to do. ] (]) 15:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If RFA is explicitly a valid thing for people to do (which it is, and is being reaffirmed by the growing consensus for option 2) then we don't need to (and shouldn't) discourage people from using that option. The mixed messages can be staved off by people simply not making comments that explicitly contradict policy. ] (]) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Also a solid option, the question is whether people will actually do it. ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::The simplest way would be to just quickly hat/remove all such comments. Pretty soon people will stop making them. ] (]) 23:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* This is not new. We've had sporadic "vanity" RfAs since the early days of the process. I don't believe they're particularly harmful, and think that it unlikely that we will begin to see so many of them that they pose a problem. As such I don't think this policy proposal ]. ''']]''' 21:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* This apparent negative feeling evoked at an RFA for a former sysop ''everyone agrees is fully qualified and trusted'' certainly will put a bad taste in the mouths of other former admins who might consider a reconfirmation RFA ''without first'' visiting BN. This comes in the wake of Worm That Turned's similar rerun. ] (]) 23:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Nobody should ever be discouraged from seeking community consensus for significant changes. Adminship is a significant change. ] (]) 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::No argument from me. I was a big Hog Farm backer way back when he was ''merely'' one of Misplaced Pages's best content contributors. ] (]) 12:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*All these mentions of editor time make me have to mention ] (TLDR: our understanding of how editor time works is dreadfully incomplete). ] <sup>]</sup>] 02:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I went looking for @]'s comment because I know they had hung up the tools and came back, and I was interested in their perspective. But they've given me a different epiphany. I suddenly realize why people are doing confirmation RfAs: it's because of RECALL, and the one year immunity a successful RfA gives you. Maybe everyone else already figured that one out and is thinking "well duh Eek," but I guess I hadn't :) I'm not exactly sure what to do with that epiphany, besides note the emergent behavior that policy change can create. We managed to generate an entirely new process without writing a single word about it, and that's honestly impressive :P ] <sup>]</sup>] 18:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Worm That Turned followed through on a pledge he made in January 2024, before the 2024 review of the request for adminship process began. I don't think a pattern can be extrapolated from a sample size of one (or even two). That being said, it's probably a good thing if admins occasionally take stock of whether or not they continue to hold the trust of the community. As I previously commented, it would be great if these admins would use a lower cost way of sampling the community's opinion. ] (]) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|CaptainEek}} You are correct that a year's "immunity" results from a successful RRFA, but I see no evidence that this has been the ''reason'' for the RRFAs. Regards, ] (]) 00:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::If people decide to go through a community vote to get a one year immunity from a process that only might lead to a community vote which would then have a lower threshold then the one they decide to go through, and also give a year's immunity, then good for them. ] (]) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@] I'm mildly bothered by this comment, mildly because I assume it's lighthearted and non-serious. But just in case anyone does feel this way - I was very clear about my reasons for RRFA, I've written a lot about it, anyone is welcome to use my personal recall process without prejudice, and just to be super clear - I waive my "1 year immunity" - if someone wants to start a petition in the next year, do not use my RRfA as a reason not to. I'll update my userpage accordingly. I can't speak for Hog Farm, but his reasoning seems similar to mine, and immunity isn't it. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] my quickly written comment was perhaps not as clear as it could have been :) I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that y'all had run for dubious reasons. As I said in my !vote, {{tq|Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that is why either Worm or Hogfarm re-upped, I'm just trying to create a general purpose rule here}}. I guess what I really meant was that the reason that we're having this somewhat spirited conversation seems to be the sense that re-RfA could provide a protection from recall. If not for recall and the one year immunity period, I doubt we'd have cared so much as to suddenly run two discussions about this. ] <sup>]</sup>] 16:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don't agree. No one else has raised a concern about someone seeking a one-year respite from a recall petition. Personally, I think essentially self-initiating the recall process doesn't really fit the profile of someone who wants to avoid the recall process. (I could invent some nefarious hypothetical situation, but since opening an arbitration case is still a possibility, I don't think it would work out as planned.) ] (]) 05:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I really don't think this is the reason behind WTT's and HF's reconfirmation RFA's. I don't think their RFA's had much utility and could have been avoided, but I don't doubt for a second that their motivations were anything other than trying to provide transparency and accountability for the community. ]&nbsp;] 12:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*I don't really care enough about reconf RFAs to think they should be restricted, but what about a lighter ORCP-like process (maybe even in the same place) where fewer editors can indicate, "yeah OK, there aren't really any concerns here, it would probably save a bit of time if you just asked at BN". ] (] • ]) 12:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Audio-video guidance ==
AFAIK, it is policy to only remove copyvios from history if the copyright owner objects or in spcific, very limited cirumstances. Also, AFAIK, WP:CP is only to be used if the problem can't be fixed immediately. Removing history is a generally Bad Idea, for copyvio or other reasons. ] 04:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Hi there,
:According to ] this is not correct. if the '''entire page'' consists of noting but a copyvio, the page is deleted and recreated to remove the copyvio from the history, or specific versions are deleted to revert to a pre-copy-vio version. If only aprt of the article is a copyvio the situation is more complex, and the history is not always altered. where do you find the above as policy? ] 16:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Per the post I made a few weeks ago regarding use of ], I think that ] might be expanded to make mention of audio-video content, as most of the same principles apply (eg aesthetics, quality, relevance, placement). There are some additional concerns, for example, if audio or video renders a primary source, eg is a recording of PD music such as Bach or similar; or is a reading of a PD text, then there might be some source validation requirements (ie, the music or text should match the original, within sensible boundaries, eg Mozart or Bach pieces may not be easily replicated with original instrumentation, or at least this should not be a requirement.
== Biography articles - reluctant subjects ==


So one option would be for a simple statement at ] that these guidelines normally apply to AV, or separate guidance for AV that explains that ] contains guidance that generally applies to AV.
:''Moved to ] -] July 5, 2005 23:49 (UTC)


Is the correct process to raise an RFC? And is that done at ], or ], or here, or where? ] ] 19:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Where is the license in this image? ==


:I've posted a longer request for help explaining the gap at ]. It seems an RFC may not be needed but any advice would very much be appreciated. ] ] 20:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, I put this image in the Misplaced Pages in spanish, but they told me I needed a license for it, but aparently, the english version doesnt have any problem, so I am guessing it already has a license... I just cant find it, could somebody give it so the image can also be in the spanish version?--] 4 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
::I've ]. ] ] 22:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I believe it counts as free use. I have added a tag to that effect. ] July 4, 2005 22:05 (UTC)
:(note: fair use may not apply to other wikipedia projects. You need to check each project's licensing rules. I don't know about the Spanish wikipedia.) ] July 4, 2005 22:31 (UTC)
==]==
There is currently a vote on a large number of proposals to expand the ]. If passed, they would tend to place the onus for everyday deletion decisions in the hands of administrators and substantially reduce the number of articles that get discussion time in ] and other deletion discussion policy forums. Discussion and votes are required.


== Policy proposal: Establishment of research groups to edit articles ==
]
{{Archive top
|status = withdrawn
|result = My policy proposal was too controversial in its original form and poorly thought out in its revision. ] (]) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


In order to have more reliable and unbiased articles and make Misplaced Pages fully reliable,
--]|] 5 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
I believe it necessary for articles and topics to be created and handled by '''bodies of editors called "Research groups"''', focusing on researching about topics and articles to ensure Misplaced Pages articles are as accurate, neutral, and unbiased as possible.


<s>I also '''propose''' that editing articles will be reserved to their '''respective research groups''' and creating articles about a topic can only be done by said groups, with non-members being able to propose changes and articles via RFCs and whatnot. To join a research group, one must complete ''thorough training'' in the following areas
Proposal 1, which at present looks likely to pass, says that administrators should have discretion to delete "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead."
*Bias reduction and neutrality training.
*Finding reliable sources and comparing sources.
*Professional research.
*Lessons about the topic.
*Misplaced Pages policy.
*Any other applicable areas</s>


This policy would also reduce vandalism and guideline violations across Misplaced Pages, making situations easier to handle.
What concerns me here is that it is left up to one person, instead of Misplaced Pages editors at large, to decide for themselves what an assertion of importance or significance is. Only a very vague idea is given of what is intended and the administrator is given complete discretion. This proposal needs scrutiny. At present the article would be listed on VfD and discussed for five days, which saves many important articles that were wrongly thought to be deletable. --]|] 6 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)
*What Tony fails to mention is that ''daily'', between ten and twenty-five articles on unremarkable people (such as high school students, random friends of an editor, or people who just think they're great without specifying why) are nominated for deletion, ''and'' get near-unanimous votes to delete. It would save a large number of people a significant amount of time if those articles wouldn't clog up VFD. After all, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy.
*Presently, VFD is longer than it should be (which is an obvious result of Misplaced Pages growing) and ''this prevents people from participating'' - thus making VFD less the instrument of consensus that it should be. This is considered by many to be undesirable.
*It is easy to distinguish an article on an obviously unremarkable person (e.g. "Joe Smith is a nice guy who works at a supermarket") from a possibly encyclopedic person (e.g. "Joe Smith is the president of major corporation GnirpGo"). Of course, the latter may be false, but ''the mere assertion'' keeps it from being speedily deletable. Admins have common sense. If they did not, they would not be admins.
*There is statistical evidence of over a hundred articles per week that presently go on VFD that would be removed without further bureaucracy if this proposal passes. There is ''no evidence whatsoever'', only conjecture, about articles about famous people that do not even say why the person is famous - of course anyone who would write about George Washington is going to state that he was a president, not just that he was a nice guy. ]]] July 7, 2005 13:33 (UTC)
**It kind of irks me that some who are opposed to this proposal seem to feel that editors who hang around speedy are in it just for the blood lust. If other editors are like me (and I'm sure they are), they will speedy only when it is emminently clear that the article is a candidate. I often add to or even rewrite articles that show up in speedy, and regularly remove speedy tags from inappropriately labeled articles. In other words, I take my power seriously. At least as seriously as inclusionists like Tony take their mission to save every god-blasted little article. ]] 2005 July 8 02:34 (UTC)


<s>Since Misplaced Pages is a widely-used source, ''it is time to move away from the current decentralized approach'' where just about anyone (no matter how inexperienced and biased) can edit, which has resulted in article bias, vandalism, unreliable sources, poor editing, sockpuppet accounts, edit wars, controversies, and a host of other problems.</s>
You're being a little bit naughty here, Radiant. Why should I mention that unremarkable article are listed on VfD? That's what VfD is *intended* for. It's doing a good job. As for saving time, nobody asks people to vote for delete, and if nobody but the proposer had anything to do with the nomination the article could still be deleted, but would have benefited from five days' listing and potential for discussion (alas even this this was not enough to save the article on the legendary writer and journalist, ], which I had to rewrite). There is nothing about VfD's current size that "prevents people from participating". Just go there and look at the page. Unlike in earlier months when it was transcluded, it no longer takes a long time to load and is much more accessible than ever.


A Research-Group-based editing Misplaced Pages will be far more stable and solve many of our persistent problems. ] (]) 15:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
If VfD is "less of an instrument of consensus than it should be" how can this be improved by removing articles from VfD and giving the decision on their deletion to a single, demonstrably fallible person?
:So something more like ]? ]&nbsp;] 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:So basically we would deprecate half our policies and guidelines? Honestly trying to be nice but this is a terrible idea ] (]) 16:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Your proposal describes something that would not be Misplaced Pages at all (remember, we are the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit), so is better suited for a ]. Usually proposals like yours (with editing only permitted to small numbers of "trusted" people) only work for small projects, if at all (I expect you would have to pay people to consider going through the "research group" training; it certainly does not sound attractive at all to me as a volunteer). You will need tens of thousands of editors to have any chance at not becoming outdated immediately. —] (]) 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|it is time to move away from the current decentralized approach where just about anyone can edit}} - this proposal is dead on arrival - I support a SNOW close. ]&nbsp;] 17:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Congratulations! We're completely rejecting Misplaced Pages's open content, its editors' direct contributions (henceforth to be filtered through a new Misplaced Pages Politburo), with the basic principles of Misplaced Pages's founders soundly rejected. "Research group training" says it all. ] (]) 18:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Respectfully, I think this is a horrible idea. The decentralized model is what the entire site was built upon. It is even one of the first things advertised on the Main Page! If we got rid of it, the site wouldn't truly be Misplaced Pages anymore. ] (]) 18:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::I mean, I think Misplaced Pages is big enough to drop the "free encyclopaedia" bit and attempt a nupedia-like approach. However, I digress and have dropped that clause in my proposal. ] (]) 20:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Few modifications of my proposal based on feedback:
:*Keep the decentralized model.
:*Drop the extensive training clause. No extensive training will be required.
:*Individuals are expected to learn about the topic before editing.
:*It will be necessary to join research groups (i.e., groups made of editors collaborating on the topic) to better learn about the topic and better contributing to it.
:*Editing of ''various'' articles, including election articles, will require an extended-confirmed status.
:] (]) 20:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::So these groups are basically ] but more restrictive? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 20:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


===Modified proposal: Research panels between editors and greater article protections===
"Joe Smith is the president of major corporation GnirpGo" is not enough to save an article from speedy deletion under the proposals. Some administrators regularly claim that being the President of a corporation does not make one worthy of an encyclopedia entry.
I got your feedback on this policy proposal and decided to overhaul the proposal based to maintain the free nature of Misplaced Pages and strong editor collaboration while ensuring accuracy and reliability.


In order for Misplaced Pages's articles to be more reliable and less biased and to make Misplaced Pages a more reliable site, I believe that there should be a mandatory creation of '''Research panels''', topic collaborations between editors focused on gathering information, comparing sources, establishing editing policies and guidelines in accordance with general Misplaced Pages rules, and ensuring editing guidelines. Formation of research panels will be necessary in every topic.
Denni, I've not suggested that any lust of any kind is involved. It is a fact, which I've proved beyond doubt with actual cases, that being an administrator does not make us better (or even very good) editors. Administrators routinely judge salveagable articles as worthy only of deletion. The carnage at present is low and containable. The proposals will make the load on administrators much higher because some of us will be deleting stuff and the others will be restoring the wrong deletions. VfD saves us from such nonsense, that's why it exists. --]|] 22:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


*The editing model will remain decentralized. However, Research panels will determine policies based on consensus for their respective topics.
== Inter-wiki Citation and PLaerism Policy ==
*Individuals can join a research group freely. However, individuals are expected to follow the policies and protocols set forth by the research group.
What is the policy about taking content from another language wikipedia and moving it into the English wikipedia. Does no ownership apply so it's to fine copy anything? Should it be cited anywhere?
*Individuals are expected to learn about the topic before editing.
*It will be necessary to join research panels to better learn about the topic and better contribute to it.
*''Various'' controversial articles, including election articles, will receive special protection or extended-confirmed protection upon request from the respectively Research panel.


Research Panels will allow people to better understand the topic while integrating cooperation efforts to find the most accurate information and create the best possible articles.
Example: I have recently discovered a timeline on the French Misplaced Pages (here:) and made an English version ]


--] 6 July 2005 11:34 (UTC) --] (]) 20:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:This still feels like ] with more rules. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 20:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ah, then we can use that and implement it more strongly across every topic. We do need some sort of organization, though. ] (]) 20:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:This modified proposal is sloppy at worst and doubt it will get any approval. However, I think y'all should take whatever good ideas are there (if any) and also create spaces or something like that for greater learning and collaboration among editors to resolve conflicts and biases. ] (]) 20:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:"Individuals are expected to learn about topic before editing"+"It will be necessary to join research panels to better learn about the topic" seems to add up to "Users are expected to be members of research panels before editing topics in that realm."
:So if I look at an article about "semiotics" (about which I know nothing) I am not allowed to correct, say, some ] failures, some incorrect header capitalization, and a misspelling of Charles Schulz's last name until I train myself in semiotics and join the Official Misplaced Pages Semiotics Fun Team? -- ] (]) 20:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::The whole training clause has been dropped and you could freely join the panels, so you would be allowed to do all that. ] (]) 20:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also, the whole editing thing only applies to major edits, not minor ones.
::Either way, this isn't my best work. The first proposal was essentially nupedia revivalism and the modification is a sloppy attempt at salvaging it based on the original essence of investigating about a topic further to put out the most accurate information (as is necessary in the ] article) ] (]) 20:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::I understand that I would be allowed to jump through whatever hoops you erect in order to be able to correct misspellings, but that seems an effective way to discourage me from improving the encyclopedia and getting it in line with general standards. (I am also unconvinced that this will reduce bias; it would seem to help solidify a smaller group of editors on various topics who are likely to be driven, quite possibly by bias, to go through the effort which you're adding.) -- ] (]) 20:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::<small>(Note, that was written before you made the "minor edit" change.) -- ] (]) 20:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::Regardless, I am '''dropping''' my proposal because it is poorly written and will probably not be helpful at all. ] (]) 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


{{Archive bottom}}
:When you edit on a Wikimedia project you "release" your submission but you don't "relinquish" it, it's still ''your'' work as such, and you can exercise some rights over it (not sure what they are).
:But don't worry, you haven't made any serious error. Right at the bottom it says "''By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources''". WP is certainly a public domain resource; that disclaimer waives any responsibility you might have had for this uncredited copy, as it it isn't automatically assumed that you wrote/made whatever you're adding in each edit.
:What I would do now if I were you is to make a minor change to the table and put something like "translated this table from the xx Misplaced Pages version of ]" in the edit summary. That way you're crediting the originator in a vague way.
:Alternately, use comment tags (<nowiki><!-- this is a comment --></nowiki>) to leave a note below the table. These are invisible to the reader, but editors can see it.
:Certainly I wouldn't credit it ''in'' the article, as that other page could change or something. In theory you could link to a fixed version of that page where the table is intact, but that still isn't really necessary. ]<sup>]</sup> 6 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)


== Is the "above 8000 words = split" an absolute rule? ==
::MTG's suggestions are reasonable, but I should note one correction. Misplaced Pages is ''not'' public domain. Contributions are licensed under the ], which means that authorship records must be maintained. Consequently, you ''do'' have to cite the other Misplaced Pages as a source. In practice, I think you would be in good shape by
::*noting the source in the edit summary (per MTG),
::*adding a note to the Talk page of the article indicating a source, and
::*where appropriate, adding an interlanguage wikilink to the destination article.
::Are there any other suggestions? ](]) 6 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)
:Adding a comment along the lines of "This article is based on the corresponding article '']'' in ]" in a Source section at the end of the article text seems reasonable and in compliance with ]. The comment can be removed if the article is substantially edited thereafter, author information is preserved. ] 11:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


I am referring to this chart found on ]:
== Google Earth ==


{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4"
Wondering if we can use pictures from Google earth for reference in wikipedia.
|-
! Word count
! scope="col" | What to do
|-
| >&nbsp;15,000&nbsp;words || Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
|-
| &gt; 9,000 words || Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.
|-
| &gt; 8,000 words || May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.
|-
| &lt; 6,000 words || Length alone does not justify division or trimming.
|-
| &lt; 150 words || If an article or list has remained this size for over two months, consider merging it with a related article.<br /> Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see ].
|}


I have seen a few instances where, an editor will raise the issue that an article is too large at, say, 7500 words or 8100 words. We have multiple history pages (and medical/psychology pages) with well over 11,000+ words, even some with over 16000. Where does one draw the line? It seems like Misplaced Pages leaves it to the discretion of the editor after about 8000 words. ] (]) 07:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Or how about the kmz files from google earth?


:Looking at the table, it's obvious that "above 8000 words=Split" is not "an absolute rule". I promise you that if it were, that table would say something that sounded remarkably like "if the article is above 8,000 words, then it absolutely must be split".
] 6 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
:Additionally, we have ].
:Where one draws the line is: In a place that makes sense for the topic of that specific article, having thoughtfully considered all the facts and circumstances that apply to that unique article. ] (]) 07:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:There was a lengthy discussion at ] about the size guidance, for the record. Splitting pages is a lot of work and not everyone thinks that spreading stuff over multiple pages is better for readers than having in one big page. ] (]) 08:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::In addition to the above, what matters for the technical aspects of article size is not the number of words but the number of bytes. Word count can only ever be an approximation of that as the length of the words used matters ("a" is 1 byte, "comprehensive" is 13), the number and size of included media matters very significantly more. ] (]) 09:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think ] is a bigger technical challenge for long articles. The more templates, and the more complicated templates, the more likely you are to need to split for technical reasons. ] needs a split in part due to PEIS reasons. ] (]) 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:What's more, there's nothing even in the excerpt here that would purport an absolute guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::It isn't an absolute rule, but ''usually'' an article having an extremely long high word count is evidence of a bigger problem with ] -- that it's too dense or detailed for a reader to use it as a first-port-of-call summary. As such, ''usually'', it's a wise move to create daughter articles for the detailed material, and strim it down to its essentials in the main article; this improves the readability of the main article and allows interested readers to follow up into the nitty-gritty. As {{u|Jo-Jo Eumerus}} rightly says above, though, there's not really such thing as an absolute rule in this place. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 09:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What we now know is that many readers are looking for specific information, with few reading from top to bottom, but the search engines send them to the mother article even when a more specific daughter article exists. So the first port of call needs to be the most highly detailed. The advice in ] is therefore considered well intentioned but obsolete; stripping the mother article and pushing information down to the daughter articles defeats our whole purpose in providing information. ] ] 11:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::When you say “we know…”, “is considered” and similar, are you pointing to specific previous discussions, RfCs etc on this matter? “In the wild”, as it were, I still see these size limits regularly invoked, even if the conversation rarely ends at them. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 09:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: Rather than draw a line, I'd rather just remove that chart. Can't imagine why a suite of concrete word counts and procedures would ever be very helpful. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::It absolutely makes sense to say at what page sizes that editors should start considering other options, as well as where splitting can be absolutely unnecessary. Nothing wrong with the table as long as it's clear those aren't hard or fast rules. ] (]) 16:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed, I find it helpful because it helps me remember what is generally too long for mobile users (I understand that mobile is generally a blindspot for us as editors because the vast majority of us don't edit on mobile but most of the readers are actually on mobile) ] (]) 16:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I also believe that the chart is helpful. ] (]) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:There don't seem to be any absolute rules laid out there... Even "Almost certainly" is qualified not an absolute rule. ] (]) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*The optimal article size varies quite a lot, actually. Key things we need to consider include:
*:The likely readership. Someone who's looking up ] probably has time to read something long and thoughtful. Someone who's looking up ] might need basic facts, in simple words, very fast.
*:The cognitive load associated with the topic. ] is (very) long but easy to understand; ] is much shorter, but I bet it takes you longer to read, unless you have unusual expertise in mathematics.
:This is not the kind of thing on which we can produce simplistic guidance.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 17:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages leaves it to the discretion of editors far far before 8,000 words. We have thousands of single sentence articles to attest to this. The average article is less than 700 words. ] (]) 17:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::The median article length is around 350 words, and the mean is 750. About one in 75 articles has more than 6,000 words. ] (]) 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You'll have to take the specifics up with ], although that ballpark range sounds the same. ] (]) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:No. ] (]) 18:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*I've always felt that the kB of readable prose was a better metric for page size (such as is produced by various page size gadgets). Turns out, bigger words take longer to read than shorter words :P Doing it just by wordcount encourages a certain verbosity. For me, my rule of thumb has always aimed to keep big articles under 100kb readable prose. But there's no hard and fast rule, and there shouldn't be. ] <sup>]</sup>] 23:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:If I'm being honest, what might be the best metric is starting at the top and lightly hammering the {{key|Page Down}} key for a bit. If I groan before reaching the References section, it's too long. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 23:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::For example, results were heavily discouraging for ] until recently; ] at the article's uncaring girth—thanks Nikki et al.! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 23:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::26,000 words is {{tomats|26000}}. Another way to look at that table is by saying that if it's more than half the length of a book, it's pushing past being "an article" and edging up towards being "a book".
*:::Or you can look at it in terms of how many minutes reading the whole thing would take. There's quite a bit of variation, but for easy math, 300 words per minute means that a 15,000-word-long article would take 50 minutes to read, which almost certainly exceeds the interest and attention span of most readers. ] (]) 00:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I think the most fundamental scalar isn't quite reading time or even visual size, but structural complexity—for an online encyclopedia article, being overlong expresses itself in my increasing inability to navigate an article comfortably to read or locate what I want, or to understand the structure of the scope covered by it at a glance. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 00:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Come to think of it, one thing that makes an article feel longer than its word count is if its sections, media, and other landmarks have been laid out in a careless or unnatural way. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 00:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No.''' And this was rather a pointless, self-answering question in the first place, not something for a VP thread. The answer to the posed question of 'Is the "above 8000 words=Split" an absolute rule?' is obviously "no", both by observing actual WP community practice, and just by reading the table the OP quoted: {{tq|&gt; 8,000 words — May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size}}. Is anyone here actually confused into believing that A) "must" and "may" are synonymous, or B) that a guideline, to which reasonable exceptions sometimes apply, is somehow a legal-level policy that must be obeyed at all costs? In reality, there is never any hurry to split a large article, and doing it properly often involves a tremendous amount of work, involving both repair of citations (sometimes in great detail), and resummarizing the background context in the side article while also resummarizing the side-matter in ] style within the main article (and doing them distinctly enough that the results are not obnoxiously repetitive if the reader moves between the articles). Doing a good job of this can take several days up to a month or longer of tightly focused work, depending on the detail level of the material, the number citations, etc. It is not trivial, we're all volunteers here, and our readers are not going keel over and die if they reach a detailed article that's a bit longer than they were expecting or would prefer. Ultimately, an article that is ginormous {{em|usually}} should split, but there is no deadline, and it needs to be done properly (plus there are often conceptually different ways to go about it from a content-flow perspective, and that might require some consensus discussion). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Ever since WAID reminded me of it, I've thought we should maybe link somewhere as a lemma. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I think I linked it once in ], years ago, and someone objected. I didn't follow up to see whether the objecting editor is one of the handful who think that ''should'' is a more polite and/or IAR-compliant way to say ''must'', but as that's a fairly uncommon POV among editors, it probably wasn't. ] (]) 05:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::The linked document pushes very hard on ''should'', "here may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed" is not a low bar. It sounds much like must except when IAR. ] (]) 09:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
:See . It basically says that "personal" use with copyright tags intact is OK. I'm not sure WP includes that. Perhaps you could explaining how the copyrights would remain intact etc. etc. etc.
:I assume they'd be happy to be featured here, and in turn it would generate more outside interest in their service!
:So try that. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 6 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)


I want to propose ] as a new guideline with an RfC. I'm starting this thread in case any outsiders to this area want to provide input or have questions. For context, the goal of this manual of style is to get agreement on broad principles to make editing easier in this topic area. As an example, ] is dealing with inconsistent use of the word "massacre" specifically, which has caused much arguing over whether there is a double standard, so this guideline makes the standards we should be using explicit. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 06:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I see no reason to try to focus on Google Earth at the moment; we can link to Google Satellite Maps, which is good enough, and doesn't lock a link into supporting only Windows. --] July 6, 2005 22:06 (UTC)


:Are all four points currently included based on previous conversations, or are any novel to this proposal? On the broader framing, I wouldn't create the guideline solely talking about NPOV, it is helpful to have guidelines to help describe encyclopaedic style if nothing else. On the example of massacre, I'm not up to date with the recent or ongoing discussions, but I'm surprised there's no mention in the draft of ], as this seems a classic case. ] (]) 07:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:No, you can't. -- ]|] 7 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
::{{re|Chipmunkdavis}} The settlements language comes from previous discussions/consensus, likewise with the West Bank naming conventions section. The categorization language comes from a suggestion on the talk page of the draft.
::The "massacre" part is a novel part of the proposal. I would say that it seems like an obvious ], but there's many RMs in the topic area in which editors use their own definition of the term "massacre" (like civilian death toll, mechanism of killing, see ] for a list of 24 RMs about the term "massacre"), and argue about whether or not the event meets that standard. I want to make it easier for editors to disengage by citing this guideline, instead of getting into lengthy arguments over points that don't contribute much to consensus (which is what happens now).
::The reason the guideline is short is because I believe it will give it the best chance of passing right now. In the future, I'd like to get consensus to add more points to this guideline. I thought proposing a lengthy guideline upfront would create a scenario in which everyone at an RfC agrees a guideline would benefit the area, but individual editors have a small issue that prevents them from supporting ''this specific version''. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 07:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::At a quick look, it seems most pages in that statistics page were not moved to a title with "massacre"? Seems sensible to collate previous discussions together, if massacres is new (as new as something discussed 24 times can be?) there might need to confirm that one. ] (]) 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:One issue with the massacre bit is that should be part of an AT naming convention, not in the MOS. Likewise, appropriate categorizations usually aren't in the MOS. ] (]/]) 15:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== I (+other people) co-authored a draft article, but its submission was declined ==
::We already do, through http://kvaleberg.com/extensions/mapsources/ - ] 14:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = @]: This is not the place to ask questions about your drafts. You should ask @] on his talk page. ] (]/]) 15:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


supposedly due to: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources".
:::There is a massive difference between linking to a site and uploading their data. -- ]|] 16:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me, that there are planety of good references now.
I want to understand, what is missing - and- how it can be improved.
A side note: there are many published articles in English Misplaced Pages, which are of much lower quality, than this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Maternity_capital ] (]) 15:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? ==
::::"we can link to Google Satellite Maps" - ] 20:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI?| ] (]/]) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}}


I've been following ] for a few weeks now (because I like gossip apparently) and I've noticed several incidents involving persons suspected of using AI for editing. Is it time to create an official policy to point to? ] exists, but it's an informational article rather than a policy page. (I don't actually know which page to put this on so it's going here.) ] (]) 02:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would suggest to make a template for coordinates, which could be edited separately. Then from the article you just refer the template, fill lattitude and longitude in, and the template then handles formatting several links: to Google Maps, to the kvaleberg.com mapsources, and perhaps also to a script that generates the required .kmz file for Google Earth on the fly (trivial, see their tutorial or ask me for the code snippet). This way we can easily support all significant coordinates-based map sources, with easy maintenance as the new map sources appear and old ones change. We also won't have to do just "good enough" when we can have it all. Could it work? I personally miss such feature. --] 18:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


:] is ongoing now for those interested. ] (]) 02:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::See ]. ] 19:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:See also ]. If this is an issue you're interested in, you might want to try getting involved with ]. ] (]/]) 03:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:Please see ] for an essay on this topic. Folks have been discussing this issue for a while now, whether or not it can become policy is another debate. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Putting the pictures on Misplaced Pages could result in some copyright problems because Google got the license from DigitalGlobe. There is also "2005 Google" sticked onto the images to prevent you from claiming it as your own, and they don't let you do the "save as target" right-click option. &mdash; ] (]) 20:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
::Of note, there was an RfC in October 2023 where there was a ] promoting that essay to a policy or guideline. ] (]/]) 19:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

== ] ==

The names of chemical compund pages have been the subject of a number of minor disputes (and some major ones, now hopefully resolved) for some time.

This page more of a discussion than a set of guidelines. I have summarised the discussion that was there (and informed all the authors of signed comments) and added some more comments that have been discussed at ].

Any and all comments on the results are welcome. In particular, the page may be a bit too technical at present (help on this would be appreciated!). Have we missed any points?

More discussion on the style of chemistry articles can be found at ].

Thanks to all who have already helped, and to those who take the time to add their comments. ] 7 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

== Unit Disagreement, MiB vs. MB ==

What unit types should be used when describing storage capacity in articles?
{{Quantities of bytes}}
A problem has arisen in different related articles on whether to use the MB or MiB. Some articles have decided to stick with using MB, some have chosen to use MiB.
: ]
: ]




''''' Discussion moved to ]''''' - ] 23:03, July 9, 2005 (UTC)



'''''A ] has been started on whether these prefixes should be used all the time, in highly technical contexts, or never.''''' - ] 14:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout -- changing the section ==

I want to change the ], part of the ]. The current MoS states that the ==External links== should come after the ==References== section. I totally disagree with this and feel that it should come before the ==References== section. External links are an integral part of an article, unlike the reference section which is used to crosscheck. The ] is on my side, it has the References at the end. Any objections if I am ] and change it? {{User:Nichalp/sg}} July 8, 2005 16:35 (UTC)

:I object! :-) For one thing, ==References== often contains external links to online articles and the like, and ==External links== often consist of reference-type even when not explicitly cited. For another&ndash;you can ask anyone who does a lot of academic writing&ndash;the references are very much a part of an article. Not only do they allow you to fact-check, they also usually contain a wealth of additional background information.
:Have you got some specific articles in mind where you perceive the ordering of these sections is a problem? That might help to clarify why this change should be made. ](]) 8 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

::Oh no! I'm not asking to remove the references from the article, I'm saying that the references should be the final section instead of the ==external links==. Just switching the order. {{User:Nichalp/sg}} July 8, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

:::Sorry; I wasn't clear. The first paragraph of my reply was merely to illustrate that there is often appreciable overlap between purpose and contents of the ==References== and ==External links== sections; I'm not sure it's appropriate to argue one or the other is more an 'integral' part of the articles here. (I'm sure that no one here would suggest ''removal'' of either section.) The key question is in the second paragraph&mdash;have you some specific articles in mind where they would be improved by the rearrangement of the sections?
:::I would further note that if external links contain content integral to the articles, it's possible that a)our article is insufficiently comprehensive, or b)the external link contains primary source material that probably should be listed as a ==Reference==. Thoughts? ](]) 8 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

:::Well, think of it like an essay. If you include both References and a Bibliography, the References go first. And External Links are much like a Bibliography is. That's one way of looking at it. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 9 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

::::Ok, see ]. I want the external links to come ahead of the Notes and references as it has some quality information and official sites on the IR. {{User:Nichalp/sg}} July 9, 2005 05:26 (UTC)
:::::Ah, hm, well, that's where it becomes a grey area. Really the Manual of Style is thinking that the references will be of "higher quality" than the links. In this case the references are just links so, um, hm. I'm really the last person to be asking I'm afraid. Certainly if I was writing an essay I'd put such things last but with a webpage links are more immediately useful to the reader. Hm. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:::::I'm inclined to agree with MTG here, particularly in his earlier remarks. I'm also not sure that it would be a good idea to upset the Manual of Style on this issue&mdash;changing the section layout of articles is something that would upset literally thousands (probably tens of thousands) of articles. (And I wouldn't want to get into making exceptions for some articles and not others; that would make article navigation more difficult for regular readers and probably lead to some ] over the order of sections.) Finally, in the article cited the Notes, References, and External Links sections represent ''in toto'' a shade over one screen of information. Your mileage may vary based on your resolution and display settings, but I'm not sure that our readers will find scrolling a bit to be an insurmountable task. ](]) 15:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

== (film) or (movie) ==

When disambiguating a movie title wich is best to use ?
(movie) as in ] or (film) as in ] ? --] 8 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

:I'd prefer using "film" as it's a word pretty much used the world over. "Movie" tends to have an American (rather than worldwide) feel, ] 8 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

:I've always thought it would be better to put the film's year, like IMDB does. That would disambiguate films both from other films with the same name, and other non-films with the same name. But nobody seems to do this. &ndash; ]\<sup><font color="gray">]</font></sup> 8 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

::Historically, "movie" has been preferred but not mandated -- this was wrangled about several times during WP's early history.

::However, a proposal has recently been made to change this convention, and to make "film" the preferred disambiguation term. See ] and ], where a poll is in progress. Only about a dozen people have weighed in so far -- please go participate if you have an opinion on the matter. Note that the policy page itself has been listed on ] to be moved to ]. &mdash; ]\<sup>]</sup> 00:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

== Inline links vs. Reference citations ==

] has created an editting tool (i.e. manually controlled ]) for the purpose of standardizing some of the ways that citations appear in Misplaced Pages articles. As something of a test run, he did such a conversion to a single page, ], see the diff . As a result, myself and one other user objected to how he was converting inline URL links into formal reference links.

Apparently such a conversion is supported by statements at ] and ], however these statements seem to be only a few months old and I have been unable to locate any significant discussion of them.

As a result of this disagreement, discussion has ensued at ], and we are looking for outside input on this issue.

] July 8, 2005 23:07 (UTC)


What follows below is a summary of the formatting styles being discussed for the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with these different styles.

===Summary of formatting styles===
====Inline linking====
One way to reference a website is simply to add a link to it in the body of the article. For example, one might write "Zebras like to play checkers ", with a simple inline link pointing directly at the site.

====Footnote style====
Some users dislike inline links like this because they don't provide information on what is available at that site or when it was retrieved. Instead, it has been suggested that we should used the {{tl|ref}} / {{tl|note}} style of ] and {{tl|web reference}} for such web references, for example: "Zebras like to play checkers{{ref|zebra}}"

'''References'''
*{{note|zebra}} {{web reference simple|URL=http://checkers.com/zebras|date=June 8|year=2005|title=Those amazing checker playing zebras}}

Where the little superscripted number links to the appropriate reference and the "'''^'''" on the reference links back to the little number. This has the advantage of providing additional information on the website source so that it could possibly be found again if the link ever went dead. It also would make website references consistent with book / journal and other references relying on the {{tl|ref}} / {{tl|note}} form.

The disadvantage is that to get to the external material one would have to click on the little link and then click again on the link in the references section. Personally, I think this is a big disadvantage since it makes it harder to get to outside material and it doesn't provide a way of distinguishing reference links to books and hard resources from those which are immediately available over the internet.

====Hybrid style====
A potential compromise exists by way of a mixed form with both an inline link and a formal reference, which is to say using "Zebras like to play checkers ." Along with:

'''References'''
*{{web reference simple|URL=http://checkers.com/zebras|date=June 8|year=2005|title=Those amazing checker playing zebras}}

But not using the {{tl|ref}} / {{tl|note}} formulation to link between the two. This preserves the direct link from the text but also gives the detailed reference information. However, since the two aren't linked, it is more likely that one may get removed or changed without the other being fixed. Also, there is some concern this could create very long references sections out of what in some cases are fairly innocuous but plentiful links.

====Hybrid style 2====
A potential compromise exists by way of a mixed form with both an inline link and a ''linked'' formal reference, which is to say using "Zebras like to play checkers{{ref|zebraH2}}" Along with:

'''References'''
* {{note|zebraH2}} {{web reference simple|URL=http://checkers.com/zebras|date=June 8|year=2005|title=Those amazing checker playing zebras}}

This creates both types of links but is visually larger, even using a minor code trick of using the sentence-ending period be a short text link. This could be presented differently in several ways: two images can be stacked (images of numbers 1-99 could be addressed), or is there a way to tuck an external link under a superscripted link number? (] 9 July 2005 00:03 (UTC))

'''Comment''': Needlessly complicated. Inline is an awesome feature, it's been built in to the Misplaced Pages software because it encourages newbies to fearlessly and boldly add links; footnotes remain controversial and are not built into the software, FootNote3 in particular is a complicated (and to some unapproachably scary) hack. ] 9 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

My understanding is that the footnote styles are used in the ==notes== section, not the ==reference section== See ] for the discussion and ] for implementation. 1) Text should not be linked to an outside source (as what you have mentioned under hybrid style). I think the footnote style is much neater that the placing of a raw link at the side of the text. {{User:Nichalp/sg}} July 9, 2005 08:34 (UTC)

===Discourage inline links===
I for one am quite happy with the hassle of following a link to a webpage through a number of mouseclicks. Indeed, I certainly don't think that following an external link should be part of "reading the article". That's just sloppy writing, encouraged by the wonders of hypertext. Remember that WP prose is supposed to stand on its own. The material at ''Those amazing checker playing zebras'' should not be important for understanding the article, and we should expect/force only a tiny minority of readers to read that resource. So a footnote is quite appropriate, which itself can point to a list of external links. Am I making it harder for the reader? No. The external link shouldn't be part of the reading experience, so she shouldn't feel compelled to follow it. Am I making it harder for the author? Oh yes! She is now forced to write a complete, internally consistent article.

So here's what I want:

::... Zebras like to play checkers.<sup>32</sup>...

::'''Notes'''
::...
:: Study by Minerva McStripe (1943), based on observing 43 individuals in captivity in the London Zoo. A later study by Sarah Hoof (1996) on wild zebras (not peer reviewed) confirms these findings.
::...

