Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timrollpickering (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 10 April 2015 (→Support allowing a new move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:VPP
• WP:VPPOL

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Encourage use of "watcher" in place of "stalker" on talk pages

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Allow editors to choose for themselves for template usage, No consensus concerning editorial changes to watcher. Most of the comments concerned templates. And several noted that the term "stalker" was in general deprecated years ago. With that in mind, no prejudice against an WP:RM concerning renaming Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker to Talk page watcher, WikiJaguar, or whatever else the community may decide. Further editing of the page should wait until after such an RM helps decide the "direction" of the page. (The goal being to avoid needless edit-warring.) Note that an XfD would of course also be an option. - jc37 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This idea stems from a discussion at the harassment policy regarding the possibly offensive use of "stalk", "stalking", "stalker" when talking about people on Misplaced Pages. It was decided several years ago to mark the WP:STALK shortcut historical due to the potential for offending users, and since the change there has been a note there advising editors that it should not be used.

Many of you who have edited user talk pages in the past have seen the {{talk page stalker}} template used as a neutral indicator that a comment is not from the owner of the talk page but from someone else who watches the page. The template links to Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker which explains the template's use, and there are several related templates and userboxes floating around the project for this purpose. Recently, User:NeilN created a new template {{talk page watcher}} to allow the use of a similar template without needing to use the terminology that some users find offensive (and others have stated they find confusing). That template has been nominated for deletiondiscussion and that seems to be resulting in a snowball keep, with several commenters saying they prefer the new template over the old. That indicates to me that there is consensus to adopt this change (stalker -> watcher) across the project, and I would like to test that here.

I propose that in the project-side context of an editor who participates in discussions on other users' talk pages ( a "talk page stalker"), "watcher" should replace or be preferred to "stalker" in any place it occurs on the project.

This proposal includes:

• moving Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker → Misplaced Pages:Talk page watcher and rewording many instances of "stalker" on that page; (edit: please see this example)
• moving the subpages of Misplaced Pages:TPS to subpages of Misplaced Pages:TPW (such as WP:TPS/userbox) and rewording the contents of the subpages per the above;
• keeping the {{talk page watcher}} template(s) (subject to the TfD discussion);
• other related changes that may be required.

This proposal does not include changes to the existing {{talk page stalker}} template such as changing its wording or redirecting it to the new template - it is transcluded nearly 10,000 times and changes to it will break things. Some users will want to continue using those templates or won't know about this change - they should be discouraged but not forcibly prevented from using it.

Cheerfully submitted; Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• (watching) Support - NQ (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support. Providing that both terms can be used at editors discretion, as appears to be the case. However see my comment downthread suggesting Talk Page Helper Irondome (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Seems perfectly sensible. Sam Walton (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is like trying to rename notability again. I don't see why we should get rid of this terminology, provided that a less potentially-offensive template is available for situations (newbies or otherwise) where it would be inappropriate - it was for this reason I !voted keep at the TfD. It's only a humour page, and changing this would detract from that. BethNaught (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There's no "getting rid" of any terminology, just encouraging a less ambiguous usage. Sam Walton (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It was my understanding of the above that the essay (which is great) will still stand? After it does say "sometimes termed "watcher".." in the essay. Im hoping that can be left untouched, maybe a few tweaks to the banner headline? My vote depends on this and the level of "encouragement" to switch. I hope this is not PC related stuff.. Irondome (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I dont have a problem with an alternate template if users want to use it, but it should point to Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker rather than creating a parallel universe. The TPS page makes it clear about the use of the term and I see no reason to make any changes. MilborneOne (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  User:MilborneOne, the proposal would be to rename talk page stalker to talk page watcher. There would be no parallel universe, just the same one with a slightly different name. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Happy to for watcher template to link to stalker but I dont see any reason to rename anything. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ehhhhh... - Stalking is bad (m'kay?), but each way of fixing this I can see leaves something broken. The "other related changes that may be required" would have also been better left implied under WP:COMMONSENSE, since having it explicitly stated could be misconstrued as a borderline carte blanche. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  Allow me to explicitly state here that carte blanche was and is not my intent. I simply thought I would probably miss something if I tried to list every change that would be necessary. Of course common sense is implied. Sorry for the confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support {{talk page stalker}} can be misleading and confusing. Users could misinterpret that as offensive. Sam.gov (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Misplaced Pages cant please everyone, "watcher" is too broad in meaning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Regarding the essay (replying to several comments above): to be clear, the intent is to keep but modify Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker by seriously downplaying the use of "talk page stalker" on that page, but not removing it completely because people are obviously used to it, and hopefully not changing the meaning of the essay. The idea is not to cluebat users into enforcing the change; regarding the "level of encouragement", the idea is limited to creating a sort of "new normal" by making changes to the essay. To that end I've created a draft of what it could look like; please have a look at User:Ivanvector/Talk page watcher. I think I've done a decent job of downplaying "stalker" while maintaining the jaguar analogy, and I think this fits in better with the theme of our other "wikifauna" pages (like WP:WikiGryphon, WP:WikiOgre, WP:WikiGnome, etc).

  As for redirecting {{talk page watcher}}, if no changes are made to the essay then redirecting there defeats the purpose of eliminating the reference to "stalking" in the template. If there is no consensus to modify the essay, I would prefer if the watcher template redirected somewhere else, like Help:Watching pages, or a new essay for this purpose.