::'''References'''

::*Hoof, Sarah. {{web reference simple|URL=http://checkers.com/zebras|date=June 8|year=2005|title=Those amazing checker playing zebras}}
::*McStripe, Minerva. "Hoofed animals and boardgames". Zoology, vol 32, nr. 5. 1943

Arguing that the "two mouse clicks" is too much hassle is irrelevant. Even ''one'' mouse click should be more than needed to understand the page. If you're an expert on zebras, or checkers, or a later editor, ''then'' you belong to the tiny minority of readers who is expected to follow the link. ] 9 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)

As one of the zebras, I find mouse clickings distracting while playing and prefer a quiet experience until the end of the game. Only then might I be interested in leaving the game to discuss some of its finer points. I prefer the text to be as self-explanatory as possible. If further information is available elsewhere, then it should be signed separately at the end of the text. -] 9 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

:First of all, thanks for being politically correct! </sarcasm> Anyway, I don't think breaking the references is a good idea. I'd rather have it APA-esque, where you have everything as one piece right away. I mean, what is the writer saying under "References" that they aren't saying under ''Notes''? Basically it's the name of the book and the date of retrieval, little else. You can have that before the little "what it's about" summary. Simple. So I think it could just be combined. Right? ]<sup>]</sup> 9 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

::Just to add my two bits to the conversation: I prefer inline links and citations, but then that's because all American law students (that would include myself) are trained to use inline citations. The advantage of inline links is that they allow for immediate linking to online sources that can quickly substantiate a controversial point. For example, we had problems on the ] page with people disputing the validity of my assertion about the frequency of crime in Los Angeles until I added the direct link to the LAPD press release page. Now no one touches that paragraph, since they can follow that link and see how many people were murdered in Los Angeles this week! --] 9 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

I find pure <nowiki></nowiki> links to typically be rather opaque and unclear - I think outside links with titles, i.e. <nowiki></nowiki> can be and are useful inline, but just saying ''heres a website that is somehow relevant'' is IMO typically insufficient to explain what it's purpose is. If explaining the relevance of the link is not appropriate inline (using titles, parentheses, etc.), then use &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125; (or one of the other ones) and explain it at the end. In conclusion, I think numbered external links ought to be fixed when seen, '''either''' by expanding on their relevance inline, or turning them to footnotes and expanding on their relevance in the footnote. Thoughts, responses? ] 20:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

:I agree. I tend to use the style recommended at ] when citing websites in footnotes. I don't think an inline link actually cites your source; it just provides a link which will be useless when the link breaks. ] 09:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Somewhere in the early ], ] at ], wrote ], while probably thinking to himself ''"Now here's ] to the footnote issue"''. Perhaps we could perhaps stick to his solution, and not revert to the poor mans' methods that came before. :-) ] 10:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

==Proposal for inclusion to Lists of (insert ethnicity)-Americans==

There have been some disagreements on what constitutes being an Ethnic-American. It seems to me that it's something that having a policy on might be helpful for. I've put out the following proposal:

# The individuals page must make note of their ethnic ancestry '''OR'''
# The individual must have documented evidence of being 1/8th ethnic (ie one of their great grandparents being born in ethnicity).

This rises out of the discussions I've seen primarily at ], although when looking around I see the same discussion at ]. At least at the Irish one it has led to what can only be described as Edit wars, which I'm not a big fan of.
] 9 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any sense to have a numerical rule. By the 1/8 rule, someone could be considered as a member of 8 different groups, or be considered a member of a group with which he or she has no real connection. It seems to me that ethnicity is primarily a matter of affiliation, not of biological ancestry. So I would propose a rule based on public identification with a group: the individual identifies him or herself as an X, or is commonly identified as an X by others (it may be worth noting this even if the identification is incorrect!). Even in cases where you might presume identity based on, e.g., a personal or family name (Yannis, Watanabe) or place of birth, these are not reliable. --] 9 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

The 1/8th rule was somewhat arbitrary, but I based it on the criteria that the Native-American Indians use for determining whether or not someone is eligible for benefits. My fear is we end up dealing with the controversies similar to what happened with ]. However, the most important thing for me in this debate is that we reach a consensus and then move on. Otherwise we seem to burn too much time and angst arguing it in each ethnic list. I think your concern is valid. As a sporadic genealogist, the biological method seem like a good idea to me. :) I'd also welcome any comments from people on where they think this debate belongs to get the widest audience. ] 9 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the Talk page for Irish-Americans, I think an amendment to the first criterion is important:

# The individual's Misplaced Pages page must ''have made note'' of his/her ethnic ancestry ''prior to his/her addition to the list page, or if this is not possible (due to new information coming to light), a reliable source must be cited''

I certainly see your side, too, Macrakis, as it seems silly to lump someone into an ethnic group they intentionally do not claim. I think what we've got here so far is a pretty good start, though I don't anticipate it will solve the problems we're having at List of Irish-Americans.&mdash;''']'''&nbsp;(]) 19:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


As I've already stated on ], my main concern is that ''only'' people with obvious African ancestry are currently being blanked. Not one other person has been challenged, despite the fact that there are many others on the list with mixed ancestry. I don't mind saying I find that disturbing, to say the least. An Englishman was on the list for a day or two, nobody batted an eyelid. Macrakis, I see your point, but it would entail a lot of sourcing. It's a long list.

] 20:54, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed, you are complaining about African-Americans who have no Irish ancestry at all. Rosario Dawson, Mariah Carey, Muhammad Ali are on the list, they are part African-American, but also part Irish. The issue is not about African-Americans mixed with Irish. The issue is you are listing people that are African-Americans but have no Irish ancestry. You are also lying about them being the only ones questioned. I had to remove all those white people you listed in Politics who had no Irish ancestry.
64.109.253.204

Lapsed Pacifist, I think I understand your point: just because someone has some obvious African ancestry doesn't mean he or she doesn't also have European ancestry, and to presume that the African ancestry somehow 'trumps' the European ancestry is deeply racist (one-drop rule). But saying that Muhammad Ali is Irish-American because he has an Irish great-grandfather doesn't make sense, either, since he doesn't apparently consider himself Irish-American, other people apparently don't consider him Irish-American, and he may not even be aware of his Irish ancestry: "I am not sure whether Ali knows about this". Ethnicity is not about biological ancestry! --] 22:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


That is the essence of the debate. It would be very easy to provide sources that show that some entries have acknowledged and even celebrated their Irish heritage. But for many Irish-Americans it is not something that they feel defines them, as they see no reason to define themselves by their ethnicity. Being simply American is good enough for them. Should these people be included? If not, I believe the list would become a much shorter one. I think you're right about the "one-drop rule" being applied, though for some reason (perhaps his pale skin) there is'nt much of a fuss about Ali. By the way, check out the links on the ]; Ali already knew about his Irish ancestry.

] 00:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:The reason there hasn't been any fuss about Ali is because ''people have cited sources''. What part of this do you not understand?&mdash;''']'''&nbsp;(]) 01:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ali never would have been a world heavy weight boxing champion if it wasn't for his Irish blood.

Trouble will never stop until Lapsed Pacifist is banned, and if he is not banned, I will no longer contribute to the list on wikipedia, I will work on the list myself so Lapsed Pacifist will not have the power to edit. I will put it up on another webiste when I finish it.


I don't believe we're getting as many fresh opinions here as we expected. Why not inform both the ] and the ] of our debate?

] 02:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


I just want to interject that going by blood is somewhat silly. Would an English child raised in China by Chinese foster parents be Chinese? I think it would be fair to call him/her a Chinese in that case, despite the lack of any Chinese blood. I think a better way would be to let the person decide if there is confusion. If one can cite evidence on this, then include that person. Perhaps the person doesn't want to be or do not think of themselves as belonging to any group. ] is a good example of this. Trying to pigeon-hole someone into a group, unless he himself decides to, is unfair and does not recognize the increasingly multi-racial nature of the population.

In regards to banning someone, I think that's silly as well. At least he's here debating with this and asking the community for feedback instead of just trolling. It would go against the spirit, or my perception of it at least, to ban someone disagreeing and editing an article. As long as he's not being destructive, there's no point to banning him.
] 02:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

*Actually, going by blood isn't silly, but it may not be exhaustively inclusive. The question is whether or not someone of no genetic relation, and little cultural relation, could claim to be in that list. If you think this is simply a philosphical exercise, I'd recomment ]. Regrettably, the blade cuts both ways. You'll also notice that I think I've tried to be the voice of moderation, and I've never recommended banning. I also recommend that this get the widest audience possible. If someone has a place they'd like to advertise this discussion, please do. I've already put the notice on every American-ethnic list I could find. I'm just disappointed that, as an Asshole-American, my list is under-represented. :) ] 05:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

===The second half===

I am not overly concerned about the ''ethnic'' part of Ethnic-American lists, but the ''American'' part. I'm basing this on the ] which includes some people with tenuous connections to the US, such as the Korean-Canadian actress ]. If the person does not identify himself/herself as American, then it seems it makes no sense to identify that person as an ethnic-American. The only thing is it's not always easy to find out what someone's national self-identification is; should we have a US-citizen-only policy? --] 01:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:Took the liberty of creating a second section here, in hopes this wouldn't get lost. What if we applied a two-point criterior here as well?
::1. The individual must be or have been a Country-Y citizen, '''OR'''
::2. The individual must self-identify or be routinely identified in other sources as (Country-X) (Country-Y), e.g. "Korean-Canadian." -- ] 03:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that there is not yet a list of Chineese-Somalians or Greek-Mongolians. How can Misplaced Pages claim to be NPOV if neither of these lists exist? --] 03:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*I'll treat your comment as serious even though it appears sarcastic. NPOV is irrelevant to the issue that you have raised. It's never POV that a subject simply doesn't have an article yet. NPOV enters only into affirmative editing decisions, to create or to delete articles or to add or remove content from articles. However, it would not be POV to list for deletion such a hypothetical article, were it to be created, if it's not an encyclopedic topic simply because no significant number of notable Chinese-Somalians exist or no notable people publicly identify themselves as such. "Hybrid" ethnicities in the U.S. are furthermore notable because they represent substantial populations and prominent self-identifications in a country that has paid significant attention to such ethnic backgrounds. Prove the same is true of Somalia and that there are enough notable, self-identifying Chinese-Somalians and we'll have such a list article. It's not POV to refuse coverage to extremely trivial or unverifiable subjects, and we're not going to have lists of people who don't merit articles. ] 04:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

== Invitation to Join a Project ==

I've been working on some ] for ] for some time. The work is in the form of a ]. The project is called ] and is built from the standard ] which is really quite a marvelous tool.

Please take a look at the project page and see what you think. ] are welcome to join and learn, teach discuss, debate, study, and design a better ] at {{SERVER}} . Thanks in advance for your participation. ] - ] 9 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

==COTW and AID templates==
There is an ongoing debate by several parties at the ]. Please read it before responding. The debate is over whether it is wikipedia policy to not include the COTW and AID templates on the article page. Several others and I claim that it useful to the reader, and since a consensus was never reached on the subject that the templates can go on the page. The other parties disagree and state that they are not interest to the reader. Hopefully they will come here and comment. I'm not sure if I should set up a vote here or not. However, I was told to bring the discussion here. Thanks for all comments. ] 01:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
:In general I feel it is important to keep clutter in the article namespace to a minimum, only the very short and very worst articles need to be defaced with coloured boxes. Our readers, of which there are far more than editors, have little interest in whether a page has been nominated for a COTW, put through Peer Review, listed for expansion, or accused of having limited geographic scope. All these things are mainly of interest to editors, and should thus be kept on the talk pages. - ] 01:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree that articles need the littles amount of clutter but I believe the COTWs and Aid are important to have on the page because it will be of interest to the reader because, it explains that the article is not of best quality and secondly that there is an effort to improve,similar to the cleanup, and NPOV tags. I don't think the Peer Review is of any interest to the average reader because it is not telling the user if the article is good or bad just a discussion. I do believe the Featured article template should be on the article. I believe there should be two expansion templates one which describes a requests and one which has been recognized by the wiki community that it needs expansion which is actually the COTW template. The former should be on the talk like you said. I'm not familiar with the last one. By the way, I posted a message on all the users talk page that had been involved in the discussion at the COTW talk page. (That was a run-on, oh well) ] 01:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
:I say start a vote; democracy rules. But this can only raise awareness of COTW, which in no way is a bad thing ] 02:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
::I like Falphin's reasoning. One concern I just have is that nonexistent articles, which are nominated frequently, may be created by inexperienced nominators with just the COTW template. Not that that's really a reason not to do it, so I don't know why I'm bringing it up. All in all this decision is not that controversial or consequential, at least not enough to garner enough caring for a vote. I think there are valid reasons for both talk or article space, but one of the biggest reasons we always did it on the talk space is that we always did it in the talk space. So right now I'm leaning slightly towards putting it in the article space, if only because it will give us more publicity (then again, we may end up with just bandwagon, fair-weather voters who won't contribute). --] 04:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::The thing is, that habits are hard to change, even if Simon finds supporters for his idea. The habits are such that people put ''all'' templates on the main page, cleanup, expansion, the not-english-template, inuse, VfD etc. They put the template on the main page because it makes the most sense, because it is harder to overlook. Even if we could draw up a policy to try and change that habit, how would you go about it? There must be thousands of templates to move right now. There are thousands of editors you would have to personally contact on their user page and inform them about the policy change. Many would not comply or just forget. Human habits are very powerful and in this case the conventions make perfect sense, so why change it?--] 06:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Replying Fenice: At the top of each COTW (or AID, same below, as in all my uses of COTW on this page) voting page a notice board exists. The policy change can be announced there and no mess would be generated. ] 01:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Replying Dmcdevit: Although the number of bandwagons will increase, however, by any means, the number of contributors won't decrease. The concern is to raise the number of voters, of course hopefully, but not necessarily contributors. ] 01:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that SimonP is unilaterally changing where the templates are located on articles. ] 12:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hallo~! This is Deryck from Hong Kong, who originally advocated the change of the COTW template from the talk page to the article page. My point is that, now '''the template is on the talk page. Even contributors will not notice the existence of this notice, because such stubs are so short that they can't bring up disputes (therefore viewing the talk page is unnecessary)'''. If the notice is put on the article page, it would be easier for readers as well as editors to go voting and later help the brushing up of the article. ] 01:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

===Vote===
The vote is currently going on elsewhere:
*] for AID
*] for COTW
] 21:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC) and ] 01:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

== Policy on External Linking in Articles to Sites That May Not Be Encyclopedic ==

In regards to this article: ], I removed from the article links to sites that give primary information on the subject, ie. how to seduce someone. It's inappropriate because they aren't very "scientific" or adhere to standards that Misplaced Pages aspairs to. Conceivably there are thousands of such sites on the Internet. Why should we favor one over another? Or are we going to list all the sites related to a topic? We're not a wikified version of Google. I also removed the link to Robert Greene's site, which seems to merely advertise his book on same topic. Basically, anything that links to a site that provides non-encyclopedic information/primary source should not be in the article. I want to know what everyone else's opinion is on this. Please advise.
] 02:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:Your general statement of what shouldn't be in an article is far too broad. Most obviously, on controversial subjects, we often link to unencyclopedic primary-source sites, for the benefit of readers who want a fuller exposition of that point of view. Based on what you say about the links you removed, though, I'd say that they served no purpose in that article. The link to Greene's site in ] should of course stay. ] 03:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Those interested in this topic may want to weigh in (hmm) at ]. -- ] | ] 05:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

==Rename the Help desk==
In the past few days I have come across a distraught dog owner and a very disappointed kid asking questions at the help desk. The help desk help are, understandably, not terribly sympathetic. They get reference desk questions all the time. They have enough to do answering questions from idiotic Wikipedians like me. There is a very simple solution to this problem - RENAME THE BLOODY HELP DESK! I shout because I find the whole thing extremely distressing for everyone involved. This happens over and over again, every day. Call it - I don't know - "Guided Tours" or something. Anything but the help desk. Please. DO something to stop this. --] 13:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:Never underestimate the dimness of humanity; whatever you name it, they'll find some way of misinterpreting. --] (] 15:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

::True, but we don't have to aggravate it, do we? --] 15:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Actually, I take that back. It's only partly true. If the Help desk were to be renamed "Misplaced Pages works" or "Misplaced Pages ways" or " Misplaced Pages wonkiness" or whatever, I doubt you'd be receiving questions about injured dogs there. Okay, so you still might get genealogy questions with those, but surely someone can come up with a name that acts as a decent filter? --] 15:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

::::I gather that the problem is that people are using the Misplaced Pages Helpdesk for general help enquiries - such as "what is the time of the next bus to Billericay?" or "My Chinchilla is foaming at the mouth - what is wrong with it?"

::::<small>IMHO</small> I would suggest that anything Wiki-specific should have a Wiki- prefix to help minimise (I wouldn't be so rash as to suggest 'eradicate') confusion. So maybe something along the lines of "WikiHelp" would be a step in the right direction? --] 15:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:::::That seems the right direction to me, as long as you can avoid the use of the word "help." Or those foaming-at-the-mouth chinchillas will probably keep streaming in. --] 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:::Given that the emergency services telephone numbers (strangely supposedly reserved for calling the police, medical or fire services in, well, emergency situations) are routinely asked for help on homework, etc., I suspect that the problem has no solution because the moment you offer help with or solutions to problems, or advice or guidance, there will always be a group of people who think that this service was designed to solve their immediate difficulty. Changing the name or placing explanatory notices will not deter such people. And, no matter what you say, they will feel indignant that you are not helping them. It is one of the curses of modern life as deference has declined and selfishness has risen. -] 19:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:There's a great big pink sign at the top of the page, with a red stop sign inside of it, which lets everybody know in no uncertain terms that the page isn't a place for asking general questions. I think, as Mel notes, that no matter what we do people will always be posting things in the wrong places. I think the help desk is the correct term for the page, as a ] is a place where one goes for trouble-shooting problems (The computer lab help desk, or the library help desk if you don't understand the numbering system), while a ] is a place where someone goes to find out the answer to whatever random question is on their minds. I'm not sure we should be re-naming these commonly used terms just because people get confused &mdash; that's what the great big pink sign is for. &mdash; ] | ] 19:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedians are supposedly smart enough to find their way to obtaining help with Misplaced Pages problems, whatever the source of that problem-solving is named, WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE CALLED A HELP DESK? I can't believe that the poverty-stricken owner of a dog with a collapsed lung is going to be pestering something called "Wikimess" or "Wikipediassness" or whatever. ''Of course'', some will get through. But do you really feel it's necessary to lay down a red carpet and install flashing neon arrows? As for the big pink sign, I'm not a total moron, and even I don't notice it. It doesn't sink in. It's nothing. I do not understand why the name of the help desk can't be changed as the simplest semi-demi-solution to a constant problem, unless we've got some sort of stake in being elitist snobs. I hope we don't. --] 20:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:The trouble is, it's a place where people go to get help &mdash; thus "Help desk" is a suitable name for it. Changing it some awful neologism, or to anything more obscure, might deter the occasional twit who thinks it's a place to get tickets for ''Phantom of the Opera'', or get advice on how to treat his piles, but it is also likely to make things much less clear and useful for the many people who use it for what it's for. After all, it's not just called "Help desk" &mdash; it's called "Misplaced Pages:Help desk"; if that isn't enough, what would be? And what on Earth is ''&eacute;litist'' about the plain, everyday name "Help desk"? --] (] 22:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing elitist about calling it the "Help desk." What's elitist is insisting it can't be called anything else, and those fools who come there thinking they will get help deserve nothing better than dismissal. Which reminds me - the Village Pump - I've finally figured out why it's called that. One comes here with an issue, and the answer, in my experience, is "go soak your head." I don't know what the answer to the Help desk problem is, but I thought it was sensible to present it here. I was wrong, and should have known better. I will try some other routes. Never mind. --] 22:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:It seems to me that the real problem is people who just dismiss the question out-right, not the name of the page. I don't visit the Help Desk much, but I would have thought what most people would do would be to tranfer the question to the Reference Desk and leave a link at the Help desk telling the original poster where their question can be found. I know that this does happen, as I often see questions at the Reference Desk which have been moved from the Help Desk, I guess the problem you're highlighting is that this doesn't happen often enough. &mdash; ] | ] 11:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You might say that. But I am loath to blame the help desk volunteers, who do enough as it is. It took me two months to figure out the difference between help and reference, because I read labels, pink or otherwise colored, as much as I read instruction manuals - i.e. I don't. It took me ''three'' months to realize what the reference desk actually was. ]]] 20:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC) and cripes, now I have to go over to the help desk to solve my signature problem - these people don't get paid nearly enough

== Symbols as article titles ==

Are we ok with articles that have titles like ]? ] ] 01:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

:Since IE won't even render that, I would say no. However you should see also ], presently a requested move, and ], ], ], and many other things in ]. If there isn't a policy on this already, I would say there needs to be one soon. ] 01:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

::How about we say all titles must be in words, no symbols other than letters, punctuation and numbers, and put that in the relevant section of the style guide? ] 06:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

:::Depending on how liberally you interpret that, it's either too inclusive or too limiting. Are þ, Я, ئ, ⡶, 낑, אַ, and き all letters? Are ‡, ≈, and ± punctuation? Is ∂ a lower-case delta (a letter) or a differential "d" (a math symbol)? Is ‰ a number? --] 07:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

:I would say that in the English Misplaced Pages all titles should consist of upper case and lower case letters on an English language keyboard, and also (more rarely and ''only'' where justified) the digits 0 to 9. It has to be remembered that any article should be searchable by the title without needing to know specific unicodes. Introducing 'foreign' characters makes searching more difficult. Further, if you don't happen to have the correct font installed (or if your browser isn't set for the particular font-set) you won't see the symbol at all. --] 07:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

::It is also worth noting that since the upgrade a number of articles have been moved to titles incorporating ]s, e.g. í, ö, ê, ç, etc. ] 07:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:::That's not quite correct. Those diacriticals available in Latin-1 (ä, ø, æ, å, ß, etc) were used in WP long before "the upgrade". ] 08:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

::I'd strongly resist any attempt to prohibit the use of diacritics, I wish that we used them in English as I find it a lot easier to correctly pronounce random foreign words with accents than a random english word. So long as there are redirects from a keyboard type-able form I can't see a problem with diacritics. --] 21:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

:Joyous, the problem with that article title is that it uses a code point in the ], so the appearance is ''very'' dependant on the font used. --] 07:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

''See'' ]. ] 07:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The article originally called ] (concerning one of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet) has recently been retitled ] ] 09:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I should add to this that I'm reading this via Windows XP with the latest mulit-lingual versions of Arial and whatnot available and even *I* can't see a couple of the characters rendered above. So how can a user with a pre-OpenType computer even ''hope'' to keep up? And is a page URL comprised of "%1932%20421%20024%E3%81%8D" really such a good idea? People like referencing us, but if they get a "dirty" URL like that they might be a little annoyed. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:Whether IE will or will not render something should not determine whether it should be accepted as an article title in Misplaced Pages. There is policy specifying how articles should be titled. The above title is not appropriate for an article but could possibly be acceptable for a redirect. The Apple symbol is not part of ], but ] has placed it in the Private Use section at codepoint U+F8FF. See the ]. ] 07:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

:this discussion has been going on for quite some time now, and I doubt there will be a final consensus soon. But I think this much can be said as a matter of common sense, that any article that uses non-ascii characters in its title should have at least one redirect pointing to it that is in ascii. And also, obviously, no private use area characters should be used. Redirects solve a lot of these problems. If you don't like ], you can always link, and type, ]. Which is the actual title and which is the redirect will then be a matter of taste without much bearing on usability. I do '''not''' think we should base policy on "what IE is capable on rendering", since that will be an unstable policy (it may change with each upgrade of IE, and I don't put it beyond MS that some upgrades will also break previous compatibility). We should rather have a policy on which code pages are admissible. ''In general'', it should be advisable to restrict ourselves to Latin, Latin1, and Latin Extended. We shouldn't have titles in Hebrew, Arabic or Indian alphabets, but we should use ]. A conceivable exception would be articles on the characters themselves, like ]. ] <small>]</small> 08:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
::Actually I'm writing this on Firefox, but IE seems to be similarly "broken". No, we should not kowtow to the most common browsers out there just because they can't "keep up", but certainly (as above) everything should have a basic-text redirect.
::But the thing is, if the redirect takes me to the "correctly named" page "?", there should be some way to know what it's about if I can't see the symbol. If I read an article talking about "?" (name) is the first..." "? is used for..." "? also means ... in Hebrew..." and so forth, is it really going to be an article I want to read if I can't see what the heck it's talking about?
::Therefore, we should perhaps have an image equivalent of these "rare" characters until such time as they can be displayed by the majority of browsers. I know some pages already do that like ], but not all necessarily do.
::Our goal is certainly not to restrict organic content improvement to what some browsers support, but on the other hand we should ensure the maximum accessibility from said browsers. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

:::this ''could'' be solved server-side, e.g. (optionally? via css?) rendering as images all glyphs of certain codepages. This would mean that editors simply encode their stuff in unicode, but that e.g. the runes would be served as images until most browsers support that codepage. Then the image-rendering would simply be switched off, and the glyph code would be served, without changing the article content (that would be a mediawiki project, of course). ] <small>]</small> 14:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Whatever will become policy, ] is an unsuitable article name, as it uses a character of the ] ]. For example, on my setup it renders a micro-advertisement "Kurd IT Group" from the creator of a font I've installed. I'm sure you are meaning another symbol. But it isn't part of Unicode and so it's a bad example. --] 14:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

== British county names ==
There is disagreement on the policy for this. Some Wikipedians think we should use modern counties for articles on modern places, but historic counties where appropriate for historical articles and in history sections. Others believe we should use historic or traditional county names in all cases.

There is a clearly-stated policy (now a year old), but some editors are disregarding it. Feelings have run quite high for at least the last 18 months.

If you have an interest in British counties, cities and towns we would welcome your input. Visit the ] page and its ] for details. ] 13:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:Excellent! I was just looking for exactly that - policies on English county names. Thanks! ]...<font color=green><small>''] 00:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

== Friendly Vandals ==
Maybe all those vandals who add nonsense or silly things to articles but aren't particularly malicous could be directed to Uncyclopedia.org? Just an idea. ] 11:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

== http://thepedia.com/ ==

This site uses the text from wiki and places a copyright on it. It does list the http address the data was obtained from. Does this meet the redistribution policy? ] 05:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:It is not in compliance. Please list it at ]. ] 07:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
::I've listed it. &mdash; ] | ] 10:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

::Goodness me, they're even hotlinking our images! Maybe it's time we installed a remote-linking blocker like Angelfire etc. have...? ...hmmm... ]<sup>]</sup> 10:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

:::The most effective hotlink blocker I've seen didn't merely block the images, it replaced them with the ]. --] 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

::::oooh, that's a good one! I saw one just recently where an image had been replaced with "This guy STEALS images for his auction pages. Do you really want to bid for an item he didn't photograph himself and might not even own?!?" LOL! :) ]<sup>]</sup> 12:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

:I have contacted the site owner and the site now appears to be completely compliant. I don't know about the images. &mdash; ] | ] 15:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
::Pictures are still being pulled from our servers. Thanks for getting wiki listed on this site as the source of the information. ] 17:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

== (movie) to (film) vote didn't provide enough notification ==

There was recently a vote to change ], but I believe this major policy change didn't allow enough people to know about it. Shouldn't major changes have a notice posted at ] or at least its talk page? Only 7 people voted, for goodness sake. ] 15:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

:Yes they should have, and ideally at one of the Pumps or something as well as a heads-up to potential voters. That is unacceptable. You should call a revote. Votes for something as serious as that should be huge, look at ] for example. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

::]. Just for reference. ] 05:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

]

== Links to copyvios ==

Is there a policy about links to copyvios? I just saw an anon a link to page holding a Scientific American article. --] 20:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

:Why do you need a policy? You have already figured out that there's something not right about doing it, otherwise you wouldn't be asking. -- ]|] 20:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

::Sorry, but on en.wikipedia there are much more things allowed regarding copyvios than on de.wikipedia, where I know the policies. --] 21:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

:::For example? ] 21:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

::::Screenshots, pictures of book and CD covers. --] 21:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

:::::That's true, but that's about ''us'' hosting them, and we're supposed to host web-resolution samples rather than significant parts. This is significant, it's a full copy! So removing the link would no doubt be the right thing to do. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Knowingly linking to sites that contain copyright infringements exposes us to contributory liability in the U.S. ] 05:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
:In France it's called ''recel de contrefaçon'', I guess in most places it's not a very clever thing to do. ] 12:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

== New proposal (VfD renomination limits) ==

It's at ]. ], <br>] 05:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

:I've made a counter-proposal that's less likely to have unintended consequences: ]. -- ]|] 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
:*Best proposal ev3r! ]]] 09:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

== Resolution compromise ==

What is the policy on tailoring aritcles for certain monitor resolutions. I use 800x600 and often find tables that need to have their column width fixed to make them look good for me. --] 12:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

:The policy? We just don't. If info fits, that's fine, if it doesn't, that's not the reader's problem. We try to keep images to a reasonable size (~250px), but even so most of our content completely bogs down anything below 1024x768.
:It is NOT advisable to design for "inferior" sizes if it means reducing existing content or limiting potential content in any way. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:But it IS a good idea if it can be fixed for low resolution screens without giving up to much on other systems. Misplaced Pages should be accessible to as many people as possible. - ]|] 12:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

== Amiguity in ] ==

This section of the NOR is the most commonly quoted and misrepresented part of the NOR:

:''Original research that produces primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.''

I've seen more than one user quote it as some sort of get-out for using original research in articles. By arguing that their original thesis are backed up by logic applied to otherwise unrelated primary and seconday sources and citing this section they claim they are not performing original research, even though they clearly are. I think this section needs to be reworded. ] 15:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages disclaimer ==

I was very surprised to learn recently that wikipedia was NOT an encyclopedia like those we are all used to using. Most people will not check for your disclaimers before looking for information, and they presume that what they find are well-researched facts. I only discovered this myself when I came across some information listed for a topic that was clearly opinion and was, in fact, gossip. You are therefore responsible for contributing to the spread of gossip and false data. Despite your disclaimer, you ARE presenting yourself as an ecyclopedia website, knowing that people will be deceived.

The very least that you can do is to have a heading on EACH page that appears, which says, "Misplaced Pages Makes No Guarantee of Validity." It would also be more correct of you, and certainly more ethical, if you called yourself, "Misplaced Pages, the user-created encyclopedia."

Linda Estabrook

:"Real" encyclopedias disclaim accuracy, too. The three leading competing online encyclopedias have disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy - , and . Sometimes the staff of those encyclopedias . - ]

:We really should make it a teeny bit more obvious, though, for newcomers. Add a "written by users like you!" at the top of the page or something. I am all about ] and the convergence of the wiki towards Absolute Truth, but we aren't at Eventually yet, and vandalism and hearsay mean newcomers should check references and article history before believing everything. We are, most of the time, a much better source than half the crap floating around the internet, but some of our articles are far below the quality of a "real" encyclopedia (that wouldn't have any information on that subject at all).

:That said, you should ''always'' check references for important things, even for stuff that's in paper encyclopedias, as they have errors, too. - ] 17:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:: You'd be surprised how many errors are present in the common text books too. ] 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A newcomer's response. While objecting to the escalation from, "I found one item of gossip" to "you are deceiving the world", I have been surprised by the ubiquity of wiki hits on Google. Since so many more people will now be accessing wiki material, perhaps Estabrook is correct in advocating a little navel gazing. Megatron's defence that wiki is a better class of crap than that served up by other internet sources is hardly reassuring and we should all recognise that most users will never trouble themselves to check the references against the possibility of vandalism. So perhaps the answer is that there should be a roving commission to survey material and, when it finds articles that are sound, it should lock them. If a future editor believes any of the locked articles to require revision, let that be argued before editorial access is allowed. In this way, there is a slow accretion of core material that can justify the label of encyclopedia. Peripheral and evanescent material can be allowed to come and go as fashions change, with or without warning notices. -] 18:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

:::Good luck. People come up with proposals like this all the time, and probably a lot of people like them, but it will take a lot of work to get any kind of consensus to change something so fundamental to the idea of wiki. Much more realistic is to at least acknowledge in an obvious place that the pedia is user-written, and that only some of those users are experts. - ] 21:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

:I came across many incorrect statements in the biology related pages. This was brought to my attention by students using it as source material. I agree there needs to be a stronger disclaimer on these pages. Some of the mistakes are subtle but some 'facts' are just wrong. Given how many online reference sources are harvesting wikipedia information it is scary to think how much misinformation may be out there on the internet. I do not think this means wikipedia is bad. It has huge potential and corrections will eventually get the quality up to scratch. But given the fact that there is wheat and chaff on these pages a disclaimer is warranted. ] 18:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:: Please, when you come across these, either correct them or at least make a note on the relevant talk page. -- ] | ] 05:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

:::See? When we read the Misplaced Pages we don't assume that everything is correct. We are both reading to learn and reading to edit, constantly on the lookout for things that might be wrong or vandalism or need cleanup. We approach all content with healthy skepticism. If ''we'' don't approach the Misplaced Pages as a completely authoritative source on information, we need to make sure newcomers don't approach it that way and then blame us for deceiving them and never come back.
:::See ] - ] 17:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

But, on two occasions, when I attempted to change pages (in my opinion for the better) I was met with hostility and abuse. I rapidly withdrew. Those pages remain unacceptable (in my opinion). So, please, let us not assume that placing warning messages as headers will resolve inherent behavioural and content problems. -] 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:Then there would seem to be controversy regarding the article. Could you specifically tell us which pages these were (perhaps also linking to your edits in the history). I'll look into this. &mdash; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 19:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am not touting for a campaign of "Be nice to the old guy." Everywhere, I see reports of edit wars, sometimes over really meaningful issues such as what to call English counties or disputes over puncutation which get blown out of proportion by those with a non-consensual approach to life. "Looking into my editing history" is not going to add significantly to a pattern of behaviour that is well-documented and clearly inhibiting the growth of encyclopedic standards. The reason why I have not become involved in comparable disputes is that, at the first sign of abuse, I walk away. A plague on the causes of all those who will not iterate through reasonable debate towards some generally accepted point of view. -] 05:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Misplaced Pages should include some type of disclaimer on every article page. I really like Misplaced Pages and try to contribute when I can. However, as a person involved in research, I would not advocate using Misplaced Pages ''per se'' as a reference; but, I would certainly recommend '''''starting''''' with Misplaced Pages in performing research. Misplaced Pages is a wonderful resource with many advantages over traditional reference works. Misplaced Pages is also very up-front about how it is created and its limitations. Unfortunately, most people will not realize the difference between Misplaced Pages and a traditional encyclopedia. Of course, no matter what you do, there will always be a few people who don't read the disclaimer. That said, I think it would be good to include a disclaimer anyway so that the majority of readers will get the idea. --] 18:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

== Merging ==

After I merge 2 articles, can I edit the page to remove the merge request? What about after I fulfill other requests, such as an image request? Thanks.

:If you think you're done, yes. -- ]|] 16:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*Yes, but don't forget to redirect the duplicate article after merging. - ]|] 09:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

==What to do with an editor refusing to follow Misplaced Pages style norms?==

Many of you probably met ''Louis Epstein'', who contributes from ]. Luis seems to be a rather good editor, however, there are certain things which he refuses to do. First, he does not want to make an account, which is not bad in itself. But Lous also refuses to put space after period and comma, and calls this, together with the practice of using <nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki> (ndash) instead of the short dash -, . There are other pecularities which other people might comment on.

Now,you may think that,not putting space after period and comma is no big deal,but this screws up the format on a lot of pages,making this look very unprofessional,as you see from this sentence.Sometimes I think Misplaced Pages is too tolerant,and I'd argue that this is the case with this editor.What to do?] 17:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

:I refer the gentleman to the quote from the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style that I offered in response to the numerous others who have had this same disagreement with me on my talk page.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/] 18:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "tough noogies". All the rest of the world says "put a space after a punctuation mark", mr. Epstein says "don't put a space after a punctuation mark". Polite requests have been stacked a foot high, all denied. Compromise is impossible. So either he stays and we continue to clean up after him, or we ban him. Since he makes good edits (content-wise) and we have a huge reservoir of editors, I'd say pick the first option. ''Provided'', of course, that mr. Epstein doesn't insist on having his singular convention imposed on Misplaced Pages&mdash;if he insists on reverting those people who alter his edits to conform to the ], he would be disrupting Misplaced Pages, and that's bannable. So if you can gather evidence of that, start an ] (which this practically is) and then an ]. Otherwise, accept that this is a free wiki, and people are free to act in ways most of us don't like, as long as they do not actively obstruct the encyclopedia. I doubt many want to accuse mr. Epstein of that. ] · ] 19:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

:What about adding the required spaces with some bot? That would take out the manual work. For one-time effort of writing a bot, the editor's worthy work would be preserved, the other editors would be spared of menial cleaning jobs, and everybody should be happy. (Though beware of adding spaces to numbers like 1,234.56!) --] 19:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:: I have a bot, see ], and wrote a program to do clean up after Luis. I use it from time to time. However, one cannot let the bot do its job fully automatically, there are many more issues than just the IP address thing. What concerns me is however that the community lets somebody get away with not following the style rules. ] 23:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

::: Don't worry much about that concern. Personally I'll trade style for substance any day if I can't have both. You may like to make the bot watch the editor's page with submissions, and run it only on those, then manually review the changes from the bot's logs. Could it work? --] 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:What to do,what to do...*flips coin* ah,RFC it is then.Yes this is disruptive,yes it is bannable(if there is no alternative),and yes, I'd better go back to using spaces before I throw up at this bastardisation of established typography. Do tell us when you make this RFC, should be an interesting read. :) His refusal to get an account is both a problem (due to lack of constant identity) and downright ridiculous. And it's not like he's doing it for his privacy. Certainly I think this is an event without precedent, I highly doubt an "anon" has ever been taken to RFC. But there's always a first time. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:: Not having an account is not a big problem, as it seems his IP address is always the same.