  And regarding political correctness, yes this is a form of that. There are users here (new and established) who have experienced criminal stalking online and in real life, and who find the idea of people "stalking" their user spaces hostile and intimidating. We should be sensitive to that, and it's not difficult for us to be sensitive to that by making this change. There are other users who simply find "talk page stalking" confusing, and this also helps that. Ivanvector (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• As I recall, the "TPW" template was actually created at either my request, or the request of Durova; while she and I disagreed on many things, we both agreed that the "stalker" terminology was inappropriate, intimidating, and a few other descriptors that I'll leave out. Stalking is a serious thing, and concerns about personal safety and internet stalking have often been cited as reasons that women or people with a personal history of being stalked do not participate on Misplaced Pages. The use of the term "talk page stalker" is just one more example of the systemic biases found on this project. Risker (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  But one can choose to be a stalker if one wishes, is that correct? Irondome (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Irondome, I don't know if you intended it that way, but that has to be one of the creepiest things anyone has ever said to me on Misplaced Pages. Why in heaven's name would I wish to be a stalker? I've just finished saying that stalking is a serious and potentially frightening thing. Risker (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  I meant the traditional usage of the term as is used on WP, obviously. Irondome (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you for proving my point. It's incredibly creepy to suggest to someone who points out the offensiveness of the term "stalker" that they could be a stalker if they wanted. Risker (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  I have proved nothing. I merely wished clarification that if some users wish to use the old WP terminology, they would be allowed to. I am beginning to be irritated by your usage of the term "creepy". This dialogue appears to be saying more about your mindset than mine, which is merely in the spirit of inquiry. Let us get this straight at this point so we can have a constructive discourse. Regards Irondome (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  That isn't what you asked, Irondome; you personalized the question to me. There are neutral third-person pronouns that are standard usage for questions that are not intended for a specific individual. As to language, it evolves. This project long ago deprecated the term "wikistalking" because of the very negative connotations attached to the term "stalking". Terms to describe black people that were commonly used and accepted for generations today would practically brand the speaker/writer as a racist. I think we should all be getting past that. Sorry you don't like the word creepy; I'm using fairly mild descriptors here, but if you'd like we could try "threatening" or "menacing" or "sinister". Risker (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  No I did not. This may be a transatlantic language issue. "You" in UK English often means "one", as in "so you can use an Oystercard at weekends" (forgive the inane example). It was not aimed at you specifically. Please grasp that.Irondome (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's how I interpreted your proposal, Ivanvector; while I believe the usage should be deprecated, I don't think it is necessary to go through and eradicate the historic uses any more than we eradicated the use of the term 'wikistalker' those many years ago. The continued use of such templates and terminology will become progressively less socially acceptable, as is the norm for archaic language. Risker (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: The TPW template was actually created by me a couple days ago based on Template_talk:Talk_page_stalker. I don't think there's any community consensus to stop using TPS entirely but if there was, it should be fairly easy to get a bot to subst all the occurrences of tps (keeping the original wording) and then deactivating the template. --NeilN 18:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:, this "Talk Page Watcher" template has been on my talk page since 2008. Risker (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were referring to the {{tpw}} template. --NeilN 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Risker that "stalker" is likely to be needlessly inflammatory to a non-trivial subset of our readers / editors. In the real world, stalking is no joke, and we don't need to trivialize the real world problem by using the same terminology in a benign context. I fully support efforts to deemphasize the term "stalker" and emphasize other terminology such as "talk page watcher". If individuals want to continue to refer to "stalkers" / "stalking", then that is on them, but in terms of the community's documentation and recommended templates, we can strive to be more inclusive. Dragons flight (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Do we have direct evidence that there is a direct correlation between the use of the term "stalking" on WP and editor recruitment and/or retention? Irondome (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most users of reasonable intelligence should be able to see the joke in the old template. We should remove every bit of humour on this site just because some hypothetical person might misconstrue this VERY common use of the term (how often do people talk about FB stalking?). We can't and shouldn't try to please everyone and we can't help it if some people are so literal and thin-skinned they'll get offended. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 7 Adar 5775 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Umm. When people talk about Facebook stalking, they usually mean it in a very creepy way as in "I was Facebook stalking my ex-girlfriend" or "My ex-boyfriend has been stalking me all over Facebook". It may have been a joking term at one point, but the world has long since moved on and recognized the problems with internet stalking behaviour. Risker (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Never heard it like that amongst New York, DC, or London, 20-somethings or teens. They always use it in the joking sense (which alway sounds weird to me and I never say it, but I understand what they're referring to). They talk about actual stalkers in a much different manner and unfortunately, many people I know have actual stalkers. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 7 Adar 5775 15:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  What you say is true, Risker, but in the context of Misplaced Pages we have different terms, wikihounding, harassment and others, for that meaning. A "talk page stalker" isn't generally a stalker, and Wikipedians are aware of that. But this is why I support using either template, because of differing situations eg with newbies. BethNaught (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  BethNaught, the deprecation of the term "wikistalking" took place in 2007-08, specifically because it was a serious misuse of the term 'stalking'. One of the responses was for people who just really enjoy thumbing their noses at others to create the "talk page stalker" meme. It had little traction at first, but then people who didn't realise the history of having worked hard to normalize the definition of stalking on Misplaced Pages started seeing those cute little templates and thinking they were cool. And now Misplaced Pages has once again decontextualized a term that, to anyone outside of our little project, is pretty scary stuff. Stalking is not a good thing, and the same people who seem to proudly go around saying they're talk page stalkers would never want to associate themselves with other negative statements...for example, rapists, murderers, spousal abusers, revenge porn publishers... Risker (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support only the original proposal. Oppose any PC-deletion of {{talk page stalker}}. Briefly checking "What links here" for the template, it seems to be used most often between experienced editors, where such a misunderstanding about its intended meaning is very unlikely and the humour aspect should be clear enough. GermanJoe (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support in the name of clear communication, of saying what we mean using existing English. Users should not be required to learn alternate definitions of emotionally loaded words to function in this environment. Besides, the use of "stalker" to mean something innocuous makes light of a very serious issue. Some subjects are not suitable for wordplay. (I'm generally opposed to PC, but for me that doesn't mean a black-and-white rejection of all sensitivity to the effect of words. That's the proper domain of stand-up comics, not Misplaced Pages.) As for precisely what I'm supporting, my preference would be complete elimination, but I support any step in that direction. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The lede of our own article on Stalking says: "Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense." If someone were to tell you in any other fora, "I'm stalking you", or were to tell another person that they were stalking you, this would be considered threatening and would be grounds to go to court and get a restraining order. If someone were to post on your Misplaced Pages talk page (either to you or in response to another editor there) that they were stalking you, you could go straight to court with a printout of the page and say, "see, your Honor, they admit to stalking me right there". We should avoid pushing our editors to use terminology that could potentially put them in legal jeopardy. bd2412 T 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm sure there is some MeatballWiki explanation for this phenomena, but it seems that as Misplaced Pages grows it is losing its sense of humor in an attempt to please everyone (which is difficult given the realistic interpretation of that statement). Which makes sense, but is disappointing all the same. I'd oppose this change, but I fear that it will ultimately, whether in this instance or another, be changed. To be clear, if you are the victim of honest and genuine stalking, please contact the authorities. If you are the recipient of a TPS template on your talk page, please do not contact the authorities. Killiondude (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - To say that one is "stalking" another is an overtly hostile description of an activity, one that does not really convey the benign sense of what "your page happens to be on my watchlist, so I'm commenting here" is meant by the use of this template. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This comes across as a Liberal guilt kind of change. Users self-brand themselves as talk page stalkers, and the connotation being imposed on the term here simply does not apply. Keep both templates and allow users to choose what they will. - Floydian  _¢ 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This proposal is actually for keeping both templates, so users will still be able to choose either one as they wish. Ivanvector (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Partly because the previous oppose makes no sense, but really because naming it 'talk page watcher' is perfectly fine, as that's what it is about and the rest of the opposition seems to be based on the poor reasoning, 'we have to do it this way because, we have done it this way' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Supposed to neutral aren't? Well "watcher" is quite plainly more neutral than "stalker". Leaky Caldron 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support My impression is that someone would describe him/herself as a "talk page stalker" to acknowledge the discomfort in a situation where a message would likely begin, "I hope you don't mind that I've been reading your talk page for some time now, but..." And when Misplaced Pages was a smaller place -- or at least hadn't suffered the chronic turnover it appears to experience in recent years -- & volunteers knew each other well enough to sense when someone might be joking, calling oneself a "talk page stalker" didn't have such a negative implication. (Sheesh, from a few threads I've read recently, there might be seriously creepy people amongst the established editors, & using the word "stalking" might be more accurate than some people may suspect.) Although I'm supporting the deprecation of the phrase "talk page stalker", I do so reluctantly because I'd prefer to not acknowledge that Misplaced Pages has changed in this way. -- llywrch (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  A good point. If we use "stalker" for this purpose, what word would we use for the real thing? And how confusing would that be? And it's true that madness exists in the world, even (especially?) here at good ole Misplaced Pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  What should we call the real thing? A wikicreep. But then some would complain that is being insulting & uncivil, even if it is the truth. -- llywrch (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  I would complain that it would contain no information content beyond a very loaded social statement. See "clear communication, of saying what we mean using existing English", above. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose plain and simple WP:BIKESHEDing and a rose by any other name is still a rose. We're talking about people who stalk talk pages, not people who stalk users which should be directly reported via WP:911. — {{U|Technical 13}} 00:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Please note that users are confused by the terminology regardless of the debate over the appropriateness of the word stalker: here and here for example. Sam Walton (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support People can say "talk page stalker" all they want—no human rights are being infringed by this proposal. It's great that so many people have not been touched by stalking in real life, and so have no idea how creepy the term has become in the last decade, but the fact is that stalking really is a problem. I would favor deleting the pointless {{tps}} and {{tpw}} templates because they do nothing except add confusion for new users (who are the only people who need to see what the templates display). A newbie posts on someone's talk, and the response starts with gobbledygook with a link that has nothing to do with what is on the newbie's mind—how is that helpful? However, if the templates are used, "watcher" is the preferred term because it has no RL baggage, and correlates nicely with the "watch" link at the top of every page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I would therefore propose the term Talk Page Helper. Watcher is "creepy" too. very Orwellian. It has connotations of mass-survelliance which are every bit as disturbing in the post-wikileaks era as stalker. I think helper is friendly, neutral, unambiguous and would cover all the above issues. We can create a suitable image for "helper" and it can add its place in the wikifauna. I would suggest a cartoon-like angelic figure. Something along those lines. Thoughts? Irondome (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Although {{tps}} fits my sense of humor, it's not a bad change, considering the millions of eyes viewing the project, it's not a stretch of the imagination that it could be frequently miss-interpreted. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - If it were "watcher" now and we had an RfC to change it to "stalker", there would be 200 opposes. So, my twisted logic says support. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as inconsequential. No need to make changes that have no functional effect. --Jayron32 02:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aside from what Jayron says (with which I agree), you have the issue of watchlists: some people frequently participate at pages not on their watchlists (I often participate at WP:AN, but there isn't a single projectspace page on my watchlist, and I'm a frequent contributor at some users' talk pages, but aside from my own, I don't watch any userspace pages), and some people rarely or never participate at pages that are on their watchlists. If we want to be "encouraging a less ambiguous usage", we should use a term that isn't commonly used here already. If you want to rename the concept, use "lurker" or some form of it. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support deprecation of tps, but I like Nyttend's "lurker" suggestion better than "watcher". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  I fear that "lurker" carries much of the same connotation as "stalker". What about Irondome's suggestion of "helper" as an alternative? Personally I prefer "watcher" because it ties in with existing wiki functionality (watchlists) as Johnuniq pointed out. Also, one can interject a one-off comment on a talk page they stumble across without it being on their watchlist. I often do. Ivanvector (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Someone interjecting a one-off comment on a talk page they stumble across could hardly be described as a "stalker" or a "watcher"; more like an accidental tourist. bd2412 T 16:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  Talk page tourist could be a possibility. Perhaps we could create a "WikiTourist" WikiFauna essay. Ivanvector (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• suggest T P Follower Leaky Caldron 16:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Follower is good. A la FB. Follower or helper both have more positive vibes. Irondome (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support, though I prefer "follower" to "watcher". It would be good to avoid negativity and confusion that can result from using "stalker", even though most of the time it's fine in its context. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  I've just noticed Nyttend's suggestion of "lurker", and I like that better than "follower", as it keeps the original humorous intent. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This goes to the core of the issue however. It seems clear that "lurker" is hardly less acceptable in some quarters as "stalker". One person's perceived harmless terminology is another person's poison. This has been made amply clear upthread. I believe we should be now concentrating on finding other terms which are acceptable to all. I still have issues with watcher, even though it dovetails into watchlist, etc. It is an increasingly interesting dialogue. I still support the continued usage of the now (apparently) deprecated terms until they fall into obsolesence, where peer-pressure will create evolutionary change. The question is, should it be follower, helper, or some other new proposal yet to be made. Irondome (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on how this discussion is going, maybe there's a case to be made for changing our own terminology as well. Not for this discussion, but maybe it would be worth talking about whether we want to change "watchers" and "watching pages" into "followers" and "following pages". The meaning of "following" in this context is very thoroughly ingrained in popular culture these days; it would be very unlikely to be misinterpreted. Just something to think about.

For the purpose of this discussion, I still prefer "watcher" to the other suggestions, if only because "watching" has a well-established meaning within Misplaced Pages. I also like "follower" for the reason I stated above - it's easily recognizable, even though we haven't typically used it here. I feel that we would have work to do to establish this usage for "helper" and "lurker", and "stalker" has been specifically rejected elsewhere, which is what this proposal is about. Ivanvector (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Feel free to stalk my talk page all you want, just like the other 147 people who are doing it, but I'll warn you now if you watch or follow me, I'll have to get a protection order against you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 16:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Opposed -- What exactly are you trying to fix? What some people think is an offensive word? That's not reason enough to change things, if that's all you're proposing. Damotclese (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Yes, and "don't offend users" is a fine rationale for such a change. This proposal is an extension of having already made this exact change in the harassment policy, and has been done before at WP:VANITY for the conflict of interest guideline. Even so, I am not proposing eliminating the word "stalker" everywhere on Misplaced Pages; there is more detail about this in my "regarding the essay" comment above. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Your question has already been answered, and the answer is not "what some people think is an offensive word". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • But it is "what some people think is an offensive word" and it is just an attempt to WP:CENSOR Misplaced Pages. Lurker, Watcher, and Follower are all just as offensive and "bad" as Stalker. The only one that isn't is "helper" and it's not accurate for what is happening. You could also suggest Liker (in the spirit of FaceBook), but I don't think that is really any better either. It's not broken, let's leave it as is. You want to use one of those other words, fine, you use the other word. You don't like a word used on your talk page, then put a note in your editnotice asking people to not use it because it makes you uncomfortable. I don't see anyone here in good faith that would object to that. — {{U|Technical 13}} 16:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
      • There are no laws against lurking, watching, or following (except when put into very specific contexts not implied by the words alone), and no lives have been seriously damaged by any of those things. The word doesn't make me uncomfortable, and this is not about me or any one person in any case. You have completely missed the point of my argument and that of others. I'll say it for the third time, "clear communication, of saying what we mean using existing English". Stalking is not what we are describing and therefore it should not be the word we use. Would you defend a tongue-in-cheek use of "rapist" at Misplaced Pages? I'm certain many here would, since any restraint whatsoever in language is seen by them to be "censorship". No doubt they see a slippery slope that does not exist, omg if we do this what will be next?? The best alternative is a different question, and I don't have a strong opinion about that; most of the alternatives put forth would be a major improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: this is becoming ridiculous. I have pages I watch, lurk, observe, stumble across. Most I can comment on without being an intruder. So many words tossed about to keep from using what is a perfectly good term. (accidental tourist, intruder, lurker, peeper, observer, off-side comment). Please just let us use the talk page stalker template or not at will. I can decide just fine. Fylbecatulous talk 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Stalker is needlessly scary. Change to follower would be better. This template is a perfect example of why there are so few female wikipedians. (And yes I realize that there is probably one woman out there who will now post and say "but I'm female and I think its funny!", this doesn't make it ok.) WP should be neutral and welcoming.pschemp | talk 12:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You really think follower is better? /sarcasm but I hope you get the point. — {{U|Technical 13}} 16:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - needless to say, (perhaps), {{tps}} pages should not be deleted, but merely redirected to the better title.--John Cline (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per BD2412. -sche (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - There's no harm in changing it. Saying it's BIKESHEDing or too minor is just dismissing the issue. If it's so minor, then changing it to accommodate others shouldn't bother anyone either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Pointless, but whatever. This reminds me of a small(?) black rights group many years ago that demanded computer manufacturers change the terminology around "master" and "slave" drives because it offended them. Then, as now, the problem is not the terminology but the fact that people deliberately choose to assume the worst. The word is innocuous. People are dumb. Resolute 20:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a bit of light wiki-humour, no need to take it so seriously. I find it quite funny and will continue to use it. EoRdE6 20:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the deletion or renaming, as appropriate, of all templates and pages that refer to it as "stalker". Certainly saying that you're stalking someone has a pointlessly chilling effect. --B (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, what would you replace it with? follower, watcher, lurker all have the same effect. — {{U|Technical 13}} 04:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I have been stalked, and although I don't panic or get particularly stressed when I read the word it is occasionally a slightly unpleasant reminder. That said, it's a legitimate word in the English language, and has broader meanings. It might be politer to avoid its usage in the case of stalking humans (as opposed to stalking deer). RomanSpa (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – The proposed change has no effect that is necessary for the continuance of the function provided by this terminology, and hence should be opposed as frivolous. Frivolity should be discouraged, and hence I must put my boot down on this misguided proposal. As it happens, it is natural that words have multiple meanings, and that in the course of human discourse new meanings are applied to old words. Let nature take its course. There is no room for prescriptivism. The terminology was envisioned as "stalker", and that should remain. RGloucester — ☎ 22:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"The terminology was envisioned as stalker" (envisioned terminology? and so what?). It's rather prescriptivist to follow your "envisionings" apparently. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Solution in search of a problem. All of the proposed replacements, watch, follower, etc. have the same connotations as the original. KonveyorBelt 16:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your claim is directly and clearly contradicted by the content of stalker, watcher, follower, lurker, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary tells a different story. wikt:watch says "The act of guarding and observing someone". wikt:lurk says "To remain concealed in order to ambush". wikt:follow says " To go after; to pursue". Any of these terms could be easily construed in the wrong way. KonveyorBelt 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with the notion that Wiktionary, or any dictionary, compares with an encyclopedia when it comes to defining connotations of words. And I'm not aware of any anti-watching or anti-lurking laws, are you? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, largely because Mandruss nailed it, especially Users should not be required to learn alternate definitions of emotionally loaded words to function in this environment. APerson (talk!) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support What we mean when we use the terms in a neutral or positive sense is indeed what is commonly called "watching". I don't think "Lurking is as good a choice, at is has negative connotations also , e.g. "robbers lurking waiting for a victim" DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per Mandruss (above). I have no especial love for the PC crowd, so any term that isn't a felony would be fine with me. Primergrey (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Mandruss. The word "watcher" strikes me as the clearest option that has been proposed, but "follower" and possibly "lurker" would also work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Meh unnecessary policy creep - we really don't need a policy on this. — xaosflux 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. We're all adults here, and if we are so humor-impaired that we fail to see the humor involved in the "talk page stalker" template, and fail to see the difference between that and actual stalking/harassment, then perhaps we shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I personally think that being "humor impaired", in this instance, indicates an inability to identify a situation where being hilarious might be creating a divisive environment. Primergrey (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The word existed before the felony, and it continues to have many other uses apart from referring to a felony. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support That talk page stalker template is a little creepy and can be off-putting to new users. -- haminoon (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Mandruss said it better than I could've, and "watcher" is simply clearer and easier to understand. Also Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_1#Wikihounding. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I think lurker is better than stalker (because it is lurking not stalking) (to stalk prey one has to follow it not park on top of it). I think watcher and helper are less than helpful as they are not as descriptive or accurate as lurker. -- PBS (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment How about "Talk page aficionado"? It doesn't really mean anything, which is good, because descriptors which do have meaning must necessarily import the concept of surveillance. Risker makes a very good argument and Irondrome's criticism of it is misplaced because she actually hails from Toronto. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There is somewhat of a difference between surveillance and pursuit, and I think that the latter is implied by "stalker". I've stated my opinion about the other suggestions elsewhere in this thread (still slightly prefer "watcher" for purely technical reasons) but really as long as we're making an effort to reduce the use of "stalker" here then I'm happy. I'm also from Toronto, but I haven't had any reason to think that the encouragement of more neutral language is a particularly Toronto-centric idea. Ivanvector (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that more good things come out of Toronto than from across the border. Here's another possibility: User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle the black banner across the top of the page. Before the lightbulb goes out I'm listing some alternatives in a way that will make it easy for editors to make their preferences known and easier for whoever closes this discussion.

• Support, as per numerous others, but notably User:Mr. Stradivarius. When I first encountered the essay, I have to admit that the terminology, even if slightly humourous, was a bit off-putting. My preference is "follower", but "watcher", and to a lesser extent, "lurker", is fine too. Apologies for putting my comment here, but the introduction of the "voting on terms" list by the IP user 87.81.147.76 broke the flow of the discussion a bit. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support from someone accused of being a stalker (all the way to arbcom) when in fact I was a insignificant observer/ watcher. If someone 'feels' watched, they sometimes feel 'stalked' and the situation escalates rapidly. Let us start down a notch by watching and it will take a little more effort to accuse some of stalking and then harrassing and then blocking and then banning.....   Bfpage |leave a message  22:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Meh. I respect the goals of this proposal, and have commented elsewhere about the gender-gap topic, but this strikes me as misdirected effort. It's pointing at a molehill and worrying about what an off-puttingly daunting mountain it must be to newbies, while surrounded by actual mountains. I suppose I'm mostly posting to object to the Disney-perky "helper" as a replacement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dont do disney or perky. Except if they are nipples of the female persuasion. Its either helper or stalker. Im as disney as jack the ripper. Irondome (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What are Disney nipples? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A sort of pinkish brown. Merry Melodies nipples are more purple. I hope that clears up that very subtle query. Irondome (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- I think this proposal is sensible and the opposing votes aren't very persuasive – to me, they are essentially saying 'man up, nobody means to be hurtful!', but really there is no reason at all to use a term that could be interpreted in a hurtful manner. I do think 'helper' is better, but I support watcher as well. AgnosticAphid talk 04:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page aficionado :My choice. It imports the concept of enjoyment rather than surveillance. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) See my comment below.