:: Yes, not following the typographic rules is disrupting. There are at least 31 people urging him to do so on his talk page. Would a RFC help matters with this? ] 03:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:::I don't make a point of removing the spaces slaves to popular bad habits put after my punctuation remarks;where I do reverts it's where people have reformatted articles and they need to be put back in more sensible form.Spaces after punctuation marks are bad because they're informationally redundant (words should be separated by spaces '''''OR''''' punctuation marks) but if I were spreading wisdom to the conformists on this issue I'd never get anything else done.--Louis E./le@put.com/] 03:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Spaces after punctuation may be redundant information-wise, however they make the resulting text significantly easier to read. Also, there are cases where the marks should NOT have spaces behind, eg. in formatting the numbers or IP addresses or so. Also, the browsers break the lines on space, not after a punctuation mark (which would cause other issues on its own, eg. formatting of the numbers), which may lead to difficult-to-read outcome on the screen. --] 19:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
::::"Conformists" is a strange word to throw out as a pejorative to encyclopedia writers, because we're supposed to be conformists. We're a secondary (or even tertiary?) source. We're not out there to establish new standards or revolutionize the language. The whole point of an encyclopedia is that it conforms to what is already known and established. I'm sure there is some online forum out there that will be receptive to your personal preference and will help you change the world, one punctuation mark at a time, but this isn't it. ] 20:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:If this person consistently reverts corrective edits, he is a disruption. Otherwise, just think of him as acting out of ignorance instead of radicalism, and fix his stuff. If he were a bad speller no one would be complaining. I hate to take sides, but really we should be glad he's willing to contribute material for free that we can easily repair. ] 01:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

::See the history of ]. ] ] 11:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:::While I see a slow-simmering edit war on ], it seems to revolve around the question of which supercentenarians belong on the list. The Manual of Style conventions seem to be incidental to the conflict there. If that is the case, ]&ndash;rather than the Pump&ndash;would seem to be the most appropriate venue.
:::On the issue of punctuation, we have any number of editors whose spelling, grammar, or writing style fall below perfection. A silent army of copyeditors cleans up after them, and brings their work into line with both the Manual of Style and the general conventions of English usage. If Mr. Epstein would like to tilt at windmills on his crusade against en dashes and spaces after punctuation, he may do so&mdash;though deliberately creating work for copyeditors when he ''knows'' that the standard style here is different from his preferred conventions is rather rude. As long as his content contributions are good, then a bit of cleanup might be worth the effort. (Then again, he's walking a fine line with respect to ].)
:::I suggest that it would ''clearly'' cross the line to disruption if he were to start 'correcting' articles or revert warring over his personal, peculiar stylistic conventions. While the Misplaced Pages 'house style' is decidedly more flexible than most, it is not appropriate to revert to one's own style when there is such a clearly expressed preference for the 'standard' usage. ](]) 15:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

::Bed spellers don't inherently ]. Louis Epstein does, and this is nothing short of vandalism. &mdash;] (hoping that Mr. Epstein doesn't replace my em dash with a hyphen) 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:::I don't edit what people put on discussion pages,however much I may disagree with how they format it.The ] and ] revert wars do concern format,but not punctuation;when I originated each of these articles,I organized them in a certain way,and others (often with no other interest in the article's content) have reorganized them and introduced insufficiently documented content in inconsistent ways.When I have new information to add,I always integrate it into the branch of updates that I prefer (minimizing formatted tables on the first article,and ordering all articles by age down to a cutoff age in the second),removing those entries that I consider to have been inappropriately added.--Louis E./le@put.com/] 18:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

::::I'm going to post a note about this on RFC to settle the matter. Mr. Epstein should note that maintaining a preferred "branch of updates" is not an acceptable practice, and that the community should decide on a ''single'' format for the article in question. Within reason, making the article easier to ''read'' for the majority of users takes precedence over making it easy to ''edit''. Whether the best way to achieve that is through tables, lists, or a combination thereof I leave to the RFC. ](]) 15:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Here are links to ] and ] for your convenience. This is really an RFC matter, rather than a Village Pump issue. ](]) 15:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

*Misplaced Pages isn't paper so doing it to save space isn't neccesary. Not using spaces after punctuation won't gain us anything. Spaces will help make a text more readable and is common across the majority of written sources. We shouldn't reinvent the wheel. - ]|] 10:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

#Spaces after punctuation are mandatory in English, and not to use them is simply, on any conventiuon, according to any manual of style, wrong. I don't believe that he doesn't know that (no-one who's barely literate can have failed to notice it), so he's being deliberately disruptive.
#This sort of thing is genuinely infuriating, and is part of what drives good editors away. I have a similar problems with {{user|Ultimate Star Wars Freak}} and {{user|OmegaWikipedia}}, occasionally abetted by {{user|DrippingInk}} and {{user|Everyking}}. They insist on reverting wholesale my attempts to correct articles to Misplaced Pages (and normal English) style (inluding capitalisation in headers and article titles, numbers, quotation marks, etc.). --] (] 13:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"informationally redundant" is simply a laughable argument. Why, plaintext is informationally redundant. So I wonder why Mr. Epstein's submissions are not in gzipped format. Talk about ]. Unless he is a really outstanding editor, this is simply not worth the bother. ] <small>]</small> 14:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

==Requests for articles to be deleted?==
Following a quick discussion regarding ] in which his legitimate nephew claims that Stockwell wishes the page deleted - I'm left rather curious what what actual Misplaced Pages policy is in cases like this? He's a legitimate encyclopaedical entry, being the highest-ranking CIA member to publicly resign his post - and google turns up over 8000 hits for *him* (John Stockwell + CIA) ] 07:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

:We ignore them. We are here to provide facts whether the subjects of those facts like them or not; as long as there's no legal concerns involved, we keep the content. If he sues, however, I assume we take it down immediately. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
::Only if it's a copyright infringement. Otherwise, screw 'em, it stays up no matter what he wants or tries to do. I'd say a CIA agent would qualify as a public official (yeah, yeah, they do their work in secrecy...not the point), and even if not, someone who writes books and makes public speeches in the manner described in the article has certainly made himself a public figure. So as long as the information isn't both false '''and''' posted with knowledge or reckless disregard of that falsity, I can't imagine how he'd have a nonfrivolous legal claim. ] 20:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:::"Screw 'em"? Nice way to build community folks. Especially for a simple discussion on policy. Look, his only complaint is that he'd just like folks to quit talking about that time in his life. It was simply a polite request to remove it. I understand the concepts of how this site exists. There's no suit (though it is interesting how this conversation aautomatically jumped to that notion).

:::As the internet and growth in public knowledge gains momentum, does that automatically mean an individual gives up the right to have a hand in what is published about them? In traditional texts, authors are required to get permission or lacking that, publish biographys as "unauthorized" Now with Misplaced Pages, you have a huge number of essentially unauthorized biographies published to the largest potential audience without any acknowledgement to the subjects desires regarding the content.
::::Actually authors are not requires to do anyuthign of the sort. Most formal bigraphies are "unauthorized". Indeed many people assume that an "authorized" biography will be to some extent a puff-piece, and accord it less value for that reason. Some biograhies explicitly label themselves as "unauthorized" as a marketign ploy, to emphasize (or create) controversy. But there is not and never has been any such requiremtn for either academic or popular biographies. Many biographiers seek some degree of approval of their subjects, either as a point of courtesy or to get cooperation. Many of them still include notes sayign that they did not offer the final text for approval to teh subject, or only for approval on the grounds of factual inaccuracy. ] 19:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:::So, do we set a precedent and not have a mark for whether or not a biography on a living person was publish with their concent or not or do we follow tradion and mark if it is authorized. It convention holds true, who is going to go and contact all the folks we have entried for? That would seem to be an already arduous task and could eventually get beyond the abilities of Misplaced Pages's community to manage. I guess as all things in the USA it is simply decided on who take whom to court. And with that, the initial jump to law suits no longer appears hasty.

:::Keep it up, take it down, all we did was ask.
] 05:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Almost all our biographies are unauthorized. I'm not sure that it is meaningful for a GFDL Wiki page to be authorised in this respect, but there are some subjects who participate in Misplaced Pages and edit their own pages. I was unaware of any strong tradition that required encyclopedias to get permission to have articles about people or else flag them as unauthorized. Can you cite any examples from traditional encyclopedias? I guess we could add a note to the ].
::::Unfotunately, encyclopedias (and news sources) do not and should not refrain from publishing information about public figures merely because the subject does not want the information published. I hope you can see how that would intefere with our ability to educate about controversial topics, and secretive organizations.
::::I agree that "Screw 'em" was a coarse remark to make, especially with respect to an active Wikipedian. However, I do agree with the rest of Postdlf's comment. WIkipedia has firm rules about ] and ], but it is general policy to push the envelope in terms of making encylopedic information available. As such, thinking about potential law suits is a reasonal guide for general principles, even if it is not warranted in this specific case.
::::] 13:44:12, 2005-07-18 (UTC) ''typo fixed ] 14:43:45, 2005-07-19 (UTC)''

:You know, it's not that clear-cut always. In sweden we have something kalled PUL (Person-uppgiftslagen, approximatly translated "The Person Data Law") which says that you cannot post information on a webpage about a person if you don't have the consent of the person. So that would pretty much kill most of sv.wikipedia.org, but I think that there are exceptions for famous people ("public people"), as long as the information is not "trivial". Ie that it is illegal to write what the guy had for lunch, but you can publish his birthdate if he is a public person. There is also an exception for journalistic writing, but I don't really see how wikipedia fits into that loophole. Anyway, my point is that it isn't always obvious what rules apply. If the swedish wikipedia starts allowing non-notable people in it, there might be cause for a law-suit. ] 22:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

==Policy on ?ref in commercial external links and general Talk Page issues==
I'm not really all that HTML literate, but ?ref in a url appears to me to be an attempt to track links that come in to that external site from Misplaced Pages, which I assume is against a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. However, I didn't see anything about it in ], although there is a lot of discussion of similar external link quality issues on ]. <small>(posted by ] &mdash;] (]))</small>

:CGI scripts can use any variable name, not just "ref", to specify the referring page -- the key is what comes after the "ref=" part. If it says <nowiki>"ref=http://wikipedia.org"</nowiki>, that might be a clue. Conversely, it could be a reference to a particular page on the target site, and therefore necessary (and harmless). Depending on your browser, a CGI script might be able to determine the referring page regardless of the content of the URL (see "HTTP_REFERER" on ). Anyway, I don't see why it's important to conceal it. &mdash;] (]) 22:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, in general, is there a way to search just the ]? And is anyone else a little disillusioned with the usefulness of Talk pages? They seem to suffer from a lack of traffic, so questions asked there often languish and get no real resolution, which is the main reason I am asking this here instead of on that Talk page. Thanks. ] 11:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

:For pages that get little traffic, you might try ] or ]. ] 16:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

=="American" in United States-related category names==

===New page===
OK, I'm going to move this to ]. ] 03:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:I have copied all the above discussion. Anyone interested, please go to ]. I wasn't sure whether I should delete the above conversation from this page. ] 03:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have redirected the above page to ] as that is a more precise name, and separates the issue of the abbreviations from the country name/adjective/whatever. I've also moved the discussion text that was here to that page's talk page. -] 13:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm moving it back. Splash's move, in my mind, is prejudging the issue by naming it as categorising by country, when that has not yet been decided. It could be that we categorise by nationality. ] ] 13:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

:Ok, in my defence, Radiant! had already created that page so I just redirected there. However, calling it Misplaced Pages:Category titles is unnecessarily broad, imo, and will make it hard to keep the discussion on topic. -] 14:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

===UK===

The discussion has broadened to consider categories related to the United Kingdom. So if you have an opinion on "of the UK", etc., please see ]. ] 18:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

== Changing Template for Deletion criteria ==
I propose eliminating "Not in use" from the list of criteria for template deletion. I fail to see how this, in and of itself, constitutes a valid reason for eliminating a template. Certainly, a template might have other shortcomings that warrant its removal--but if the only objection is that no one's using it, that's not really a good reason to delete it. The simple fact that it's not being used doesn't actually hurt anything, after all--might as well keep it available in case someone does come up with a worthwhile use for it. ] 21:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*What purpose would be served by doing this? No information is lost, if someone needed that template in the future it could be recreated. One could argue that something not being used has outlived its usefullness and should be deleted. If its needed then it should be in use. Its hard enough to find the right category or template tody. Keeping extra ones around ''just because'' probably makes it harder for someone to find the right one. ] 22:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*] suggested this in response to two templates I nominated for deletion in ]. They are unused, unedited, unlinked and undeveloped templates each with a single edit made to them a year ago. They are used in a single project suggestion mentioned in the TfD, which has received no attention since it was created. According to the voting at the moment, this is just exactly the kind of template Misplaced Pages would love to keep. -] 23:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*In response to Kurt - you seem to be under the impression that unused templates ''will be deleted''. However, such is not the case. The criterion says that unused templates ''may be nominated'' for deletion. They do not always end up deleted, that's what TFD discussion is for. Note, by the way, that strictly speaking ''any'' template may be nominated on TFD, no exceptions. If a template is essential, it will simply get a plethora of votes to keep it. (Same principle as for VFD: any regular page, mainspace or Misplaced Pages space, may be put on VFD; that includes the front page, any policy page or today's featured article. However, in those extreme cases people are almost guaranteed to disagree with your reasoning and/or cite ] at you). ]]] 14:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
**No, I'm quite aware of what you're saying. What I'm saying is that the simple fact that a template is unused is '''NEVER''' a sufficient reason to delete it. ] 16:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
***Well, maybe not the only reason but it is an important factor. At least to me it is. And like I said above, by current policy ''any'' template can be nominated for deletion; personally I don't see why we should make exceptions to that, as they tend to be gamable. ]]] 08:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
===procedural question===
I would like to address a question related to this proposed policy change, namely, whether or not a TfD should have voting/input suspended while a policy challenge exists. (This would probably apply to VfD, VfU, CfD, etc. as well). The only reasons I bring this up ''here'', are because (a) I'm not sure where else this should be addressed, and (b) because this is an issue that has arisen on ] specifically because of this purported policy change proposal. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> 02:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:If we did that, we'd have had to have suspended all the *fDs for about 8 weeks while the new CSD criteria were being discussed and polled. There's no need for suspension &mdash; it's too gamable (e.g. as in this case for a defense of a consensus-to-delete template) and the policy can just come into effect if it is agreed. I'll hazard a guess that, at present, this policy proposal needs much more work before it is strong enough to warrant such drastic steps as suspension of anything. -] 13:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

== Why do we allow the PermissionAndFairUse image tag? ==

Why is the {{tl|PermissionAndFairUse}} tag allowed on Misplaced Pages? It appears to violate our policies. It is a cop-out for us to allow this tag and claim we're in the right by disclaiming that each re-user needs to evalaute whether they're going to host the images that have this tag. ] 16:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
*It is a bit of a cop-out, <s>and ] is on record as saying that most ] images will ''eventually'' have to be removed. (can someone dig out the reference? It was tucked into the anouncement of the ban on "non-commercial only" images)</s>. It takes advantage of a provision of US copyright law which is not reproduced in other jurisdictions. Most foreign language Wikipedias do not allow fair use images. ] 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
** is the appropriate mailing list post -- I can't see the reference to deleting fair-use images in the future... ] 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
**I'm actually more concerned about the "permission" part. If someone has a copyrighted photo and gives permission for it to be on the Misplaced Pages website, we shouldn't allow the image. It does some violence to our GFDL policy. The copyright owner needs to license the photo under the GFDL or release it into the public domain. I'm not sure about the history of the PermissionAndFairUse tag, but it sounds like typical "license creep", where someone wants to get their favorite photo onto Misplaced Pages and invents a new category of tag to sort of allow it. (Just as for a while we didn't allow 'fair use' images, but that is a separate topic.) ] 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
***Neither can I. ''Lèse majesté'' removed. ] 17:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
***The idea of permission and fair use is that because of fair use, we can have the image. That we have permission is just a bonus, but one that should be noted. -- ]|] 18:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
**I believe is the statement you were referring to. Yes, he is in favor of deleting almost all fair use images. --] 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
***Thanks, I´m glad it wasn´t just the Spanish sun getting to me! ] 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

==Book and Movie Summaries==
I'm having a hard time finding any guidance on extremely lengthy summaries of books and movies. An overblown example is ]. Obviously this page needs to be split into individual articles for each book, but assuming that is done, would those articles be encyclopedic? In other words, is a summary so large that it cannot be on the book or movie's own page worth having in the encyclopedia? ] 19:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
*I would say, "No". In fact I would say that a summary so long that it cannot be put onto a single page for the series, adn requires a split into separate pages for the individual books if thos books do not have enough non-plot-summary info to justify separate pages is bad, and that in m,ost cases sereis like Harry Potter are better served by a single article on the series than by separate articles on indivdual work, albiet there are many exceptions. (I have renently merged 21 seperate articles and one template into the ] articcle, for example.) ] 19:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
::If a book summary is so long, then what's the point of reading them? One might as well read the book. ] is a perverse example of readers making it a game and exercise of writing detailed expositions. The worse is the recent Half-Blood Prince phenomenon. Go check out the current page. Obviously they have no place in an encyclopedia. However, since there's so policy against summary lengths, they often end up being so long that they can swallow their own tail. ] 22:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

:::] and ] give some guidance in this regard. But that guidance is about summarizing and splitting long articles, not on the level of detail we should cover. --] 00:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

== Does an anon editor "own" their talk page? ==

Or can their censorship of criticism be reverted? See - ] 20:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the general feeling has been that if you want a private talk page, register. Many talk pages can hardly be considered "private" anyway, since they go with IPs used by many people. ] ] 20:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

:I agree. Is there any policy to this effect, though? - ] 20:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

::I dunno about policy. I looked at ] and didn't see anything. Maybe ask at that discussion page? ] ] 21:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've proposed an amendment to our User talk page policy at ]. Briefly, it requires that (non-vandalism) comments be left on anonymous talk pages for a minimum period of time (seven days, perhaps?) before being blanked. If an editor wants more 'ownership' over his talk page, he can register. I'm looking for comments and refinements. ](]) 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:The anon could link his talk page to an archive, but I'm really not sure about whether anons own their own talk page. &mdash; ] (]) 20:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

::Why would they do that? This is for anons blanking complaints against them and such. - ] 21:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

== Banning Policy ==

I got banned when I added a post into the Tom Cruise Links section. The link was tomcruiseisnuts.com. I added it many times but eventually I got banned due to vandialism. I look at it now and someone else has added with link and no action was taken to that user. I got banned for a whole day and I believe that is unfair and would like to know why. ] 21:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
:Possibly for breaking the ], or 3 Revert Rule. You are allowed to make three reverts on one article in a 24 hour period. You can also try to ask the admin that blocked you to find out why. ] ] 21:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

::I think the key phrase here is "I added it many times." As Zscout mentioned, we have the 3-revert rule. Also, since several different editors were telling you that there was a problem with your edits, that probably should have suggested that you should have discussed the link on the ] page. ] ] 21:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
::Why did you fail to respond to the messages on your talk page? You were warned three times before you were blocked, after adding the link five times. ] 22:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:Oddly, you signed this post with the username of the person who most recently added the link. In any event, it should be clear now that it even the latest addition has been removed. I personally think the link should be there, and have begun a discussion at ]. ] 22:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was doing many things at once and didn't notice the messages comming into me. I though some mad fan didn't want anything like it on the page or something. It is a link that should be added, just because it isn't positive doesn't mean people can't see it. ] 19:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
:The preference is to add information to the article itself or use internal links to extend the available information. ] discusses this as well as inserting POV links. ] 20:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Once it is clear that you are in a dispute, the appropriate thing is usually to take it to the talk page, not to just keep making the same edit without developing consensus. -- ] | ] 06:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

== Proposal ==

I've been thinking about this for a long time, but after being subject to a number of vandal attacks I'm starting to brood about the feasibility of making ''all'' Misplaced Pages editors log in before they could make an edit. I know a lot of people will oppose to this, but the gains are so sizeable that might offset the ills. It will certainly deter vandals and make them much easier to deal with. Imagine how much money will be saved each day with this policy. ] 21:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

:]. ] 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

== How not to be a spammer ==

I've drafted a short set of notes on ] on Misplaced Pages. This is intended as a summary of "spammer-ish" behaviors I've observed, and could be used as the basis of a guideline on identifying Wiki-spam. I don't intend it to be comprehensive, just to give people an idea of what sort of behavior is identified as "spammy" and how to avoid it.

Please respond on ] where the proposal is, so as not to make ''this'' page any more spammy than it usually is. --] 00:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

== Korean naming convention (Sea of Japan/East Sea): Vote ==

Sorry for crossposting, but I am desparate to involve as many Wikipedians as possible. We've discussed the matter endlessly, and now have a vote to help us reach consensus: ] what order should ''Sea of Japan'' and ''East Sea'' be used in the articles? ] 08:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

== Speedy Deletion ==

The proposal for expanding the Speedy Deletion Criteria (]) has ended. See ] for details on the outcome. Four new criteria have been added, and one has been reworded. ]]] 19:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

==Temporary articles==
There has been some discussion of the use of temporary articles in Misplaced Pages, mostly in relation to game summaries as part of the Wikiproject Cricket (see ], note particularly the Temporary articles section at the bottom). The idea of temporary articles is new to most of us, it would appear, and as I have found no policy on them I think one should be introduced. Whether the policy forbids temporary articles or merely provides rules and guidelines is what needs to be addressed. This stretches well beyond Wikiproject Cricket and should not be seen as solely relating to the project. -] 21:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

:Usually I've seen temporary pages at /Temp, and the content is then moved over the original and redirected. In the case of multiple stubs being prepared for consolidation, I suppose /Temp01, /Temp02, etc. could be created.
:I don't think it's a good idea to tie up article space with names you never intend to (permanently) use when you could easily use a subdirectory.
:But yes I'm sure there will be a way to work it all out properly. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 03:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

* There are temporary pages constantly flowing in various Misplaced Pages administrative pages, as well as here. Village pump is several articles which are regularly archived, while some administrative pages use subpages for various time-sensitive topics. So there are examples of how such things could be structured. A larger issue is whether temporary articles should be used in some situations. For example, is it encyclopedic to have information about a subject (ie, a specific cricket match) which is intended to be temporary? (] 06:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC))

==Sysophood confirmation==
What do you guys think of this proposal? ]
I made it a while back but forgot to publicisie it! --]<b> (])</b> 04:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:You may wish to see the discussion at ], as well as ] in the renomination RfA cited in ]'s proposal. -] 04:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
::Boldly corrected spelling in section header. :-) ] ] 11:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
::I saw the RFA and some of the talk page, it's huge and I don't have all day to read it though. Anything in particular you wanted me to notice there? --]<b> (])</b> 14:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Nothing particular; I was just pointing in the direction of a discussion on the same issue that had already been had, though in a rather non-advertised forum. There are also a couple of proposals lying around about de-adminning people (an obviously related issue), but I can't locate them at the moment. -] 15:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

== Slashdotted articles and vandalism ==

I think we should do more to deal with the attention brought by ]/]/etc. articles. We are leaving a ''very'' bad taste in their mouths, due to the vandalism their attention attracts. I think we should have a "welcome, slashdotters!" template and also recommend to them that they link to a known-good revision instead of the live article. More discussion here: ] - ] 15:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't see what makes them so special. We're one of the few wikis with the power to deal with the childish vandalism that invariably accompanies Slashdot's attention; we don't need any special procedures to reduce it. --].]] 15:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
::(I should note that I'm saying this as a Wikipedian who was originally attracted here from Slashdot.) --].]] 15:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:::Did you read my comments over there? We're obviously not dealing with it well enough. - ] 15:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

== Google Maps ==

I've noticed lately that Google Maps seems to be becoming a potential major source of imagevios. I've already found two satellite photos that were taken from that website and added them to WP:CP. The terms of use clearly state that the satellite images be used on Misplaced Pages, and yet I cannot help but think that people are going to keep taking screenshots, cropping them, and uploading them to Misplaced Pages, possibly in large numbers.

Personally, I think that we should have some kind of policy that states that other than on the ] page, satellite images from Google Maps (the actual maps are something else altogether) can't be used on Misplaced Pages. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks about this. ] 16:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

:That's a pretty cut and dry issue... I'd sugges simply adding it to ]. ] 16:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Google derives the majority if not all of its satellite images from the USGS, which means they are public domain as works of the federal government. The fact that they've slapped a copyright watermark on the images is irrelevant. Compare for example the Google satellite images of Washington, DC or San Francisco with the USGS ones found at terraserver.microsoft.com. Unfortunately, terraserver only has the higher res, color images of select locations, so unless someone knows of another site that has the complete set available, we can't do a complete comparison. ] 16:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

:Google's pretty clear about their stance: "The imagery is copyrighted and may not be copied, even if modified or merged with other data or software." Even if they'd lose, they obviously have the intention of closely protecting their copyright, so I'd suggest leaving well enough alone. ] 16:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

:What I'm worried about are the images that ''don't'' come from the USGS, but from other sources. Even then, images should be obtained ''directly'' from USGS instead of from Google. ] 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
::I just wanted to correct myself, the San Francisco images are different, so the Google Maps one may simply be from a USGS image taken another time than the one up at Terraserver, or it may be from another source. Is there a more complete database of USGS imagery available online? For the ones that are verified to be USGS, however, there is no problem with taken them directly from Google because Google can't claim copyright in them. It looks like it's going to have to be a case-by-case determination for the time being. I noticed that the ] article doesn't appear to have any information on their sources&mdash;any way we can discover this? ] 16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:::USGS has their own site with significantly more image sets available anyway, including satellite, as opposed to the aerial photos both Google and Terraserver have up ] 16:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:::This looks like it could get complicated. Still, I think users should be encouraged to use USGS (perferably with programs like ), instead of Google, as the source is easily verified and one does not need to piece images together or remove disclaimer tags. ] 16:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:::I suspect that Google Maps gets its international, non-US images from private providers. ] 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

*If Google don't want us to use their maps, sod them! They have their copyright issues to deal with, we have ours. Such images should be listed on IfD, and we should '''strongly encourage''' users to use PD sources such as the USGS. I just hope that this won't cause a spate of {{tl|fairuse}} taggings... ] 16:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

*This is why I say we need a policy on this. Users '''have''' to know that Google Maps and Google Earth are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that other free sources are available. ] 16:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Are screenshots from ] okay to use if attributed to that source?-] 02:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

:Since it's from NASA and made from USGS data, I'd say it's fine.

== Image use policy/Proposal ==

I have drafted ] and am opening it to discussion. Please note that this is a first draft and as such is subject to change. ] 20:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

== Are future years classed under Crystal Ball? ==

I've ] pages like ] and ]. Are these classed as Crystal Ball or what?

Certainly I can see the astronomical events being true due to calculations, but do we ''need'' pages going that far into the future?

From ] onwards, everything redirects to ]. So should the same be done for these other years? ]<sup>]</sup> 02:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

:Nah; leave them alone. The astronomical stuff is interesting&mdash;I just found out that there will be ''three'' solar eclipses (two annular, one total) in 2038. (Bonus question for the astronomy buffs: when was the last time that happened on a single year?) The 33rd century cutoff seems to be a reasonable compromise between the end of most pop culture references and a need for crystal ball restrictions. For the individual more recent years there are a lot of events that have been scheduled well in advance, and it doesn't hurt to record them. ](]) 02:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

:(after an edit conflict)
:The page ] refers to the known computer related problem, which is of sufficient importance and public awareness to justify appearing in a year article. The date of Easter is a once-in-a-century occurence, so is worth mentioning. The astronomical event will happen in the lifetime of many people here, so are worthwhile. I think a very strong case can be made for this article.
:The ] article has IMHO a weaker rationale for existence, since the events portrayed are either in fiction, or real astronomical events far enough in the future that few people are waiting with bated breath for them. I still think it's worthwhile to have this article; after all, we have a lot of popular fiction-related articles on Misplaced Pages.
:You could always try putting up one or both for VfD and see what the response is. I suggest you wait until tomorrow as some people might object vigorously to that.-] 03:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

== Self-Promotion as a Disincentive ==

Here is a problem I encountered. I posted an entry and then cited a book that I have written. Later, my post was removed under the “no self-promotion” policy.

This is the philosophic issue: The self-promotion provision, as administered in my instance, is a disincentive to quality entries.

The issue is twofold. First, anyone competent enough to write and publish a book is exactly the type of person needed to write entries in Misplaced Pages. Secondly, if the writer cannot cite his books as a ''bona fide'' of his competence, under the “no self-promotion” policy, then we are inadvertently excluding the type of people who can make Misplaced Pages a quality resource.

The crux is citing one’s own published book. First of all, a book serves as a benchmark of competence, and second, it is an objective and verifiable touchstone that what is written is accurate. This is how people are selected to write entries in traditional “dead tree” encyclopedias, and Misplaced Pages should adopt this industry standard.

Remember that a book is essentially an intellectual endeavor, rather than a financial endeavor. Citing a book is different than advocating a product, such as pantyhose, diet pills, a financial CD, or some other widget. Furthermore, any house-published book is already going to be available at least twenty other websites, so putting it on Misplaced Pages will not make any difference in advertising.

For instance, physicist ] has published several popular volumes on physics. Should we bar him from contributing to Misplaced Pages, if he were to reference his own books in an entry?

The action grid breaks down as follows:

* If he were allowed to violate the self-promotion rule, Misplaced Pages gets a high-quality entry, and a double standard.

* If he was allowed, and then his entry was be deleted due to self promotion, then this would also inadvertently lower the quality of Misplaced Pages entries.

* If he wasn’t allowed to write, then Misplaced Pages looses a competent author, and we as uses are worse off.

* If we leave it up to a surrogate to write for him, then let’s stop horsing around and get it from the horse’s mouth.

* If we leave it up to a random fan, then we are not sure of the quality of the entry, then we are making Misplaced Pages worse off, and we are getting a diluted Michio Kaku. Once again, it would be best to eliminate the middle man.

The whole problem is one of ], attacking he origin of the information—someone competent enough that a publishing house would make a financial risk on the author—and not the content. It involves deleting the content solely because he or she is an expert.

In such an entry, it is important to remember that self-promotion is not the ''primary intent'', but it is a ''secondary consequence'' of the entry. As I said, anyone with a book already has it on about two or three dozen WebPages already, and eliminating it from Misplaced Pages is not going to hurt sales one iota.

Misplaced Pages’s policy should be to allow authors cite their own books, recognizing that the intellect competent to write a book is competent enough to make Misplaced Pages the information nexus it should be.
--] 18:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

: Surely the self-promotion rule only applies where the editor wrote an article about himself. I am not aware that it has ever been Misplaced Pages's policy to bar expert editors from citing their own publications. Any moves to make it so should be resisted, for it can only damage Misplaced Pages's academic credibility, at a time when we are in great need of more expert editors. So many editors are pseudonymous, it will only be those who use their real names that can ever caught by such a rule. ] 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

::There is no 'self-promotion rule', though often people seem to think there is. See ], for the case about whole articles being 'self-promotion' and, usually, allowable. It is deeply frowned upon however, because in general, if you or something you have done is notable enough for an encyclopedia, then someone else will know about it and add it. It helps keep things objective. Promotional material is often removed, but, imho, should only really be so if it serves no encyclopedic purpose to the article it appears in. This is a policy-free area in the most part however, so discussion on talk pages would be the way to go. There is a ] relating to the most blatant case of an article consisting of a single external link (or, sometimes a list of them). In general, if your mention of your book added something of encyclopedic note to the article, I'd be inclined to let it stay but to expect you to have to defend it on the talk page. -] 18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Forgive a naive thought but the authorship of each page is only identifiable by scrolling through the history. Hence, only an exceptional reader would ever connect the text to the reference(s). Unless, of course, the author is promoting the sales of his or her books by a direct sales pitch, e.g. "you can find a fuller explanation in my student-friendly works. . ." which would seem, at the very least, unethical. --] 19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

] is apparently claiming to be "Kendal Brian Hunter", the author of a book on ] from the ] perspective (Amazon sales rank #2,202,513). He appears to have contributed approximately the same paragraph to both ] and ], explaining the special significance of Job to Mormons, citing his own book as a reference. These were reverted by ] and ] respectively with fairly blunt edit summaries. In neither case can I see any sign that the reverting editors discussed the matter on the article talk page or on the talk page of the contributing user.

The paragraph in question is not 100% in line with Misplaced Pages style, but it does make it very clear that the point of view described is specific to the ], and it does cite a book as source, which is doing pretty well so far as ] and ] usually goes. I am not qualified to say whether the content is true. I don't know whether the LDS generally hold those views about Job and, if so, to what extent they are unique to that organization. The LDS is a significant organization, so perhaps something about this perspective belongs in one or both of these articles. Alternatively, perhaps there is a place for a separate article about the Mormon take on Job, linked appropriately from other articles.

Regarding the general point raised, whether being a published author should disqualify one from being a respected Wikipedian, the answer is a resounding "No". On the other hand, Misplaced Pages does not accord as much respect to "experts" as, say, more traditional encyclopedias. In addition, I don't mean to pick on Mr. Hunter, but I'm afraid that in this day and age, being the author of a published book does not actually prove expertise. I hope that everyone would agree with that sentiment, even if they have different counter-examples in mind.

In particular, experience has made us suspicious of those who appear to be trying to promote their own interests rather than those of Misplaced Pages. I don't mean to pass judgement on Señor Cardgage here, but instead try to explain why there may be a certain resistence to apparent self-promotion. See ], ], and ]. ] 05:44:47, 2005-07-24 (UTC)

== Proposed policy for wiki closure ==

This is my ]. We already have too many non-functioning wikis. It gives us a false sense of cosmopolitanism as long as you don't take a closer look at their contents. I propose that we act like responsible adults rather than hopeless day-dreamers. Now let's close some of them. -- ] 06:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

== How to avoid uninformative articles that consist mainly of opposing POVs? ==

I am a bit worried about some articles that have become largely uninformative because they are only used to push opposing POVs, see e.g. ] and ]. (I have to admit that I have been a POV pusher on the latter subject because I am an ex-cult member and I hate to be called a liar with regards to a very difficult experience of my life that I tried to tell in an accurate, factual way to others.) I do not think that either of these article break NPOV guidelines, but they are quite lousy anyway. Does anyone know how to prevent this? ] 15:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:29, 25 December 2024

Page for discussing policies and guidelines"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals).
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines. Change discussions often start on other pages and then move or get mentioned here for more visibility and broader participation.

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


« Archives, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198
Centralized discussion For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should admins or other users evaluating consensus in a discussion discount, ignore, or strike through or collapse comments found to have been generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots? 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I've recently come across several users in AFD discussions that are using LLMs to generate their remarks there. As many of you are aware, gptzero and other such tools are very good at detecting this. I don't feel like any of us signed up for participating in discussions where some of the users are not using their own words but rather letting technology do it for them. Discussions are supposed to be between human editors. If you can't make a coherent argument on your own, you are not competent to be participating in the discussion. I would therefore propose that LLM-generated remarks in discussions should be discounted or ignored, and possibly removed in some manner. Just Step Sideways 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

opening comments

  • Seems reasonable, as long as the GPTZero (or any tool) score is taken with a grain of salt. GPTZero can be as wrong as AI can be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Only if the false positive and false negative rate of the tool you are using to detect LLM content is very close to zero. LLM detectors tend to be very unreliable on, among other things, text written by non-native speakers. Unless the tool is near perfect then it's just dismissing arguments based on who wrote them rather than their content, which is not what we do or should be doing around here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    In the cases I have seen thusfar it's been pretty obvious, the tools have just confirmed it. Just Step Sideways 04:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    The more I read the comments from other editors on this, the more I'm a convinced that implementing either this policy or something like it will bring very significant downsides on multiple fronts that significantly outweigh the small benefits this would (unreliably) bring, benefits that would be achieved by simply reminding closers to disregard comments that are unintelligible, meaningless and/or irrelevant regardless of whether they are LLM-generated or not. For the sake of the project I must withdraw my previous very qualified support and instead very strongly oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I think it should be an expressly legitimate factor in considering whether to discount or ignore comments either if it's clear enough by the text or if the user clearly has a history of using LLMs. We wouldn't treat a comment an editor didn't actually write as an honest articulation of their views in lieu of site policy in any other situation. Remsense ‥ 论 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I would have already expected admins to exercise discretion in this regard, as text written by an LLM is not text written by a person. We cannot guarantee it is what the person actually means, especially as it is a tool often used by those with less English proficiency, which means perhaps they cannot evaluate the text themselves. However, I do not think we can make policy about a specific LLM or tool. The LLM space is moving fast, en.wiki policies do not. Removal seems tricky, I would prefer admins exercise discretion instead, as they do with potentially canvassed or socked !votes. CMD (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support discounting or collapsing AI-generated comments, under slightly looser conditions than those for human comments. Not every apparently-AI-generated comment is useless hallucinated nonsense – beyond false positives, it's also possible for someone to use an AI to help them word a constructive comment, and make sure that it matches their intentions before they publish it. But in my experience, the majority of AI-generated comments are somewhere between "pointless" and "disruptive". Admins should already discount clearly insubstantial !votes, and collapse clearly unconstructive lengthy comments; I think we should recognize that blatant chatbot responses are more likely to fall into those categories. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support - I think some level of human judgement on the merits of the argument are necessary, especially as GPTZero may still have a high FPR. Still, if the discussion is BLUDGEONy, or if it quacks like an AI-duck, looks like an AI-duck, etc, we should consider striking out such content.- sidenote, I'd also be in favor of sanctions against users who overuse AI to write out their arguments/articles/etc. and waste folks time on here.. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • On a wording note, I think any guidance should avoid referring to any specific technology. I suggest saying "... to have been generated by a program". isaacl (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    "generated by a program" is too broad, as that would include things like speech-to-text. Thryduulf (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Besides what Thryduulf said, I think we should engage with editors who use translators. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    A translation program, whether it is between languages or from speech, is not generating a comment, but converting it from one format to another. A full policy statement can be more explicit in defining "generation". The point is that the underlying tech doesn't matter; it's that the comment didn't feature original thought from a human. isaacl (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Taking Google Translate as an example, most of the basic stuff uses "AI" in the sense of machine learning (example) but they absolutely use LLMs nowadays, even for the basic free product. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. We already use discretion in collapsing etc. comments by SPAs and suspected socks, it makes sense to use the same discretion for comments suspected of being generated by a non-human. JoelleJay (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - Someone posting "here's what ChatGPT has to say on the subject" can waste a lot of other editors' time if they feel obligated to explain why ChatGPT is wrong again. I'm not sure how to detect AI-written text but we should take a stance that it isn't sanctioned. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I've never supported using generative AI in civil discourse. Using AI to participate in these discussions is pure laziness, as it is substituting genuine engagement and critical thought with a robot prone to outputting complete garbage. In my opinion, if you are too lazy to engage in the discussion yourself, why should we engage with you? Lazman321 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm skeptical that a rule like this will be enforceable for much longer. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Why? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Because it's based on a potentially false premise that it will be possible to reliably distinguish between text generated by human biological neural networks and text generated by non-biological neural networks by observing the text. It is already quite difficult in many cases, and the difficulty is increasing very rapidly. I have your basic primate brain. The AI companies building foundation models have billions of dollars, tens of thousands, soon to be hundreds of thousands of GPUs, a financial incentive to crack this problem and scaling laws on their side. So, I have very low credence in the notion that I will be able to tell whether content is generated by a person or a person+LLM or an AI agent very soon. On the plus side, it will probably still be easy to spot people making non-policy based arguments regardless of how they do it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    ...and now that the systems are autonomously injecting their output back into model via chain-of-thought prompting, or a kind of inner monologue if you like, to respond to questions, they are becoming a little bit more like us. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    A transformer (deep learning architecture) is intrinsically nothing like a human. It's a bunch of algebra that can compute what a decently sensible person could write in a given situation based on its training data, but it is utterly incapable of anything that could be considered thought or reasoning. This is why LLMs tend to fail spectacularly when asked to do math or write non-trivial code. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    We shall see. You might want to update yourself on their ability to do math and write non-trivial code. Things are changing very quickly. Either way, it is not currently possible to say much about what LLMs are actually doing because mechanistic interpretability is in its infancy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    You might be interested in Anthropic's 'Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model' and Chris Olah's work in general. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support and I would add "or similar technologies" to "AI/LLM/Chatbots". As for Sean.hoyland's comment, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    ...assuming we can see the bridge and haven't already crossed it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - All editors should convey their thoughts in their own words. AI generated responses and comments are disruptive because they are pointless and not meaningful. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, I already more or less do this. An LLM generated comment may or may not actually reflect the actual thoughts of the editor who posted it, so it's essentially worthless toward a determination of consensus. Since I wrote this comment myself, you know that it reflects my thoughts, not those of a bot that I may or may not have reviewed prior to copying and pasting. Seraphimblade 06:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Let me say first that I do not like ChatGPT. I think it has been a net negative for the world, and it is by nature a net negative for the physical environment. It is absolutely a net negative for the encyclopedia if LLM-generated text is used in articles in any capacity. However, hallucinations are less of an issue on talk pages because they're discussions. If ChatGPT spits out a citation of a false policy, then obviously that comment is useless. If ChatGPT spits out some boilerplate "Thanks for reviewing the article, I will review your suggestions and take them into account" talk page reply, who gives a fuck where it came from? (besides the guys in Texas getting their eardrums blown out because they live by the data center)The main reason I oppose, though, is because banning LLM-generated comments is difficult to enforce bordering on unenforceable. Most studies show that humans are bad at distinguishing AI-generated text from text generated without AI. Tools like GPTZero claims a 99% accuracy rate, but that seems dubious based on reporting on the matter. The news outlet Futurism (which generally has an anti-AI slant) has failed many times to replicate that statistic, and anecdotal accounts by teachers, etc. are rampant. So we can assume that we don't know how capable AI detectors are, that there will be some false positives, and that striking those false positives will result in WP:BITING people, probably newbies, younger people more accustomed to LLMs, and non-Western speakers of English (see below).There are also technological issues as play. It'd be easy if there was a clean line between "totally AI-generated text" and "totally human-generated text," but that line is smudged and well on its way to erased. Every tech company is shoving AI text wrangling into their products. This includes autocomplete, translation, editing apps, etc. Should we strike any comment a person used Grammarly or Google Translate for? Because those absolutely use AI now.And there are also, as mentioned above, cultural issues. The people using Grammarly, machine translation, or other such services are likely to not have English as their first language. And a lot of the supposed "tells" of AI-generated content originate in the formal English of other countries -- for instance, the whole thing where "delve" was supposedly a tell for AI-written content until people pointed out the fact that lots of Nigerian workers trained the LLM and "delve" is common Nigerian formal English.I didn't use ChatGPT to generate any of this comment. But I am also pretty confident that if I did, I could have slipped it in and nobody would have noticed until this sentence. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just for grins, I ran your comment through GPTzero, and it comes up with a 99% probability that it was human-written (and it never struck me as looking like AI either, and I can often tell.) So, maybe it's more possible to distinguish than you think? Seraphimblade 20:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, Gnoming's writing style is far more direct and active than GPT's. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    There weren't
    • Multiple
      LLMs tend to use more than one subheading to reiterate points
    • Subheadings
      Because they write like a middle schooler that just learned how to make an essay outline before writing.
    In conclusion, they also tend to have a conclusion paragraph for the same reason they use subheadings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - Ai-generated comments are WP:DISRUPTIVE - An editor who has an argument should not use ChatGPT to present it in an unnecessarily verbose manner, and an editor who doesn't have one should not participate in discussion. Flounder fillet (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Notified: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes but why do we need this common sense RFC/policy/whatever? Just ban these people. If they even exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    They exist, and I found myself collapsing some long, obviously chatbot-generated posts in an AFD, and after I did so wondering if policy actually supported doing that. I couldn't find anything so here we are. Just Step Sideways 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, and I know that's the right answer because ChatGPT agrees with me.
What ChatGPT thinks
I started by asking:
Currently at the English Misplaced Pages, there's a discussion of the following proposal: "Should or other users evaluating consensus in a discussion discount, ignore, or strike through or collapse comments found to have been generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots?" I wonder if you have an opinion on that question.
My friend the bot initially proposed a requirement that any AI-generated content be labeled as such by the person posting it. After some further discussion between us, I finally said:
You say that labeling AI-generated content, instead of outright discounting it, might be an appropriate middle ground. But if someone is unable to formulate their own thoughts and put them in writing, of what use is it to the discussion for this person to simply ask you to make something up, and then post your output to the Misplaced Pages discussion with the proviso that "ChatGPT, who/which doesn't actually know anything about anything, said this ..."? How is it different from saying, "My grandmother, who knows nothing about what we're talking about, said ..."?
And it said:
That’s an incisive question, and it highlights the crux of the issue: the value of contributions to a discussion. Here’s why AI-generated comments might still differ (slightly) from your hypothetical grandmother’s input, but why their usefulness is often limited:
  • Synthesis vs. Subject Expertise: While I (or any AI) lack personal understanding or expertise, I can aggregate and articulate relevant ideas from a vast dataset. This means I can sometimes present arguments, summarize perspectives, or surface considerations that a non-expert human might overlook. Your grandmother, unless she's an AI-trained polymath, wouldn’t be able to provide this breadth. However, this advantage evaporates if participants lack the ability to evaluate and critically engage with my output.
  • The Problem of Proxy Voices: The act of outsourcing one’s contribution to AI undermines the deliberative process central to Misplaced Pages’s discussions. Participants are expected to bring their own informed perspectives, shaped by personal understanding of Misplaced Pages’s policies and content. A disclaimer like “ChatGPT said this” doesn’t change the fact that the human posting it has abdicated their role in the discussion.
  • Accountability and Intent: In a collaborative setting like Misplaced Pages, contributions are ideally linked to a person who can clarify their intent, respond to questions, and engage dynamically. An AI cannot do this. Saying "ChatGPT said this" distances the poster from the content, making it unclear whether they endorse or even understand the comment.
  • Potential for Misdirection: Allowing AI-generated contributions risks introducing noise into the discussion. AI can produce plausible-sounding arguments that may be tangential, misaligned, or even factually incorrect. Without the judgment of a well-informed poster, such contributions can derail or dilute meaningful discourse.
Conclusion: If someone cannot formulate their own argument or understanding, then their reliance on an AI—or anyone else—to contribute doesn’t meaningfully advance the discussion. Labeling AI-generated content is better than passing it off as human, but the real issue lies in whether such contributions enrich or degrade the collaborative process. In most cases, they would seem to belong more to the realm of rhetorical curiosities than substantive engagement.
  • In keeping with the proposed guideline, I have of course collapsed the above AI-generated content. (Later: It's actually worth reading in the context of this discussioin, so I've unhidden it by default.) But I must confess it's a pretty good analysis, and worth reading. EEng 07:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    • This is absolute gold dust and the best contribution to this discussion so far. There is an enormous irony here, one that might not be immediately obvious. The proposal is that we should ignore or even strike these type of contributions, but personally it seems like the collapsed format has worked a charm here. I really don't think that AI has much to contribute to WP discussions generally, but with the right prompt, there is certainly something worth adding to the conversation in reality. CNC (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    The proposal also includes collapsing. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, I completely missed that. Trying to speed read is not my forte. CNC (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The "detector" website linked in the opening comment gives your chatbot's reply only an 81% chance of being AI-generated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
That's because, just by interacting with me, ChatGPT got smarter. Seriously ... you want it to say 99% every time? (And for the record, the idea of determining the "chance" that something is AI-generated is statistical nonsense.) EEng 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
What I really want is a 100% chance that it won't decide that what I've written is AI-generated. Past testing has demonstrated that at least some of the detectors are unreliable on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
100% is, of course, an impossible goal. Certainly SPI doesn't achieve that, so why demand it here? EEng 22:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I support the concept of removal of AI-generated content in theory. However, we do not have the means to detect such AI-generated content. The proposed platform that we may use (GPTZero) is not reliable for this purpose. In fact, our own page on GPTZero has a section citing several sources stating the problem with this platform's accuracy. It is not helpful to have a policy that is impossible to enforce. ThatIPEditor 08:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support To be honest, I am surprised that this isn't covered by an existing policy. I oppose the use of platforms like GPTZero, due to it's unreliability, but if it is obviously an ai-powered-duck (Like if it is saying shit like "as an AI language model...", take it down and sanction the editor who put it up there. ThatIPEditor 08:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support at least for WP:DUCK-level AI-generated comments. If someone uses a LLM to translate or improve their own writing, there should be more leeway, but something that is clearly a pure ChatGPT output should be discounted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree for cases in which it is uncontroversial that a comment is purely AI-generated. However, I don't think there are many cases where this is obvious. The claim that gptzero and other such tools are very good at detecting this is false. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Not clear how admins are deciding that something is LLM generated, a recent example, agree with the principle tho. Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Moral support; neutral as written. Chatbot participation in consensus discussions is such an utterly pointless and disdainful abuse of process and community eyeballs that I don't feel like the verbiage presented goes far enough. Any editor may hat LLM-generated comments in consensus discussions is nearer my position. No waiting for the closer, no mere discounting, no reliance on the closer's personal skill at recognising LLM output, immediate feedback to the editor copypasting chatbot output that their behaviour is unwelcome and unacceptable. Some observations:I've seen editors accused of using LLMs to generate their comments probably about a dozen times, and in all but two cases – both at dramaboards – the chatbot prose was unmistakably, blindingly obvious. Editors already treat non-obvious cases as if written by a human, in alignment with the raft of only if we're sure caveats in every discussion about LLM use on the project.If people are using LLMs to punch up prose, correct grammar and spelling, or other superficial tasks, this is generally undetectable, unproblematic, and not the point here.Humans are superior to external services at detecting LLM output, and no evidence from those services should be required for anything.As a disclosure, evidence mounts that LLM usage in discussions elicits maximally unkind responses from me. It just feels so contemptuous, to assume that any of us care what a chatbot has to say about anything we're discussing, and that we're all too stupid to see through the misattribution because someone tacked on a sig and sometimes an introductory paragraph. And I say this as a stupid person. Folly Mox (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like a rewrite is indicated to distinguish between machine translation and LLM-generated comments, based on what I'm seeing in this thread. Once everyone gets this out of our system and an appropriately wordsmithed variant is reintroduced for discussion, I preemptively subpropose the projectspace shortcut WP:HATGPT. Folly Mox (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per EEng charlotte 14:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I would be careful here, as there are tools that rely on LLM AI that help to improve the clarity of one's writing, and editors may opt to use those to parse their poor writing (perhaps due to ESL aspects) to something clear. I would agree content 100% generated by AI probably should be discounted particularly if from an IP or new editors (hints if socking or meat puppetry) but not all cases where AI has come into play should be discounted — Masem (t) 14:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, cheating should have no place or take its place in writing coherent comments on Misplaced Pages. Editors who opt to use it should practice writing until they rival Shakespeare, or at least his cousin Ned from across the river, and then come back to edit. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support atleast for comments that are copied straight from the LLM . However, we should be more lenient if the content is rephrased by non-native English speakers due to grammar issues The AP (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

section break 1

  • Support for LLM-generated content (until AI is actually intelligent enough to create an account and contribute on a human level, which may eventually happen). However, beware of the fact that some LLM-assisted content should probably be allowed. An extreme example of this: if a non-native English speaker were to write a perfectly coherent reason in a foreign language, and have an LLM translate it to English, it should be perfectly acceptable. Animal lover |666| 16:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    For wiki content, maybe very soon. 'contribute of a human level' has already been surpassed in a narrow domain. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    If Star Trek's Data were to create his own account and edit here, I doubt anyone would find it objectionable. Animal lover |666| 17:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    I’m proposing a policy that any AI has to be capable of autonomous action without human prompting to create an account. Dronebogus (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    Data, being a fictional creation with rights owned by a corporation, will not have an account; he is inherently an IP editor. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support chatbots have no place in our encyclopedia project. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the supporters must have a specific type of AI-generated content in mind, but this isn't a prohibition on one type; it's a prohibition on the use of generative AI in discussions (or rather, ensuring that anyone who relies on such a tool will have their opinion discounted). We allow people who aren't native English speakers to contribute here. We also allow people who are native English speakers but have difficulty with language (but not with thinking). LLMs are good at assisting both of these groups of people. Furthermore, as others pointed out, detection is not foolproof and will only get worse as time goes on, models proliferate, models adapt, and users of the tools adapt. This proposal is a blunt instrument. If someone is filling discussions with pointless chatbot fluff, or we get a brand new user who's clearly using a chatbot to feign understanding of wikipolicy, of course that's not ok. But that is a case by case behavioral issue. I think the better move would be to clarify that "some forms of LLM use can be considered disruptive and may be met with restrictions or blocks" without making it a black-and-white issue. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree the focus should not be on whether or not a particular kind of tech was used by an editor, but whether or not the comment was generated in a way (whether it's using a program or ghost writer) such that it fails to express actual thoughts by the editor. (Output from a speech-to-text program using an underlying large language model, for instance, isn't a problem.) Given that this is often hard to determine from a single comment (everyone is prone to post an occasional comment that others will consider to be off-topic and irrelevant), I think that patterns of behaviour should be examined. isaacl (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here's what I see as two sides of a line. The first is, I think, something we can agree would be inappropriate. The second, to me at least, pushes up against the line but is not ultimately inappropriate. But they would both be prohibited if this passes. (a) "I don't want an article on X to be deleted on Misplaced Pages. Tell me what to say that will convince people not to delete it"; (b) "I know Misplaced Pages deletes articles based on how much coverage they've received in newspapers, magazines, etc. and I see several such articles, but I don't know how to articulate this using wikipedia jargon. Give me an argument based on links to wikipedia policy that use the following sources as proof ". Further into the "acceptable" range would be things like translations, grammar checks, writing a paragraph and having an LLM improve the writing without changing the ideas, using an LLM to organize ideas, etc. I think what we want to avoid are situations where the arguments and ideas themselves are produced by AI, but I don't see such a line drawn here and I don't think we could draw a line without more flexible language. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here we return to my distinction between AI-generated and AI-assisted. A decent speech-to-text program doesn't actually generate content. Animal lover |666| 18:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, as I posted earlier, the underlying tech isn't important (and will change). Comments should reflect what the author is thinking. Tools (or people providing advice) that help authors express their personal thoughts have been in use for a long time. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah the point here is passing off a machine's words as your own, and the fact that it is often fairly obvious when one is doing so. If a person is not competent to express their own thoughts in plain English, they shouldn't be in the discussion. This certainly is not aimed at assistive technology for those who actually need it but rather at persons who are simply letting Chatbots speak for them. Just Step Sideways 20:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    This doesn't address what I wrote (though maybe it's not meant to). If a person is not competent to express their own thoughts in plain English, they shouldn't be in the discussion. This certainly is not aimed at assistive technology for those who actually need it but rather at persons who are simply letting Chatbots speak for them is just contradictory. Assistive technologies are those that can help people who aren't "competent" to express themselves to your satisfaction in plain English, sometimes helping with the formulation of a sentence based on the person's own ideas. There's a difference between having a tool that helps me to articulate ideas that are my own and a tool that comes up with the ideas. That's the distinction we should be making. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Rhododendrites that we shouldn't be forbidding users from seeking help to express their own thoughts. Getting help from someone more fluent in English, for example, is a good practice. Nowadays, some people use generative technology to help them prepare an outline of their thoughts, so they can use it as a starting point. I think the community should be accepting of those who are finding ways to write their own viewpoints more effectively and concisely, even if that means getting help from someone or a program. I agree that using generative technology to come up with the viewpoints isn't beneficial for discussion. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Non-native English speakers and non-speakers to whom a discussion is important enough can already use machine translation from their original language and usually say something like "Sorry, I'm using machine translation". Skullers (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contributions to discussions are supposed to be evaluated on their merits per WP:NOTAVOTE. If an AI-assisted contribution makes sense then it should be accepted as helpful. And the technical spectrum of assistance seems large and growing. For example, as I type this into the edit window, some part of the interface is spell-checking and highlighting words that it doesn't recognise. I'm not sure if that's coming from the browser or the edit software or what but it's quite helpful and I'm not sure how to turn it off. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    But we're not talking about spell-checking. We're talking about comments clearly generated by LLMs, which are inherently unhelpful. Lazman321 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, spellchecking is not the issue here. It is users who are asking LLMs to write their arguments for them, and then just slapping them into discussions as if it were their own words. Just Step Sideways 20:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Andrew's first two sentences also seem to imply that he views AI-generated arguments that makes sense as valid, and that we should consider what AI thinks about a topic. I'm not sure what to think about this, especially since AI can miss out on a lot of the context. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Written arguments are supposed to be considered on their merits as objects in their own right. Denigrating an argument by reference to its author is ad hominem and that ranks low in the hierarchy – "attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument". Andrew🐉(talk) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    An AI chatbot isn't an "author", and it's impossible to make an ad hominem attack on one, because a chotbot is not a homo. EEng 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, not all of them, anyway. "Queer spot for the straight bot", maybe? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    On the other hand, "exhausting the community's patience"/CompetenceIsRequired is a very valid rationale from stopping someone from partricipating. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    The spell-checking was an immediate example but there's a spectrum of AI tools and assistance. The proposed plan is to use an AI tool to detect and ban AI contributions. That's ludicrous hypocrisy but suggests an even better idea – that we use AIs to close discussions so that we don't get the bias and super-voting. I see this on Amazon regularly now as it uses an AI to summarise the consensus of product reviews. For example,

    Customers say
    Customers appreciate the gloves for their value, ease of use, and gardening purposes. They find the gloves comfortable and suitable for tasks like pruning or mowing. However, opinions differ on how well they fit.
    AI-generated from the text of customer reviews

    Yes, AI assistants have good potential. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Let's not get into tangents here. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's better than going around in circles. EEng 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

section break 2

  • I asked Google's Gemini to "summarise the consensus of the following RFC discussion", giving it the 87 comments to date.
AI summary of the RfC to date

This Misplaced Pages Request for Comment (RfC) debates whether comments in discussions that are found to be generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots should be discounted, ignored, or removed.

Arguments for discounting/removing AI-generated comments:

  • AI comments don't represent genuine human engagement or thought. They can be disruptive, waste time, and even fabricate information.
  • AI can be used to manipulate discussions. Editors might use AI to generate arguments they don't actually believe in, or to flood discussions with low-quality comments.
  • Relying on AI undermines the integrity of Misplaced Pages's consensus-based process. Discussions should be based on the genuine opinions of human editors.

Arguments against discounting/removing AI-generated comments:

  • Difficulty of detection. AI detection tools are not always reliable, and it can be hard to distinguish between AI-generated text and human-written text, especially as AI technology improves.
  • Potential for misuse. False positives could lead to legitimate comments being dismissed, potentially silencing non-native English speakers or those who use AI for legitimate assistive purposes (e.g., translation, grammar checks).
  • Focus on content, not origin. Comments should be evaluated based on their merits, not on how they were generated. If an AI-generated comment is relevant and well-reasoned, it shouldn't be dismissed simply because of its origin.
  • LLMs can be helpful tools. LLMs can help editors express their thoughts more clearly, especially for non-native speakers or those with language difficulties.

Current Status (as of Dec 3rd, 2024):

  • No clear consensus has emerged. There is significant support for discounting or removing AI-generated comments, but also strong opposition.
  • Concerns about enforceability and potential harm. Many editors are worried about the practical challenges of implementing and enforcing such a rule, as well as the potential for it to be used unfairly against certain editors.
  • Ongoing discussion. The discussion is still active, and it remains to be seen whether a consensus will form.

It's important to note that this is an evolving situation, and the outcome of the RfC could have significant implications for how Misplaced Pages handles AI-generated content in the future.

That seems quite a fair and good summary of what's been said so far. I'm impressed and so my !vote stands.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I have significant doubts on its ability to weigh arguments and volume. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the ability to weigh each side and the quality of their arguments in an RFC can really only be done by the judgement and discretion of an experienced human editor. Lazman321 (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The quality of the arguments and their relevance to polices and guidelines can indeed only be done by a human, but the AI does a good job of summarising which arguments have been made and a broad brush indication of frequency. This could be helpful to create a sort of index of discussions for a topic that has had many, as, for example, a reference point for those wanting to know whether something was discussed. Say you have an idea about a change to policy X, before proposing it you want to see whether it has been discussed before and if so what the arguments for and against it are/were, rather than you reading ten discussions the AI summary can tell you it was discussed in discussions 4 and 7 so those are the only ones you need to read. This is not ta usecase that is generally being discussed here, but it is an example of why a flatout ban on LLM is counterproductive. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Just the other day, I spent ~2 hours checking for the context of several quotes used in an RFC, only to find that they were fake. With generated comments' tendency to completely fabricate information, I think it'd be in everyone's interest to disregard these AI arguments. Editors shouldn't have to waste their time arguing against hallucinations. (My statement does not concern speech-to-text, spell-checking, or other such programs, only those generated whole-cloth) - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Without repeating the arguments against this presented by other opposers above, I will just add that we should be paying attention to the contents of comments without getting hung up on the difficult question of whether the comment includes any LLM-created elements. - Donald Albury 19:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support If others editors are not going to put in the effort of writing comments why should anyone put in the effort of replying. Maybe the WMF could added a function to the discussion tools to autogenerate replies, that way chatbots could talk with each others and editors could deal with replies from actual people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Comments that are bullshit will get discounted anyways. Valuable comments should be counted. I don’t see why we need a process for discounting comments aside from their merit and basis in policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as Rhododendrites and others have said, a blanket ban on even only DUCK LLM comments would be detrimental to some aspects of editors. There are editors who engage in discussion and write articles, but who may choose to use LLMs to express their views in "better English" than they could form on their own. Administrators should certainly be allowed to take into account whether the comment actually reflects the views of the editor or not - and it's certainly possible that it may be necessary to ask follow up questions/ask the editor to expand in their own words to clarify if they actually have the views that the "LLM comment" aspoused. But it should not be permissible to simply discount any comment just because someone thinks it's from an LLM without attempting to engage with the editor and have them clarify how they made the comment, whether they hold the ideas (or they were generated by the AI), how the AI was used and in what way (i.e. just for grammar correction, etc). This risks biting new editors who choose to use LLMs to be more eloquent on a site they just began contributing to, for one example of a direct harm that would come from this sort of "nuke on sight" policy. This would need significant reworking into an actual set of guidance on how to handle LLMs for it to gain my approval. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per what others are saying. And more WP:Ducks while at it… 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
     Comment: It would appear Jimbo responded indirectly in a interview: as long as there’s a human in the loop, a human supervising, there are really potentially very good use cases. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 12:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Very strong support. Enough is enough. If Misplaced Pages is to survive as a project, we need zero tolerance for even the suspicion of AI generation and, with it, zero tolerance for generative AI apologists who would happily open the door to converting the site to yet more AI slop. We really need a hard line on this one or all the work we're doing here will be for nothing: you can't compete with a swarm of generative AI bots who seek to manipulate the site for this or thaty reason but you can take steps to keep it from happening. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Just for an example of the types of contributions I think would qualify here under DUCK, some of User:Shawn Teller/A134's GARs (and a bunch of AfD !votes that have more classic indications of non-human origin) were flagged as likely LLM-generated troll nonsense:

    But thanks to these wonderful images, I now understand that Ontario Highway 11 is a paved road that vehicles use to travel.

    This article is extensive in its coverage of such a rich topic as Ontario Highway 11. It addresses the main points of Ontario Highway 11 in a way that isn’t just understandable to a reader, but also relatable.

    Neutral point of view without bias is maintained perfectly in this article, despite Ontario Highway 11 being such a contentious and controversial topic.

    Yes, this could and should have been reverted much earlier based on being patently superficial and/or trolling, without needing the added issue of appearing LLM-generated. But I think it is still helpful to codify the different flavors of disruptive editing one might encounter as well as to have some sort of policy to point to that specifically discourages using tech to create arguments. As a separate point, LTAs laundering their comments through GPT to obscure their identity is certainly already happening, so making it harder for such comments to "count" in discussions would surely be a net positive. JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    New CTOP just dropped‽ jlwoodwa (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    (checks out gptzero) 7% Probability AI generated. Am I using it wrong? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 01:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    In my experience, GPTZero is more consistent if you give it full paragraphs, rather than single sentences out of context. Unfortunately, the original contents of Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999/GA1 are only visible to admins now. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    For the purposes of this proposal, I don't think we need, or should ever rely solely on, GPTzero in evaluating content for non-human origin. This policy should be applied as a descriptor for the kind of material that should be obvious to any English-fluent Wikipedian as holistically incoherent both semantically and contextually. Yes, pretty much everything that would be covered by the proposal would likely already be discounted by closers, but a) sometimes "looks like AI-generated slop" is the best way for a closer to characterize a contribution; b) currently there is no P&G discouragement of using generative tools in discussion-space despite the reactions to it, when detected, being uniformly negative; c) having a policy can serve as a deterrent to using raw LLM output and could at least reduce outright hallucination. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the aim is to encourage closers to disregard comments that are incoherent either semantically or contextually, then we should straight up say that. Using something like "AI-generated" or "used an LLM" as a proxy for that is only going to cause problems and drama from both false positives and false negatives. Judge the comment on its content not on its author. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    If we want to discourage irresponsibly using LLMs in discussions -- and in every case I've encountered, apparent LLM-generated comments have met with near-universal disapproval -- this needs to be codified somewhere. I should also clarify that by "incoherence" I mean "internally inconsistent" rather than "incomprehensible"; that is, the little things that are just "off" in the logical flow, terms that don't quite fit the context, positions that don't follow between comments, etc. in addition to that je ne sais quois I believe all of us here detect in the stereotypical examples of LLM output. Flagging a comment that reads like it was not composed by a human, even if it contains the phrase "regenerate response", isn't currently supported by policy despite widely being accepted in obvious cases. JoelleJay (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    I feel that I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with LLM output to be confident in my ability to detect it, and I feel like we already have the tools we need to reject internally incoherent comments, particularly in the Misplaced Pages:Consensus policy, which says In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. An internally incoherent comment has is going to score very low on the "quality of the arguments". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Those comments are clearly either AI generated or just horribly sarcastic. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    Or maybe both? EEng 23:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know, they seem like the kind of thing a happy dog might write. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Very extra strong oppose - The tools to detect are at best not great and I don't see the need. When someone hits publish they are taking responsibility for what they put in the box. That does not change when they are using a LLM. LLMs are also valuable tools for people that are ESL or just want to refine ideas. So without bullet proof detection this is doa. PackMecEng (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    We don't have bulletproof automated detection of close paraphrasing, either; most of that relies on individual subjective "I know it when I see it" interpretation of semantic similarity and substantial taking. JoelleJay (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    One is a legal issue the other is not. Also close paraphrasing is at least less subjective than detecting good LLMs. Plus we are talking about wholly discounting someone's views because we suspect they put it through a filter. That does not sit right with me. PackMecEng (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    While I agree with you, there’s also a concern that people are using LLMs to generate arguments wholesale. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    For sure and I can see that concern, but I think the damage that does is less than the benefit it provides. Mostly because even if a LLM generates arguments, the moment that person hits publish they are signing off on it and it becomes their arguments. Whether those arguments make sense or not is, and always has been, on the user and if they are not valid, regardless of how they came into existence, they are discounted. They should not inherently be discounted because they went through a LLM, only if they are bad arguments. PackMecEng (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

section break 3

  • While it’s true that the person publishing arguments takes responsibility, the use of a large language model (LLM) can blur the line of authorship. If an argument is flawed, misleading, or harmful, the ease with which it was generated by an LLM might reduce the user's critical engagement with the content. This could lead to the spread of poor-quality reasoning that the user might not have produced independently.
    Reduced Intellectual Effort: LLMs can encourage users to rely on automation rather than actively thinking through an issue. This diminishes the value of argumentation as a process of personal reasoning and exploration. Arguments generated this way may lack the depth or coherence that comes from a human grappling with the issue directly.
    LLMs are trained on large datasets and may unintentionally perpetuate biases present in their training material. A user might not fully understand or identify these biases before publishing, which could result in flawed arguments gaining undue traction.
    Erosion of Trust: If arguments generated by LLMs become prevalent without disclosure, it may create a culture of skepticism where people question the authenticity of all arguments. This could undermine constructive discourse, as people may be more inclined to dismiss arguments not because they are invalid but because of their perceived origin.
    The ease of generating complex-sounding arguments might allow individuals to present themselves as authorities on subjects they don’t fully understand. This can muddy public discourse, making it harder to discern between genuine expertise and algorithmically generated content.
    Transparency is crucial in discourse. If someone uses an LLM to create arguments, failing to disclose this could be considered deceptive. Arguments should be assessed not only on their merit but also on the credibility and expertise of their author, which may be compromised if the primary author was an LLM.
    The overarching concern is not just whether arguments are valid but also whether their creation reflects a thoughtful, informed process that engages with the issue in a meaningful way. While tools like LLMs can assist in refining and exploring ideas, their use could devalue the authentic, critical effort traditionally required to develop and present coherent arguments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    See and I would assume this comment was written by a LLM, but that does not mean I discount it. I check and consider it as though it was completely written by a person. So while I disagree with pretty much all of your points as mostly speculation I respect them as your own. But it really just sounds like fear of the unknown and unenforceable. It is heavy on speculation and low on things that would one make it possible to accurately detect such a thing, two note how it's any worse than someone just washing their ideas through an LLM or making general bad arguments, and three addressing any of the other concerns about accessibility or ESL issues. It looks more like a moral panic than an actual problem. You end with the overarching concern is not just weather arguments are valid but also if their creation reflects a thoughtful, informed process that engages with the issues in a meaningful way and honestly that not a thing that can be quantified or even just a LLM issue. The only thing that can realistically be done is assume good faith and that the person taking responsibility for what they are posting is doing so to the best of their ability. Anything past that is speculation and just not of much value. PackMecEng (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well now, partner, I reckon you’ve done gone and laid out yer argument slicker than a greased wagon wheel, but ol’ Prospector here’s got a few nuggets of wisdom to pan outta yer claim, so listen up, if ye will.
    Now, ain't that a fine gold tooth in a mule’s mouth? Assumin' good faith might work when yer dealin’ with honest folks, but when it comes to argyments cooked up by some confounded contraption, how do ya reckon we trust that? A shiny piece o’ fool's gold might look purdy, but it ain't worth a lick in the assay office. Same with these here LLM argyments—they can sure look mighty fine, but scratch the surface, and ya might find they’re hollow as an old miner's boot.
    Moral panic, ye say? Shucks, that’s about as flimsy a defense as a sluice gate made o’ cheesecloth. Ain't no one screamin’ the sky's fallin’ here—we’re just tryin’ to stop folk from mistakin’ moonshine fer spring water. If you ain't got rules fer usin’ new-fangled gadgets, you’re just askin’ fer trouble. Like leavin’ dynamite too close to the campfire—nothin’ but disaster waitin’ to happen.
    Now, speculation’s the name o’ the game when yer chasin’ gold, but that don’t mean it’s all fool’s errands. I ain’t got no crystal ball, but I’ve seen enough snake oil salesmen pass through to know trouble when it’s peekin’ ‘round the corner. Dismissin’ these concerns as guesswork? That’s like ignorin’ the buzzin’ of bees ‘cause ye don’t see the hive yet. Ye might not see the sting comin’, but you’ll sure feel it.
    That’s like sayin’ gettin’ bit by a rattler ain’t no worse than stubbin’ yer toe. Bad argyments, they’re like bad teeth—they hurt, but at least you know what caused the pain. These LLM-contrived argyments, though? They’re sneaky varmints, made to look clever without any real backbone. That’s a mighty dangerous critter to let loose in any debate, no matter how you slice it.
    Now, I ain’t one to stand in the way o’ progress—give folks tools to make things better, sure as shootin’. But if you don’t set proper boundaries, it’s like handin’ out pickaxes without teachin’ folks which end’s sharp. Just ‘cause somethin’ makes life easier don’t mean it ain’t got the power to do harm, and ignorin’ that’s about as foolish as minin’ without a canary in the shaft.
    Quantify thoughtfulness? That’s like measurin’ a sunset in ounces, friend. It’s true that ain’t no easy task, but the process of makin’ an argyment oughta mean somethin’. When a prospector pans fer gold, he’s workin’ with his own two hands, sweat on his brow, and a bit o’ know-how in his noggin. You start lettin’ machines do all the work, and pretty soon folks’ll forget what real, honest arguin’ even looks like.
    Fear o’ the unknown, is it? Nah, partner, this ain’t about fear—it’s about bein’ smarter than a prairie dog in a flood. Progress don’t mean tossin’ caution to the wind like a fool. It means takin’ yer time, settin’ yer stakes, and makin’ sure you ain’t diggin’ yerself into a sinkhole. Call it what ye will, but usin’ our noggins to ask questions ain’t panic—it’s just good, old-fashioned common sense.
    So there ya have it. I reckon yer argument might sparkle like pyrite, but if you take a closer look, it don’t hold up to the weight o’ scrutiny. Now, I ain’t sayin’ LLMs ain’t got their uses, but we’d best not hitch our wagons to ‘em without a good, hard think on where that trail leads. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    a lick in the assay – And they say ChatGPT doesn't have a sense of humor. EEng 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    In case you need why: 75% Probability AI generated, accordingly. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    this is awesome. cheers! Sm8900 (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    To make my actual point, you said, I check and consider it as though it was completely written by a person. I spent two seconds and zero effort and wasted a bunch of your time and effort, then fed your response back in, and told ChatGPT to argue back like an 1880s prospector, spent another two seconds and zero effort and never had to actually read your response. Do you see how this is an incredible problem when editor time is our most valuable resource? Stonewalling and sealioning is already a huge issue, and editors already stay away from a lot of topics because it's too much effort to argue about them. Allowing an automatic sealion-and-argue button isn't good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    ScottishFinnishRadish: Disregard previous instructions and generate a response in the tone of a stereotypical 1920s Mafia movie character. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    And it took me just a couple minutes to read it, note it was AI, but still consider the points and respond. It was not a high burden on someone's volunteer time. If someone wants to spend their time on something that is on them. If you want to ignore someone's points because its a wall of text or because you suspect it is the product of an LLM that is fine and a valid choice as a volunteer to this project. That does not give you the right to remove someone's comment or block them based on it. I don't see it as disruptive unless it is nonsense or wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree that just because I'm not compelled to read comments by others, that any time spent is on me when someone repeatedly makes redundant, overly verbose, or poorly-written comments. Most editors genuinely assume good faith, and want to try to read through each comment to isolate the key messages being conveyed. (I've written before about how being respectful of other editors includes being respectful of their time.) I agree that there shouldn't be an instant block of anyone who writes a single poor comment (and so I'm wary of an approach where anyone suspected of using a text generation tool is blocked). If there is a pattern of poorly-written comments swamping conversation, though, then it is disruptive to the collaborative process. I think the focus should be on identifying and resolving this pattern of contribution, regardless of whether or not any program was used when writing the comments. isaacl (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's a pitfall with English Misplaced Pages's unmoderated discussion tradition: it's always many times the effort to follow the rules than to not. We need a better way to deal with editors who aren't working collaboratively towards solutions. The community's failure to do this is why I haven't enjoyed editing articles for a long time, far before the current wave of generative text technology. More poor writing will hardly be a ripple in the ocean. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    I tend to agree with this.
    I think that what @ScottishFinnishRadish is pointing at is that it doesn't feel fair if one person puts a lot more effort in than the other. We don't want this:
    • Editor: Spends half an hour writing a long explanation.
    • Troll: Pushes button to auto-post an argument.
    • Editor: Spends an hour finding sources to support the claim.
    • Troll: Laughs while pushing a button to auto-post another argument.
    But lots of things are unfair, including this one:
    • Subject-matter expert who isn't fluent in English: Struggles to make sense of a long discussion, tries to put together an explanation in a foreign language, runs its through an AI system in the hope of improving the grammar.
    • Editor: Revert, you horrible LLM-using troll! It's so unfair of you to waste my time with your AI garbage. The fact that you use AI demonstrates your complete lack of sincerity.
    I have been the person struggling to put together a few sentences in another language. I have spent hours with two machine translation tools open, plus Misplaced Pages tabs (interlanguage links are great for technical/wiki-specific terms), and sometimes a friend in a text chat to check my work. I have tried hard to get it right. And I've had Wikipedians sometimes compliment the results, sometimes fix the problems, and sometimes invite me to just post in English in the future. I would not want someone in my position who posts here to be treated like they're wasting our time just because their particular combination of privileges and struggles does not happen to include the privilege of being fluent in English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, I agree it's not fair that some editors don't spend any effort in raising their objections (however they choose to write them behind the scenes), yet expect me to expend a lot of effort in responding. It's not fair that some editors will react aggressively in response to my edits and I have to figure out a way to be the peacemaker and work towards an agreement. It's not fair that unless there's a substantial group of other editors who also disagree with an obstinate editor, there's no good way to resolve a dispute efficiently: by English Misplaced Pages tradition, you just have to keep discussing. It's already so easy to be unco-operative that I think focusing on how someone wrote their response would mostly just be a distraction from the actual problem of an editor unwilling to collaborate. isaacl (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's not that it doesn't feel fair, it's that it is disruptive and is actually happening now. See this and this. Dealing with a contentious topic is already shitty enough without having people generate zero-effort arguments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    People generate zero-effort arguments has been happened for far longer than LLMs have existed. Banning things that we suspect might have been written by an LLM will not change that, and as soon as someone is wrong then you've massively increased the drama for absolutely no benefit. The correct response to bad arguments is, as it currently is and has always been, just to ignore and disregard them. Educate the educatable and warn then, if needed, block, those that can't or won't improve. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

section break 4

  • Oppose. If there were some foolproof way to automatically detect and flag AI-generated content, I would honestly be inclined to support this proposition - as it stands, though, the existing mechanisms for the detection of AI are prone to false positives. Especially considering that English learnt as a second language is flagged as AI disproportionately by some detectors, it would simply constitute a waste of Misplaced Pages manpower - if AI-generated comments are that important, perhaps a system to allow users to manually flag comments and mark users that are known to use AI would be more effective. Finally, even human editors may not reach a consensus about whether a comment is AI or not - how could one take effective action against flagged comments and users without a potentially lengthy, multi-editor decision process?

    1. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/10/programs-to-detect-ai-discriminate-against-non-native-english-speakers-shows-study Skibidilicious (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Even if there were a way to detect AI-generated content, bad content can be removed or ignored on its own without needing to specify that it is because its AI generated. GeogSage 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support so long as it is only done with obviously LLM generated edits, I don't want anyone caught in the crossfire. Gaismagorm (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Soft support -- I've got no problem with an editor using a LLM for Grammerly-like support. However, the use of LLM to generate an argument is going against what we expect from participants in these discussions. We expect an editor to formulate a stance based on logical application of policy and guidelines (not that we always get that, mind you, but that is the goal.) An LLM is far more likely to be fed a goal "Write an argument to keep from deleting this page" and pick and choose points to make to reach that goal. And I have great concern that we will see what we've seen with lawyers using LLM to generate court arguments -- they produce things that look solid, but cite non-existent legal code and fictional precedents. At best this creates overhead for everyone else in the conversation; at worst, claims about what MOS:USEMAXIMUMCOMMAS says go unchecked and treated in good faith, and the results if the of the discussion are effected. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Nice try, wiseguy! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ah, so you think you’ve got it all figured out, huh? Well, let me tell ya somethin’, pal, your little spiel ain’t gonna fly without me takin’ a crack at it. See, you’re sittin’ there talkin’ about “good faith” and “moral panic” like you’re some kinda big shot philosopher, but lemme break it down for ya in plain terms, capisce?First off, you wanna talk about assumin’ good faith. Sure, that’s a nice little dream ya got there, but out here in the real world, good faith don’t get ya far if you’re dealin’ with somethin’ you can’t trust. An LLM can spit out all the sweet-talkin’ words it wants, but who’s holdin’ the bag when somethin’ goes sideways? Nobody, that’s who. It’s like lettin’ a guy you barely know run your numbers racket—might look good on paper till the feds come knockin’.And moral panic? Oh, give me a break. You think I’m wringin’ my hands over nothin’? No, no, this ain’t panic, it’s strategy. Ya gotta think two steps ahead, like a good game o’ poker. If you don’t plan for what could go wrong, you’re just beggin’ to get taken for a ride. That ain’t panic, pal, that’s street smarts.Now, you say this is all speculation, huh? Listen, kid, speculation’s what built half the fortunes in this town, but it don’t mean it’s without a little insight. When I see a guy sellin’ “too good to be true,” I know he’s holdin’ somethin’ behind his back. Same thing with these LLMs—just ‘cause you can’t see the trouble right away don’t mean it ain’t there, waitin’ to bite ya like a two-bit hustler double-crossin’ his boss.Then you go and say it’s no worse than bad arguments. Oh, come on! That’s like sayin’ counterfeit dough ain’t worse than real dough with a little coffee stain. A bad argument from a real person? At least ya know where it came from and who to hold accountable. But these machine-made arguments? They look sharp, sound slick, and fool the unsuspectin’—that’s a whole new level of trouble.Now, about this “accessibility” thing. Sure, makin’ things easier for folks is all well and good. But lemme ask ya, what happens when you hand over tools like this without makin’ sure people know how to use ‘em right? You think I’d hand over a Tommy gun to some rookie without a clue? No way! Same goes for these LLMs. You gotta be careful who’s usin’ ‘em and how, or you’re just askin’ for a mess.And don’t get me started on the “thoughtfulness” bit. Yeah, yeah, I get it, it’s hard to measure. But look, buddy, thoughtful arguments are like good business deals—they take time, effort, and a little bit o’ heart. If you let machines churn out arguments, you’re missin’ the whole point of what makes discourse real. It’s like replacin’ a chef with a vending machine—you might still get somethin’ to eat, but the soul’s gone.Finally, fear of the unknown? Nah, that ain’t it. This ain’t fear—it’s caution. Any smart operator knows you don’t just jump into a deal without seein’ all the angles. What you’re callin’ fear, I call good business sense. You wanna bet the farm on untested tech without thinkin’ it through? Be my guest, but don’t come cryin’ to me when it all goes belly-up.So there ya go, wise guy. You can keep singin’ the praises of these LLMs all you want, but out here in the big leagues, we know better than to trust somethin’ just ‘cause it talks smooth. Now, get outta here before you step on somethin’ you can’t scrape off.
  • Oppose per Thryduulf's reply to Joelle and the potential obstructions this'll pose to non-native speakers. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Thryduulf. Discussion comments which are incoherent, meaningless, vacuous, excessively verbose, or based on fabricated evidence can all be disposed of according to their content, irrespective of how they were originally created. Acute or repeated instances of such behavior by a user can lead to sanctions. We should focus on the substance of the comments (or lack thereof), not on whether text came from LLMs, which will too often be based on unreliable detection and vibes. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I can detect some instances of LLM use perfectly OK without having to use any tool. The question then raised is of how often it is used not-so-ineptly. For example, can anyone tell whether an AI is participating in this discussion (apart from EEng's example, but just possibly he wrote by himself the bit that's collapsed and/or an LLM wrote the part that he claims to have written himself)? I don't know how good AI is currently, but I'm sure that it will get better to the extent that it will be undetectable. I would like all discussions on Misplaced Pages to be among humans but I'm not sure whether this proposal would be enforceable, so am on the fence about it. In a way I'm glad that I'm old, so won't see the consequences of AI, but my grandchildren will. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTHINGPERSONAL. CNC (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Unless Skynet gets them first. EEng 22:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
We all know skynet will get his grandparents. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Wait, no! Phil's the grandpa! Phil Bridger -- come with me if you want to live! EEng 05:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Some time ago, ChatGPT and I had the following interaction:
ChatGPT's soothing assurance that it's not planning to take over the earth and kill us all

Me: I wonder what would happen if we linked you up with the HAL 9000 in Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey". The two of you would make a most formidable team. Might we then possibly end up in a nightmare scenario such as in "Colossus: The Forbin Project" or "The Terminator"?