Talk page follower

Talk page helper

• Support The best of the lot. Totally descriptive. Implies a friendly and proactive co-editor who is willing to help out on issues. Does exactly what it says on the tin, or can. Further, has no connotations of observation in any form. That is obviously a given. Irondome (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page liker

Talk page lurker

Talk page observer

• Support - descriptive and neutral. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page prowler

• Naturally support: catz do prowl... Fylbecatulous talk 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker

• Alternative Support The original and best. Irondome (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page tourist

Talk page voyeur

• Proposal I think we should use "Talkpage voyeur", the French adds a touch of class that the pedestrian "watcher" doesn't have.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page watcher

• I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a vote on a long list of alternatives, but maybe this is a good way to summarize the discussion, and in that spirit Maunus I've moved your comment/proposal down; feel free to move it back of course. I'll reiterate here that the spirit of this proposal is to reduce the usage of "stalker" in this context, thus it is the only option I oppose. I somewhat prefer "watcher" because this terminology is established in our site jargon and there are already templates available for use. I'm neutral on all of the other fine suggestions. Ivanvector (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't really understand the problem. It's only when it relates to a person that "stalker" is offensive. I still oppose the move. Can we not make everybody happy by introducing a generic template, {{talk page|}} where the editor fills in the preferred term after the pipe? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could, but that is not this proposal. The rationale is not exactly that people are offended by being called "talk page stalkers", I don't think that's an issue. The issue is that stalking is a real-life crime, and people who have been victims of it are uncomfortable with the idea of having people "stalking" them on this site. No matter how much we say here that it's just a joke, or intended to be humorous, or no big deal, it is a very big deal to some people, and having this entrenched in our site jargon has a chilling effect on people who might otherwise contribute. We can pretty easily solve this problem with very minimal disruption (possibly none at all) by modifying our language, and so we should, in the spirit of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The proposal at hand is simply that we should not use "stalker" in this sense, at all, with the caveat that we can't eliminate it completely but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort in that direction. As for what we should use instead, it doesn't really matter. I suggested "watcher" because it already has a meaning here, and many other editors have made fine suggestions, any of which support the spirit of the proposal. Ivanvector (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that you and NeilN are overthinking this. All the hurt I've seen relates to the description "wikistalking" and similar. Can you provide an actual example of an editor complaining about a picture of a big cat and accompanying stalking reference? I mean, plenty of women go on safari and I can't see any of them getting upset about the hunters talking about stalking the big game. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hunting animals, hunting people. Yes, that's completely the same. --NeilN 19:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I have actually been stalked and don't oppose this because the term is obviously ironic and metaphorical. "Watcher" sounds like some sort of official title. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose there's little difference in my mind from a stalker or a watcher. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Both are equally sinister (if taken out of context) or fine (if taken in context). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I certainly have no objection to anyone's individual efforts to change the typical nomenclature in this area (provided that their insistence does not cross the line into trying to make this a mandatory approach), but I very much doubt that a major organized effort would confer any substantial benefit to the project (relative to the amount of work that would have to go into promoting the shift). My personal observations suggest that most everyone seems to understand that "talk page stalker" is used in a whimsical fashion; if anything it contains a kind of self-deprecating reference to the fact that someone is responding to a comment that was clearly addressed to someone else on that party's "turf", as it were. It seems well suited to that role, but any number of the suggestions above work just as well; of the alternatives suggested, I am partial to "voyeur" as it best seems to fit the context in which the current term is usually utilized. Snow 04:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Author (BLP) uses pen name to not be harassed is now being outed with "real name"

Argument has been wikilawyered to death (see her Talk page), we need a policy change. Acharya S uses a pen name so that she won't be harassed (like Gamergate). She is also known as D.M. Murdock, not by her "real name". Her preference has been stated on her forum and she has submitted requests to Wikimedia (OTRS ticket 2010010110011483) to stop using her "real name," which she denies is her real name. The source editors use for her "real name" uses it only because he is (in Acharya S's words) a "libeler" and is "full of bile". There is absolutely no reason to use her "real name". It's really unplesent having to deal with this and I'm sure Acharya S is not happy either. Today I was called a "personal crucader" for reverting The Name at another article (dif). Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a pretty good reason to use D. M. Murdock as well as Acharya S - namely that she uses both herself in her publications and website. Reliable sources also connect the names. She clearly goes by both names by the internet and cannot expect wikipedia to use only one of them. Our policies cannot protect names that are already in the public knowledge and used in reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no objection to using D.M. Murdock it's (Redacted) that is not approved. Ian.thomson (below) is an involved editor. The "consensus" he talks about is essentially mob rule and wikilawyering. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've made no edits to the article or even the article's talk page. I have commented on two of the RSN and BLPN discussions as an uninvolved editor. You just didn't like what I concluded, and it looks like that was because it didn't fit your apparent mission. There's a difference between wikilawyering and editing within the site's policies and guidelines. You have provided no evidence that guidelines or polices were misinterpreted to push a particular goal. If anything, your reference to WP:OUTING could be construed as wikilawyering. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been involved with The Name here. As for wikilawyering: if you don't like the laws (or WP policies) change them . . . that's what I'm attempting to do. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The post you tried to link to still concerns the Christ Myth Theory article and how it handles academia's dismissal of Murdock's ideas. At no point did I comment on the name.

There's a difference between changing unjust laws and forum shopping to game the system at the behest of off-site collaborators. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also note that you failed to notify anyone who actually was involved in the article of this discussion. I'll go and make my first post to the article's talk page to notify them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The consensus on the talk page, at RSN, at BLPN (and not just that time) is that it's fine to include her name because it is included documented in RSs. This WP:FORUMSHOPPING and your overreliance on Murdock's blogs and forums do tend to support the idea that you're on a crusade to make the article fit Murdock's off-site demands for the article, instead of policy or consensus based concerns. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as a whole policy goes, if we have the real name, we should include it. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, full names included. However, there are exceptions to all rules (Ignore all rules?), and I think if the subject of an article wishes for something to be changed based off of harassment, rather than something criticising them but is well-sourced, then I think after a request to the Wikimedia foundation, that change, whatever it might be, should be changed. People have a right to privacy, it's a human right. She didn't sign that right away when she became a public figure by writing. No policy here needs to be made, it should be on a case by case basis. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

While there is a right to privacy, this isn't like publishing her home address or anything. The name is documented in reliable sources, and removing the name from our article and (if it were possible) all our mirrors would not really hide the information at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Although completely true, as now her name is on the internet, it will never leave, that isn't the issue here. She has explicitly asked her name not to be included on this website (doesn't matter about the rest of the internet) and so I believe quite firmly that she has the right to privacy and so we on this website should do what we can, adhering to the policies of BLP, and not include it on the article. It doesn't matter if the wikipedia mirrors show it, that's not what she's asked, she's asked it not be included here. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how someone who is actively promoting her books and ideas through podcasts and websites is attempting to stay private on the web. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point here, she's asked for her name not to be included. She doesn't include that name in her books, podcasts or website, so yes she's not a private person but to her, her name is. I cannot say I understand it myself, I'm just trying to interpret what I see into how this could possibly become something that needs to have a policy made about it, as that is the purpose of this discussion. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is suggested here doesn't mean a policy has to result from it, however. It could be dismissed as a continued WP:GAME by a tendentious editor who has repeatedly ignored clear consensus because it goes against her personal crusade.

The earlier comparison to Gamergate is flawed: the Gamergaters were spreading libel and real personal information (like home addresses), while this is just a first name that's documented in a variety of sources. The namedrop of Gamergate borders on a Reductio ad hitleram. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that just because something is suggested here it has to be implemneted, it's simply a discussion to see whether there should be a policy, or not. Sorry if I came across otherwise. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A better example may be the Charlie Hebdo shooting, protecting Acharya S from religious fanatics. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So anyone who supports including the article is like a murderous terrorist? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if it's published, then we have no prohibition on including it. In fact it's very important that we don't allow such a request, because this project is supposed to adhere to neutral point of view and allowing individuals control over their own information here specifically violates that. If there was a reason to believe that this information represents some sort of real, serious threat to this person then I suppose we'd have cause to deal with it. But we are not the publisher of this information, we are just repeating reliable sources.

That being said, it seems in this case that the source is obviously not reliable. The source is a person making it their mission to discredit this author, and is thus not independent and not reliable. Particularly because the author insists that the information is not true, and because we don't have a better source, we should not be including this. The lede of WP:BLP says "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources", and "contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis in original). Without a better, properly reliable source, this should be removed. Ivanvector (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that requests to exclude information should only be accepted if there is a threat of harassment or other issues surrounding that. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The source is on a mission to discredit the author according to the author. According to everyone else (including the RSN on it), the source is a reliable source that's on the broader topic of the Christ myth theory, which happens to address some of Murdock's ideas. Are we only allowed to cite sources that agree with Murdock now? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian makes an interesting point here. This could be seen, perhaps not unreasonably, at this point, to be an attempt at WP:GAME. Does BLP really apply selectively only to those works which the author him or herself has officially publicly discussed, or are they able to attempt to avoid negative discussion of their possibly less popular or supported works if they refuse to publicly acknowledge that they are the authors? Honestly, I cannot see that particular scenario having a "yes, they can do that" outcome, but it is possible, perhaps, that some other details are involved here. I haven't seen them though. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My point of view on this is that the dispute between the author (the subject) and the author of the source makes the source unreliable for this purpose, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be another source backing up the real name means that the sourcing is inadequate for the BLP policy. Of course the subject of a BLP does not get to cherrypick preferable sources, but if the information is reliable then there should be other sources available. If not, there's no harm to Misplaced Pages by not including it. Ivanvector (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Acharya S does not publish under the name "Dorothy". Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, she is quoted on the blog, "I have been advised by LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES not to disclose ANY personal information, because I was the victim of VIOLENT CRIME that included the felonious abduction of my small child. So, any and all attempts at publicizing what is believed to be my real name will be construed as a form of TERRORISM and BULLYING." Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

She's not disclosing her name, secondary sources are. It's terrible that her child was abducted, but:

• she provided no evidence that the violent crime was connected to her name being public knowledge
• the name has been public knowledge for some time
• WP:SELFPUB does not allow us to use self-published statements for self-serving claims (as this fear-mongering is)
• repeating this public knowledge is no more terrorism than mentioning that Charlie Hebdo published cartoons antagonizing Muslims (drastically less so)
• it's a bit of a slippery slope to say that imply repeating her publicly known name would lead to more crimes
• if it's not her name (as she indirectly claims), and she is being threatened, she should by all means encourage the mistake to misdirect people

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that that evidence for the connecoitn between the name and the crime could be reasonably expected, nor that it is relevant. What is relevant to her is obviously that her online persona cannot be easily connected to her private identity. I think it makes sense to respect that under a "do no harm" provision. There is no weighty reason that I can see for including the name, but there is weighty reasons to exclude it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There are ten non-primary sources on this page that mention the name Dorothy. It is effectively public knowledge. Misplaced Pages repeating that public knowledge doesn't "expose" her further, her name is already not hidden. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What policies could be easily changed

(edit conflict)* WP:BLPNAME: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. It has been argued that she is not a "private individual" but everything else fits perfectly.