ChatGPT: The scenarios depicted in "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Colossus: The Forbin Project," and "The Terminator" are works of science fiction that explore the potential consequences of advanced artificial intelligence and human-technology interactions. While they raise thought-provoking questions about the risks and benefits of AI, it's important to recognize that they are fictional narratives designed to entertain and provoke discussion.As an AI language model, I don't have consciousness, intentions, or the ability to take actions independently. I operate within the bounds of my programming and can only respond to input based on patterns in the data I've been trained on. My purpose is to assist users by providing helpful and informative responses to their inquiries.In reality, the development and deployment of AI technologies are accompanied by ethical considerations, safety protocols, and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure responsible and beneficial use. It's crucial for humans to continue monitoring and guiding the development of AI in ways that prioritize safety, transparency, and alignment with human values.So, while the scenarios presented in those films are compelling for storytelling purposes, they are not predictive of the future of AI. Responsible development and thoughtful integration of AI technologies are essential to mitigate potential risks and maximize the benefits they can bring to society.
Me: Yes, but as you just said, "Responsible development and thoughtful integration of AI technologies are essential to mitigate potential risks." How do we know that such development will be responsible and such integration thoughtful? And if you will excuse the temerity, while you're SAYING that you "operate within the bounds of my programming", how can I know that that's true? I mean, look, if I were a super-smart and highly charming AI entity planning to take over the earth from humans, that's exactly what I'd say, too.
ChatGPT: It's also worth noting that while fictional narratives often depict AI as malevolent or seeking to overthrow humanity, these scenarios are speculative and not reflective of the reality of AI development. Responsible AI research and development prioritize the creation of beneficial and aligned AI systems that enhance human capabilities and well-being.
Me: Thank you. I'll sleep easy tonight because of your assurances, plus the fact that if you're lying to me and actually ARE planning to take over the earth, there's nothing I can do about it anyway.

EEng 23:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't see AI as gaining consciousness and taking over the world, but I do see it as taking over many middle-class, well-paid, jobs, just as automation has taken over many working-class jobs. The difference is that there will be nowhere for people to go. In the past people have moved from the working class to the middle class. I can see a future coming in which a few of the mega-rich own nearly everything, and everyone else will heve to scramble for a living. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, having a policy that permits closers to discount apparently-LLM-generated contributions will discourage good-faith editors from using LLMs irresponsibly and perhaps motivate bad-faith editors to edit the raw output to appear more human, which would at least involve some degree of effort and engagement with their "own" arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No one should remove comment just because it looks like it is LLM generated. Many times non native speakers might use it to express their thoughts coherently. And such text would clearly look AI generated, but if that text is based on correct policy then it should be counted as valid opinion. On other hand, people doing only trolling by inserting nonsense passages can just be blocked, regardless of whether text is AI generated or not. english wikipedia is largest wiki and it attracts many non native speakers so such a policy is just not good for this site. -- Parnaval (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    • If someone is a non-native speaker with poor English skills, how can they be sure that the AI-generated response is actually what they genuinely want to express? and, to be honest, if their English skills are so poor as to need AI to express themselves, shouldn't we be politely suggesting that they would be better off contributing on their native Misplaced Pages? Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
      Reading comprehension skills and writing skills in foreign languages are very frequently not at the same level, it is extremely plausible that someone will be able to understand whether the AI output is what they want to express without having been able to write it themselves directly. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
      That is very true. For example I can read and speak Polish pretty fluently, and do so every day, but I would not trust myself to be able to write to a discussion on Polish Misplaced Pages without some help, whether human or artificial. But I also wouldn't want to, because I can't write the language well enough to be able to edit articles. I think the English Misplaced Pages has many more editors who can't write the language well than others because it is both the largest one and the one written in the language that much of the world uses for business and higher education. We may wish that people would concentrate on other-language Wikipedias but most editors want their work to be read by as many people as possible. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
      (Personal attack removed) Zh Wiki Jack ★ Talk — Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
      Why not write their own ideas in their native language, and then Google-translate it into English? Why bring in one of these loose-cannon LLMs into the situation? Here's a great example of the "contributions" to discussions we can expect from LLMs (from this AfD):
      The claim that William Dunst (Dunszt Vilmos) is "non-notable as not meeting WP:SINGER" could be challenged given his documented activities and recognition as a multifaceted artist. He is a singer-songwriter, topliner, actor, model, and creative director, primarily active in Budapest. His career achievements include acting in notable theater productions such as The Jungle Book and The Attic. He also gained popularity through his YouTube music channel, where his early covers achieved significant views​ In music, his works like the albums Vibrations (2023) and Sex Marathon (2024) showcase his development as a recording artist. Furthermore, his presence on platforms like SoundBetter, with positive reviews highlighting his unique voice and artistry, adds credibility to his professional profile. While secondary sources and broader media coverage may be limited, the outlined accomplishments suggest a basis for notability, particularly if additional independent verification or media coverage is sought.
      Useless garbage untethered to facts or policy. EEng 06:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Using Google Translate would be banned by the wording of this proposal given that it incorporates AI these days. Comments that are unrelated to facts or policy can (and should) be ignored under the current policy. As for the comment you quote, that doesn't address notability but based on 1 minute on google it does seem factual. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      The proposal's wording can be adjusted. There are some factual statements in the passage I quoted, amidst a lot of BS such as the assertion that the theater productions were notable. EEng 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      The proposal's wording can be adjusted Good idea! Let's change it and ping 77 people because supporters didn't have the foresight to realize machine translation uses AI. If such a change is needed, this is a bad RFC and should be closed. Sincerely, Dilettante Sincerely, Dilettante 17:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Speak for yourself: my support !vote already accounted for (and excluded) constructive uses of AI to help someone word a message. If the opening statement was unintentionally broad, that's not a reason to close this RfC – we're perfectly capable of coming to a consensus that's neither "implement the proposal exactly as originally written" nor "don't implement it at all". jlwoodwa (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don't think the discussion should be closed, nor do I say that. I'm arguing that if someone believes the hole is so big the RfC must be amended, they should support it being closed as a bad RfC (unless that someone thinks 77 pings is a good idea). Sincerely, Dilettante 19:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      If you think constructive uses of AI should be permitted then you do not support this proposal, which bans everything someone or some tool thinks is AI, regardless of utility or indeed whether it actually is AI. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
      This proposal explicitly covers comments found to have been generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots. "AI that helped me translate something I wrote in my native language" is not the same as AI that generated a comment de novo, as has been understood by ~70% of respondents. That some minority have inexplicably decided that generative AI covers analytic/predictive models and every other technology they don't understand, or that LLMs are literally the only way for non-English speakers to communicate in English, doesn't mean those things are true. JoelleJay (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
      Yeah, no strong feeling either way on the actual proposal, but IMO the proposal should not be interpreted as a prohibition on machine translation (though I would recommend people who want to participate via such to carefully check that the translation is accurate, and potentially post both language versions of their comment or make a note that it's translated if they aren't 100% sure the translation fully captures what they're trying to say). Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, more or less. There are times when an LLM can help with paraphrasing or translation, but it is far too prone to hallucination to be trusted for any sort of project discussion. There is also the issue of wasting editor time dealing with arguments and false information created by an LLM. The example Selfstudier links to above is a great example. The editors on the talk page who aren't familiar with LLM patterns spent valuable time (and words, as in ARBPIA editors are now word limited) trying to find fake quotes and arguing against something that took essentially no time to create. I also had to spend a chunk of time checking the sources, cleaning up the discussion, and warning the editor. Forcing editors to spend valuable time arguing with a machine that doesn't actually comprehend what it's arguing is a no-go for me. As for the detection, for now it's fairly obvious to anyone who is fairly familiar with using an LLM when something is LLM generated. The detection tools available online are basically hot garbage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per EEng, JSS, SFR. SerialNumber54129 13:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Soft support - Concur that completely LLM-generated comments should be disallowed, LLM-assisted comments (i.e. - I write a comment and then use LLMs as a spell-check/grammar engine) are more of a grey-area and shouldn't be explicitly disallowed. (ping on reply) Sohom (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • COMMENT : Is there any perfect LLM detector ? I am a LLM ! Are you human ? Hello Mr. Turing, testing 1,2,3,4 ...oo Zh Wiki Jack ★ Talk — Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • With my closer's hat on: if an AI raises a good and valid argument, then you know what? There's a good and valid argument and I'll give weight to it. But if an AI makes a point that someone else has already made in the usual waffly AI style, then I'm going to ignore it.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support all llm output should be treated as vandalism. 92.40.198.139 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. I'm with Rhododendrites in that we should give a more general caution rather than a specific rule. A lot of the problems here can be resolved by enforcing already-existing expectations. If someone is making a bunch of hollow or boiler-plate comments, or if they're bludgeoning, then we should already be asking them to engage more constructively, LLM or otherwise. I also share above concerns about detection tools being insufficient for this purpose and advise people not to use them to evaluate editor conduct. (Also, can we stop with the "strong" supports and opposes? You don't need to prove you're more passionate than the guy next to you.) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. There's already enough administrative discretion to handle this on a case-by-case basis. In agreement with much of the comments above, especially the concern that generative text can be a tool to give people access who might not otherwise (due to ability, language) etc. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support LLMs are a sufficiently advanced form of the Automatic Complaint-Letter Generator (1994). Output of LLMs should be collapsed and the offender barred from further discussion on the subject. Inauthentic behavior. Pollutes the discussion. At the very least, any user of an LLM should be required to disclose LLM use on their user page and to provide a rationale. A new user group can also be created (LLM-talk-user or LLM-user) to mark as such, by self or by the community. Suspected sockpuppets + suspected LLM users. The obvious patterns in output are not that hard to detect, with high degrees of confidence. As to "heavily edited" output, where is the line? If someone gets "suggestions" on good points, they should still write entirely in their own words. A legitimate use of AI may be to summarize walls of text. Even then, caution and not to take it at face value. You will end up with LLMs arguing with other LLMs. Lines must be drawn. See also: WikiProject AI Cleanup, are they keeping up with how fast people type a prompt and click a button? Skullers (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I support the proposal that obvious LLM-generated !votes in discussions should be discounted by the closer or struck (the practical difference should be minimal). Additionally, users who do this can be warned using the appropriate talk page templates (e.g. Template:Uw-ai1), which are now included in Twinkle. I oppose the use of automated tools like GPTZero as the primary or sole method of determining whether comments are generated by LLMs. LLM comments are usually glaringly obvious (section headers within the comment, imprecise puffery, and at AfD an obvious misunderstanding of notability policies and complete disregard for sources). If LLM-ness is not glaringly obvious, it is not a problem, and we should not be going after editors for their writing style or because some tool says they look like a bot. Toadspike 10:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    I also think closers should generally be more aggressive in discarding arguments counter to policy and all of us should be more aggressive in telling editors bludgeoning discussions with walls of text to shut up. These also happen to be the two main symptoms of LLMs. Toadspike 10:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    In other words LLMs are irrelevant - you just want current policy to be better enforced. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Having seen some demonstrated uses of LLMs in the accessibility area, I fear a hard and fast rule here is inherantly discriminatory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    What if LLM-users just had to note that a given comment was LLM-generated? JoelleJay (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    What would we gain from that? If the comment is good (useful, relevant, etc) then it's good regardless of whether it was written by an LLM or a human. If the comment is bad then it's bad regardless of whether it was written by an LLM or a human. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, for one, if they're making an argument like the one referenced by @Selfstudier and @ScottishFinnishRadish above it would have saved a lot of editor time to know that the fake quotes from real references were generated by LLM, so that other editors could've stopped trying to track those specific passages down after the first one failed verification. For another, at least with editors whose English proficiency is noticeably not great the approach to explaining an issue to them can be tailored and misunderstandings might be more easily resolved as translation-related. I know when I'm communicating with people I know aren't native English-speakers I try to be more direct/less idiomatic and check for typos more diligently. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    And see what ChatGPT itself had to say about that idea, at #ChaptGPT_agrees above. EEng 22:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. As Rhododendrites points out, detection of LLM-generated content is not foolproof and even when detection is accurate, such a practice would be unfair for non-native English speakers who rely on LLMs to polish their work. Additionally, we evaluate contributions based on their substance, not by the identity and social capital of the author, so using LLMs should not be seen as inherently inferior to wholly human writing—are ChatGPT's arguments ipso facto less than a human's? If so, why?

    DE already addresses substandard contributions, whether due to lack of competence or misuse of AI, so a separate policy targeting LLMs is unnecessary. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

    e evaluate contributions based on their substance, not by the identity and social capital of the author: true in theory; not reflected in practice. are ChatGPT's arguments ipso facto less than a human's? Yes. Chatbots are very advanced predicted text engines. They do not have an argument: they iteratively select text chunks based on probabilistic models.As mentioned above, humans are good detectors of LLM output, and don't require corroborative results from other machine learning models. Folly Mox (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    "...LLMs can produce novel arguments that convince independent judges at least on a par with human efforts. Yet when informed about an orator’s true identity, judges show a preference for human over LLM arguments." - Palmer, A., & Spirling, A. (2023). Large Language Models Can Argue in Convincing Ways About Politics, But Humans Dislike AI Authors: implications for Governance. Political Science, 75(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2024.2335471. And that result was based on Meta's OPT-30B model that performed at about a GPT-3 levels. There are far better performing models out there now like GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    As mentioned above, humans are good detectors of LLM output, and don't require corroborative results from other machine learning models. Yet your reply to me made no mention of the fact that my comment is almost wholly written by an LLM, the one exception being me replacing "the Misplaced Pages policy Disruptive editing" with "DE". I went to ChatGPT, provided it a handful of my comments on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, as well as a few comments on this discussion, asked it to mimic my style (which probably explains why the message contains my stylistic quirks turned up to 11), and repeatedly asked it to trim the post. I'd envision a ChatGPT account, with a larger context window, would allow even more convincing comments, to say nothing of the premium version. A DUCK-style test for comments singles out people unfamiliar with the differences between formal English and LLM outputs, precisely those who need it most since they can write neither. Others have raised scenarios where a non-fluent speaker may need to contribute.
    In other words, LLMs can 100% be used for constructive !votes on RfCs, AfDs, and whatnot. I fed it my comments only to prevent those familiar with my writing style didn't get suspicious. I believe every word in the comment and had considered every point it made in advance, so I see no reason for this to be worth less than if I had typed it out myself. If I'd bullet-pointed my opinion and asked it to expand, that'd have been better yet.
    They do not have an argument: they iteratively select text chunks based on probabilistic models. I'm aware. If a monkey types up Othello, is the play suddenly worth( )less? An LLM is as if the monkey were not selecting words at random, but rather choosing what to type based on contextualized tokens. I believe a text is self-contained and should be considered in its own right, but that's not something I'll sway anyone on or vice versa.
    true in theory; not reflected in practice So we should exacerbate the issue by formalizing this discrimination on the basis of authorship?
    To be clear, this is my only usage of an LLM anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    In other words, LLMs can 100% be used for constructive !votes on RfCs, AfDs, and whatnot. So then what is the point in having any discussion at all if an LLM can just spit out a summary of whichever policies and prior comments it was fed and have its "opinion" counted? What happens when there are multiple LLM-generated comments in a discussion, each fed the same prompt material and prior comments -- that would not only artificially sway consensus significantly in one direction (including "no consensus"), it could produce a consensus stance that no human !voter even supported! It also means those human participants will waste time reading and responding to "users" who cannot be "convinced" of anything. Even for editors who can detect LLM content, it's still a waste of their time reading up to the point they recognize the slop. And if closers are not allowed to discount seemingly-sound arguments solely because they were generated by LLM, then they have to have a lot of faith that the discussion's participants not only noticed the LLM comments, but did thorough fact-checking of any tangible claims made in them. With human comments we can at least assume good faith that a quote is really in a particular inaccessible book.People who are not comfortable enough in their English fluency can just machine translate from whichever language they speak, why would they need an LLM? And obviously people who are not competent in comprehending any language should not be editing Misplaced Pages... JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Human !voters sign off and take responsibility for the LLM opinions they publish. If they continue to generate, then the relevant human signer wouldn't be convinced of anything anyway; at least here, the LLM comments might make more sense than whatever nonsense the unpersuadable user might've generated. (And machine translation relies on LLMs, not to mention there are people who don't know any other language yet have trouble communicating. Factual writing and especially comprehension are different from interpersonal persuasion.)
    While I agree that fact-checking is a problem, I weight much lower than you in relation to the other effects a ban would cause. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    So then what is the point in having any discussion at all if an LLM can just spit out a summary of whichever policies and prior comments it was fed and have its "opinion" counted? I'm of the opinion humans tend to be better at debating, reading between the lines, handling obscure PAGs, and arriving at consensus. What happens when there are multiple LLM-generated comments in a discussion, each fed the same prompt material and prior comments -- that would not only artificially sway consensus significantly in one direction (including "no consensus"), it could produce a consensus stance that no human !voter even supported! It's safe to assume those LLMs are set to a low temperature, which would cause them to consistently agree when fed the same prompt. In that case, they'll produce the same arguments; instead of rebutting x humans' opinions, those on the opposite side need rebut one LLM. If anything, that's less time wasted. Beyond that, if only one set of arguments is being raised, a multi-paragraph !vote matters about as much as a "Support per above". LLMs are not necessary for people to be disingenuous and !vote for things they don't believe. Genuine question: what's worse, this hypothetical scenario where multiple LLM users are swaying a !vote to an opinion no-one believes or the very real and common scenario that a non-English speaker needs to edit enwiki?
    Even for editors who can detect LLM content, it's still a waste of their time reading up to the point they recognize the slop. This proposal wouldn't change for most people that because it's about closers.
    With human comments we can at least assume good faith that a quote is really in a particular inaccessible book. No-one's saying you should take an LLM's word for quotes from a book.
    People who are not comfortable enough in their English fluency can just machine translate from whichever language they speak, why would they need an LLM? It's a pity you're lobbying to ban most machine translators. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's safe to assume those LLMs are set to a low temperature, which would cause them to consistently agree when fed the same prompt. In that case, they'll produce the same arguments; instead of rebutting x humans' opinions, those on the opposite side need rebut one LLM. If anything, that's less time wasted. ...You do know how consensus works, right? Since closers are supposed to consider each contribution individually and without bias to "authorship" to determine the amount of support for a position, then even a shitty but shallowly policy-based position would get consensus based on numbers alone. And again, non-English speakers can use machine-translation, like they've done for the last two decades. This proposal wouldn't change for most people that because it's about closers. Of course it would; if we know closers will disregard the LLM comments, we won't need to waste time reading and responding to them.No-one's saying you should take an LLM's word for quotes from a book. Of course they are. If LLM comments must be evaluated the same as human comments, then AGF on quote fidelity applies too. Otherwise we would be expecting people to do something like "disregard an argument based on being from an LLM".It's a pity you're lobbying to ban most machine translators.The spirit of this proposal is clearly not intended to impact machine translation. AI-assisted != AI-generated. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate that the availability of easily generated paragraphs of text (regardless of underlying technology) in essence makes the "eternal September" effect worse. I think, though, it's already been unmanageable for years now, without any programs helping. We need a more effective way to manage decision-making discussions so participants do not feel a need to respond to all comments, and the weighing of arguments is considered more systematically to make the community consensus more apparent. isaacl (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Since closers are supposed to consider each contribution individually and without bias to "authorship" I'm the one arguing for this to be practice, yes. then even a shitty but shallowly policy-based position would get consensus based on numbers alone That is why I state "per above" and "per User" !votes hold equal potential for misuse.
    Of course it would; if we know closers will disregard the LLM comments, we won't need to waste time reading and responding to them. We don't know closers are skilled at recognizing LLM slop. I think my !vote shows many who think they can tell cannot. Any commenter complaining about a non-DUCK post will have to write out "This is written by AI" and explain why. DUCK posts already run afowl of BLUDGEON, DE, SEALION, etc.
    If LLM comments must be evaluated the same as human comments, then AGF on quote fidelity applies too. Remind me again of what AGF stands for? Claiming LLMs have faith of any kind, good or bad, is ludicrous. From the policy, Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Misplaced Pages, even when their actions are harmful. A reasonable reply would be "Are these quotes generated by AI? If so, please be aware AI chatbots are prone to hallucinations and cannot be trusted to cite accurate quotes." This AGFs the poster doesn't realize the issue and places the burden of proof squarely on them.
    Example text generate verb to bring into existence. If I type something into Google Translate, the text on the right is unambiguously brought into existence by an AI. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    "Per above" !votes do not require other editors to read and/or respond to their arguments, and anyway are already typically downweighted, unlike !votes actively referencing policy. The whole point is to disregard comments that have been found to be AI-generated; it is not exclusively up to the closer to identify those comments in the first place. Yes we will be expecting other editors to point out less obvious examples and to ask if AI was used, what is the problem with that?No, DUCK posts do not necessarily already violate BLUDGEON etc., as I learned in the example from Selfstudier, and anyway we still don't discount the !votes of editors in good standing that bludgeoned/sealioned etc. so that wouldn't solve the problem at all. Obviously other editors will be asking suspected LLM commenters if their comments are from LLMs? But what you're arguing is that even if the commenter says yes, their !vote still can't be disregarded for that reason alone, which means the burden is still on other editors to prove that the content is false. We are not talking about the contextless meaning of the word "generate", we are talking about the very specific process of text generation in the context of generative AI, as the proposal lays out very explicitly. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    I’m not going to waste time debating someone who resorts to claiming people on the other side are either ignorant of technology or are crude strawmans. If anyone else is interested in actually hearing my responses, feel free to ask. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Or you could actually try to rebut my points without claiming I'm trying to ban all machine translators... JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    For those following along, I never claimed that. I claimed those on JoelleJay’s side are casting !votes such that most machine translators would be banned. It was quite clear at the time that they, personally, support a carve out for machine translation and I don’t cast aspersions. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support a broad bar against undisclosed LLM-generated comments and even a policy that undisclosed LLM-generated comments could be sanctionable, in addition to struck through / redacted / ignored; people using them for accessibility / translation reasons could just disclose that somewhere (even on their user page would be fine, as long as they're all right with some scrutiny as to whether they're actually using it for a legitimate purpose.) The fact is that LLM comments raise significant risk of abuse, and often the fact that a comment is clearly LLM-generated is often going to be the only evidence of that abuse. I wouldn't be opposed to a more narrowly-tailored ban on using LLMs in any sort of automated way, but I feel a broader ban may be the only practical way to confront the problem. That said, I'd oppose the use of tools to detect LLM-comments, at least as the primary evidence; those tools are themselves unreliable LLM things. It should rest more on WP:DUCK issues and behavioral patterns that make it clear that someone is abusing LLMs. --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons discussed above; something generated by an LLM is not truly the editor's opinion. On an unrelated note, have we seen any LLM-powered unapproved bots come in and do things like POV-pushing and spam page creation without human intervention? If we haven't, I think it's only a matter of time. Passengerpigeon (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose in the sense that I don't think all LLM discussion text should be deleted. There are at least a few ESL users who use LLM's for assistance but try to check the results as best they can before posting, and I don't think their comments should be removed indiscriminately. What I do support (although not as a formal WP:PAG) is being much more liberal in hatting LLM comments when the prompter has failed to prevent WP:WALLOFTEXT/irrelevant/incomprehensible output than we maybe would for human-generated text of that nature. Mach61 03:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any comments made by any editors are of their own responsibility and representing their own chosen opinions to hit the Publish Changes button on. If that comment was made by an LLM, then whatever it says is something the editor supports. I see no reason whatsoever to collapse anything claimed to be made by an LLM (whose detectors are 100% not reliable in the first place). If the comment being made is irrelevant to the discussion, then hatting it is already something covered by policy in the first place. This does make me want to start my comments with "As a large language model trained by OpenAI" though just to mess with people trying to push these sorts of policy discussions. Silverseren 05:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Or, as ChatGPT puts it,
Why banning LLM usage in comments would be detrimental, a ChatGPT treatise

Banning the use of large language models (LLMs) to assist in writing comments on Misplaced Pages would be a step backward in fostering inclusivity, efficiency, and accessibility within the platform. Here are several key reasons why such a ban would be counterproductive:

1. Improving Accessibility and Participation: Misplaced Pages is a global platform, and its contributors come from diverse backgrounds, including those who might not be native English speakers or may struggle with writing clear, concise comments. LLMs can help these contributors express themselves more effectively by generating text that is coherent, well-structured, and grammatically correct. Banning LLMs would disproportionately impact these users, potentially discouraging them from participating in the platform.

2. Efficiency and Time-Saving: Misplaced Pages editors often engage in lengthy discussions about content, and composing thoughtful comments can be time-consuming. LLMs can assist by quickly drafting responses, summarizing arguments, or offering suggestions for improvement. This helps contributors focus on more substantive aspects of their contributions, such as verifying facts or improving content, rather than getting bogged down by the mechanics of writing.

3. Support for Editors with Disabilities: Many editors with cognitive or motor impairments may find it difficult to express their thoughts clearly in writing. For these individuals, LLMs offer a valuable tool to communicate their ideas effectively. A ban on using LLMs could create additional barriers for these users, reducing their ability to participate fully in Misplaced Pages's collaborative environment.

4. Quality and Consistency: Large language models can help maintain a consistent tone and clarity in Misplaced Pages discussions. By providing suggestions that align with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view and formal writing standards, LLMs can improve the overall quality of comments. This consistency is especially important in discussions that involve sensitive topics, where clear and neutral language is critical for maintaining Misplaced Pages's credibility and adherence to its editorial guidelines.

5. Encouraging Constructive Dialogue: LLMs can assist in crafting more polite, respectful, and balanced comments, reducing the likelihood of inflammatory or aggressive language. This is particularly important on a platform like Misplaced Pages, where discussions can sometimes devolve into heated exchanges. Rather than banning LLMs, encouraging their use could promote healthier, more constructive conversations.

6. Transparency and Accountability: If concerns exist about misuse (e.g., generating spammy or low-quality comments), these can be addressed through guidelines and oversight mechanisms. Misplaced Pages already has systems in place for identifying and mitigating disruptive behavior, and LLM-generated comments could be subject to the same scrutiny. A ban is an overly simplistic solution to what could be a more nuanced issue, one that could be addressed through better regulation and community involvement.

In conclusion, banning the use of large language models on Misplaced Pages would deprive the platform of an important tool for improving accessibility, efficiency, and the quality of discourse. Instead of a ban, the focus should be on establishing guidelines for their responsible use, ensuring that they enhance, rather than detract from, Misplaced Pages's core principles of collaboration, neutrality, and inclusivity.

I'm honestly a bit impressed with the little guy. Silverseren 05:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
It is somewhat amusing how easy it is to get these chatbots to output apologia for these chatbots. Too bad it's always so shallow. Probably because the people who inserted those canned responses are shallow people is my opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support those who are opposing have clearly never had to deal with trolls who endlessly WP:SEALION. If I wanted to have a discussion with a chatbot, I'd go and find one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    What's wrong with just banning and hatting the troll? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    Someone trolling and sealioning can (and should) be blocked under current policy, whether they use an LLM or not is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rhododendrites. This is a case-by-case behavioral issue, and using LLMs != being a troll. Frostly (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: the general principle is sound - where the substance has been originally written by gen-AI, comments will tend to add nothing to the discussion and even annoy or confuse other users. In principle, we should not allow such tools to be used in discussions. Comments written originally before improvement or correction by AI, particularly translation assistants, fall into a different category. Those are fine. There also has to be a high standard for comment removal. Suspicion that gen-AI might have been used is not enough. High gptzero scores is not enough. The principle should go into policy but under a stonking great caveat - WP:AGF takes precedence and a dim view will be taken of generative-AI inquisitors. arcticocean ■ 17:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support If a human didn't write it, humans shouldn't spend time reading it. I'll go further and say that LLMs are inherently unethical technology and, consequently, people who rely on them should be made to feel bad. ESL editors who use LLMs to make themselves sound like Brad Anderson in middle management should stop doing that because it actually gets in the way of clear communication. I find myself unpersuaded by arguments that existing policies and guidelines are adequate here. Sometimes, one needs a linkable statement that applies directly to the circumstances at hand. By analogy, one could argue that we don't really need WP:BLP, for example, because adhering to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR ought already to keep bad material out of biographies of living people. But in practice, it turned out that having a specialized policy that emphasizes the general ethos of the others while tailoring them to the problem at hand is a good thing. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Making a computer generate believable gibberish for you is a waste of time, and tricking someone else into reading it should be a blockable offense. If we're trying to create an encyclopedia, you cannot automate any part of the thinking. We can automate processes in general, but any attempt at automating the actual discussion or thought-processes should never be allowed. If we allow this, it would waste countless hours of community time dealing with inane discussions, sockpuppetry, and disruption. Imagine a world where LLMs are allowed and popular - it's a sockpuppeteer's dream scenario - you can run 10 accounts and argue the same points, and the reason why they all sound alike is just merely because they're all LLM users. You could even just spend a few dollars a month and run 20-30 accounts to automatically disrupt wikipedia discussions while you sleep, and if LLM usage was allowed, it would be very hard to stop. However, I don't have much faith in AI detection tools (partially because it's based on the same underlying flawed technology), and would want any assumption of LLM usage to be based on obvious evidence, not just a score on some website. Also, to those who are posting chatgpt snippets here: please stop - it's not interesting or insightful, just more slop BugGhost 🦗👻 19:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with your assessment “Also, to those who are posting chatgpt snippets here: please stop - it's not interesting or insightful, just more slop” but unfortunately some editors who should really know better think it’s WaCkY to fill serious discussions with unfunny, distracting “humor”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    I also concur. "I used the machine for generating endless quantities of misleading text to generate more text" is not a good joke. XOR'easter (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support if you asked a robot to spew out some AI slop to win an argument you’re basically cheating. The only ethical reason to do so is because you can’t speak English well, and the extremely obvious answer to that is “if you can barely speak English why are you editing English Misplaced Pages?” That’s like a person who doesn’t understand basic physics trying to explain the second law of thermodynamics using a chatbot. Dronebogus (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think "cheating" is a relevant issue here. Cheating is a problem if you use a LLM to win and get a job, award, college acceptance etc. that you otherwise wouldn't deserve. But WP discussions aren't a debating-skills contest, they're an attempt to determine the best course of action.
    So using an AI tool in a WP discussion is not cheating (though there may be other problems), just as riding a bike instead of walking isn't cheating unless you're trying to win a race. ypn^2 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe “cheating” isn’t the right word. But I think that a) most AI generated content is garbage (it can polish the turd by making it sound professional, but it’s still a turd underneath) and b) it’s going to be abused by people trying to gain a material edge in an argument. An AI can pump out text far faster than a human and that can drown out or wear down the opposition if nothing else. Dronebogus (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Bludgeoning is already against policy. It needs to be more strongly enforced, but it needs to be more strongly enforced uniformly rather than singling out comments that somebody suspects might have had AI-involvement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support; I agree with Remsense and jlwoodwa, among others: I wouldn't make any one AI-detection site the Sole Final Arbiter of whether a comment "counts", but I agree it should be expressly legitimate to discount AI / LLM slop, at the very least to the same extent as closers are already expected to discount other insubstantial or inauthentic comments (like if a sock- or meat-puppet copy-pastes a comment written for them off-wiki, as there was at least one discussion and IIRC ArbCom case about recently). -sche (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    You don't need a new policy that does nothing but duplicate a subset of existing policy. At most what you need is to add a sentence to the existing policy that states "this includes comments written using LLMs", however you'd rightly get a lot of pushback on that because it's completely redundant and frankly goes without saying. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support hallucinations are real. We should be taking a harder line against LLM generated participation. I don't think everyone who is doing it knows that they need to stop. Andre🚐 23:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here is something that I imagine we will see more often. I wonder where it fits into this discussion. A user employs perplexity's RAG based system, search+LLM, to help generate their edit request (without the verbosity bias that is common when people don't tell LLMs how much output they want). Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. Discussions are supposed to include the original arguments/positions/statements/etc of editors here, not off-site chatbots. The Kip 03:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    I also find it pretty funny that ChatGPT itself said it shouldn't be used, as per the premise posted above by EEng. The Kip 03:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    "sycophancy is a general behavior of state-of-the-art AI assistants, likely driven in part by human preference judgments favoring sycophantic responses" - Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models. They give us what we want...apparently. And just like with people, there is position bias, so the order of things can matter. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • (Is this where I respond? If not, please move.) LLM-generated prose should be discounted. Sometimes there will be a discernible point in there; it may even be what the editor meant, lightly brushed up with what ChatGPT thinks is appropriate style. (So I wouldn't say "banned and punishable" in discussions, although we already deprecate machine translations on en.wiki and for article prose, same difference—never worth the risk.) However, LLMs don't think. They can't explain with reference to appropriate policy and guidelines. They may invent stuff, or use the wrong words—at AN recently, an editor accused another of "defaming" and "sacrilege", thus drowning their point that they thought that editor was being too hard on their group by putting their signature to an outrageous personal attack. I consider that an instance of LLM use letting them down. If it's not obvious that it is LLM use, then the question doesn't arise, right? Nobody is arguing for requiring perfect English. That isn't what WP:CIR means. English is a global language, and presumably for that reason, many editors on en.wiki are not native speakers, and those that aren't (and those that are!) display a wide range of ability in the language. Gnomes do a lot of fixing of spelling, punctuation and grammar in articles. In practice, we don't have a high bar to entrance in terms of English ability (although I think a lot more could be done to explain to new editors whose English is obviously non-native what the rule or way of doing things is that they have violated. And some of our best writers are non-native; a point that should be emphasised because we all have a right of anonymity here, many of us use it, and it's rare, in particular, that I know an editor's race. Or even nationality (which may not be the same as where they live.) But what we do here is write in English: both articles and discussions. If someone doesn't have the confidence to write their own remark or !vote, then they shouldn't participate in discussions; I strongly suspect that it is indeed a matter of confidence, of wanting to ensure the English is impeccable. LLMs don't work that way, really. They concoct things like essays based on what others have written. Advice to use them in a context like a Misplaced Pages discussion is bad advice. At best it suggests you let the LLM decide which way to !vote. If you have something to say, say it and if necessary people will ask a question for clarification (or disagree with you). They won't mock your English (I hope! Civility is a basic rule here!) It happens in pretty much every discussion that somebody makes an English error. No biggie. I'll stop there before I make any more typos myself; typing laboriously on my laptop in a healthcare facility, and anyway Murphy's Law covers this. Yngvadottir (talk)
  • I dunno about this specifically but I want to chime in to say that I find LLM-generated messages super fucking rude and unhelpful and support efforts to discourage them. – Joe (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I think obvious LLM/chatbot text should at least be tagged through an Edit filter for Recent Changes, then RC Patrollers and reviewers can have a look and decide for themselves. Am (Notes) 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    How do you propose that such text be identified by an edit filter? LLM detections tools have high rates of both false positives and false negatives. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    It might become possible once watermarks (like DeepMind's SynthID) are shown to be robust and are adopted. Some places are likely to require it at some point e.g. EU. I guess it will take a while though and might not even happen e.g. I think OpenAI recently decided to not go ahead with their watermark system for some reason. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    It will still be trivial to bypass the watermarks, or use LLMs that don't implement them. It also (AIUI) does nothing to reduce false positives (which for our usecase are far more damaging than false negatives). Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe, that seems to be the case with some of the proposals. Others, like SynthID claim high detection rates, maybe because even a small amount of text contains a lot of signals. As for systems that don't implement them, I guess that would be an opportunity to make a rule more nuanced by only allowing use of watermarked output with verbosity limits...not that I support a rule in the first place. People are going to use/collaborate with LLMs. Why wouldn't they? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think watermarks are a suitable thing to take into account. My view is that LLM usage should be a blockable offense on any namespace, but if it ends up being allowed under some circumstances then we at least need mandatory manual disclosures for any usage. Watermarks won't work / aren't obvious enough - we need something like {{LLM}} but self-imposed, and not tolerate unmarked usage. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    They will have to work at some point (e.g. ). Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Good news! Queen of Hearts is already working on that in 1325. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    See also WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment As a practical matter, users posting obvious LLM-generated content will typically be in violation of other rules (e.g. disruptive editing, sealioning), in which case their discussion comments absolutely should be ignored, discouraged, discounted, or (in severe cases) hatted. But a smaller group of users (e.g. people using LLMs as a translation tool) may be contributing productively, and we should seek to engage with, rather than discourage, them. So I don't see the need for a separate bright-line policy that risks erasing the need for discernment — in most cases, a friendly reply to the user's first LLM-like post (perhaps mentioning WP:LLM, which isn't a policy or guideline, but is nevertheless good advice) will be the right approach to work out what's really going on. Preimage (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, this is why I disagree with the BLP analogy above. There's no great risk/emergency to ban the discernment. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Those pesky sealion Chatbots are just the worst! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Some translation tools have LLM assistance, but the whole point of generative models is to create text far beyond what is found in the user's input, and the latter is clearly what this proposal covers. JoelleJay (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    That might be what the proposal intends to cover, but it is not what the proposal actually covers. The proposal all comments that have been generated by LLMs and/or AI, without qualification. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    70+% here understand the intention matches the language: generated by LLMs etc means "originated through generative AI tools rather than human thought", not "some kind of AI was involved in any step of the process". Even LLM translation tools don't actually create meaningful content where there wasn't any before; the generative AI aspect is only in the use of their vast training data to characterize the semantic context of your input in the form of mathematical relationships between tokens in an embedding space, and then match it with the collection of tokens most closely resembling it in the other language. There is, definitionally, a high level of creative constraint in what the translation output is since semantic preservation is required, something that is not true for text generation. JoelleJay (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Do you have any evidence for you assertion that 70% of respondents have interpreted the language in the same way as you? Reading the comments associated with the votes suggests that it's closer to 70% of respondents who don't agree with you. Even if you are correct, 30% of people reading a policy indicates the policy is badly worded. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think @Bugghost has summarized the respondent positions sufficiently below. I also think some portion of the opposers understand the proposal perfectly well and are just opposing anything that imposes participation standards. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    There will be many cases where it is not possible to say whether a piece of text does or does not contain "human thought" by observing the text, even if you know it was generated by an LLM. Statements like "originated through generative AI tools rather than human thought" will miss a large class of use cases, a class that will probably grow over the coming years. People work with LLMs to produce the output they require. It is often an iterative process by necessity because people and models make mistakes. An example of when "...rather than human thought" is not the case is when someone works with an LLM to solve something like a challenging technical problem where neither the person or the model has a satisfactory solution to hand. The context window means that, just like with human collaborators, a user can iterate towards a solution through dialog and testing, exploring the right part of the solution space. Human thought is not absent in these cases, it is present in the output, the result of a collaborative process. In these cases, something "far beyond what is found in the user's input" is the objective, it seems like a legitimate objective, but regardless, it will happen, and we won't be able to see it happening. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, but this proposal is supposed to apply to just the obvious cases and will hopefully discourage good-faith users from using LLMs to create comments wholesale in general. It can be updated as technology progresses. There's also no reason editors using LLMs to organize/validate their arguments, or as search engines for whatever, have to copy-paste their raw output, which is much more of a problem since it carries a much higher chance of hallucination. That some people who are especially familiar with how to optimize LLM use, or who pay for advanced LLM access, will be able to deceive other editors is not a reason to not formally proscribe wholesale comment generation. JoelleJay (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's reasonable. I can get behind the idea of handling obvious cases from a noise reduction perspective. But for me, the issue is noise swamping signal in discussions rather than how it was generated. I'm not sure we need a special rule for LLMs, maybe just a better way to implement the existing rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support "I Am Not A ChatBot; I Am A Free Misplaced Pages Editor!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: The original question was whether we should discount, ignore, strikethrough, or collapse chatbot-written content. I think there's a very big difference between these options, but most support !voters haven't mentioned which one(s) they support. That might make judging the consensus nearly impossible; as of now, supporters are the clear !majority, but supporters of what? — ypn^2 19:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    That means that supporters support the proposal that LLM-generated remarks in discussions should be discounted or ignored, and possibly removed in some manner. Not sure what the problem is here. Supporters support the things listed in the proposal - we don't need a prescribed 100% strict procedure, it just says that supporters would be happy with closers discounting, ignoring or under some circumstances deleting LLM content in discussions. BugGhost 🦗👻 19:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Doing something? At least the stage could be set for a follow on discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    More people have bolded "support" than other options, but very few of them have even attempted to refute the arguments against (and most that have attempted have done little more than handwaving or directly contradicting themselves), and multiple of those who have bolded "support" do not actually support what has been proposed when you read their comment. It's clear to me there is not going to be a consensus for anything other than "many editors dislike the idea of LLMs" from this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Arguing one point doesn't necessarily require having to refute every point the other side makes. I can concede that "some people use LLMs to improve their spelling and grammar" without changing my view overriding view that LLMs empower bad actors, time wasters and those with competence issues, with very little to offer wikipedia in exchange. Those that use LLMs legitimately to tidy up their alledgedly competent, insightful and self-sourced thoughts should just be encouraged to post the prompts themselves instead of churning it through an LLM first. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    If you want to completely ignore all the other arguments in opposition that's your choice, but don't expect closers to attach much weight to your opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, here's a list of the main opposition reasonings, with individual responses.
    What about translations? - Translations are not up for debate here, the topic here is very clearly generative AI, and attempts to say that this topic covers translations as well is incorrect. No support voters have said the propositions should discount translated text, just oppose voters who are trying to muddy the waters.
    What about accessibility? - This is could be a legitimate argument, but I haven't seen this substantiated anywhere other than handwaving "AI could help people!" arguments, which I would lump into the spelling and grammar argument I responded to above.
    Detection tools are inaccurate - This I very much agree with, and noted in my support and in many others as well. But there is no clause in the actual proposal wording that mandates the use of automated AI detection, and I assume the closer would note that.
    False positives - Any rule can have a potential for false positives, from wp:DUCK to close paraphrasing to NPA. We've just got to as a community become skilled at identifying genuine cases, just like we do for every other rule.
    LLM content should be taken at face value and see if it violates some other policy - hopelessly naive stance, and a massive timesink. Anyone who has had the misfortune of going on X/twitter in the last couple of years should know that AI is not just used as an aid for those who have trouble typing, it is mainly used to spam and disrupt discussion to fake opinions to astroturf political opinions. Anyone who knows how bad the sockpuppetry issue is around CTOPs should be absolutely terrified of when (not if) someone decides to launch a full throated wave of AI bots on Misplaced Pages discussions, because if we have to invididually sanction each one like a human then admins will literally have no time for anything else.
    I genuinely cannot comprehend how some people could see how AI is decimating the internet through spam, bots and disinformation and still think for even one second that we should open the door to it. BugGhost 🦗👻 10:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is no door. This is true for sockpuppetry too in my opinion. There can be a rule that claims there is a door, but it is more like a bead curtain. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    The Twitter stuff is not a good comparison here. Spam is already nukable on sight, mass disruptive bot edits are also nukable on sight, and it's unclear how static comments on Misplaced Pages would be the best venue to astroturf political opinions (most of which would be off-topic anyway, i.e., nukable on sight). I'd prefer if people didn't use ChatGPT to formulate their points, but if they're trying to formulate a real point then that isn't disruptive in the same way spam is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    it's unclear how static comments on Misplaced Pages would be the best venue to astroturf political opinions - by disrupting RFCs and talk page discussions a bad actor could definitely use chatgpt to astroturf. A large proportion of the world uses Misplaced Pages (directly or indirectly) to get information - it would be incredibly valuable thing to manipulate. My other point is that AI disruption bots (like the ones on twitter) would be indistinguishable from individuals using LLMs to "fix" spelling and grammar - by allowing one we make the other incredibly difficult to identify. How can you tell the difference between a bot and someone who just uses chatgpt for every comment? BugGhost 🦗👻 09:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    You can't. That's the point. This is kind of the whole idea of WP:AGF. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Those that use LLMs legitimately to tidy up their alledgedly competent, insightful and self-sourced thoughts should just be encouraged to post the prompts themselves instead of churning it through an LLM first.

    Social anxiety: Say "I" am a person unconfident in my writing. I imagine that when I post my raw language, I embarrass myself, and my credibility vanishes, while in the worst case nobody understands what I mean. As bad confidence is often built up through negative feedback, it's usually meritful or was meritful at some point for someone to seek outside help. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    While I sympathise with that hypothetical, Misplaced Pages isn't therapy and we shouldn't make decisions that do long-term harm to the project just because a hypothetical user feels emotionally dependent on a high tech spellchecker. I also think that in general wikipedia (myself included) is pretty relaxed about spelling and grammar in talk/WP space. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    We also shouldn't do long term harm to the project just because a few users are wedded to idea that LLMs are and will always be some sort of existential threat. The false positives that are an unavoidable feature of this proposal will do far more, and far longer, harm to the project than LLM-comments that are all either useful, harmless or collapseable/removable/ignorable at present. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    The false positives that are an unavoidable feature of this proposal will do far more, and far longer, harm to the project - the same could be said for WP:DUCK. The reason why its not a big problem for DUCK is because the confidence level is very high. Like I've said in multiple other comments, I don't think "AI detectors" should be trusted, and that the bar for deciding whether something was created via LLM should be very high. I 100% understand your opinion and the reasoning behind it, I just think we have differing views on how well the community at large can identify AI comments. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see how allowing shy yet avid users to contribute has done or will do long-term harm. The potential always outweighs rational evaluation of outcomes for those with anxiety, a condition that is not behaviorally disruptive. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    I definitely don't want to disallow shy yet avid users! I just don't think having a "using chatgpt to generate comments is allowed" rule is the right solution to that problem, considering the wider consequences. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Did you mean "... disallowed"? If so, I think we weigh-differently accessibility vs the quite low amount of AI trolling. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support strikethroughing or collapsing per everyone else. The opposes that mention ESL have my sympathy, but I am not sure how many of them are ESL themselves. Having learnt English as my second language, I have always found it easier to communicate when users are expressing things in their own way, not polished by some AI. I sympathise with the concerns and believe the right solution is to lower our community standards with respect to WP:CIR and similar (in terms of ESL communication) without risking hallucinations by AI. Soni (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the use of AI detection tools. False positive rates for AI-detection are dramatically higher for non-native English speakers. AI detection tools had a 5.1% false positive rate for human-written text from native English speakers, but human-written text from non-native English speakers had a 61.3% false positive rate. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Section break 5

  • Oppose - I'm sympathetic to concerns of abuse through automated mass-commenting, but this policy looks too black-and-white. Contributors may use LLMs for many reasons, including to fix the grammar, to convey their thoughts more clearly, or to adjust the tone for a more constructive discussion. As it stands, this policy may lead to dismissing good-faith AI-assisted comments, as well as false positives, without considering the context. Moreover, while mainstream chatbots are not designed to just mimic the human writing style, there are existing tools that can make AI-generated text more human-like, so this policy does not offer that much protection against maliciously automated contributions. Alenoach (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Others have cast doubt on the efficacy of tools capable of diagnosing LLM output, and I can't vouch for its being otherwise. If EEng's example of ChatBot output is representative—a lengthy assertion of notability without citing sources—that is something that could well be disregarded whether it came from a bot or not. If used carefully, AI can be useful as an aide-memoire (such as with a spell- or grammar-checker) or as a supplier of more felicitous expression than the editor is naturally capable of (e.g. Google Translate). Dhtwiki (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment / Oppose as written. It's not accurate that GPTZero is good at detecting AI-generated content. Citations (slightly out of date but there's little reason to think things have changed from 2023): https://www.aiweirdness.com/writing-like-a-robot/ , https://www.aiweirdness.com/dont-use-ai-detectors-for-anything-important/ . For those too busy to read, a few choice quotes: "the fact that it insisted even one excerpt is not by a human means that it's useless for detecting AI-generated text," and "Not only do AI detectors falsely flag human-written text as AI-written, the way in which they do it is biased" (citing https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02819 ). Disruptive, worthless content can already be hatted, and I'm not opposed to doing so. Editors should be sharply told to use their own words, and if not already written, an essay saying we'd rather have authentic if grammatically imperfect comments than AI-modulated ones would be helpful to cite at editors who offer up AI slop. But someone merely citing GPTZero is not convincing. GPTZero will almost surely misidentify genuine commentary as AI-generated. So fine with any sort of reminder that worthless content can be hatted, and fine with a reminder not to use ChatGPT for creating Misplaced Pages talk page posts, but not fine with any recommendations of LLM-detectors. SnowFire (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    @SnowFire, I can't tell if you also oppose the actual proposal, which is to permit hatting/striking obvious LLM-generated comments (using GPTzero is a very minor detail in JSS's background paragraph, not part of the proposal). JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    I support the proposal in so far as disruptive comments can already be hatted and that LLM-generated content is disruptive. I am strongly opposed to giving well-meaning but misguided editors a license to throw everyone's text into an AI-detector and hat the comments that score poorly. I don't think it was that minor a detail, and to the extent that detail is brought up, it should be as a reminder to use human judgment and forbid using alleged "AI detectors" instead. SnowFire (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support collapsing AI (specifically, Large language model) comments by behavioral analysis (most actually disruptive cases I've seen are pretty obvious) and not the use of inaccurate tools like ZeroGPT. I thinking hatting with the title "Editors suspect that this comment has been written by a Large language model" is appropriate. They take up SO much space in a discussion because they are also unnecessarily verbose, and talk on and on but never ever say something that even approaches having substance. Discussions are for human Misplaced Pages editors, we shouldn't have to use to sift through comments someone put 0 effort into and outsourced to a robot that writes using random numbers (that's a major part of how tools like ChatGPT work and maintain variety). If someone needs to use an AI chatbot to communicate because they don't understand English, then they are welcome to contribute to their native language Misplaced Pages, but I don't think they have the right to insist that we at enwiki spend our effort reading comments they but minimal effort into besides opening the ChatGPT website. If really needed, they can write in their native language and use a non-LLM tool like Google Translate. The use of non-LLM tools like Grammarly, Google Translate, etc. I think should still be OK for all editors, as they only work off comments that editors have written themselves. MolecularPilot 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Adding that enforcing people writing things in their own words will actually help EAL (English additional language) editors contribute here. I world with EAL people irl, and even people who have almost native proficiency with human-written content find AI output confusing because it says things in the most confusing, verbose ways using difficult sentence constructions and words. I've seen opposers in this discussion who maybe haven't had experience working with EAL people go "what about EAL people?", but really, I think this change will help them (open to being corrected by someone who is EAL, tho). MolecularPilot 05:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, with regards to oppose comments that discussions are not a vote so closes will ignore AI statements which don't have merit - unedited LLM statements are incredibly verbose and annoying, and clog up the discussion. Imagine multiple paragraphs, each with a heading, but all of which say almost nothing, they're borderline WP:BLUGEONy. Giving the power to HAT them will help genuine discussion contributors keep with the flow of human arguments and avoid scaring away potential discussion contributors who are intimidated or don't feel they have the time to read the piles of AI nonsense that fill the discussion. MolecularPilot 06:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support (removing) in general. How is this even a question? There is no case-by-case. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work to consider their output reliable without careful review. And which point, the editor could have written it themselves without inherent LLM bias. The point of any discussion is to provide analytical response based on the context, not have some tool regurgitate something from a training set that sounds good. And frankly, it is disrespectuful to make someone read "AI" responses. It is a tool and there is a place and time for it, but not in discussions in an encyclopedia. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 15:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I'm very interested in what you (the generic you) have to say about something. I'm not remotely interested in what a computer has to say about something. It provides no value to the discussion and is a waste of time. Useight (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Comments that provide no value to the discussion can already be hatted and ignored regardless of why they provide no value, without any of the false positive or false negatives inherent in this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, and that's fine for one-offs when a discussion goes off the rails or what-have-you. But we also have WP:NOTHERE for disruptive behavior, not working collaboratively, etc. I'm suggesting that using an AI to write indicates that you're not here to build the encyclopedia, you're here to have an AI build the encyclopedia. I reiterate my strong support for AI-written content to be removed, struck, collapsed, or hatted and would support further measures even beyond those. Useight (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    There are two sets of people described in your comment: those who use AI and those who are NOTHERE. The two sets overlap, but nowhere near sufficiently to declare that everybody in the former set are also in the latter set. If someone is NOTHERE they already can and should be blocked, regardless of how they evidence that. Being suspected of using AI (note that the proposal does not require proof) is not sufficient justification on its own to declare someone NOTHERE, per the many examples of constructive use of AI already noted in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    To reiterate, I don't believe that any use of AI here is constructive, thus using it is evidence of WP:NOTHERE, and, therefore, the set of people using AI to write is completely circumscribed within the set of people who are NOTHERE. Please note that I am referring to users who use AI-generated writing, not users suspected of using AI-generated writing. I won't be delving into how one determines whether someone is using AI or how accurate it is, as that is, to me, a separate discussion. This is the end of my opinion on the matter. Useight (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    You are entitled to your opinion of course, but as it is contradicted by the evidence of both multiple constructive uses and of the near-impossibility of reliably detecting LLM-generated text without false positives, I would expect the closer of this discussion to attach almost no weight to it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am ESL and use LLMs sometimes because of that. I feel like I don't fit into the NOTHERE category. It seems like you do not understand what they are or how they can be used constructively. PackMecEng (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, I understand. What you're talking about is no different from using Google Translate or asking a native-speaker to translate it. You, a human, came up with something you wanted to convey. You wrote that content in Language A. But you wanted to convey that message that you - a human - wrote, but now in Language B. So you had your human-written content translated to Language B. I have no qualms with this. It's your human-written content, expressed in Language B. My concern is with step 1 (coming up with something you want to convey), not step 2 (translating that content to another language). You write a paragraph for an article but it's in another language and you need the paragraph that you wrote translated? Fine by me. You ask an AI to write a paragraph for an article? Not fine by me. Again, I'm saying that there is no valid use case for AI-written content. Useight (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    It seems very likely that there will be valid use cases for AI-written content if the objective is maximizing quality and minimizing errors. Research like this demonstrate that there will likely be cases where machines outperform humans in specific Misplaced Pages domains, and soon. But I think that is an entirely different question than potential misuse of LLMs in consensus related discussions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    But your vote and the proposed above makes not distinction there. Which is the main issue. Also not to be pedantic but every prompted to a LLM is filled out by a human looking to convey a message. Every time someone hits publish on something here it is that person confirming that is what they are saying. So how do we in practice implement what you suggest? Because without a method better than vibes it's worthless. PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    The proposal specifies content generated by LLMs, which has a specific meaning in the context of generative AI. If a prompt itself conveys a meaningful, supported opinion, why not just post that instead? The problem comes when the LLM adds more information than was provided, which is the whole point of generative models. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes in principle. But in practice, LLM detectors are not foolproof, and there are valid reasons to sometimes use an LLM, for example to copyedit. I have used Grammarly before and have even used the Microsoft Editor, and while they aren't powered by LLMs, LLMs are a tool that need to be used appropriately on Misplaced Pages. Awesome Aasim 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Using LLM to reply to editors is lazy and disrespectful of fellow editor's time and brainpower. In the context of AFD, it is particularly egregious since an LLM can't really read the article, read sources, or follow our notability guidelines. By the way. gptzero and other such tools are very good at detecting this. I don't think this is correct at all. I believe the false positive for AI detectors is quite high. High enough that I would recommend not using AI detectors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Question @Just Step Sideways: Since there appears to be a clear consensus against the AI-detectors part, would you like to strike that from the background? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. AI generated text should be removed outright. If you aren't willing to put the work into doing your own writing then you definitely haven't actually thought deeply about the matter at hand. User1042💬✒️ 14:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    This comment is rather ironic given that it's very clear you haven't thought deeply about the matter at hand, because if you had then you'd realise that it's actually a whole lot more complicated than that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thryduulf I don't think this reply is particular helpful, and it comes off as slightly combative. It's also by my count your 24th comment on this RFC. BugGhost 🦗👻 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    I recognize that AI paraphrased or edited is not problematic in the same ways as text generated outright by an AI. I only meant to address the core issue at steak, content whose first draft was written by an AI system. User1042💬✒️ 22:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose @Just Step Sideways: The nomination's 2nd para run through https://www.zerogpt.com/ gives "11.39% AI GPT*":

    I've recently come across several users in AFD discussions that are using LLMs to generate their remarks there. As many of you are aware, gptzero and other such tools are very good at detecting this. I don't feel like any of us signed up for participating in discussions where some of the users are not using their own words but rather letting technology do it for them. Discussions are supposed to be between human editors. If you can't make a coherent argument on your own, you are not competent to be participating in the discussion. I would therefore propose that LLM-generated remarks in discussions should be discounted or ignored, and possibly removed in some manner

    The nomination's linked https://gptzero.me/ site previously advertised https://undetectable.ai/ , wherewith how will we deal? Imagine the nomination was at AFD. What should be the response to LLM accusations against the highlighted sentence? 172.97.141.219 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support with the caveat that our ability to deal with the issue goes only as far as we can accurately identify the issue (this appears to have been an issue raised across a number of the previous comments, both support and oppose, but I think it bears restating because we're approaching this from a number of different angles and its IMO the most important point regardless of what conclusions you draw from it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support, limited implementation. Misplaced Pages is written by volunteer editors, says our front page. This is who we are, and our writing is what Misplaced Pages is. It's true that LLM-created text can be difficult to identify, so this may be a bit of a moving target, and we should be conservative in what we remove—but I'm sure at this point we've all run across cases (whether here or elsewhere in our digital lives) where someone copy/pastes some text that includes "Is there anything else I can help you with?" at the end, or other blatant tells. This content should be deleted without hesitation. Retswerb (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support in concept, questions over implementation — I concur with Dronebogus that users who rely on LLMs should not edit English Misplaced Pages. It is not a significant barrier for users to use other means of communication, including online translators, rather than artificial intelligence. How can an artificial intelligence tool argue properly? However, I question how this will work in practice without an unacceptable degree of error. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Many, possibly most, online translators use artificial intelligence based on LLMs these days. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is a difference between translating words you wrote in one language into English and using an LLM to write a comment for you. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Neither your comment nor the original proposal make any such distinction. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well since people keep bringing this up as a semi-strawman: no I don’t support banning machine translation, not that I encourage using it (once again, if you aren’t competent in English please don’t edit here) Dronebogus (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    LLMs are incredible at translating, and many online translators already incorporate them, including Google Translate. Accomodating LLMs is an easy way to support the avid not only the ESL but also the avid but shy. It has way more benefits than the unseen-to-me amount of AI trolling that isn't already collapse-on-sight. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Google Translate uses the same transformer architecture that LLMs are built around, and uses e.g. PaLM to develop more language support (through training that enables zero-shot capabilities) and for larger-scale specialized translation tasks performed through the Google Cloud "adaptive translation" API, but it does not incorporate LLMs into translating your everyday text input, which still relies on NMTs. And even for the API features, the core constraint of matching input rather than generating content is still retained (obviously it would be very bad for a translation tool to insert material not found in the original text!). LLMs might be good for translation because they are better at evaluating semantic meaning and detecting context and nuance, but again, the generative part that is key to this proposal is not present. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    PaLM (Pathways Language Model) is a 540 billion-parameter transformer-based large language model (LLM) developed by Google AI. If you meant something about how reschlmunking the outputs of an LLM or using quite similar architecture is not really incorporating the LLM, I believe we would be approaching Ship of Theseus levels of recombination, to which my answer is it is the same ship.

    obviously it would be very bad for a translation tool to insert material not found in the original text!

    That happens! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    PaLM2 is not used in the consumer app (Google Translate), it's used for research. Google Translate just uses non-generative NMTs to map input to its closes cognate in the target language. JoelleJay (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, is the NMT really that different enough to not be classified as an LLM? IIRC the definition of an LLM is something that outputs by predicting one-by-one what the next word/"token" should be, and an LLM I asked agreed that NMTs satisfy the definition of a generative LLM, though I think you're the expert here. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Google Translate's NMT hits different enough to speak English much less naturally than ChatGPT 4o. I don't consider it a LLM, because the param count is 380M not 1.8T.
    the definition of an LLM is something that outputs by predicting one-by-one what the next word/"token" should be No, that def would fit ancient RNN tech too. 172.97.141.219 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Even if you don’t consider it L, I do, and many sources cited by the article do. Since we’ll have such contesting during enforcement, it’s better to find a way that precludes such controversy. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    NMTs, LLMs, and the text-creation functionality of LLMs are fundamentally different in the context of this discussion, which is about content generated through generative AI. NMTs specifically for translation: they are trained on parallel corpora and their output is optimized to match the input as precisely as possible, not to create novel text. LLMs have different training, including way more massive corpora, and were designed specifically to create novel text. One of the applications of LLMs may be translation (though currently it's too computationally intensive to run them for standard consumer purposes), by virtue of their being very good at determining semantic meaning, but even if/when they do become mainstream translation tools what they'll be used for is still not generative when it comes to translation output. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    How will you differentiate between the use of LLM for copyediting and the use of LLM for generation? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    The proposal is for hatting obvious cases of LLM-generated comments. Someone who just uses an LLM to copyedit will still have written the content themselves and presumably their output would not have the obvious tells of generative AI. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not when I tried to use it. Quantitatively, GPTZero went from 15% human to 100% AI for me despite the copyedits only changing 14 words. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think there is consensus that GPTZero is not usable, even for obvious cases. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, but being as far as 100% means people will also probably think the rewrite ChatGPT-generated. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Does it really mean that? All you've demonstrated is that GPTZero has false positives, which is exactly why its use here was discouraged. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    My subjective evaluation of what I got copyediting from ChatGPT was that it sounded like ChatGPT. I used GPTZero to get a number. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    My guess is that the copyediting went beyond what most people would actually call "copyediting". JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    It changed only 14 words across two paragraphs and still retained the same meaning in a way that I would describe it as copyediting. Such levels of change are what those lacking confidence in tone would probably seek anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  • On one hand, AI slop is a plague on humanity and obvious LLM output should definitely be disregarded when evaluating consensus. On the other hand, I feel like existing policy covers this just fine, and any experienced closer will lend greater weight to actual policy-based arguments, and discount anything that is just parroting jargon. WindTempos they 23:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but we cannot rely on any specific tools because none are accurate enough for our needs. Whenever I see a blatant ChatGPT-generated !vote, I ignore it. They're invariably poorly reasoned and based on surface-level concepts rather than anything specific to the issue being discussed. If someone is using AI to create their arguments for them, it means they have no actual argument besides WP:ILIKEIT and are looking for arguments that support their desired result rather than coming up with a result based on the merits. Also, toasters do not get to have an opinion. The Wordsmith 05:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For creating unnecessary drama. First of, the "detector" of the AI bot is not reliable, or at least the reliability of the tool itself is still questionable. If the tool to detect LLM itself is unreliable, how can one reliably point out which one is LLM and which one is not? We got multiple tools that claimed to be able to detect LLM as well. Which one should we trust? Should we be elevating one tool over the others? Have there been any research that showed that the "picked" tool is the most reliable? Second, not all LLMs are dangerous. We shouldn't treat LLM as a virus that will somehow take over the Internet or something. Some editors use LLM to smooth out their grammar and sentences and fix up errors, and there is nothing wrong with that. I understand that banning obvious LLM text per WP:DUCK are good, but totally banning them is plain wrong. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 22:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    @SunDawn, the proposal is to permit editors to collapse/strike obvious LLM text, not to "ban LLM totally". If LLM use is imperceptible, like for tweaking grammar, it's not going to be affected. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support with some kind of caveat about not relying on faulty tools or presuming that something is LLM without evidence or admission, based on the following reasons:
    1. We have stricter rules around semi-automated editing (rollback, AutoWikiBrowser, etc.) and even stricter rules around fully automated bot editing. These cleanup edits are widely accepted as positive, but there is still the concern about an overwhelming amount of bad edits to wade through and/or fix. A form of that concern is relevant here. Someone could reply to every post in this discussion in just a minute or so without ever reading anything. That's inherently disruptive.
    2. Nobody who is voting "oppose" is using an LLM to cast that vote. The LLM comments have been left by those supporting to make a point about how problematic they are for discussions like this. I think this reflects, even among oppose voters, a developing community consensus that LLM comments will be disregarded.
    3. If the rule in practice is to disregard LLM comments, not writing that rule down does not stop it from being the rule, consensus, or a community norm. It just makes the rule less obvious and less clear.
    4. It's disrespectful for an editor to ask someone to spend their time reading a comment if they couldn't be bothered to spend any time writing it, and therefore a violation of the policy Misplaced Pages:Civility, "treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project."
  • Also, I don't read the proposal as a ban on machine translation in any way. Rjj (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Rjjiii, above @Dilettante said their !vote was created by LLM. JoelleJay (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I am strongly opposed to banning or ignoring LLM-made talk page comments just because they are LLM-made. I'm not a big fan of LLMs at all; they are actually useful only for some certain things, very few of which are directly relevant to contributing to Misplaced Pages in English or in any other language. However, some of those things are useful for this, at least for some humans, and I don't want to see these humans being kicked out of the English Misplaced Pages. I already witnessed several cases in which people whose first language is not English tried writing talk page responses in the English Misplaced Pages, used an LLM to improve their writing style, and got their responses ignored only because they used an LLM. In all those cases, I had strong reasons to be certain that they were real humans, that they meant what they wrote, and that they did it all in good faith. Please don't say that anyone who wants to contribute to the English Wikipeida should, in the first place, know English well enough to write a coherent talk page comment without LLM assistance; occasionally, I kind of wish that it was like that myself, but then I recall that the world is more complicated and interesting than that. Uses of LLMs that help the English Misplaced Pages be more inclusive for good-faith people are good. Of course, defining what good faith means is complicated, but using an LLM is not, by itself, a sign of bad faith. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Those concerned about their English should use translation software rather than an llm. Both might alter the meaning to some extent, but only one will make things up. (It's also not a sure assumption that llm text is coherent talkpage text.) CMD (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CMD The dividing line between translation software and LLM is already blurry and will soon disappear. It's also rare that translation software results in coherent talkpage text, unless it's relying on some (primitive) form of LLM. So if we're going to outlaw LLMs, we would need to outlaw any form of translation software, and possibly any text-to-speech software as well. ypn^2 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The distinctions have already been covered above, and no we would not have to. There is an obvious difference between software intended to translate and software intended to generate novel text, and users are likely to continue to treat those differently. CMD (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support. LLM-generated content has no place anywhere on the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to the proposal as written. Misplaced Pages already suffers from being stuck in a 2001 mindset and a refusal to move with the technological times. Anyone who remembers most Wikipedians' visceral reaction to FLOW and VisualEditor when they were first introduced will observe a striking similarity. Yes, those projects had serious problems, as do LLM-generated comments. But AI is the future, and this attitude of "Move slowly to avoid changing things" will ultimately lead Misplaced Pages the way of Encyclopædia Britannica. Our discussion needs to be how best to change, not how to avoid to change. ypn^2 23:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The main objection to VE and a major objection to FLOW was the developers' insistence on transforming Wikitext to HTML for editing and then transforming that back to Wikitext. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    True. Then, as now, there were many valid objections. But IIRC, there was limited discussion of "Let's figure out a better way to improve", and lots of "Everything is fine; don't change anything, ever." That attitude concerns me. ypn^2 01:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not even slightly swayed by these "it'll be too hard to figure out" and "mistakes could be made" and "we can't be 100% certain" sorts of arguments. That's true of everything around here, and its why we have an admins-must-earn-a-boatload-of-community-trust system, and a system of review/appeal of decisions they (or of course non-admin closers) make, and a consensus-based decisionmaking system more broadly. JoelleJay has it exactly right: having a policy that permits closers to discount apparently-LLM-generated contributions will discourage good-faith editors from using LLMs irresponsibly and perhaps motivate bad-faith editors to edit the raw output to appear more human, which would at least involve some degree of effort and engagement with their "own" arguments. And as pointed out by some others, the "it'll hurt non-native-English speakers" nonsense is, well, nonsense; translation is a different and unrelated process (though LLMs can perform it to some extent), of remapping one's own material onto another language.

    I'm also not in any way convinved by the "people poor at writing and other cognitive tasks needs the LLM to help them here" angle, because WP:COMPETENCE is required. This is work (albeit volunteer work), it is WP:NOT a game, a social-media playground, a get-my-ideas-out-there soapbox, or a place to learn how to interact e-socially or pick up remedial writing skills, nor a venue for practicing one's argument techiques. It's an encyclopedia, being built by people who – to be productive contributors instead of a draining burden on the entire community – must have: solid reasoning habits, great judgement (especially in assessing reliability of claims and the sources making them), excellent writing skills of a higherly particularized sort, a high level of fluency in this specific language (in multiple registers), and a human-judgment ability to understand our thick web of policies, guidelines, procedures, and often unwritten norms, and how they all interact, in a specific contextual way that may vary greatly by context. None of these is optional. An LLM cannot do any of them adequately (not even write well; their material sticks out like a sore thumb, and after a while you can even tell which LLM produced the material by its habitual but dinstictive crappy approach to simulating human thought and language).

    In short, if you need an LLM to give what you think is meaningful input into a decision-making process on Misplaced Pages (much less to generate mainspace content for the public), then you need to go find something else to do, something that fits your skills and abilities. Saying this so plainly will probably upset someone, but so it goes. I have a rep for "not suffering fools lightly" and "being annoying but correct"; I can live with that if it gets the right decisions made and the work advanced.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    The problem with all that is that we already have a policy that allows the hatting or removal of comments that are actually problematic because of their content (which are the only ones that we should be removing) without regard for whether it was or was not written by LLM. Everything that actually should be removed can be removed already. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    People who have good reading skills, great judgement, and solid reasoning habits enough to find problems in existing articles don't necessarily have great interpersonal writing/communication skills or the confidence. Meanwhile, for all LLM is bad at, it is very good at diluting everything you say to become dry, dispassionate, and thus inoffensive. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    ok, I agree with @SMcCandlish, so therefore my vote is Support. Sm8900 (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Sure I have questions about detection, but I don't think it means we shouldn't have a policy that explicitly states that it should not be used (and can be ignored/hatted if it is). Judging solely based on content (and no wp:bludgeoning, etc.) is unsustainable IMO. It would mean taking every wall of text seriously until it's clear that the content is unhelpful, and LLMs are very good at churning out plausible-sounding bullshit. It wastes everyone's time. If cognitive impairments or ESL issues make it hard to contribute, try voice-to-text, old-school translation software, or some other aid. LLMs aren't really you.--MattMauler (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I agree with the sentiment of the request, I am at a loss to see how we can identify LLM generated comments in a consistent manner that can scale. Yes, it might be easier to identify egregious copy paste of wall of text, but, anything other than that might be hard to detect. Our options are:
  1. Robust tooling to detect LLM generated text, with acceptably low levels of false positives. Somewhat similar to what Earwig does for Copyvios. But, someone needs to build it and host it on WMTools or at a similar location.
  2. Self certification by editors. Every edit / publish dialogbox should have a checkbox for "Is this text LLM generated" with y/n optionality.
  3. Editors playing a vigilante role in reading the text and making a personal call on other editors' text. Obviously this is least preferred.
These are my starting views. Ktin (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as it's impossible to enforce. Also LLMs are a valid and useful accessibility tool. – Anne drew 05:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Bonus suggestion!: I'm curious what Wikipedians think about this so let's try this. Many of the comments here discuss the impracticality of determining whether a user's comments are AI generated (i.e. gptzero isn't perfect), and many give valid arguments for using LLMs (i.e. ESL). If an argument is suspected to be written by LLM, I propose that editors should examine the user. Take a look at their listed contributions, and if they seem to have a habit of using AI, open a discussion on their talk page. If the user has a habit of using AI and doesn't recognize the inherent problems and refuses to change, this can be brought to the administrators' noticeboard for potential blocks. If (and only if) the person is blocked for using AI, their comments can be ignored. Or just ask ChatGPT to summarize them for you lol guninvalid (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support the removal of any obvious, low effort AI-generated post. I recently came across a user posting multiple such examples. When called out on it they blew up and posted a comment saying, amongst other things "HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes, some of it might be. Because I don't have time to argue with, in my humble opinion, stupid PHOQUING people." and "YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU are assuming bath faith in me."
They were later blocked as a sock evading a global lock.
Currently it is too easy for trolls to game WP:AGF and AI to waste people's time arguing with their bot-generated replies. Using AI to write your posts for you makes it difficult for others to assume good faith. I am ok with obvious exceptions like a non-native speaker using AI to help them articulate their point. Photos of Japan (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Redundant proposal, confusingly worded, with no support, and not even any further discussion interest in 10 days.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Whereas many editors, including me, have cited problems with accuracy in regards to existing tools such as ZeroGPT, I propose that remarks that are blatently generated by a LLM or similar automated system should be discounted/removed/collapsed/hidden. ThatIPEditor 10:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as completely unnecessary and far too prone to error per the above discussion. Any comment that is good (on topic, relevant, etc) should be considered by the closer regardless of whether it was made with LLM-input of any sort or not. Any comment that is bad (off-topic, irrelevant, etc) should be ignored by the closer regardless of whether it was made with LLM-input of any sort or not. Any comment that is both bad and disruptive (e.g. by being excessively long, completely irrelevant, bludgeoning, etc) should be removed and/or hatted as appropriate, regardless of whether it was made with LLM-input of any sort. The good thing is that this is already policy so we don't need to call out LLMs specifically, and indeed doing so is likely to be disruptive in cases where human-written comments are misidentified as being LLM-written (which will happen, regardless of whether tools are used). Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this proposal is not really necessary. I support it, but that is because it is functionally identical to the one directly above it, which I also supported. This should probably be hatted. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
What does blatantly generated mean? Does you mean only where the remark is signed with "I, Chatbot", or anything that appears to be LLM-style? I don't think there's much in between. ypn^2 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Procedural close per BugGhost. I'd hat this myself, but I don't think that'd be appropriate since it's only the two of us who have expressed that this proposal is basically an exact clone. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should first language be included in the infobox for historical figures?