• WP:BLPPRIVACY: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. The Name has NOT been widely published and the one source is contemptuous.
• WP:Self Identification is kind of a stretch but the spirit and intent is good: Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living people says "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and on 9 April 2009 the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution urging that special attention be paid to neutrality, verifiability and human dignity. (The rest has to do with gender identity.)AzureCitizen argues this policy on Acharya S's talk page here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That last one is just an essay. It's not a policy that can be changed as it's not a policy to begin with. The only policy that is being discussed here and can be discussed is WP:BLP in general. Therefore only the first two links you gave should be discussed here. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, the Manual of Style states at MOS:IDENTITY that "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Misplaced Pages content policies, such as those on verifiability, and neutral point of view (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article). When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, Misplaced Pages should use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." Therefore, we should be using reliable sources to decide which name to use in every case. It seems that there is clear policy here, and this isn't up for debate. On that case in question, there weren't reliable sources, so we used the term the person uses, as the policy states. There should be no policy change. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Why change Misplaced Pages policy when we can simply state that Acharya S' name is Dorothy M. Murdock as references by Maurice Casey () and numerous others; , , , , , , , , and . Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed... Misplaced Pages should not "out" a person's real name... but if multiple reliable sources already report the person's name, then we are not "outing" the person by noting it ourselves. It's already "out". No need to change any policies. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree: the basic human Right to privacy trumps all this. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it does in all cases, but in this case it does since there is no overwhelming necessity to include the full name - which is not the name she is known under and it is not widely published, and which could conceivably bring her in danger.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not here to Right Great Wrongs. The only salient question is whether "Dorothy" is widely published. If so, use it; if not, don't. Rhoark (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs and trying not to commit any are two different things.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not many citations for someone's name! How many of those references were even cited? Maybe they got The Name from Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ten sources aren't a lot? There are stable articles with fewer distinct sources than that! Also, your suggestion that any of them got the name from us is just grasping at straws unless you can provide evidence that the name was in the article before all of those sources were written. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Under WP:BLPNAME, "private individual" refers to someone who is not a "public official." (We could define what is meant.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It is defined. It says "notable public figure," not "official" (which carries inaccurate implications incorrectly more specific than "figure"). If we try to read it as "official," that means that we'll have to rename some of our articles on actors to "that person who played (character name) in (movie name)." "Notable" is already defined elsewhere. WP:BLPNAME also says that if an individual's name is already covered in multiple secondary sources (especially outside of news sources), then it's fine to include. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So, are we changing policy to fit the desire of Acharya S? Or, is there a need to change a policy that doesn't work? Ism schism (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't Acharya S, we wouldn't have this problem, it wouldn't be an issue. I question why some people insist on putting The Name in the article knowing that Acharya S doesn't like it. Why do you use a fake name? Misplaced Pages has a policy about WP:Self Identification and Misplaced Pages respects that. What's so hard about respecting a person's name?! The current policy isn't working because for the past five years some people insist on including The Name to the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

By some people you mean the many editors who have weighed in at RfC and multiple noticeboards and gained consensus which you disapprove of. WP:FORUMSHOP Capitalismojo (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to be polite and assume good faith and not accuse someone of bad faith or bullying or harassment or hypocrisy etc. This is someone's name, they don't like it yet some people insist on calling Acharya S by a name she dislikes. It's childlike (name-calling), trolling, malicious behavior. Maurice Casey, one of the sources for The Name is (in the words of Acharya S) "full of bile" and "libelous". Some people dislike Acharya S because she's antichrist or anti-christian.

I know several people who disliked their name and had it changed. If you called them by their former name out of ignorance and they told you their new name and that they didn't like their former name yet you insisted on calling them their former name it's disrespectful. I once tried to nickname my sister "A.J." for her first and middle name, which she hated (she hated her middle name) it was horrible teasing on my part and now that I'm older (more mature) I realize my name-calling behavior was wrong. It's similar to calling someone who dislikes their former gender the opposite pronoun of their gender identity, which Misplaced Pages respects. Misplaced Pages should respect the name that someone prefers to use, whether they legally changed it (or underwent sex-change surgery) or not. Raquel Baranow (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference between referring to someone by an undesired name, and simply mentioning that name in passing. I am all for respecting the desire of the subject by having the the title of the article be at Acharya S... and in that article, we should routinely refer to her by that pen name (we do this for many authors)... however, that does not mean we should not mention what her real name is. Misplaced Pages is not Censored. Her real name verifiable information, supported by multiple reliable sources. It's worth at least a parenthetical remark. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Simpson was born a man, she's from Tucson (my current hometown) she changed her name and I'm sure I could find some reliable sources for her Real Name (it's not on her WP page) or I could go to the courthouse and find her name change or I could look through academic records. Now lets imagine she's a popular Christ myth theorist like Acharya S, someone puts her previous name up on Misplaced Pages and then spread it all around Christian apologist forums where it is picked up by scholars and published in their books.

The reason Amanda Simpson's pre-transition name is not mentioned is because it doesn't appear in non-primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that, I'll bet if I looked through the references in the WP article on Ms Simpson I could find mention of her birth name. Maybe even mention on a talk show or something. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Leelah Alcorn, Marja-Sisko Aalto, Barbra Amesbury, Nikki Araguz, Victoria Arellano, Nina Arsenault, April Ashley. That's just the "A's" in Category:Transgender and transsexual women. Their birth names are covered in secondary sources, and so are included in the articles (often in the first line). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was right, one of the refs on Ms Simpson's WP page did have her former name. I can also see in the article history that her birth name was added by an IP and was removed. A Google search of "Amanda Simpson" and her birth name turned up >500 sources -- one of the top sources was a right-wing muck-raking website. Maybe we should have a policy about adding transsexual (or is the proper word, transgendered) individual's birth names. I would suggest that if they are not noted by their former name (such as is the case for Acharya S's alleged birth name), it should be left out of the articles. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope... We shouldn't expose ("out") a transexual's birth name, but we can (and should) mention what the person's birth name was, when reliable secondary sources have already mentioned it. The same is true for authors who go by a pen name. We shouldn't try to dig up their real name (for one thing, doing so would be a violation of WP:No original research)... but if reliable secondary sources have already revealed the author's real name, then we can and should mention what it is. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why "should"? And what when that "should" is in conflict with another "should" namely that we should seek to cause no harm. Which "should" is weightier? And why? It seems to me that the only ethically viable argument is that the potential benefit of including the name is greater than the potential risk of doing so. I just don't actually see the potential benefit of including it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

To answer my own point, WP:Gender identity, Common name can apply here too: When a subject changes names for any reason (even one unrelated to gender), Misplaced Pages rarely hesitates to make the change promptly if it is clear the new name will be the common name of the person going forward in time . . . . However, the old name should be kept as a re-direct if it is still a well-known name likely to be searched for by people unaware of the name change. In this case, the "old name" (i.e., the birth name) was never used professionally and is not likely to be searched. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Raquel Baranow do you understand the different between an article WP:TITLE and an article WP:LEAD?

If you understand the difference then to which does WP:FULLNAME apply? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BLPNAME: Read it over again, The Name is NOT widely published we can define widely published. There are thousands of Google results for "Acharya S" and "D M Murdock" and very few for the contested Name. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that WP:RS had been rewritten to say that Google search results trump published books, because Ism schism has cited plenty of those.

Some people don't care what Murdock's views are, they're just opposed to the off-site collaboration to promote those views.

As for self-identification, we mention the birth name in those cases. Our article on Chelsea Manning says that she was born Bradley, and even has a pre-transition picture as the infobox picture. By that standard, it's totally fine to name the article Acharya S, refer to her as that or D.M. Murdoch throughout, but still list the name Dorothy Murdoch in the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

But wherein exactly lies the necessity to provide this piece of rather insignificant information the widespread publication of which may contribute to put the subject of the biography at risk of physical harm?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

By that argument, we should retitle the Selena Gomez article "the actress who played Alex Russo in Wizards of Waverly Place". If they are already at risk, they are already at risk, and Misplaced Pages is not demonstrably contributing further risk. The information is already public knowledge (ten sources is public knowledge). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Has Selena Gomez requested that her name not be used or stopped using it herself in response to her stalker case? I find your argumentation to be quite ethically shaky, and not really in line with our BLP policy in general. We do have a responsibility that our articles do not harm the people we write about, and taking into consideration subjects' statements and wishes is part of meeting that responsibility.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Maunus sorry, where do you get the impression that there is a stalker involved? I gained the impression last year that the issue was the critical reliable sources giving bio data on Acharya/Murdock's claims to have some scholarly background, wheras it appears a summer school in Greece is the only connection with the classical world?

Also all the books of Stellar Publishing are retailed as by D. M. Murdock so WP:FULLNAME is only supplying D, which is not revealing the name only repeating published academic sources for the full forname. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NICKNAME also covers pen names and mainly has to do with naming the article: The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their "real" name.... If people published under one or more pen names and/or their own name, the best known of these names is chosen. Could maybe be changed to omit real name under certain circumstances or after "article title" add: "and throughout the article". Could also add: "Pen names are often used for privacy reasons so if the "real" name is not widely used, be careful not to 'out' someone." Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I repeat... we are not "outing" anyone... Acharya S's real name has already been "outed". There are multiple highly reliable sources that mention her real name. Also: We are not talking about re-naming an article... the article title should remain at Acharya S. No all this angst is over including (at most) one small sentence mentioning her real name in passing (and perhaps not even that... it could be done as a parenthetical).

• no change to policy needed. no indication there is any actual issue. no indication that changing policies to please one individual would not create more problems than it "fixes". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• A clarification for "courtesy" BLP issues might be in order. For example, we don't usually (NB usually ≠ always) include the birth names of transgendered people who have changed their names socially, even if those names are easily available on the internet. This courtesy does not depend upon the legal status of the trans person's name. We also don't usually include the full names of Indian people, because it's normal in that culture to write "A.B. Kumar" rather than "Ajay Kumar", although the subject of a biography might have the full name given. It might be appropriate to explain which classes of people are protected under our idea of courtesy (legal names of trans people) and which ones aren't (crime victims, if this discussion is actually representative of the actual community POV). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion: Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia on privacy in the New York Times

A few days ago, Jimbo and Lila Tretikov from the Wikimedia Foundation wrote an Op-Ed on privacy in the New York Times (over 400 comments) regarding a lawsuit they joined against the National Security Agency. In the essay they emphasise the importance of privacy to facilitate the free exchange of ideas, they call it "an essential right" protected by the Fourth Amendment: "It empowers us to read, write and communicate in confidence, without fear of persecution." They conclude, "knowledge flourishes where privacy is protected."

This is a no-brainer and essentially my conclusion (in regards to Acharya S) too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is however taken out of context and really has no relation to this issue at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus. If you want to invoke a "Jimbo says" defense, try asking Jimbo for his views about this specific issue... but please don't take something he said about a completely unrelated issue and quote it out of context. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Follow policy, follow sources - enough of this per "Of course the subject of a BLP does not get to cherrypick preferable sources, but if the information is reliable then there should be other sources available. If not, there's no harm to Misplaced Pages by not including it." per User:Ivanvector is correct, so since there are multiple sources then they should be included. It is possible that these multiple reliable sources will have a detrimental effect on the bio subject's credibility and income stream but otherwise can have no serious negative effect. ·maunus and Blueboar there are 2 RFCs open on the Talk:Acharya S page. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient doubt about the number of reliable sources and the potential harm that in this case we ought to err on the side of caution, and not on the side of slavishly following some literalist interpretation of policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You inserted your comment above mine but I tend to agree. There's an apparent (or claimed by the subject) risk of harm, and having this information in the article doesn't really add anything that is vitally important to the topic. We should err on the side of privacy. But again, this doesn't require any changes to our policies. Ivanvector (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What I said is absolutely correct: we do not cherrypick sources, and subjects of articles are not entitled to dictate what reliably-sourced information may or may not be included. However I have to say that this particular issue feels very icky, like a focused and sustained campaign of harassment directed against this author for her particular fringey views has found its way into Misplaced Pages, and I don't feel good about that at all. Although I don't think that any changes to our policies are advisable to accommodate this particular case, I'd be interested to hear what Jimbo has to say about it. And I'd be interested in hearing what Arbcom has to say about it, should it end up there. Ivanvector (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector It's clear that the author wishes to present both (a) WP:FULLNAME and (b) WP:RS like a focused and sustained campaign of "harassment" (the author's charge) directed against the author for her particular fringey views. But we have had other authors who've not wanted reliable sources used in their articles and have lobbied against it. What makes this author exempt from (a) WP:FULLNAME and (b) WP:RS ? Or put the other way round: Why do (a) WP:FULLNAME and (b) WP:RS not apply to this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that we should not publish the name of an author if it is not covered in reliable sources. However in this case it appears it is covered in reliable sources. We are not revealing a secret, this is information that is already out there. We should not dismiss the content of reliable sources because the subject wishes to be presented in a certain way. Chillum 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: I redacted your earlier comment. To be clear for later readers, the argument appears to be that "D. M. Murdock" is also a pen name. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

These refs associate the titles with the name forms: , , . If she has an outing issue, it would seem to be with the publisher of her Croatian edition or the library who catalogued it. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be more than a little amused here. Is anyone supposing that the people who want to harm her cannot get her identity from non-Misplaced Pages source like the tens already posted above, all of them, I think found with simple google searches? May be we can also propose that we should exclude her real name because her enemies are indefinitely blocked from accessing those other sources, and virtual agents are following them in tandem with real life agents. The whole thing is a crooked United Nations conspiracy led by the Bishop of Outer Mongolia, because of the ancient cult of Gutentberg has an agenda to uphold the exclusivity of Encyclopedists. Dan Brown anyone? Aditya 17:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's really a question of hiding information. I think it's a question about whether our values include Misplaced Pages:Don't be evil or not. If we have information of marginal interest or relevance, and we know that our inclusion of that information upsets an innocent BLP, then do we want to insist that it be included, or do we want to show some human compassion?

Put yourself in her shoes: Imagine that you had a young child, and that child was being harassed or even kidnapped because of your writing. The police told you to be careful about what was posted online. Some Wikipedian kept adding information that the police told you not to post online because "we (almost) always add this". Would you say, "Oh, those silly boys over at Misplaced Pages! I guess it's really harmless for one of the biggest websites in the world to post the information that the police said not to post online. It's only used as a reference for names, locations, and other basic facts by nearly every journalist who will write about my books—what harm could possibly result?" Or do you think that this situation might make you sad and afraid? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How are you suggesting we hide information that is easily found on the web? After all, it's the many reliable sources, found through searching the web and reading credible reliable scholarship, that inform us of Dorothy's name. There is nothing new being done with this. It's no secret, it's a well known and well documented fact. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, even if it is easily found on the web, that is not a reason to include something a person finds harmful here on Misplaced Pages - with the possible exception of information that is centrally important to the article and also minimally hurtful. Here, it seems more like the birth name is tangentially relevant and an especially sensitive subject. I mean, nobody thinks the real name is a secret, the question is: should we widely publicize in a BLP something the BLP finds potentially harmful? I feel that including any information here increases its visibility, since we're such a popular website, and it seems to sort of ignore reality to pretend otherwise. If it was essential information it would be different, but this really isn't. To me at least. AgnosticAphid talk 04:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We've been having a more clear-cut, yet still unresolved issue at 2012 Delhi gang rape, with some editors vehemently insisting that despite much of the world's media naming the victim, that a set of inconsistent statements by the father means that he might not want his dead daughter named, therefore Misplaced Pages must be nice and not provide the information. Maybe we need some sort of template to post to articles:

This Misplaced Pages biography is meant to include only such information as our volunteer (and occasionally paid) PR flacks think would be nice to include about the subject. We do not go the extra mile to include information, which is fundamentally useless for a reader who isn't even willing to pay for an article to have access to. To obtain facts that you think are "edgy", you need to be willing to pay royalties to a for-profit corporation, such as a newspaper, which has an income stream to pay for the liability insurance, risk of other legal action, and necessary lobbying activities to maintain the legality of their content. To indiscriminately offer to a low class the sort of information which properly is held by subscription to an elevated class of reader is the height of social and moral irresponsibility.

I mean after all, that's what Misplaced Pages seems to believe nowadays. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your sarcastic and simplistic comment doesn't grapple with the fact that sometimes the informative value of including some particular piece of personally identifying information in a BLP-ish article is swamped by the real or perceived harm that publishing that information would cause. Clearly there needs to be some kind of balancing between informational value and perceived harm, but it is really extreme and, to me, morally unpalatable to insist that we should always re-publish information about BLPs regardless of how trivial the information is or how legitimate the BLP's concerns are. AgnosticAphid talk 23:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Promotional username policy

After it was pointed out by HJ Mitchell in the question section of Jakec's RfA, the general practice at the UUA is to mark promotional account who haven't edited and/or haven't edited in a promotional manner with Wait until the user edits. and deny the report. However, this is not in line with the policy at WP:ISU which doesn't give any sort of provision for if an account hasn't edited or edited pages directly related to their name. If you go to the UUA this is extremely apparent, and I belive either the policy should be corrected or administrators should act in line with the policy. Therefore I propose that the first bullet point of the policy be amended to read "Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted if the editor's edits are promotional in nature." -Kharkiv07 13:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• The practice evidently varies because I'll block shared use usernames on sight regardless of whether they've edited. If the aim is to disallow edits which can't be attributed to a single person then I don't see why I'd wait for them to edit and then block. I disagree with the proposed changes too, if the username is that of a company or group it doesn't matter whether their edits are strictly promotional or not, shared accounts simply aren't allowed. Sam Walton (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• If that's the case then we need to make sure that all administrators are acting in-line with this policy, there's clearly some variations on policy. Kharkiv07 13:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Sam Walton, the proposed change muddies the policy by creating an "out" for non-promotional shared accounts, and that is contrary to the policy. I see no reason if an account obviously implies shared use that we would wait for the group to edit. Admins should enforce the policy as written. Ivanvector (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

At WP:CORPNAME there's a provision that says "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked.", is that not the opposite of WP:ISU? It says and, implying that that's required. Kharkiv07 16:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not at odds with WP:ISU, though, and I thought that's what you were asking about. An account with a promotional name might turn out to be unrelated and contribute constructively, so admins need to evaluate the user's edits before determining that it's a promotional account. For an obviously shared account, there's no reason to wait - shared accounts are simply not allowed, promotional or not. Ivanvector (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• I also commonly block shared/promotional account names with no edits or with edits related to their organization. The only time I may grant a little leeway (in the form of a warning to rename within 48hrs or face a block) is if the user has made explicitly positive contributions and retention becomes more important than strict rule application. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• If a username is not editing promotionally, there is no way to know the intent of the user. Also, inactive accounts are not blocked by matter of course. This is all spelled out in WP:BLOCK, which states "Blocks should be used to...prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages" (bold mine) an account which has not edited, or which is not being used anymore (recently) is neither imminent nor continuing. Also, if it hasn't done anything we don't know if it is disrupting Misplaced Pages. We should only block to stop accounts which we have evidence is currently disrupting Misplaced Pages, not by what they did some time ago and stopped doing, and not by what we guess they might do. --Jayron32 00:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Case : "A" using promotional name on en.wp, and he spam/promoting on other wikis, he don't get blocked on en.wp because he never made spam/promo edit on en.wp but his account got locked by m:Stewards for spamming, This idea is so useless, there are also other wikis that Instantly blocked any user with Company name attached to their account. User account name should be handled on case by case basis.--AldNon 10:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Some editors in this discussion appear to be conflating promotional and shared accounts, but they are different (if partially overlapping) concepts. WP:ISU says that "usernames that imply the likelihood of shared use are not permitted". WP:ISU itself doesn't explicitly say that these accounts with forbidden usernames should be blocked, but the blocking policy states: "Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely", and the bullets listing these types of account include shared accounts and "inappropriate usernames" (linked to the username policy). So I think that HJ Mitchell's statement is contrary to policy as currently written (although my main objection at the RFA was to Harry's answering a question addressed to the candidate). --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• From my experience, accounts with promotional usernames are single purpose accounts interested in writing only one article - their own. If their company's article doesn't survive CSD A7 or G11 (and they generally don't), any block of the account is generally superfluous. On the rare occasion they do, such as User talk:Kenny Crookston, I feel a more compassionate approach is better. In that case, the editor got himself renamed and unblocked, all was well, but equally he could have said "screw this for a game of soldiers" and left. Sure, if somebody is adding blatant spam repeatedly, or is not obviously one person, or doesn't respond to polite requests to rename their account, then block them, but give people a chance first. Ritchie333 11:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• If I'm reading the OP correctly, there seems to be some confusion of the fact there is a difference at the base level between what is a promotional username and what is a implied shared use. WP:CORPNAME says that a promotional username like Bob@DunkinDonuts is allowed since it doesn't imply shared use. I repeat, those promotional usernames ARE allowed per policy unless the user only edits to put up an advertisement about their local branch of Dunkin' Donuts. WP:ISU says that usernames that are just the name of a company or organization are generally not allowed unless they fall under the WP:ISU#Exceptions. While blocking clearly ISU usernames after checking for exceptions may be fine in most cases, please do realize you are accountable for your actions and blocking such a username that was grandfathered may result in unnecessary drama. I didn't read any of the other replies because I'm in a hurry, and apologize if I am repeating what someone else may have said. — {{U|Technical 13}} 12:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• I havn't read everything either but, Technical 13 comment is spot on. AlcoaUSA is promotional and implies shared use, so is ResearcheratAlcoaUSA "as such a post may be held by different persons at different times" while MarkatAlcoaUSA is perfectly acceptable, as the account is clearly owned by Mark (an individual). IMHO a Upol who has not edited should be blocked regardless, because at that point it does not matter how the account edits the name is still a upol. Encouraging the user to change their name is always the best way to go, blocking the upol account is a good way to help them decide if they're WP:NOTHERE Mlpearc (open channel) 18:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• We should always consider promotional usernames in light of the idea that the person may have been or may someday be fired and may use the freedom of expression I would like all editors to enjoy to say things that might embarrass the company. When we look at a name like "MarkatAlcoaUSA" (I use this as a general example; I know of no such person or issues!), we should think, what will we say if Alcoa comes to us complaining that he said in a discussion that "personally, I think Hitler had the right idea..." or that he's on Commons posting behind-the-scenes educational images of a porn movie studio. I mean, we want editors to have a neutral point of view, which means they have to be able to have a neutral point of view, which means, if we would be at all vulnerable to giving in over claims that Mark is "demeaning Alcoa's trademark" or "misrepresenting the company" when he is being provocative, then he must not be allowed to edit with that username even if he is presently only ever saying things with a more conventional slant. Now I think we might do that with MarkatAlcoaUSA, saying that it's not our problem if one of their ex-employees decides to be embarrassing to them, but I have some doubts. Definitely it seems unlikely with "AlcoaUSA" or something more generic that we'd feel comfortable leaving the account to continue with that name, so we shouldn't let it start. In general companies should understand that by not letting an individual get his own password and right to represent the company however he wishes, we are doing the companies a favor, even if we seem to be standing in their way. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• The question confuses "promotional" with "shared use", and thus cannot be answered. However, I add this case to consider: Someone creates User:Andes Development Company. It makes no edits. How do you know that this is one of the many businesses with that name rather than an obscure reference to science fiction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Improve automated reduction of images

We use a bot to automatically downsize images. A bot decides what size an image will be, and in most cases there is no way of reverting it by users. I opened up a discussion at WT:BRFA but none of the users who approved the bot have responded.

There is very little oversight, and it means that free use images such as File:Slacker-logo-black-official-2015.png get reduced to an arbitrary 100,000 pixel guideline (which isn't even close to being policy). Read and comment on the proposals here. - hahnchen 23:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not hugely thrilled with the bot doing that. Though others will disagree, I think there are some cases, where having the larger image available for zooming is potentially a good thing. For example, if there is a software screenshot that someone created on their 1080p monitor and the bot reduces it to 300 pixels wide, that renders it completely pointless. I think that photos, album covers, and movie posters are pretty non-controversial for downsizing. But the rest of it? Not so much.

Resizing logos, on the other hand, is an absolutely ridiculous endeavor. I challenge anyone who disagrees to ask yourself WHY we downsize fair use images. Think about it for a minute. There are at least three reasons: (1) We don't want to replace the copyright holder's use for the image. When Warner Brothers puts a high-resolution movie poster on their website, they do so in order to attract visitors to their website. (I think that would be obvious.) So when we host the high-res version here, you no longer have to visit the movie website to download it and so we're replacing the copyright holder's purpose for their image. (2) We are building a free-content encyclopedia and don't want to be your go-to repository for non-free content. We want to wow you with our free content photos and how amazing they are, not with our photos we're using under a claim of fair use. (3) US law says that a consideration for determining fair use is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" and so we're trying to use a lesser version of the copyrighted work.

None of those three reasons for reducing image sizes are at all applicable to logos. Resizing a logo is simply a pointless waste of time. --B (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:LOGOS, Logos uploaded to Misplaced Pages must be low-resolution and no larger than necessary. There is no reason to have high-resolution logos on Misplaced Pages, certainly not in the case linked above. Relentlessly (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the reason the guideline says that? It says it because it's parroting the fair use policy. While you are correct that there is no reason to have high-resolution logos on Misplaced Pages, there is also no reason not to. It neither helps nor hurts, either in terms of fair use law or in terms of our desire to minimize non-free content. IDEALLY, we would create SVG images from all of them (SVG images are vector-based and have no resolution). That allows the logo to be perfectly rendered at whatever size it needs to be for the article. --B (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason to use low resolution images is to keep our use of logos as far from the line as defined by US fair use law, which as one test is the amount of copyright-taking the unlicensed use has. The lower the resolution, the less copyright taking we do. Further, the far majority of logo use on WP is just to tie the visual look of the logo to the name the logo represents, with zero discussion about the visual aspects of the logo. It is there for identification, and nothing more. This can be done with a low-resolution image (eg no wider than 300px). --MASEM (t) 17:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly how does using a low-res version of a logo keep us far from the line of what is valid fair use under US law? Unlike a picture, where you derive entertainment/enjoyment/whatever from looking at the picture, and hosting a low-res version is less likely to compete with the copyright holder, that's not a thing for logos. And blindly resizing logos can have scaling problems where it winds up distorting the logo or hiding important visual elements. If we have a 1000px logo that is being displayed at 225px and the bot decides to resize it to 300px, then that can create display issues. (It's not great for a photo either, but it's potentially worse for logos.) Again, the ideal scenario is we have an svg and then all of the concerns go away. --B (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use law in the US is a defense, not an affirmation of allowance of use, that is based on evaluating the unlicensed use by 4 different tests. How well all four tests overall are met is used in case law to determine if copyright infringement did occur. So, for us, we want to make sure that we keep well inside the general bounds set by these tests. One of those tests is how much of the work that we are using. If the original image is a very high resolution raster image, then rote duplciation of that image on WP could potentially be a problem legally for us as we are taking the entire image at full resolution. A low resolution version of the same image makes the fair use defense much stronger. And no, we make no distinction between logos and, say, movie posters, because the law doesn't make this distinction either. It's a copyrighted image, so we'll use low resolution raster images for all purposes, with some limited exceptions when high fidelity is needed in conjunction with sourced discussion. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"And no, we make no distinction between logos and, say, movie posters, because the law doesn't make this distinction either." Actually it does. Factor #2 is "The nature of the copyrighted work". So while obviously copyright law does not spell out specifics, this does at least tell us that there would be different rules for different kinds of copyrighted works. Factor #4 is "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work". Since the kind of logos we're talking about (organizational logos) have no market value (in the same way that a photo potentially has a market value), there is an obvious distinction between what might count as fair use for a photo vs what might count as fair use for a logo. Fair use of a high-resolution photo (or movie poster, etc) has the potential do damage the market value. That just isn't a thing for logos. Bot-resizing of raster logos is simply a solution that solves no problem and has the potential (even if only in very few cases) to make an image display poorly. --B (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet, if visual elements of the logo are not the subject of discussion, there is absolutely no reason to use a 1000px version when a 300px version (which is the largest that will be displayed inline in nearly all cases) will serve the exact same purpose - simply to help connect the visual logo to the entity to the reader. So it makes no sense to change the rules for logos and create a way for people to game the system for other works. (For example, I can easily see people arguing things like video game covers should be treated as logos to ask for larger images). We are not here to offer pretty , non-free pictures, unless they are absolutely necessary to discuss in conjunction with the text. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear what I am talking about. I am only talking about automated bot resizing of PNG organizational trademark logos. None of these concerns are applicable if you have any kind of scanned image. I don't think that a 1000px should be preferred over the 300px - rather that it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you only want to resize things at most once. If we have a company logo and we're going to display it in exactly one article at 240px and an svg is unavailable to us, then we should take the camera ready logo from the company's website, resize it to 240px, and upload it at 240px. That's fine. But what isn't fine is when we take a 1200px image, resize it to 1000px, a bot drops it to 300px, and then we're really using it at 240px. So it's getting resized three times and losing detail potentially each time. --B (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Because of how thumbs works, and the rather strong insistance that we don't format to pixels but to the page to allow users and device to set the image size, we are always going to have the "last step" resize that we cannot avoid, and may introduce some raster reduction artifacts. The issue is when people do upload an image at 1000px or 1200px which needs not be anywhere close to that size for WP's purpose. That needs to be resized to ~300px to meet policy and the expected use. If the bot reduces the larger to the small image with poor artifacts we can always reup a version that is manually resized right, but I've yet to see a bot produce a smaller version that has these types of artifacts. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• A lot of the discussion above is off topic and to do with general non-free guidelines. The point I'm making, is that there is no oversight of this bot. This bot removes information from Misplaced Pages, there is no way anyone would allow something to happen like that without oversight had it been text content, but it gets away with it because it's images. The examples here show free use images being irreversibly downgraded, it shows images that are barely resized at all, a process that does nothing but introduce artifacts. - hahnchen 12:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, it's not the bot's fault that editors decide to tag an image at 0.15MP for reduction. That's a problem with editors being far too picky about NFC which does not have those requirements. You should be calling out those editors that are being hard-nosed, though as noted, having a soft level where the bot should not operate even if the non-free reduction tag is present would help to prevent this type of misuse. But it still ends up being a human problem, not a bot problem. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • A bot that reinforces and magnifies bad editing is defective by design. You could have a bot that rev-deleted {{citation needed}} content from BLPs, and it would work as designed, but it places too much trust and not enough oversight on editors, and so would be defective. - hahnchen 11:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like somebody's trying to have it both ways. It's perfectly OK for the bot to reduce anything to 0.1 megapixels without human intervention, but it ought to be up to us poor fallible creatures to try to decide when the reduction is actually insignificant? Nonsense. Just program the damn bot not to try to reduce any file that is under 0.2 megapixels. It's not like the number is etched in stone, or in law, somewhere. This would give editors some incentive to hand-reduce the images with more attention to artifacts, in order to get a little extra resolution out of them. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I would completely support a limit like that. The old DASHBot wouldn't resize anything smaller than (I believe) 0.16 megapixels, but the current Theo's Little Bot only uses a 5% threshold, meaning that it would reduce a .105 megapixel image to .1 megapixels, which is not only pointless but severely detrimental to image quality (see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot for the relevant discussion). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is the bot does not work unless a human tags the image. This is not a fully automated task, and were that the case, I would fully agree that that's a bad thing. But because the bot is responding to the human tagging of an image, it is the human judgement if the image was missized to start with. And that's when you get bad cases - like if a 0.15 mp image is tagged. If the same editor is doing this, that's a behavior problem to be dealt with, not blamed on the editor taking advantage of a pre-approved bot task.

I'm not against a "won't resize" threshold, or some additional parameters that take more human interaction that demonstrate competence in knowing when a resize is necessary/appropriate, but does need to be like 0.15 or 0.2 mp where the bot should not do anything (beyond remove the tag and note it doesn't operate at this level). --MASEM (t) 21:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality in articles

We should aim to use neutral words in articles way WP:NPOV. It's important to state no one's opinion at all but rather the true facts backed up with sources. So, for example words such as 'good', 'excellent', 'wonderful' should be avoided but also negative terms like 'bad', 'horrible', 'annoying' are also should best avoided.

In example: Mosquitoes are considered an annoyance to many. This is an opinion, so it should be replaced by something like, Mosquitoes are (length) long and weigh (weight) and lay eggs. Any questions? Antiv31 00:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have this enshrined in policy. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch which covers exactly this, as well as all sorts of other words we try not to use. --Jayron32 01:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Those words are fine so long as they are attributed to the person/organization who said them rather than treated as facts. The following is a bad sentence: "The game is bad". The following is a good sentence: "Editor of Rolling Stone said the game was bad". --Izno (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on a new reliable sourcing essay

Motivated by some recurrent questions and misunderstandings at RSN, I've written an essay about reliable sourcing guidelines. The intent is to supplement policy pages (which are very bullet-point oriented) with guidance on identifying which policies are at the crux of an issue in a given case. I could particularly use feedback on two questions:

• First, is what I've written an accurate reflection of policy? Some of the things I say are, by design, divergent from instances I've seen of policy applied in actual practice; however, they should adhere to policies as written and as applied in best practice.
• Secondly, is it helpful? The hope is that someone having read it would be less likely to (innocently) engage in policy shopping or forum shopping out of ignorance, and instead cut to the heart of the matter.

Here is the essay. Rhoark (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: After reading your essay, I think it is an accurate reflection of the policy. I find it helpful because it is very thorough in interpreting the policy. It even gives example of how various mediums are explained in the policy. Hope this helps. Sam.gov (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a large-scale merge and splits in ARBPIA area

I made a proposal to refactor many (at least tens of) articles dealing with timeline of Israel-Palestine conflict. I would like as many people as possible to comment to be sure that there is no major objection. “WarKosign” 14:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Should another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton be permitted?

It has been noted at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Fair notification of pending RM that some editors intend to file a new move request within the coming weeks proposing to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Since 2007, there have been nine move requests made for this article (including one proposal to move to Secretary Clinton and one to move to Hillary (politician). Of the requests that have been made, six were fully considered, and three were speedy-closed. Following the most recent request, closed by a three-admin panel in April 2014, a moratorium was put in place by consensus of the community, prohibiting any further move requests until February 2015 and placing a minimum content threshold on move requests made until February 2017. At the time, it was argued that a potential candidacy by the subject might shift public perceptions of the subject's common name.

However, following the placement of that note, an editor has stated:

After a point this just becomes like an AfD, when partisans nominate and re-nominate and re-nominate an article year after year, hoping that the Wiki-Slot Machine will come up in the combination of editors and closing admin(s) that will produced the result that they already think should happen. This is gaming the system.

gaming the system is something that we as a community do not permit, so if the community in general feels that permitting another move request to be made does, in fact, constitute "gaming the system", then such a request should not be allowed. I therefore request a determination of the consensus of the community as to whether a new move request should be permitted.

It is important to dispose of this issue before any new move request is initiated. If the community agrees that a request should not be permitted, this will prevent the initiation of an improper request. If the community agrees that a request should be permitted, this will allow the discussion to focus on the merits of the request itself, and avoid tangential discussions about whether the discussion should be permitted. bd2412 T 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Support allowing a new move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton

• Support. The moratorium has expired, and there are an additional year's worth of data points to consider. bd2412 T 19:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support consensus can change, though this does seem awfully frequent, there is no harm in it happening again. I didn't know this was a debate, having joined Misplaced Pages after the most recent request, but will definitely participate. EoRdE6 19:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - the restriction on move requests was clearly defined and has clearly expired. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project; we must prefer discussion to unnecessarily restrictive bureaucracy. Ivanvector (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - that restriction has expired, and WP:CCC. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Quite clearly, a decent majority of editors believe there is a problem with the current title. This will become even worse when Clinton starts her presidential campaign. The moratorium has expired and it is now time to sort it out. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support The current title has never had consensus and banning discussion is no substitute for a collaborative process. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose allowing a new move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton

• Oppose - This is like an AfD where tendentious editors try year after year after year (Israel and the apartheid analogy comes to mind) to roll the dice and hope for the right lucky combo of supportive votes + closing admin(s) that will give them the result that they desire. At some point you have to stop and say "the community has spoken, and is tired". This is one of them. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Please provide a link to the prior move discussion / start of moratorium. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Here is the moratorium discussion, and the most recent move discussion is here. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages village pump
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links