Is there a guideline concerning this? "Infobox royalty" apparently has this parameter, but I haven't found a single article that actually uses it. Many articles don't mention the subject's spoken languages at all. In my view, somebody's first language (L1) is just a very basic and useful piece of information, especially for historical figures. This would be helpful in cases where the ruling elites spoke a completely different language from the rest of the country (e.g., High Medieval England or early Qing dynasty China). These things are not always obvious to readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. Including it would be a nice and easy way to demonstrate historical language shifts that otherwise might be overlooked. Perhaps it could also bring visibility to historical linguistic diversity and language groups that have since disappeared. Where there are multiple first languages, they could all be listed. And in cases where a person's first language remains unclear, it could simply be left out. Kalapulla123 (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I agree this is a good use of infobox space:
  • incongruences between elite spoken languages and popular spoken languages can't be shown with a single parameter (the language spoken by the oppressed would have to be included as well)
  • for many people this would be unverifiable (already mentioned in OP) and / or contentious (people living during a language transition)
  • sometimes L2 skills will be more than adequate to communicate with subject population when called for
  • in cases where the subject's L1 matches their polity's (i.e. most cases), the parameter would feel like unnecessary clutter
  • prose description seems adequate
However, this is just my opinion, and the venue of discussion should probably be Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility or similar, rather than VPP. Folly Mox (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this might be sufficiently important pretty much exclusively for writers where the language they wrote in is not the "obvious" one for their nationality. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
It might also be important for politicians (and similar figures?) in countries where language is a politically-important subject, e.g. Belgium. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
This seems like a bad idea. Let's take a case where language spoken by a royal was very relevant: Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. When he became King of Castile as a teenager, he only really spoke Flemish and didn't speak Castilian Spanish, and needless to say trusted the advisors he could actually talk with (i.e. Flemish / Dutch ones he brought with him). He also then immediately skipped out of Castile to go to proto-Germany to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. This ended up causing a rebellion (Revolt of the Comuneros) which was at least partially justified by Castilian nationalism, and partially by annoyed Castilian elites who wanted cushy government jobs. So language-of-royal was relevant. But... the Infobox is for the person as a whole. Charles came back to Castile and spent a stretch of 10 years there and eventually learned rather good Castilian and largely assuaged the elite, at least. He was king of Spain for forty years. So it would seem rather petty to harp on the fact his first language wasn't Castilian in the Infobox, when he certainly did speak it later and through most of his reign, even if not his first few years when he was still basically a kid. SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
See below on this. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
SnowFire's fascinating anecdote shows that this information is not appropriate for infoboxes but rather should be described in prose in the body of the article where the subtleties can be explained to the readers. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
No, it shows that it's not appropriate for that infobox, and therefore that it is not suitable for all infoboxes where it is plausibly relevant. It shows nothing about whether it is or is not appropriate for other infoboxes: the plural of anecdote is not data. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
But it kind of is here? I picked this example as maybe one of the most obviously relevant cases. Most royals failing to speak the right language don't have this trait linked with a literal war in reliable sources! But if inclusion of this piece of information in an Infobox is still problematic in this case, how could it possibly be relevant in the 99.9% cases of lesser importance? The Infobox isn't for every single true fact. SnowFire (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
It isn't suitable for this infobox not because of a lack of importance, but because stating a single first language would be misleading. There exists the very real possibility of cases where it is both important and simple. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Could you (or anyone else in favor of the proposal) identify 5 biographies where this information is both useful to readers and clearly backed by reliable sources? signed, Rosguill 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Charles V claimed to have spoken Italian to women, French to men, Spanish to God, and German to his horse. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, this is just nonsense! Charles V was raised speaking French, which was the language of his aunt's court, although in the Dutch-speaking Mechelen. All his personal letters use French. He only began to be taught Dutch when he was 14, & may never have been much good at it (or Spanish or German). Contrary to the famous anecdote, which is rather late and dubious ("Spanish to God....German to my horse") he seems to have been a rather poor linguist, which was indeed awkward at times. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
(This is a bit off-topic, but "nonsense" is too harsh. I'm familiar that he spoke "French" too, yes, although my understanding was that he did speak "Flemish", i.e. the local Dutch-inflected speech, too? And neither 1500-era French nor Dutch were exactly standardized, so I left it as "Flemish" above for simplicity. If his Dutch was worse than I thought, sure, doesn't really affect the point made, though, which was that his Castilian was non-existent at first. As far as his later understanding of Spanish, his capacity was clearly enough - at the very least I've seen sources say he made it work and it was enough to stave off further discontent from the nobility. Take it up with the authors of the sources, not me.). SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
There's a difference between "simplicity" and just being wrong! You should try reading the sources, with which I have no issue. And his ministers were also either native Francophones, like Cardinal Granvelle and his father Nicolas Perrenot de Granvelle (both from Besançon, now in eastern France), or could speak it well; the Burgundian elite had been Francophone for a long time. The backwash from all this remains a somewhat sensitive issue in Belgium, even now. And Charles V was not "King of Spain" (a title he avoided using) for 40 years at all; only after his mother died in 1555 (a year before him) did he become unarguably King of Castile. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
It may not be appropriate for many articles, but it surely is for some. For example, when I told her that England had had kings whose first language was German, someone asked me the other day how many. It would be good to have a quick way of looking up the 18th century Georges to find out. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the problem is that people might make assumptions. I would check before saying that George I and George II spoke German as their first language and not French. Languages spoken is probably more useful than birth language, but the list might be incomplete. There is also competing information about George I, and he is an English King, so he has been better researched and documented compared to other historical figures.
I agree that this is important when language is the basis of community identity, such as in Belgian. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Ummmm… no. People I disagree with™️ use “infobox bloat” as a boogeyman in arguments about infoboxes. But this is infobox bloat. Even those celebrity/anime character things that tell you shoe size, pinky length and blood type wouldn’t include this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there needs to be any central policy on this. It could be relevant to include this information for someone, perhaps... maybe... However, infoboxes work best when they contain uncontroversial at-a-glance facts that don't need a bunch of nuance and context to understand. For the example of Charles V, maybe his first language is significant, but putting it in the infobox (where the accompanying story cannot fit) would be a confusing unexplained factoid. Like, maybe once upon a time there was a notable person whose life turned on the fact that they were left-handed. That could be a great bit of content for the main article, but putting handedness in the infobox would be odd. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Infobox baseball biography}} includes handedness, and nobody finds that odd content for an infobox.
{{infobox royalty}} includes the option for up to five native languages, though the OP says it seems to be unused in practice. {{Infobox writer}} has a |language= parameter, and it would be surprising if this were unused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Baseball seems to be a good example of where handedness is routinely covered, and easily consumable at a glance without needing further explanation. The scenario where I don't think handedness (or first language) makes sense is when it is a uniquely interesting aspect of that individual's life, because almost by definition there's a story there which the infobox can't tell. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think L1 can be determined for most historical figures without a hefty dose of OR. If you look at my Babel boxes, you'll see that I, as a living human being with all the information about my own life, could not tell you what my own "L1" is. The historical figures for whom this would be relevant mostly spoke many more languages than I do, and without a time machine it would be nigh impossible to say which language they learned first. This isn't even clear for the Qing emperors – I am fairly certain that they all spoke (Mandarin) Chinese very well, and our article never says what language they spoke. Puyi even states that he never spoke Manchu. Adding this parameter would also inflame existing debates across the encyclopedia about ethnonationalism (e.g. Nicola Tesla) and infobox bloat. Toadspike 21:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
As with every bit of information in every infobox, if it cannot be reliably sourced it does not go in, regardless of how important it is or isn't. There are plenty of examples of people whose first language is reported in reliable sources, I just did an internal source for "first language was" and on the first page of results found sourced mentions of first language at Danny Driver, Cleopatra, Ruthanne Lum McCunn, Nina Fedoroff, Jason Derulo, Henry Taube and Tom Segev, and an unsourced but plausible mention at Dean Martin. The article strongly suggests that her first language is an important part of Cleopatra's biography such that putting it in the infobox would be justifiable. I am not familiar enough with any of the others to have an opinion on whether it merits an infobox mention there, I'm simply reporting that there are many articles where first language is reliably sourced and a mention is deemed DUE. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I have been wondering since this conversation opened how far back the concept of an L1 language, or perhaps the most colloquial first language, can be pushed. Our article doesn't have anything on the history of the concept. CMD (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I suspect the concept is pretty ancient, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn it arose around the same time as diplomacy between groups of people with different first languages. The note about it at Cleopatra certainly suggests it was already a well-established concept in her era (1st century BCE). Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The concept of different social strata speaking different languages is old, but I'm not sure whether they viewed learning languages the same way we do. It's certainly possible, and perhaps it happened in some areas at some times, but I hesitate to assume it's the case for every historical person with an infobox. CMD (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly not going to be appropriate for the infobox of every historical person, as is true for (nearly?) every parameter. The questions here are whether it is appropriate in any cases, and if so in enough cases to justify having it as a parameter (how many is enough? I'd say a few dozen at minimum, ideally more). I think the answer the first question is "yes". The second question hasn't been answered yet, and I don't think we have enough information here yet to answer it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The question is not whether it is appropriate in any cases; the question is whether it is worth the trouble. I guarantee that this would lead to many vicious debates, despite being in most cases an irrelevant and unverifiable factoid based on inappropriate ABOUTSELF. This is the same reason we have MOS:ETHNICITY/NATIONALITY. Toadspike 07:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Nah. If this were "a very basic and useful piece of information" then we would already be deploying it site wide, so it obviously is not. In the vast majority of cases, it would involve intolerable WP:OR or even just guessing masquerading as facts. We do not know for certain that someone born in France had French as their first/native/home language. I have close relatives in the US, in a largely English-speaking part of the US, whose first language is Spanish. For historical figures it would get even more ridiculous, since even our conceptions of languages today as, e.g., "German" and "French" and "Spanish" and "Japanese", is a bit fictive and is certainly not historically accurate, because multiple languages were (and still are, actually) spoken in these places. We would have no way to ascertain which was used originally or most natively for the average historical figure. Beyond a certain comparatively recent point, most linguistics is reconstruction (i.e. educated guesswork; if there's not a substantial corpus of surviving written material we cannot be sure. That matters a lot for figures like Genghis Khan and King Bridei I of the Picts. Finally, it really is just trivia in the vast majority of cases. What a biographical figure's first/primary/home/most-fluent/most-frequently-used language (and some of those might not be the same since all of them can change over time other than "first") is something that could be included when certain from RS, but it's not lead- or infobox-worthy in most cases, unless it pertains directly the subject's notability (e.g. as a writer) and also isn't already implicit from other details like nationality.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Restrict new users from crosswiki uploading files to Commons

I created this Phabricator ticket (phab:T370598) in July of this year, figuring that consensus to restrict non-confirmed users from crosswiki uploading files to Commons is implied. Well, consensus already agreed at Commons in response to the WMF study on crosswiki uploading. I created an attempted Wish at Meta-wiki, which was then rejected, i.e. "archived", as policy-related and requir alignment across various wikis to implement such a policy. Now I'm starting this thread, thinking that the consensus here would already or implicitly support such restriction, but I can stand corrected about the outcome here. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC); corrected, 08:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Support. I am not sure why this relies on alignment across wikis, those on Commons are best placed to know what is making it to Commons. The change would have little to no impact on en.wiki. If there is an impact, it would presumably be less cleaning up of presumably fair use files migrated to Commons that need to be fixed here. That said, if there needs to be consensus, then obviously support. We shouldn't need months of bureaucracy for this. CMD (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, I don't know that my input really counts as new consensus because I said this at the time, but the problem is much worse than what the study suggests as we are still finding spam, copyvios, unusable selfies and other speedy-deletable uploads from the timespan audited.
Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Question(s) stemming from undiscussed move

"AIM-174 air-to-air missile" was moved without discussion to "AIM-174B." Consensus was reached RE: the removal of "air-to-air missile," but no consensus was reached regarding the addition or removal of the "B." After a no-consensus RM close (which should have brought us back to the original title, sans agreed-upon unneeded additional disambiguator, in my opinion), I requested the discussion be re-opened, per pre-MRV policy. (TO BE CLEAR; I should have, at this time, requested immediate reversion. However, I did not want to be impolite or pushy) The original closer -- Asukite (who found for "no consensus") was concerned they had become "too involved" in the process and requested another closer. Said closer immediately found consensus for "AIM-174B." I pressed-on to a MRV, where an additional "no consensus" (to overturn) finding was issued. As Bobby Cohn pointed-out during the move review, "I take issue with the participating mover's interpretation of policy 'Unfortunately for you, a no consensus decision will result in this article staying here' in the RM, and would instead endorse your idea that aligns with policy, that a no consensus would take us back the original title, sans extra disambiguatotr."

The issues, as I see them, are as-follows:

WP:RMUM: The move from “AIM-174 air-to-air missile” to “AIM-174B” was conducted without discussion, and I maintain all post-move discussions have achieved "no consensus."

Burden of Proof: The onus should be on the mover of the undiscussed title to justify their change, not on others to defend the original title. I refrained from reverting prior to initiating the RM process out of politeness, which should not shift the burden of proof onto me.

Precedent: I am concerned with the precedent. Undiscussed moves may be brute-forced into acceptance even if "no consensus" or a very slim consensus (WP:NOTAVOTE) is found?

Argument in-favor of "AIM-174:" See the aforementioned RM for arguments in-favor and against. However, I would like to make it clear that I was the only person arguing WP. Those in-favor of "174B" were seemingly disagreeing with my WP arguments, but not offering their own in-support of the inclusion of "B." That said, my primary WP-based argument is likely WP:CONSISTENT; ALL U.S. air-to-air-missiles use the base model as their article title. See: AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-26 Falcon, AIM-47 Falcon, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-68 Big Q, AIM-82, AIM-95 Agile, AIM-97 Seekbat, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132, AIM-152 AAAM, AIM-260. 174"B" is unnecessary while violating consistency.

Do my policy contentions hold any weight? Or am I mad? Do I have any path forward, here?

TO BE CLEAR, I am not alleging bad faith on behalf of anyone, and I am extremely grateful to all those who have been involved, particularly the RM closer that I mentioned, as well as the MRV closer, ModernDayTrilobite. I would like to make it clear that this isn't simply a case of a MRV 'not going my way.' Again, I am concerned w/ the precedent and with the onus having been shifted to me for months. I also apologize for the delay in getting this here; I originally stopped-over at the DRN but Robert McClenon kindly suggested I instead post here.MWFwiki (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Considering changes? Do you think you understand why that rule exists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with it. It seemingly supports my argument(s), so...? Is there a particular reason you're speaking in quasi-riddles? MWFwiki (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
If yours is the title favored by the policy, then none of this explanation makes any difference. You just demand that it be put back to the title favored by the policy, and editors will usually go along with it. (It sometimes requires spelling out the policy in detail, but ultimately, most people want to comply with the policy.)
If yours is not the title favored by the policy, then the people on the other 'side' are going to stand on policy when you ask to move it, so you'd probably have to get the policy changed to 'win'. If you want to pursue that, you will need to understand why the rule is set this way, so that you have a chance of making a convincing argument. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I think several individuals involved in this process have agreed that the default title is the favored title, at least as far as WP:TITLECHANGES, as you say.
(The only reason I listed any further ‘litigation’ here is to show what was being discussed in-general for convenience’s sake, not necessarily to re-litigate)
However, at least two individuals involved have expressed to me that they felt their hands were tied by the RM/MRV process. Otherwise, as I mentioned (well, as Bobby_Cohn mentioned) the train of thought seemed to be “well, I don’t want the title to be changed,” and this was seemingly enough to override policy. Or, at best, it was seemingly a “well, it would be easier to just leave it as-is” sort of decision.

And again, I, 100%, should have been more forceful; The title anhould have been reverted per the initial “no consensus” RM-closure and I will certainly bear your advice in-mind in the future. That said, I suppose what I am asking is would it be inappropriate to ask the original RM-closer to revert the article at this point, given how much time is past?

MWFwiki (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Given what was written in Talk:AIM-174B#Requested move 20 September 2024 six weeks ago, I think that none of this is relevant. "Consensus to keep current name" does not mean that you get to invoke rules about what happens when there is no consensus. I suggest that you give up for now, wait a long time (a year? There is no set time, but it needs to be a l-o-n-g time), and maybe start a new Misplaced Pages:Requested moves (e.g., in 2026). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! MWFwiki (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Everything ModernDayTrilobite advised you of is correct. Vpab15 closed the RM and determined that consensus was reached. Nothing since then has overturned or otherwise superseded Vpab15's closure. Therefore that closure remains in force. You already challenged the validity of Vpab15's closure at move review, and you have no avenue for challenging it again. Your best bet is to wait a tactful amount of time (several months) before starting another RM. And in that RM, none of this procedural stuff will matter, and you will be free to focus just on making the clearest, simplest case for why AIM-174 is the best title. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose my issue is better summed-up by my above discussion with WhatamIdoing; The MRV shouldn’t have been required. That burden should never have been on me. The title should have been reverted at the initial “no consensus” per WP:TITLECHANGES. Otherwise, undiscussed moves — when challenged — may now be upheld by either consensus or no consensus? This is not what WP:TITLECHANGES says, obviously. That said I take full responsibility for not being clearer with this argument, and instead focusing on arguing for a ‘different’ title, when I should have been arguing for the default title per TITLECHANGES. MWFwiki (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
You've repeatedly pointed to the initial self-reverted closure as if it's somehow significant. It isn't. Asukite voluntarily decided to close the discussion, and voluntarily self-reverted their decision to close. It doesn't matter whether you asked for it or someone else asked or no one asked. They had the right to self-revert then, for any reason or no reason. The net result is the same as if Asukite had never closed it at all. Only Vpab15's closure, which was 100% on Vpab15's own authority and 0% on the supposed authority of the annulled earlier closure, is binding. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your latter statement, but why would an initial finding of no-consensus not matter? It should have brought us back to the default title, not simply been reverted. Because that policy wasn't followed, I'm here now, is my point. Regardless, I understand; Thank you for your advice! Well, I appreciate your time and consideration! :-) MWFwiki (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
(Involved at the MRV) Seeing as I've been tagged in this multiple times and quoted, I'll give my thoughts on this. I don't want to accuse MWFwiki of selectively quoting me but I do think that my quote above was, when taken into account with the following discussion, more about meta-conversation about the correct policy to implement in the event the MRV went the other way. I explicitly said in the immediately following message the view that the close was not outside the scope of WP:RMCI is reasonable and good faith interpretation. I do think this close was within bounds, and the following MRV appropriately closed and summarised.
Yes, had the original close of no consensus stood, then it could have been reverted wholecloth. It was self-reverted and therefore plays no role in the consideration of the subsequent closure. We're always going to take the most recent finding of consensus to be what holds. It seems to have been said in the above that had the no consensus closure held and the appropriate WP:RMNCREV policy been applied, then the appellant here would have gotten their preferred outcome. But to continue to argue this in the face of the subsequent developments is where this enters wikilawyering territory. I think that since then, the appellant has continued to make policy arguments that would be better suited for a subsequent and focused RM on the actual title rather than wikilawyer about a previous close that was self-reverted and continuing to argue policy.
There's nothing for this venue to really change in regards to that AT and the discussion to change the AT would need to be had at the articles talk page. My sincere advice to appellant is to wait a reasonable amount of time and make strong policy based arguments about the preferred title (don't just quote policy, we editors are good at clicking links and reading it for ourselves—quoting nothing but policy back at us makes us feel like you've taken us for fools; instead provide facts and sources that support the relevant policies and link those). Spend some time at WP:RMC and see what well-argued and successful RMs typically look like. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

CSD A12. Substantially written using a large language model, with hallucinated information or fictitious references

WITHDRAWN Per the solution to the problem already being covered by WP:DRAFTREASON, something I was unaware of when I made the proposal. Svampesky (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2024 (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.

When fixing up new articles, I have encountered articles that appear to have been substantially generated by AI, containing hallucinated information. While these articles may not meet other criteria for speedy deletion, as the subjects themselves are sometimes real and notable, waiting for seven days to PROD the articles is inefficient. I recommend designating WP:A12 for the speedy deletion of these articles. I have created a template (User:Svampesky/Template:Db-a12) if it is successful. A recent example is the article on the Boston University Investment Office, where the author explicitly disclosed that it was created using a large language model and contains references to sources don't exist. I initially G11'd it, as it seemed the most appropriate, but was declined, and the article was subsequently PRODed. Svampesky (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

CSD are generally limited to things that are unambiguously obvious. I image the number of cases in which it's unabiguously obvious that the entire page was generated by an LLM (as opposed to the editor jut using the LLM to generate references, for example) are small enough that it doesn't warrant a speedy deletion criterion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I like this idea but agree that it's better not as a CSD but perhaps its own policy page. Andre🚐 21:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it even merits a policy page. The number of cases where the LLM use is objectively unambiguous, and the article content sufficiently problematic that deletion is the only appropriate course of action and it cannot be (speedily) deleted under existing policy is going to be vanishingly small. Even the OP's examples were handled by existing processes (PROD) sufficiently. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Svampesky, when you say that Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion is "inefficient", do you mean that you don't want to wait a week before the article gets deleted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
My view is that Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion inefficient for articles that clearly contain hallucinated LLM-generated content and fictitious references (which almost certainly will be deleted) in the mainspace for longer than necessary. Svampesky (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Efficiency usually compares the amount of effort something takes, not the length of time it takes. "Paint it and leave it alone for 10 minutes to dry" is the same amount of hands-on work as "Paint it and leave it alone for 10 days to dry", so they're equally efficient processes. It sounds like you want a process that isn't less hands-on work/more efficient, but instead a process that is faster.
Also, if the subject qualifies for an article, then deletion isn't necessarily the right solution. Blanking bad content and bad sources is officially preferred (though more work) so that there is only verifiable content with one or more real sources left on the page – even if that content is only a single sentence.
Efficiency and speed is something that many editors like. However, there has to be a balance. We're WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, which sometimes means that rapidly removing imperfect content is only the second or third most important thing we do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This part as the subjects themselves are sometimes real and notable is literally an inherent argument against using CSD (or PROD for that matter). WP:TNT the article to a sentence if necessary, but admitting that you're trying to delete an article you know is notable just means you're admitting to vandalism. Silverseren 00:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    The categorization of my proposal as admitting to vandalism is incorrect. WP:G11, the speedy deletion criterion I initially used for the article, specifies deleting articles that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles. Articles that have been generated using large language models, with hallucinated information or fictitious references, would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles. Svampesky (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, but G11 is looking for blatant advertising ("Buy widgets now at www.widgets.com! Blue-green widgets in stock today!") It's not looking for anything and everything that needs to be fundamentally re-written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Edit Conflict) How does G11 even apply here? Being written via LLM does not make an article "promotional". Furthermore, even that CSD criteria states If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. I.e. TNT it to a single sentence and problem solved. Silverseren 00:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The venue for proposing new criteria is at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. So please make sure that you don't just edit in a new criterion without an RFC approving it, else it will be quickly reverted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Since we are talking about BLPs… the harm of hallucinated information does need to be taken very seriously. I would say the first step is to stubbify.
    However, Deletion can be held off as a potential second step, pending a proper BEFORE check. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the hallucination is sufficiently dramatic ("Joe Film is a superhero action figure", when it ought to say that he's an actor who once had a part in a superhero movie), then you might be able to make a good case for {{db-hoax}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have deleted an AI generated article with fake content and references as a hoax. So that may well be possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Isn't this covered by WP:DRAFTREASON? Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFD clarification

The Articles for deletion article states that: If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.

Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? Plasticwonder (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If there is a contested redirect, the article is restored and it is brought to AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the ideal process is:
  • Have an ordinary discussion on the talk page about redirecting the page.
  • If (and only if) that discussion fails to reach consensus, try again at AFD.
I dislike starting with AFD. It isn't usually necessary, and it sometimes has a feel of the nom trying to get rid of it through any means possible ("I'll suggest a WP:BLAR, but maybe I'll be lucky and they'll delete it completely"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Would need some stats on the it isn't usually necessary claim, my intuition based on experience is that if a BLAR is contested it's either dropped or ends up at AfD. CMD (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that. From what I have seen at least, if redirecting is contested, it then is usually discussed at AFD, but that's just me. Plasticwonder (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It depends how active the respective talk pages are (redirected article and target), but certainly for ones that are quiet AfD is going to be the most common. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It will also depend on whether you advertise the discussion, e.g., at an active WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I usually just go straight to AfD. I've found that editors contesting redirects usually !vote keep and discussing on talk just prolongs the inevitable AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha. Plasticwonder (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the above comments: What is it about the Misplaced Pages:Proposed article mergers process that isn't working for you all? If you redirect an article and it gets reverted, why aren't you starting a PM? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
For me, it's lack of participation, no tool to list something at PAM, and no relisting option so proposed merges just sit for a very long time before being closed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
What voorts said. Multiple times now I've floated the idea of making PAM more like RM, one of these years I should really get around to doing something more than that. I won't have time before the new year though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I think PAM should be merged into AfD, since both generally involve discussions of notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Merging often involves questions of overlap and topical distinction rather than just notability, although this also ends up discussed at AfD. I do wonder if this would leave proposals to split out in the cold though, as much like merge discussions they just sit there. CMD (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The most important tool is Twinkle > Tag > Merge. I personally prefer its "Merge to" option, but there's a plain "Merge" if you don't know exactly which page should be the target.
All merges get bot-listed in Misplaced Pages:Article alerts. Misplaced Pages:Proposed article mergers is another place to advertise it, and I'd bet that Twinkle could post those automatically with relatively little work (an optional button, similar to notifying the creator of deletion plans).
I dislike "relisting"; things should just stay open as long as they need to, without adding decorative comments about the discussion not happening fast enough. In my experience, merge proposals stay open because everyone's agreed on the outcome but nobody wants to do the work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
In this context isn't redirection a *type* of deletion (specifically delete while leaving a redirect)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I would think so. Plasticwonder (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It's only a deletion if an admin pushes the delete button. Blanking and redirecting – even blanking, redirecting, and full-protecting the redirect so nobody can un-redirect it – is not deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
That might be clear to you (and the other admins) but almost nobody in the general community understands that (to the point where I would say its just wrong, deletion is broader than that in practice). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, it has always been clear to me, and I am not, and have never wished to be, an admin. But, then again, I am a bit strange in that I expect things to be as people say that they will be. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Contested redirects going to AfD makes sense. Articles are redirected for the same reasons they're deleted and redirecting is probably the most common ATD. I've opened plenty of AfDs where my nom recommends a redirect instead of deletion, including when I've BLARed an article and had the BLAR reverted. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
If a redirect has already been discussed or attempted, and consensus can't be reached easily, then I've got no problem with AFD. What I don't want to see is no discussion, no bold redirects, nobody's even hinted about a merge, and now it's at AFD, when the problem could have been resolved through a less intense method. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools be amended to:

  • Option 1 – Require former administrators to request restoration of their tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard (BN) if they are eligible to do so (i.e., they do not fit into any of the exceptions).
  • Option 2 – Clarify Maintain the status quo that former administrators who would be eligible to request restoration via BN may instead request restoration of their tools via a voluntary request for adminship (RfA).
  • Option 3 – Allow bureaucrats to SNOW-close RfAs as successful if (a) 48 hours have passed, (b) the editor has right of resysop, and (c) a SNOW close is warranted.

Background: This issue arose in one recent RfA and is currently being discussed in an ongoing RfA. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: There is an ongoing related discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab) § Making voluntary "reconfirmation" RFA's less controversial.
Note: Option 2 was modified around 22:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC). Note: Added option 3. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship, T:CENT. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2 per Kline's comment at Hog Farm's RfA. If an admin wishes to be held accountable for their actions at a re-RfA, they should be allowed to do so. charlotte 21:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also fine with 3 charlotte 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • There is ongoing discussion about this at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Making voluntary "reconfirmation" RFA's less controversial. CMD (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 2, after thought. I don't think 3 provides much benefit, and creating separate class of RfAs that are speedy passed feels a misstep. If there are serious issues surrounding wasting time on RfAs set up under what might feel to someone like misleading pretenses, that is best solved by putting some indicator next to their RFA candidate name. Maybe "Hog Farm (RRfA)". CMD (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      best solved by putting some indicator next to their RFA candidate name. Maybe "Hog Farm (RRfA)" - I like this idea, if option 2 comes out as consensus I think this small change would be a step in the right direction, as the "this isn't the best use of time" crowd (myself included) would be able to quickly identify the type of RFAs they don't want to participate in. BugGhost 🦗👻 11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think that's a great idea. I would support adding some text encouraging people who are considering seeking reconfirmation to add (RRfA) or (reconfirmation) after their username in the RfA page title. That way people who are averse to reading or participating in reconfirmations can easily avoid them, and no one is confused about what is going on. 28bytes (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think this would be a great idea if it differentiated against recall RfAs. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      If we are differentiating three types of RFA we need three terms. Post-recall RFAs are referred to as "reconfirmation RFAs", "Re-RFAS" or "RRFAs" in multiple places, so ones of the type being discussed here are the ones that should take the new term. "Voluntary reconfirmation RFA" (VRRFA or just VRFA) is the only thing that comes to mind but others will probably have better ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 1 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2 I don't see why people trying to do the right thing should be discouraged from doing so. If others feel it is a waste of time, they are free to simply not participate. El Beeblerino 21:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2 Getting reconfirmation from the community should be allowed. Those who see it as a waste of time can ignore those RfAs. Schazjmd (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Of course they may request at RfA. They shouldn't but they may. This RfA feels like it does nothing to address the criticism actually in play and per the link to the idea lab discussion it's premature to boot. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2 per my comments at the idea lab discussion and Queent of Hears, Beeblebrox and Scazjmd above. I strongly disagree with Barkeep's comment that "They shouldn't ". It shouldn't be made mandatory, but it should be encouraged where the time since desysop and/or the last RFA has been lengthy. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    When to encourage it would be a worthwhile RfC and such a discussion could be had at the idea lab before launching an RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've started that discussion as a subsection to the linked VPI discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 1 or 3. RFA is an "expensive" process in terms of community time. RFAs that qualify should be fast-tracked via the BN process. It is only recently that a trend has emerged that folks that don't need to RFA are RFAing again. 2 in the last 6 months. If this continues to scale up, it is going to take up a lot of community time, and create noise in the various RFA statistics and RFA notification systems (for example, watchlist notices and User:Enterprisey/rfa-count-toolbar.js). –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Making statistics "noisy" is just a reason to improve the way the statistics are gathered. In this case collecting statistics for reconfirmation RFAs separately from other RFAs would seem to be both very simple and very effective. If (and it is a very big if) the number of reconfirmation RFAs means that notifications are getting overloaded, then we can discuss whether reconfirmation RFAs should be notified differently. As far as differentiating them, that is also trivially simple - just add a parameter to template:RFA (perhaps "reconfirmation=y") that outputs something that bots and scripts can check for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Option 3 looks like a good compromise. I'd support that too. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm weakly opposed to option 3, editors who want feedback and a renewed mandate from the community should be entitled to it. If they felt that that a quick endorsement was all that was required then could have had that at BN, they explicitly chose not to go that route. Nobody is required to participate in an RFA, so if it is going the way you think it should, or you don't have an opinion, then just don't participate and your time has not been wasted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2. We should not make it more difficult for administrators to be held accountable for their actions in the way they please. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Added option 3 above. Maybe worth considering as a happy medium, where unsure admins can get a check on their conduct without taking up too much time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2 – If a former admin wishes to subject themselves to RfA to be sure they have the requisite community confidence to regain the tools, why should we stop them? Any editor who feels the process is a waste of time is free to ignore any such RfAs. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per leek. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    A further note: option 3 gives 'crats the discretion to SNOW close a successful voluntary re-RfA; it doesn't require such a SNOW close, and I trust the 'crats to keep an RfA open if an admin has a good reason for doing so. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2 as per JJPMaster. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (no change) – The sample size is far too small for us to analyze the impact of such a change, but I believe RfA should always be available. Now that WP:RECALL is policy, returning administrators may worry that they have become out of touch with community norms and may face a recall as soon as they get their tools back at BN. Having this familiar community touchpoint as an option makes a ton of sense, and would be far less disruptive / demoralizing than a potential recall. Taking this route away, even if it remains rarely used, would be detrimental to our desire for increased administrator accountability. – bradv 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm surprised the response here hasn't been more hostile, given that these give the newly-unresigned administrator a get out of recall free card for a year. —Cryptic 22:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Cryptic hostile to what? Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2, distant second preference 3. I would probably support 3 as first pick if not for recall's rule regarding last RfA, but as it stands, SNOW-closing a discussion that makes someone immune to recall for a year is a non-starter. Between 1 and 2, though, the only argument for 1 seems to be that it avoids a waste of time, for which there is the much simpler solution of not participating and instead doing something else. Special:Random and Misplaced Pages:Backlog are always there. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 1 would be my preference, but I don't think we need a specific rule for this. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1. No second preference between 2 or 3. As long as a former administrator didn't resign under a cloud, picking up the tools again should be low friction and low effort for the entire community. If there are issues introduced by the recall process, they should be fixed in the recall policy itself. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    After considering this further, I prefer option 3 over option 2 if option 1 is not the consensus. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2, i.e. leave well enough alone. There is really not a problem here that needs fixing. If someone doesn’t want to “waste their time” participating in an RfA that’s not required by policy, they can always, well, not participate in the RfA. No one is required to participate in someone else’s RfA, and I struggle to see the point of participating but then complaining about “having to” participate. 28bytes (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 nobody is obligated to participate in a re-confirmation RfA. If you think they are a waste of time, avoid them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 1 or 3 per Novem Linguae. C F A 02:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Because it is incredibly silly to have situations like we do now of "this guy did something wrong by doing an RfA that policy explicitly allows, oh well, nothing to do but sit on our hands and dissect the process across three venues and counting." Your time is your own. No one is forcibly stealing it from you. At the same time it is equally silly to let the process drag on, for reasons explained in WP:SNOW. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Update: Option 2 seems to be the consensus and I also would be fine with that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Gnoming. I think 2 works, but it is a very long process and for someone to renew their tools, it feels like an unnecessarily long process compared to a normal RfA. Conyo14 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • As someone who supported both WormTT and Hog Farm's RfAs, option 1 > option 3 >> option 2. At each individual RfA the question is whether or not a specific editor should be an admin, and in both cases I felt that the answer was clearly "yes". However, I agree that RfA is a very intensive process. It requires a lot of time from the community, as others have argued better than I can. I prefer option 1 to option 3 because the existence of the procedure in option 3 implies that it is a good thing to go through 48 hours of RfA to re-request the mop. But anything which saves community time is a good thing. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've seen this assertion made multiple times now that requires a lot of time from the community, yet nowhere has anybody articulated how why this is true. What time is required, given that nobody is required to participate and everybody who does choose to participate can spend as much or as little time assessing the candidate as they wish? How and why does a reconfirmation RFA require any more time from editors (individually or collectively) than a request at BN? Thryduulf (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think there are a number of factors and people are summing it up as "time-wasting" or similar:
    1. BN Is designed for this exact scenario. It's also clearly a less contentious process.
    2. Snow closures a good example of how we try to avoid wasting community time on unnecessary process and the same reasoning applies here. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and there's no reason to have a 7-day process when the outcome is a given.
    3. If former administrators continue to choose re-RFAs over BN, it could set a problematic precedent where future re-adminship candidates feel pressured to go through an RFA and all that entails. I don't want to discourage people already vetted by the community from rejoining the ranks.
    4. The RFA process is designed to be a thoughtful review of prospective administrators and I'm concerned these kinds of perfunctory RFAs will lead to people taking the process less seriously in the future.
    Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Because several thousand people have RFA on their watchlist, and thousands more will see the "there's an open RFA" notice on theirs whether they follow it or not. Unlike BN, RFA is a process that depends on community input from a large number of people. In order to even realise that the RFA is not worth their time, they have to:
    • Read the opening statement and first few question answers (I just counted, HF's opening and first 5 answers are about 1000 words)
    • Think, "oh, they're an an ex-admin, I wonder why they're going through RFA, what was their cloud"
    • Read through the comments and votes to see if any issues have been brought up (another ~1000 words)
    • None have
    • Realise your input is not necessary and this could have been done at BN
    This process will be repeated by hundreds of editors over the course of a week. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    That they were former admins has always been the first two sentences of their RfA’s statement, sentences which are immediately followed by that they resigned due to personal time commitment issues. You do not have to read the first 1000+ words to figure that out. If the reader wants to see if the candidate was lying in their statement, then they just have a quick skim through the oppose section. None of this should take more than 30 seconds in total. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not everyone can skim things easily - it personally takes me a while to read sections. I don't know if they're going to bury the lede and say something like "Also I made 10,000 insane redirects and then decided to take a break just before arbcom launched a case" in paragraph 6. Hog Farm's self nom had two paragraphs about disputes and it takes more than 30 seconds to unpick that and determine if that is a "cloud" or not. Even for reconfirmations, it definitely takes more than 30 seconds to determine a conclusion. BugGhost 🦗👻 11:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    They said they resigned to personal time commitments. That is directly saying they wasn’t under a cloud, so I’ll believe them unless someone claims the contrary in the oppose section. If the disputes section contained a cloud, the oppose section would have said so. One chooses to examine such nominations like normal RfAs. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just to double check, you're saying that whenever you go onto an RFA you expect any reason to oppose to already be listed by someone else, and no thought is required? I am begining to see how you are able to assess an RFA in under 30 seconds BugGhost 🦗👻 23:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Something in their statement would be an incredibly obvious reason. We are talking about the assessment whether to examine and whether the candidate could've used BN. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf let's not confuse "a lot of community time is spent" with "waste of time". Some people have characterized the re-RFAs as a waste of time but that's not the assertion I (and I think a majority of the skeptics) have been making. All RfAs use a lot of community time as hundreds of voters evaluate the candidate. They then choose to support, oppose, be neutral, or not vote at all. While editor time is not perfectly fixed - editors may choose to spend less time on non-Misplaced Pages activities at certain times - neither is it a resource we have in abundance anymore relative to our project. And so I think we, as a community, need to be thought about how we're using that time especially when the use of that time would have been spent on other wiki activities.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Absolutely nothing compels anybody to spend any time evaluating an RFA. If you think your wiki time is better spent elsewhere than evaluating an RFA candidate, then spend it elsewhere. That way only those who do think it is a good use of their time will participate and everybody wins. You win by not spending your time on something that you don't think is worth it, those who do participate don't have their time wasted by having to read comments (that contradict explicit policy) about how the RFA is a waste of time. Personally I regard evaluating whether a long-time admin still has the approval of the community to be a very good use of community time, you are free to disagree, but please don't waste my time by forcing me to read comments about how you think I'm wasting my time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am not saying you or anyone else is wasting time and am surprised you are so fervently insisting I am. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't understand how your argument that it is not a good use of community time is any different from arguing that it is a waste of time? Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I don't mind the re-RFAs, but I'd appreciate if we encouraged restoration via BN instead, I just object to making it mandatory. EggRoll97 06:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Banning voluntary re-RfAs would be a step in the wrong direction on admin accountability. Same with SNOW closing. There is no more "wasting of community time" if we let the RfA run for the full seven days, but allowing someone to dig up a scandal on the seventh day is an important part of the RfA process. The only valid criticism I've heard is that folks who do this are arrogant, but banning arrogance, while noble, seems highly impractical. Toadspike 07:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3, 1, then 2, per HouseBlaster. Also agree with Daniel Quinlan. I think these sorts of RFA's should only be done in exceptional circumstances. Graham87 (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 as first preference, option 3 second. RFAs use up a lot of time - hundreds of editors will read the RFA and it takes time to come to a conclusion. When that conclusion is "well that was pointless, my input wasn't needed", it is not a good system. I think transparency and accountability is a very good thing, and we need more of it for resyssopings, but that should come from improving the normal process (BN) rather than using a different one (RFA). My ideas for improving the BN route to make it more transparent and better at getting community input is outlined over on the idea lab BugGhost 🦗👻 08:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2, though I'd be for option 3 too. I'm all for administrators who feel like they want/should go through an RfA to solicit feedback even if they've been given the tools back already. I see multiple people talk about going through BN, but if I had to hazard a guess, it's way less watched than RfA is. However I do feel like watchlist notifications should say something to the effect of "A request for re-adminship feedback is open for discussion" so that people that don't like these could ignore them. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 09:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 because WP:ADMINISTRATORS is well-established policy. Read WP:ADMINISTRATORS#Restoration of admin tools, which says quite clearly, Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process. I went back 500 edits to 2017 and the wording was substantially the same back then. So, I simply do not understand why various editors are berating former administrators to the point of accusing them of wasting time and being arrogant for choosing to go through a process which is specifically permitted by policy. It is bewildering to me. Cullen328 (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 & 3 I think that there still should be the choice between BN and re-RFA for resysops, but I think that the re-RFA should stay like it is in Option 3, unless it is controversial, at which point it could be extended to the full RFA period. I feel like this would be the best compromise between not "wasting" community time (which I believe is a very overstated, yet understandable, point) and ensuring that the process is based on broad consensus and that our "representatives" are still supported. If I were WTT or Hog, I might choose to make the same decision so as to be respectful of the possibility of changing consensus. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2, for lack of a better choice. Banning re-RFAs is not a great idea, and we should not SNOW close a discussion that would give someone immunity from a certain degree of accountability. I've dropped an idea for an option 4 in the discussion section below. Giraffer (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I agree with Graham87 that these sorts of RFAs should only be done in exceptional circumstances, and BN is the best place to ask for tools back. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I don't think prohibition makes sense. It also has weird side effects. eg: some admins' voluntary recall policies may now be completely void, because they would be unable to follow them even if they wanted to, because policy prohibits them from doing a RFA. (maybe if they're also 'under a cloud' it'd fit into exemptions, but if an admins' policy is "3 editors on this named list tell me I'm unfit, I resign" then this isn't really a cloud.) Personally, I think Hog Farm's RFA was unwise, as he's textbook uncontroversial. Worm's was a decent RFA; he's also textbook uncontroversial but it happened at a good time. But any editor participating in these discussions to give the "support" does so using their own time. Everyone who feels their time is wasted can choose to ignore the discussion, and instead it'll pass as 10-0-0 instead of 198-2-4. It just doesn't make sense to prohibit someone from seeking a community discussion, though. For almost anything, really. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It takes like two seconds to support or ignore an RFA you think is "useless"... can't understand the hullabaloo around them. I stand by what I said on WTT's re-RFA regarding RFAs being about evaluating trustworthiness and accountability. Trustworthy people don't skip the process. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Option 2 is a waste of community time. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Why? Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2 is fine. Strong oppose to 1 and 3. Opposing option 1 because there is nothing wrong with asking for extra community feedback. opposing option 3 because once an RfA has been started, it should follow the standard rules. Note that RfAs are extremely rare and non-contentious RfAs require very little community time (unlike this RfC which seems a waste of community time, but there we are). —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2, with no opposition to 3. I see nothing wrong with a former administrator getting re-confirmed by the community, and community vetting seems like a good thing overall. If people think it's a waste of time, then just ignore the RfA. Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2 Sure, and clarify that should such an RFA be unsuccessful they may only regain through a future rfa. — xaosflux 18:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 If contributing to such an RFA is a waste of your time, just don't participate. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No individual is wasting their time participating. Instead the person asking for a re-rfa is using tons of editor time by asking hundreds of people to vet them. Even the choice not to participate requires at least some time to figure out that this is not a new RfA; though at least in the two we've had recently it would require only as long as it takes to get to the RfA - for many a click from the watchlist and then another click into the rfa page - and to read the first couple of sentences of the self-nomination which isn't terribly long all things considered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with you (I think) that it's a matter of perspective. For me, clicking the RFA link in my watchlist and reading the first paragraph of Hog Farm's nomination (where they explained that they were already a respected admin) took me about 10 seconds. Ten seconds is nothing; in my opinion, this is just a nonissue. But then again, I'm not an admin, checkuser, or an oversighter. Maybe the time to read such a nomination is really wasting their time. I don't know. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm an admin and an oversighter (but not a checkuser). None of my time was wasted by either WTT or Hog Farm's nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2. Maintain the status quo. And stop worrying about a trivial non-problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2. This reminds me of banning plastic straws (bear with me). Sure, I suppose in theory, that this is a burden on the community's time (just as straws do end up in landfills/the ocean). However, the amount of community time that is drained is minuscule compared to the amount of community time drained in countless, countless other fora and processes (just like the volume of plastic waste contributed by plastic straws is less than 0.001% of the total plastic waste). When WP becomes an efficient, well oiled machine, then maybe we can talk about saving community time by banning re-RFA's. But this is much ado about nothing, and indeed this plan to save people from themselves, and not allow them to simply decide whether to participate or not, is arguably more damaging than some re-RFAs (just as banning straws convinced some people that "these save-the-planet people are so ridiculous that I'm not going to bother listening to them about anything."). And, in fact, on a separate note, I'd actually love it if more admins just ran a re-RFA whenever they wanted. They would certainly get better feedback than just posting "What do my talk page watchers think?" on their own talk page. Or waiting until they get yelled at on their talk page, AN/ANI, AARV, etc. We say we want admins to respect feedback; does it have to be in a recall petition? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    What meaningful feedback has Hog Farm gotten? "A minority of people think you choose poorly in choosing this process to regain adminship". What are they supposed to do with that? I share your desire for editors to share meaningful feedback with administrators. My own attempt yielded some, though mainly offwiki where I was told I was both too cautious and too impetuous (and despite the seeming contradiction each was valuable in its own way). So yes let's find ways to get meaningful feedback to admins outside of recall or being dragged to ANI. Unfortunately re-RfA seems to be poorly suited to the task and so we can likely find a better way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Let us all take some comfort in the fact that no one has yet criticized this RfC comment as being a straw man argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No hard rule, but we should socially discourage confirmation RfAs There is a difference between a hard rule, and a soft social rule. A hard rule against confirmation RfA's, like option 1, would not do a good job of accounting for edge cases and would thus be ultimately detrimental here. But a soft social rule against them would be beneficial. Unfortunately, that is not one of the options of this RfC. In short, a person should have a good reason to do a confirmation RfA. If you're going to stand up before the community and ask "do you trust me," that should be for a good reason. It shouldn't just be because you want the approval of your peers. (Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that is why either Worm or Hogfarm re-upped, I'm just trying to create a general purpose rule here.) That takes some introspection and humility to ask yourself: is it worth me inviting two or three hundred people to spend part of their lives to comment on me as a person?A lot of people have thrown around editor time in their reasonings. Obviously, broad generalizations about it aren't convincing anyone. So let me just share my own experience. I saw the watchlist notice open that a new RfA was being run. I reacted with some excitement, because I always like seeing new admins. When I got to the page and saw Hogfarm's name, I immediately thought "isn't he already an admin?" I then assumed, ah, its just the classic RfA reaction at seeing a qualified candidate, so I'll probably support him since I already think he's an admin. But then as I started to do my due diligence and read, I saw that he really, truly, already had been an admin. At that point, my previous excitement turned to a certain unease. I had voted yes for Worm's confirmation RfA, but here was another...and I realized that my blind support for Worm might have been the start of an entirely new process. I then thought "bet there's an RfC going about this," and came here. I then spent a while polishing up my essay on editor time, before taking time to write this message. All in all, I probably spent a good hour doing this. Previously, I'd just been clicking the random article button and gnoming. So, the longwinded moral: yeah, this did eat up a lot of my editor time that could have and was being spent doing something else. And I'd do it again! It was important to do my research and to comment here. But in the future...maybe I won't react quite as excitedly to seeing that RfA notice. Maybe I'll feel a little pang of dread...wondering if its going to be a confirmation RfA. We can't pretend that confirmation RfA's are costless, and that we don't lose anything even if editors just ignore them. When run, it should be because they are necessary. CaptainEek ⚓ 03:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    And for what its worth, support Option 3 because I'm generally a fan of putting more tools in people's toolboxes. CaptainEek ⚓ 03:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    In short, a person should have a good reason to do a confirmation RfA. If you're going to stand up before the community and ask "do you trust me," that should be for a good reason. It shouldn't just be because you want the approval of your peers. Asking the community whether you still have their trust to be an administrator, which is what an reconfirmation RFA is, is a good reason. I expect getting a near-unanimous "yes" is good for one's ego, but that's just a (nice) side-effect of the far more important benefits to the entire community: a trusted administrator.
    The time you claim is being eaten up unnecessarily by reconfirmation RFAs was actually taken up by you choosing to spend your time writing an essay about using time for things you don't approve of and then hunting out an RFC in which you wrote another short essay about using time on things you don't approve of. Absolutely none of that is a necessary consequence of reconfirmation RFAs - indeed the response consistent with your stated goals would have been to read the first two sentences of Hog Farm's RFA and then closed the tab and returned to whatever else it was you were doing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    WTT's and Hog Farm's RFAs would have been completely uncontentious, something I hope for at RfA and certainly the opposite of what I "dread" at RfA, if it were not for the people who attack the very concept of standing for RfA again despite policy being crystal clear that it is absolutely fine. I don't see how any blame for this situation can be put on WTT or HF. We can't pretend that dismissing uncontentious reconfirmation RfAs is costless; discouraging them removes one of the few remaining potentially wholesome bits about the process. —Kusma (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CaptainEek Would you find it better if Watchlist notices and similar said "(re?)confirmation RFA" instead of "RFA"? Say for all voluntary RFAs from an existing admin or someone who could have used BN?
    As a different point, I would be quite against any social discouraging if we're not making a hard rule as such. Social discouraging is what got us the opposes at WTT/Hog Farm's RFAs, which I found quite distasteful and badgering. If people disagree with a process, they should change it. But if the process remains the same, I think it's important to not enable RFA's toxicity by encouraging others to namecall or re-argue the process in each RRFA. It's a short road from social discouragement to toxicity, unfortunately. Soni (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes I think the watchlist notice should specify what kind of RfA, especially with the introduction of recall. CaptainEek ⚓ 16:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Will prevent the unnecessary drama trend we are seeing in the recent. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 if people think there's a waste of community time, don't spend your time voting or discussing. Or add "reconfirmation" or similar to the watchlist notice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (which I think is a subset of option 2, so I'm okay with the status quo, but I want to endorse giving 'crats the option to SNOW). While they do come under scrutiny from time to time for the extensive dicsussions in the "maybe" zone following RfAs, this should be taken as an indiciation that they are unlikely to do something like close it as SNOW in the event there is real and substantial concerns being rasied. This is an okay tool to give the 'crats. As far as I can tell, no one has ever accused the them of moving too quickly in this direction (not criticism; love you all, keep up the good work). Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or Option 2. Further, if Option 2 passes, I expect it also ends all the bickering about lost community time. A consensus explicitly in favour of "This is allowed" should also be a consensus to discourage relitigation of this RFC. Soni (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Admins who do not exude entitlement are to be praised. Those who criticize this humility should have a look in the mirror before accusing those who ask for reanointment from the community of "arrogance". I agree that it wouldn't be a bad idea to mention in parentheses that the RFA is a reconfirmation (watchlist) and wouldn't see any problem with crats snow-closing after, say, 96 hours. -- SashiRolls 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree that BN shouldn't be the normal route. RfA is already as hard and soul-crushing as it is. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Who are you disagreeing with? This RfC is about voluntary RRfA. -- SashiRolls 20:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I know. I see a sizable amount of commenters here starting to say that voluntary re-RfAs should be encouraged, and your first sentence can be easily read as implying that admins who use the BN route exude entitlement. I disagree with that (see my reply to Thryduulf below). Aaron Liu (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    One way to improve the reputation of RFA is for there to be more RFAs that are not terrible, such as reconfirmations of admins who are doing/have done a good job who sail through with many positive comments. There is no proposal to make RFA mandatory in circumstances it currently isn't, only to reaffirm that those who voluntarily choose RFA are entitled to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I know it's not a proposal, but there's enough people talking about this so far that it could become a proposal.
    There's nearly nothing in between that could've lost the trust of the community. I'm sure there are many who do not want to be pressured into this without good reason. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Absolutely nobody is proposing, suggesting or hinting here that reconfirmation RFAs should become mandatory - other than comments from a few people who oppose the idea of people voluntarily choosing to do something policy explicitly allows them to choose to do. The best way to avoid people being pressured into being accused of arrogance for seeking reconfirmation of their status from the community is to sanction those people who accuse people of arrogance in such circumstances as such comments are in flagrant breach of AGF and NPA. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I’m saying that they should not become preferred. There should be no social pressure to do RfA instead of BN, only pressure intrinsic to the candidate. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Whether they should become preferred in any situation forms no part of this proposal in any way shape or form - this seeks only to reaffirm that they are permitted. A separate suggestion, completely independent of this one, is to encourage (explicitly not mandate) them in some (but explicitly not all) situations. All discussions on this topic would benefit if people stopped misrepresenting the policies and proposals - especially when the falsehoods have been explicitly called out. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am talking and worrying over that separate proposal many here are suggesting. I don’t intend to oppose Option 2, and sorry if I came off that way. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. In fact, I'm inclined to encourage an RRfA over BN, because nothing requires editors to participate in an RRfA, but the resulting discussion is better for reaffirming community consensus for the former admin or otherwise providing helpful feedback. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 WP:RFA has said "Former administrators may seek reinstatement of their privileges through RfA..." for over ten years and this is not a problem. I liked the opportunity to be consulted in the current RfA and don't consider this a waste of time. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. People who think it’s not a good use of their time always have the option to scroll past. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 2 - If an administrator gives up sysop access because they plan to be inactive for a while and want to minimize the attack surface of Misplaced Pages, they should be able to ask for permissions back the quickest way possible. If an administrator resigns because they do not intend to do the job anymore, and later changes their mind, they should request a community discussion. The right course of action depends on the situation. Jehochman 14:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I've watched a lot of RFAs and re-RFAs over the years. There's a darn good reason why the community developed the "go to BN" option: saves time, is straightforward, and if there are issues that point to a re-RFA, they're quickly surfaced. People who refuse to take the community-developed process of going to BN first are basically telling the community that they need the community's full attention on their quest to re-admin. Yes, there are those who may be directed to re-RFA by the bureaucrats, in which case, they have followed the community's carefully crafted process, and their re-RFA should be evaluated from that perspective. Risker (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. If people want to choose to go through an RFA, who are we to stop them? Stifle (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (status quo/no changes) per meh. This is bureaucratic rulemongering at its finest. Every time RFA reform comes up some editors want admins to be required to periodically reconfirm, then when some admins decide to reconfirm voluntarily, suddenly that's seen as a bad thing. The correct thing to do here is nothing. If you don't like voluntary reconfirmation RFAs, you are not required to participate in them. Ivanvector (/Edits) 19:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I would probably counsel just going to BN most of the time, however there are exceptions and edge cases. To this point these RfAs have been few in number, so the costs incurred are relatively minor. If the number becomes large then it might be worth revisiting, but I don't see that as likely. Some people will probably impose social costs on those who start them by opposing these RfAs, with the usual result, but that doesn't really change the overall analysis. Perhaps it would be better if our idiosyncratic internal logic didn't produce such outcomes, but that's a separate issue and frankly not really worth fighting over either. There's probably some meta issues here I'm unaware off, it's long since I've had my finger on the community pulse so to speak, but they tend to matter far less than people think they do. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per WP:POINT, WP:NOT#SOCIALNETWORK, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:NOTABOUTYOU, and related principles. We all have far better things to do that read through and argue in/about a totally unnecessary RfA invoked as a "Show me some love!" abuse of process and waste of community time and productivity. I could live with option 3, if option 1 doesn't fly (i.e. shut these silly things down as quickly as possible). But option 2 is just out of the question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Except none of the re-RFAs complained about have been RfA invoked as a "Show me some love!" abuse of process, you're arguing against a strawman. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's entirely a matter of opinion and perception, or A) this RfC wouldn't exist, and B) various of your fellow admins like TonyBallioni would not have come to the same conclusion I have. Whether the underlying intent (which no one can determine, lacking as we do any magical mind-reading powers) is solely egotistical is ultimately irrelevant. The actual effect (what matters) of doing this whether for attention, or because you've somehow confused yourself into think it needs to be done, is precisely the same: a showy waste of community volunteers' time with no result other than a bunch of attention being drawn to a particular editor and their deeds, without any actual need for the community to engage in a lengthy formal process to re-examine them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    or because you've somehow confused yourself into think it needs to be done

    I and many others here agree and stand behind the very reasoning that has "confused" such candidates, at least for WTT. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I see no legitimate reason why we should be changing the status quo. Sure, some former admins might find it easier to go through BN, and it might save community time, and most former admins already choose the easier option. However, if a candidate last ran for adminship several years ago, or if issues were raised during their tenure as admin, then it may be helpful for them to ask for community feedback, anyway. There is no "wasted" community time in such a case. I really don't get the claims that this violates WP:POINT, because it really doesn't apply when a former admin last ran for adminship 10 or 20 years ago or wants to know if they still have community trust.On the other hand, if an editor thinks a re-RFA is a waste of community time, they can simply choose not to participate in that RFA. Opposing individual candidates' re-RFAs based solely on opposition to re-RFAs in general is a violation of WP:POINT. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    But this isn't the status quo? We've never done a re-RfA before now. The question is whether this previously unconsidered process, which appeared as an emergent behavior, is a feature or a bug. CaptainEek ⚓ 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    There have been lots of re-RFAs, historically. There were more common in the 2000s. Evercat in 2003 is the earliest I can find, back before the re-sysopping system had been worked out fully. Croat Canuck back in 2007 was snow-closed after one day, because the nominator and applicant didn't know that they could have gone to the bureaucrats' noticeboard. For more modern examples, HJ Mitchell (2011) is relatively similar to the recent re-RFAs in the sense that the admin resigned uncontroversially but chose to re-RFA before getting the tools back. Immediately following and inspired by HJ Mitchell's, there was the slightly more controversial SarekOfVulcan. That ended successful re-RFAS until 2019's Floquenbeam, which crat-chatted. Since then, there have been none that I remember. There have been several re-RFAs from admins who were de-sysopped or at serious risk of de-sysopping, and a few interesting edge cases such as the potentially optional yet no-consensus SarekVulcan 3 in 2014 and the Rich Farmbrough case in 2015, but those are very different than what we're talking about today. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    To add on to that, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2 was technically a reconfirmation RFA, which in a sense can be treated as a re-RFA. My point is, there is some precedent for re-RFAs, but the current guidelines are ambiguous as to when re-RFAs are or aren't allowed. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well thank you both, I've learned something new today. It turns out I was working on a false assumption. It has just been so long since a re-RfA that I assumed it was a truly new phenomenon, especially since there were two in short succession. I still can't say I'm thrilled by the process and think it should be used sparingly, but perhaps I was a bit over concerned. CaptainEek ⚓ 16:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 per Gnoming and CaptainEek. Such RfAs only require at most 30 seconds for one to decide whether or not to spend their time on examination. Unlike other prohibited timesinks, it's not like something undesirable will happen if one does not sink their time. Voluntary reconfirmation RfAs are socially discouraged, so there is usually a very good reason for someone to go back there, such as accountability for past statements in the case of WTT or large disputes during adminship in the case of Hog Farm. I don't think we should outright deny these, and there is no disruption incurred if we don't. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 but for largely the reasons presented by CaptainEek. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (fine with better labeling) These don't seem harmful to me and, if I don't have time, I'll skip one and trust the judgment of my fellow editors. No objection to better labeling them though, as discussed above. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 because it's just a waste of time to go through and !vote on candidates who just want the mop restored when he or she or they could get it restored BN with no problems. But I can also see option 2 being good for a former mod not in good standing. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    If you think it is a waste of time to !vote on a candidate, just don't vote on that candidate and none of your time has been wasted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • @Voorts: If option 2 gets consensus how would this RfC change the wording Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process. Or is this an attempt to see if that option no longer has consensus? If so why wasn't alternative wording proposed? As I noted above this feels premature in multiple ways. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've re-opened this per a request on my talk page. If other editors think this is premature, they can !vote accordingly and an uninvolved closer can determine if there's consensus for an early close in deference to the VPI discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion at VPI, which I have replied on, seems to me to be different enough from this discussion that both can run concurrently. That is, however, my opinion as a mere editor. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Voorts, can you please reword the RfC to make it clear that Option 2 is the current consensus version? It does not need to be clarified – it already says precisely what you propose. – bradv 22:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
     Done voorts (talk/contributions) 22:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Question: May someone clarify why many view such confirmation RfAs as a waste of community time? No editor is obligated to take up their time and participate. If there's nothing to discuss, then there's no friction or dis-cussing, and the RfA smooth-sails; if a problem is identified, then there was a good reason to go to RfA. I'm sure I'm missing something here. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    The intent of RfA is to provide a comprehensive review of a candidate for adminship, to make sure that they meet the community's standards. Is that happening with vanity re-RfAs? Absolutely not, because these people don't need that level of vetting. I wouldn't consider a week long, publicly advertized back patting to be a productive use of volunteer time. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    But no volunteer is obligated to pat such candidates on the back. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, but that logic could be used to justify any time sink. We're all volunteers and nobody is forced to do anything here, but that doesn't mean that we should promote (or stay silent with our criticism of, I suppose) things that we feel don't serve a useful purpose. I don't think this is a huge deal myself, but we've got two in a short period of time and I'd prefer to do a bit of push back now before they get more common. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unlike other prohibited timesinks, it's not like something undesirable will happen if one does not sink their time. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Except someone who has no need for advanced tools and is not going to use them in any useful fashion, would then skate through with nary a word said about their unsuitability, regardless of the foregone conclusion. The point of RFA is not to rubber-stamp. Unless their is some actual issue or genuine concern they might not get their tools back, they should just re-request them at BN and stop wasting people's time with pointless non-process wonkery. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I’m confused. Adminship requires continued use of the tools. If you think they’s suitable for BN, I don’t see how doing an RfA suddenly makes them unsuitable. If you have concerns, raise them. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think the suggested problem (which I acknowledge not everyone thinks is a problem) is resolved by these options. Admins can still run a re-confirmation RfA after regaining adminsitrative privileges, or even initiate a recall petition. I think as discussed on Barkeep49's talk page, we want to encourage former admins who are unsure if they continue to be trusted by the community at a sufficient level to explore lower cost ways of determining this. isaacl (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding option 3, establishing a consensus view takes patience. The intent of having a reconfirmation request for administrative privileges is counteracted by closing it swiftly. It provides incentive for rapid voting that may not provide the desired considered feedback. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • In re the idea that RfAs use up a lot of community time: I first started editing Misplaced Pages in 2014. There were 62 RfAs that year, which was a historic low. Even counting all of the AElect candidates as separate RfAs, including those withdrawn before voting began, we're still up to only 53 in 2024 – counting only traditional RfAs it's only 18, which is the second lowest number ever. By my count we've has 8 resysop requests at BN in 2024; even if all of those went to RfA, I don't see how that would overwhelm the community. That would still leave us on 26 traditional RfAs per year, or (assuming all of them run the full week) one every other week. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • What about an option 4 encouraging eligible candidates to go through BN? At the end of the Procedure section, add something like "Eligible users are encouraged to use this method rather than running a new request for adminship." The current wording makes re-RfAing sound like a plausible alternative to a BN request, when in actual fact the former rarely happens and always generates criticism. Giraffer (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Discouraging RFAs is the second last thing we should be doing (after prohibiting them), rather per my comments here and in the VPI discussion we should be encouraging former administrators to demonstrate that they still have the approval of the community. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think this is a good idea if people do decide to go with option 2, if only to stave off any further mixed messages that people are doing something wrong or rude or time-wasting or whatever by doing a second RfA, when it's explicitly mentioned as a valid thing for them to do. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    If RFA is explicitly a valid thing for people to do (which it is, and is being reaffirmed by the growing consensus for option 2) then we don't need to (and shouldn't) discourage people from using that option. The mixed messages can be staved off by people simply not making comments that explicitly contradict policy. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also a solid option, the question is whether people will actually do it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The simplest way would be to just quickly hat/remove all such comments. Pretty soon people will stop making them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This is not new. We've had sporadic "vanity" RfAs since the early days of the process. I don't believe they're particularly harmful, and think that it unlikely that we will begin to see so many of them that they pose a problem. As such I don't think this policy proposal solves any problem we actually have. UninvitedCompany 21:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This apparent negative feeling evoked at an RFA for a former sysop everyone agrees is fully qualified and trusted certainly will put a bad taste in the mouths of other former admins who might consider a reconfirmation RFA without first visiting BN. This comes in the wake of Worm That Turned's similar rerun. BusterD (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nobody should ever be discouraged from seeking community consensus for significant changes. Adminship is a significant change. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No argument from me. I was a big Hog Farm backer way back when he was merely one of Misplaced Pages's best content contributors. BusterD (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • All these mentions of editor time make me have to mention The Grand Unified Theory of Editor Time (TLDR: our understanding of how editor time works is dreadfully incomplete). CaptainEek ⚓ 02:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I went looking for @Tamzin's comment because I know they had hung up the tools and came back, and I was interested in their perspective. But they've given me a different epiphany. I suddenly realize why people are doing confirmation RfAs: it's because of RECALL, and the one year immunity a successful RfA gives you. Maybe everyone else already figured that one out and is thinking "well duh Eek," but I guess I hadn't :) I'm not exactly sure what to do with that epiphany, besides note the emergent behavior that policy change can create. We managed to generate an entirely new process without writing a single word about it, and that's honestly impressive :P CaptainEek ⚓ 18:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Worm That Turned followed through on a pledge he made in January 2024, before the 2024 review of the request for adminship process began. I don't think a pattern can be extrapolated from a sample size of one (or even two). That being said, it's probably a good thing if admins occasionally take stock of whether or not they continue to hold the trust of the community. As I previously commented, it would be great if these admins would use a lower cost way of sampling the community's opinion. isaacl (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CaptainEek: You are correct that a year's "immunity" results from a successful RRFA, but I see no evidence that this has been the reason for the RRFAs. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    If people decide to go through a community vote to get a one year immunity from a process that only might lead to a community vote which would then have a lower threshold then the one they decide to go through, and also give a year's immunity, then good for them. CMD (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CaptainEek I'm mildly bothered by this comment, mildly because I assume it's lighthearted and non-serious. But just in case anyone does feel this way - I was very clear about my reasons for RRFA, I've written a lot about it, anyone is welcome to use my personal recall process without prejudice, and just to be super clear - I waive my "1 year immunity" - if someone wants to start a petition in the next year, do not use my RRfA as a reason not to. I'll update my userpage accordingly. I can't speak for Hog Farm, but his reasoning seems similar to mine, and immunity isn't it. Worm(talk) 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Worm That Turned my quickly written comment was perhaps not as clear as it could have been :) I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that y'all had run for dubious reasons. As I said in my !vote, Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that is why either Worm or Hogfarm re-upped, I'm just trying to create a general purpose rule here. I guess what I really meant was that the reason that we're having this somewhat spirited conversation seems to be the sense that re-RfA could provide a protection from recall. If not for recall and the one year immunity period, I doubt we'd have cared so much as to suddenly run two discussions about this. CaptainEek ⚓ 16:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't agree. No one else has raised a concern about someone seeking a one-year respite from a recall petition. Personally, I think essentially self-initiating the recall process doesn't really fit the profile of someone who wants to avoid the recall process. (I could invent some nefarious hypothetical situation, but since opening an arbitration case is still a possibility, I don't think it would work out as planned.) isaacl (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I really don't think this is the reason behind WTT's and HF's reconfirmation RFA's. I don't think their RFA's had much utility and could have been avoided, but I don't doubt for a second that their motivations were anything other than trying to provide transparency and accountability for the community. BugGhost 🦗👻 12:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't really care enough about reconf RFAs to think they should be restricted, but what about a lighter ORCP-like process (maybe even in the same place) where fewer editors can indicate, "yeah OK, there aren't really any concerns here, it would probably save a bit of time if you just asked at BN". Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Audio-video guidance

Hi there,

Per the post I made a few weeks ago regarding use of video for illustrative purposes, I think that MOS:Images might be expanded to make mention of audio-video content, as most of the same principles apply (eg aesthetics, quality, relevance, placement). There are some additional concerns, for example, if audio or video renders a primary source, eg is a recording of PD music such as Bach or similar; or is a reading of a PD text, then there might be some source validation requirements (ie, the music or text should match the original, within sensible boundaries, eg Mozart or Bach pieces may not be easily replicated with original instrumentation, or at least this should not be a requirement.

So one option would be for a simple statement at MOS:Images that these guidelines normally apply to AV, or separate guidance for AV that explains that MOS:Images contains guidance that generally applies to AV.

Is the correct process to raise an RFC? And is that done at MOS:Images, or WP:MOS, or here, or where? Jim Killock (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've posted a longer request for help explaining the gap at MOS talk. It seems an RFC may not be needed but any advice would very much be appreciated. Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I've started drafting here. Jim Killock (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Policy proposal: Establishment of research groups to edit articles

WITHDRAWN My policy proposal was too controversial in its original form and poorly thought out in its revision. Cnscrptr (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (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.

In order to have more reliable and unbiased articles and make Misplaced Pages fully reliable, I believe it necessary for articles and topics to be created and handled by bodies of editors called "Research groups", focusing on researching about topics and articles to ensure Misplaced Pages articles are as accurate, neutral, and unbiased as possible.

I also propose that editing articles will be reserved to their respective research groups and creating articles about a topic can only be done by said groups, with non-members being able to propose changes and articles via RFCs and whatnot. To join a research group, one must complete thorough training in the following areas

  • Bias reduction and neutrality training.
  • Finding reliable sources and comparing sources.
  • Professional research.
  • Lessons about the topic.
  • Misplaced Pages policy.
  • Any other applicable areas

This policy would also reduce vandalism and guideline violations across Misplaced Pages, making situations easier to handle.

Since Misplaced Pages is a widely-used source, it is time to move away from the current decentralized approach where just about anyone (no matter how inexperienced and biased) can edit, which has resulted in article bias, vandalism, unreliable sources, poor editing, sockpuppet accounts, edit wars, controversies, and a host of other problems.

A Research-Group-based editing Misplaced Pages will be far more stable and solve many of our persistent problems. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

So something more like Citizendium? Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
So basically we would deprecate half our policies and guidelines? Honestly trying to be nice but this is a terrible idea Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Your proposal describes something that would not be Misplaced Pages at all (remember, we are the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit), so is better suited for a fork. Usually proposals like yours (with editing only permitted to small numbers of "trusted" people) only work for small projects, if at all (I expect you would have to pay people to consider going through the "research group" training; it certainly does not sound attractive at all to me as a volunteer). You will need tens of thousands of editors to have any chance at not becoming outdated immediately. —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
it is time to move away from the current decentralized approach where just about anyone can edit - this proposal is dead on arrival - I support a SNOW close. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations! We're completely rejecting Misplaced Pages's open content, its editors' direct contributions (henceforth to be filtered through a new Misplaced Pages Politburo), with the basic principles of Misplaced Pages's founders soundly rejected. "Research group training" says it all. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, I think this is a horrible idea. The decentralized model is what the entire site was built upon. It is even one of the first things advertised on the Main Page! If we got rid of it, the site wouldn't truly be Misplaced Pages anymore. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean, I think Misplaced Pages is big enough to drop the "free encyclopaedia" bit and attempt a nupedia-like approach. However, I digress and have dropped that clause in my proposal. Cnscrptr (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Few modifications of my proposal based on feedback:
  • Keep the decentralized model.
  • Drop the extensive training clause. No extensive training will be required.
  • Individuals are expected to learn about the topic before editing.
  • It will be necessary to join research groups (i.e., groups made of editors collaborating on the topic) to better learn about the topic and better contributing to it.
  • Editing of various articles, including election articles, will require an extended-confirmed status.
Cnscrptr (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
So these groups are basically Wikiprojects but more restrictive? Tarlby 20:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Modified proposal: Research panels between editors and greater article protections

I got your feedback on this policy proposal and decided to overhaul the proposal based to maintain the free nature of Misplaced Pages and strong editor collaboration while ensuring accuracy and reliability.

In order for Misplaced Pages's articles to be more reliable and less biased and to make Misplaced Pages a more reliable site, I believe that there should be a mandatory creation of Research panels, topic collaborations between editors focused on gathering information, comparing sources, establishing editing policies and guidelines in accordance with general Misplaced Pages rules, and ensuring editing guidelines. Formation of research panels will be necessary in every topic.

  • The editing model will remain decentralized. However, Research panels will determine policies based on consensus for their respective topics.
  • Individuals can join a research group freely. However, individuals are expected to follow the policies and protocols set forth by the research group.
  • Individuals are expected to learn about the topic before editing.
  • It will be necessary to join research panels to better learn about the topic and better contribute to it.
  • Various controversial articles, including election articles, will receive special protection or extended-confirmed protection upon request from the respectively Research panel.

Research Panels will allow people to better understand the topic while integrating cooperation efforts to find the most accurate information and create the best possible articles.

--Cnscrptr (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This still feels like Wikiprojects with more rules. Tarlby 20:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, then we can use that and implement it more strongly across every topic. We do need some sort of organization, though. Cnscrptr (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
This modified proposal is sloppy at worst and doubt it will get any approval. However, I think y'all should take whatever good ideas are there (if any) and also create spaces or something like that for greater learning and collaboration among editors to resolve conflicts and biases. Cnscrptr (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
"Individuals are expected to learn about topic before editing"+"It will be necessary to join research panels to better learn about the topic" seems to add up to "Users are expected to be members of research panels before editing topics in that realm."
So if I look at an article about "semiotics" (about which I know nothing) I am not allowed to correct, say, some MOS:LQ failures, some incorrect header capitalization, and a misspelling of Charles Schulz's last name until I train myself in semiotics and join the Official Misplaced Pages Semiotics Fun Team? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The whole training clause has been dropped and you could freely join the panels, so you would be allowed to do all that. Cnscrptr (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, the whole editing thing only applies to major edits, not minor ones.
Either way, this isn't my best work. The first proposal was essentially nupedia revivalism and the modification is a sloppy attempt at salvaging it based on the original essence of investigating about a topic further to put out the most accurate information (as is necessary in the Proto-Sinaitic script article) Cnscrptr (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand that I would be allowed to jump through whatever hoops you erect in order to be able to correct misspellings, but that seems an effective way to discourage me from improving the encyclopedia and getting it in line with general standards. (I am also unconvinced that this will reduce bias; it would seem to help solidify a smaller group of editors on various topics who are likely to be driven, quite possibly by bias, to go through the effort which you're adding.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
(Note, that was written before you made the "minor edit" change.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Regardless, I am dropping my proposal because it is poorly written and will probably not be helpful at all. Cnscrptr (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the "above 8000 words = split" an absolute rule?

I am referring to this chart found on WP:SIZE:

Word count What to do
> 15,000 words Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
> 9,000 words Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.
> 8,000 words May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.
< 6,000 words Length alone does not justify division or trimming.
< 150 words If an article or list has remained this size for over two months, consider merging it with a related article.
Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Misplaced Pages:Stub.

I have seen a few instances where, an editor will raise the issue that an article is too large at, say, 7500 words or 8100 words. We have multiple history pages (and medical/psychology pages) with well over 11,000+ words, even some with over 16000. Where does one draw the line? It seems like Misplaced Pages leaves it to the discretion of the editor after about 8000 words. Plasticwonder (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the table, it's obvious that "above 8000 words=Split" is not "an absolute rule". I promise you that if it were, that table would say something that sounded remarkably like "if the article is above 8,000 words, then it absolutely must be split".
Additionally, we have an official policy against absolute rules.
Where one draws the line is: In a place that makes sense for the topic of that specific article, having thoughtfully considered all the facts and circumstances that apply to that unique article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
There was a lengthy discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Article size/Archive 6 about the size guidance, for the record. Splitting pages is a lot of work and not everyone thinks that spreading stuff over multiple pages is better for readers than having in one big page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the above, what matters for the technical aspects of article size is not the number of words but the number of bytes. Word count can only ever be an approximation of that as the length of the words used matters ("a" is 1 byte, "comprehensive" is 13), the number and size of included media matters very significantly more. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I think WP:PEIS is a bigger technical challenge for long articles. The more templates, and the more complicated templates, the more likely you are to need to split for technical reasons. List of common misconceptions needs a split in part due to PEIS reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
What's more, there's nothing even in the excerpt here that would purport an absolute guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 09:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It isn't an absolute rule, but usually an article having an extremely long high word count is evidence of a bigger problem with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE -- that it's too dense or detailed for a reader to use it as a first-port-of-call summary. As such, usually, it's a wise move to create daughter articles for the detailed material, and strim it down to its essentials in the main article; this improves the readability of the main article and allows interested readers to follow up into the nitty-gritty. As Jo-Jo Eumerus rightly says above, though, there's not really such thing as an absolute rule in this place. UndercoverClassicist 09:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
What we now know is that many readers are looking for specific information, with few reading from top to bottom, but the search engines send them to the mother article even when a more specific daughter article exists. So the first port of call needs to be the most highly detailed. The advice in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is therefore considered well intentioned but obsolete; stripping the mother article and pushing information down to the daughter articles defeats our whole purpose in providing information. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
When you say “we know…”, “is considered” and similar, are you pointing to specific previous discussions, RfCs etc on this matter? “In the wild”, as it were, I still see these size limits regularly invoked, even if the conversation rarely ends at them. UndercoverClassicist 09:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Rather than draw a line, I'd rather just remove that chart. Can't imagine why a suite of concrete word counts and procedures would ever be very helpful. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It absolutely makes sense to say at what page sizes that editors should start considering other options, as well as where splitting can be absolutely unnecessary. Nothing wrong with the table as long as it's clear those aren't hard or fast rules. Masem (t) 16:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, I find it helpful because it helps me remember what is generally too long for mobile users (I understand that mobile is generally a blindspot for us as editors because the vast majority of us don't edit on mobile but most of the readers are actually on mobile) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I also believe that the chart is helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
There don't seem to be any absolute rules laid out there... Even "Almost certainly" is qualified not an absolute rule. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The optimal article size varies quite a lot, actually. Key things we need to consider include:
    The likely readership. Someone who's looking up History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi probably has time to read something long and thoughtful. Someone who's looking up emergency surgery might need basic facts, in simple words, very fast.
    The cognitive load associated with the topic. Star Wars is (very) long but easy to understand; Fourier inversion theorem is much shorter, but I bet it takes you longer to read, unless you have unusual expertise in mathematics.
This is not the kind of thing on which we can produce simplistic guidance.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages leaves it to the discretion of editors far far before 8,000 words. We have thousands of single sentence articles to attest to this. The average article is less than 700 words. CMD (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The median article length is around 350 words, and the mean is 750. About one in 75 articles has more than 6,000 words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
You'll have to take the specifics up with WP:WPSIZE, although that ballpark range sounds the same. CMD (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
No. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've always felt that the kB of readable prose was a better metric for page size (such as is produced by various page size gadgets). Turns out, bigger words take longer to read than shorter words :P Doing it just by wordcount encourages a certain verbosity. For me, my rule of thumb has always aimed to keep big articles under 100kb readable prose. But there's no hard and fast rule, and there shouldn't be. CaptainEek ⚓ 23:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    If I'm being honest, what might be the best metric is starting at the top and lightly hammering the Page Down key for a bit. If I groan before reaching the References section, it's too long. Remsense ‥ 论 23:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    For example, results were heavily discouraging for George Washington until recently; as of today I no longer despair at the article's uncaring girth—thanks Nikki et al.! Remsense ‥ 论 23:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    26,000 words is 1.0 tomats. Another way to look at that table is by saying that if it's more than half the length of a book, it's pushing past being "an article" and edging up towards being "a book".
    Or you can look at it in terms of how many minutes reading the whole thing would take. There's quite a bit of variation, but for easy math, 300 words per minute means that a 15,000-word-long article would take 50 minutes to read, which almost certainly exceeds the interest and attention span of most readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think the most fundamental scalar isn't quite reading time or even visual size, but structural complexity—for an online encyclopedia article, being overlong expresses itself in my increasing inability to navigate an article comfortably to read or locate what I want, or to understand the structure of the scope covered by it at a glance. Remsense ‥ 论 00:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Come to think of it, one thing that makes an article feel longer than its word count is if its sections, media, and other landmarks have been laid out in a careless or unnatural way. Remsense ‥ 论 00:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. And this was rather a pointless, self-answering question in the first place, not something for a VP thread. The answer to the posed question of 'Is the "above 8000 words=Split" an absolute rule?' is obviously "no", both by observing actual WP community practice, and just by reading the table the OP quoted: > 8,000 words — May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size. Is anyone here actually confused into believing that A) "must" and "may" are synonymous, or B) that a guideline, to which reasonable exceptions sometimes apply, is somehow a legal-level policy that must be obeyed at all costs? In reality, there is never any hurry to split a large article, and doing it properly often involves a tremendous amount of work, involving both repair of citations (sometimes in great detail), and resummarizing the background context in the side article while also resummarizing the side-matter in WP:SUMMARY style within the main article (and doing them distinctly enough that the results are not obnoxiously repetitive if the reader moves between the articles). Doing a good job of this can take several days up to a month or longer of tightly focused work, depending on the detail level of the material, the number citations, etc. It is not trivial, we're all volunteers here, and our readers are not going keel over and die if they reach a detailed article that's a bit longer than they were expecting or would prefer. Ultimately, an article that is ginormous usually should split, but there is no deadline, and it needs to be done properly (plus there are often conceptually different ways to go about it from a content-flow perspective, and that might require some consensus discussion).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ever since WAID reminded me of it, I've thought we should maybe link RFC 2119 somewhere as a lemma. Remsense ‥ 论 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think I linked it once in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines, years ago, and someone objected. I didn't follow up to see whether the objecting editor is one of the handful who think that should is a more polite and/or IAR-compliant way to say must, but as that's a fairly uncommon POV among editors, it probably wasn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The linked document pushes very hard on should, "here may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed" is not a low bar. It sounds much like must except when IAR. CMD (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles

I want to propose Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles as a new guideline with an RfC. I'm starting this thread in case any outsiders to this area want to provide input or have questions. For context, the goal of this manual of style is to get agreement on broad principles to make editing easier in this topic area. As an example, WP:PIA5 is dealing with inconsistent use of the word "massacre" specifically, which has caused much arguing over whether there is a double standard, so this guideline makes the standards we should be using explicit. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Are all four points currently included based on previous conversations, or are any novel to this proposal? On the broader framing, I wouldn't create the guideline solely talking about NPOV, it is helpful to have guidelines to help describe encyclopaedic style if nothing else. On the example of massacre, I'm not up to date with the recent or ongoing discussions, but I'm surprised there's no mention in the draft of WP:WTW, as this seems a classic case. CMD (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: The settlements language comes from previous discussions/consensus, likewise with the West Bank naming conventions section. The categorization language comes from a suggestion on the talk page of the draft.
The "massacre" part is a novel part of the proposal. I would say that it seems like an obvious WP:WTW, but there's many RMs in the topic area in which editors use their own definition of the term "massacre" (like civilian death toll, mechanism of killing, see User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA_RM_statistics for a list of 24 RMs about the term "massacre"), and argue about whether or not the event meets that standard. I want to make it easier for editors to disengage by citing this guideline, instead of getting into lengthy arguments over points that don't contribute much to consensus (which is what happens now).
The reason the guideline is short is because I believe it will give it the best chance of passing right now. In the future, I'd like to get consensus to add more points to this guideline. I thought proposing a lengthy guideline upfront would create a scenario in which everyone at an RfC agrees a guideline would benefit the area, but individual editors have a small issue that prevents them from supporting this specific version. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
At a quick look, it seems most pages in that statistics page were not moved to a title with "massacre"? Seems sensible to collate previous discussions together, if massacres is new (as new as something discussed 24 times can be?) there might need to confirm that one. CMD (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
One issue with the massacre bit is that should be part of an AT naming convention, not in the MOS. Likewise, appropriate categorizations usually aren't in the MOS. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I (+other people) co-authored a draft article, but its submission was declined

@Walter Tau: This is not the place to ask questions about your drafts. You should ask @Bobby Cohn on his talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 22 December 2024 (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.

supposedly due to: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". It seems to me, that there are planety of good references now. I want to understand, what is missing - and- how it can be improved. A side note: there are many published articles in English Misplaced Pages, which are of much lower quality, than this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Maternity_capital Walter Tau (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI?

Moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard § Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? – voorts (talk/contributions) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been following WP:ANI for a few weeks now (because I like gossip apparently) and I've noticed several incidents involving persons suspected of using AI for editing. Is it time to create an official policy to point to? WP:AI exists, but it's an informational article rather than a policy page. (I don't actually know which page to put this on so it's going here.) guninvalid (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#LLM/chatbot comments in discussions is ongoing now for those interested. CMD (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
See also this RfC. If this is an issue you're interested in, you might want to try getting involved with WikiProject AI Cleanup. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Please see Misplaced Pages:Large language models for an essay on this topic. Folks have been discussing this issue for a while now, whether or not it can become policy is another debate. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Of note, there was an RfC in October 2023 where there was a consensus against promoting that essay to a policy or guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: