Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.

If you wish to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the Help desk or the Teahouse.
This is not the place to resolve disputes regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For proposals for new or amended speedy deletion criteria, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after 7 days of inactivity.

« Archives, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204

Fixing the admin inactivity requirements

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr recently generated 66,000 words of divisive debate, ostensibly about Night Gyr, but really about our inactivity requirements. A week after the ~~petition~~ debate officially closed, it continues on the talk page. Two other recalls (Master Jay and Gimmetrow) were also about inactivity. So it seems clear to me we need to revisit the admin activity policy. Perhaps the limits need to be raised. Or maybe we need to have clarity about what constitutes "gaming". Or, maybe we need to state that inactivity is not a valid WP:RECALL reason. One way or another, we need to prevent a repeat of the Night Gyr debacle. RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is still open: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Revisiting_WP:INACTIVITY. Some1 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware of that other thread, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And before that, two months ago there was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 203#Admin inactivity rules workshopping. Anomie ⚔ 13:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps admin activity requirements need to be raised"? Hah. There are no admin activity requirements. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are: At least one edit or logged action in every rolling 12 month period, and at least 100 edits in every rolling 5 year period. See WP:INACTIVE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An edit is not an administrative action requiring "the tools" to perform, covered under WP:ADMINACCT. To put it in other words there are no requirements to actually use "the tools". Most other stuff, including a lot of actions of significant import, any Tom, Dick or Harry can boldly perform as a "non-administrative close". Admins aren't even required to perform any of those, they can just let the non-admins do 90% of the work. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the same as there being no activity requirements. They are expressed as edits or logged actions because not every admin action is logged. If you want to change that then propose an alternative in the linked idea lab thread. Thryduulf (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken admins to task for making unexplained edits to fully-protected material on the main page. i.e. {{DYK}}. If it requires the bit to do, WP:ADMINACCT requires that you explain yourself if asked. RoySmith (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. An edit to a non-fully-protected page is not an administrative action requiring "the tools" to perform, covered under WP:ADMINACCT. An edit to a fully-protected page is an administrative action requiring "the tools" to perform, as is an edit to MediaWiki namespace. None of that is required to keep the tools. You can spend years doing nothing but fixing typos in non-contentious-topic articles, and keep the tools. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a debacle and there's no need to change anything, other than perhaps acceptance of the fact that much of the community wants a low hard limit on inactivity but considers trivial edits to meet the minimum as gaming. Flexibility is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if activity requirements were hypothetically increased, the case of an admin making sandbox edits up to the new limit to evade it is still gaming the system, so this would only catch an actually-active but low edit count for some reason admin (e.g. an admin who's switched to the tech side or sister projects). SnowFire (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way: much of the community wants to honour the spirit of WP:INACTIVITY rather than the letter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we know that some of the community want that, but I think it is obvious other parts of the community disagree. Donald Albury 23:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"edit or logged action in every rolling 12 month period, and at least 100 edits in every rolling 5 year period" - this really is too low and should be raised. 1,000 edits in a five-year period and a minimum number of admin actions a year would be more reasonable. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reword notice at top of WP:Copyright

Reword notice at top of WP:Copyright and restyle box, as it's not as neat as I liked, and it's not as easy to read. See it in my sandbox: User:Waddie96/sandbox2.

Compare:

Old

Important note: The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations. It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images, even if rules at your company, school, or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content. The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about are the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission. Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms (see below and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for specific terms). Images may or may not permit reuse and modification; the conditions for reproduction of each image should be individually checked. The only exceptions are those cases in which editors have violated Wikipedia policy by uploading copyrighted material without authorization, or with copyright licensing terms which are incompatible with those Wikipedia authors have applied to the rest of Wikipedia content. While such material is present on Wikipedia (before it is detected and removed), it will be a copyright violation to copy it. For permission to use it, one must contact the owner of the copyright of the text or illustration in question; often, but not always, this will be the original author. If you wish to reuse content from Wikipedia, first read the Reusers' rights and obligations section. You should then read the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License and the GNU Free Documentation License.

New

Important note:

Please do not contact the Wikimedia Foundation for permission to reuse article text or images.: The Foundation does not own that content and cannot grant permission. This applies even if your company, school, or organization requires permission from website operators before copying material.

When to contact the Wikimedia Foundation: The only Wikipedia content that requires permission from the Wikimedia Foundation is use of its trademarked logos. These logos are not freely licensed and require explicit written permission for reuse.; For members of the media, see Foundation:Press contacts, others see Wikipedia:Contact us.

Reusing Wikipedia article text: Permission to reuse and modify article text is already granted under open-content licenses by the original authors, as long as such use complies with the applicable licensing terms, provides proper attribution and licenses any modifications under the same terms.; If you wish to reuse content from Wikipedia, start by reading the Reusers' rights and obligations section. Then review the applicable licenses: the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License and the GNU Free Documentation License.

Reusing images: Images on Wikipedia are not automatically covered by the same license as article text. Each image has its own license, which must be reviewed individually. Some images are freely reusable. Others are restricted or non-free and may not be reused or modified without explicit permission from the original author. If an image was uploaded in violation of Wikipedia policy, reusing it could result in copyright infringement.

Diff

What do you think? waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s great! Nononsense101 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new layout is much easier to comprehend. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! I'd say it's ready for implementation. Structure is key for improving understandability. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent improvement, and breaks up the wall of text that currently exsist and should help ensure people actually read it. TiggerJay (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks guys! Really appreciate it. Will edit-request the change 😄. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update for passersby: change has been implemented (I approve). Mrfoogles (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, +2 passed code review step. <3 waddie96 ★ (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw! Codex icons just got officially, officially released. So maybe I do this to the Commons Copyrights webpage too? What notices right now are v. important. I'm good at copyediting (I hope). waddie96 ★ (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACD and procedural closure due to Wrong venue?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § WP:NACD and procedural closure due to Wrong venue?

– Raladic (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seeking some clarification due to a confusing contradiction between two guideline pages after I was trying to figure out if I can close the AfD I raised myself or not as a procedural close (I know I could close it as "withdrawn (speedy keep)", but since that's not technically what is the right course, here's the issue:

The delection process guidelines instruct to close discussions that are at the wrong venue as a procedural closure, listing examples including a redirect, which is what the discussion changed into - DPR: Venue inappropriate: (e.g., a file hosted on Commons, category or redirect at AFD, or discussions that the chosen venue is unable to address)

The current guideline at WP:NACD only explicitly states that the nominator can close the discussion as "Withdrawn" / "Speedy Keep", but then following the link to WP:SK there it says "If a page is nominated for deletion on the wrong forum (for example, a template on AfD or an article on MfD), the misplaced discussion may be procedurally closed".

So if I follow the logic of NACD pointing to SK, and SK saying that that is a sub-variant of SK, then I'd interpret it as, yes, I could therefore do that under WP:NACD and save some other person the time.

But since the WP:NACD is explicitly contradicting it and explicitly only states "speedy keep" I'm at a loss whether I can infer that since NACD links to SK that they mean that that would also be okay, or not, so hopefully we can ammend the sentence at NACD to either explicitly say that that is also okay to do as a NACD opener, or explicitly say its not. Though personally I think it probably should be okay if it's an obvious case, since I'd rather save someone else the time after I realized the venue was wrong and should go to WP:RM instead due to a scope change as a result of a good point brought up by someone in the AfD page.

Please advise. Raladic (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't "go to RM" if the page was nominated for deletion and the deletion question was resolved within the AfD. Such a situation calls for a close on the merits, and a procedural close is specifically not that. If, in an AfD, an issue of naming is discussed concurrently with deletion, it is possible for the AfD itself to decide on both. There is such a thing as a "keep and move" outcome, based on WP:NOTBURO expediency (various examples exist, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mowbray House School). And AfD can even run concurrently with an RM as an actually running process, to reach the combined decision on whether to have the article or not, and if yes, on what subject exactly -- meaning, how to name it (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shani Louk with the concurrent RM: permalink, closed together). There cannot be a correction of forum by moving an AfD discussion to RM unless it was really some kind of misclick in Twinkle and the nominator who was writing up an RM nomination wasn't aware that they've selected AfD (or similar). If the forum was correct (relevant deletion forum for the given namespace / type of page) at the start of the discussion, i.e., at the time of nomination, then it can't turn into a wrong forum later. The only thing that can be "wrong" is the nomination, i.e., it can fail to lead to the proposed action.

This is a random example of a correct speedy keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Program on Forests. In that discussion, participants expressed an interest in starting a merger discussion, but what happened is that the AfD reached a natural conclusion. The deletion question was substantively considered, was clearly answered in the negative, and the outcome was an outcome on the merits of the original issue.

It is interesting how you say that your linked example is an obvious case of something, and how your would-have-been procedural self-close would have been obviously justified, as an illustration for a certain interpretation or change to the guideline -- while at the same time having a wrong idea about that particular close and that "obvious" case being nothing of the sort. No, you could not have closed as "procedural close". So the only thing that example illustrates is that an uninvolved closer is advantageous for procedural closures relative to a self-closer, as long as there has been an actual discussion (if other editors have participated). —Alalch E. 08:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging closers of these discussions on their perspectives, as I have taken these AfDs which they have closed as examples: @Premeditated Chaos, Elli, and Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Thanks for any thoughts on this. —Alalch E. 08:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could have closed it yourself as "withdrawn (speedy keep)", since you no longer wanted to pursue an AfD outcome and since everyone else had !voted keep. This is the outcome everyone wants, don't sweat the verbiage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I never argued for deletion, so the fact that WP:BLAR only suggest AfD as the venue was a bit strange to begin with since this wasn’t an article, but a DAB page and my contention at the start was basically that the proposed target was the exclusive primary since the other terms were already discussed there, so maybe really BLAR should have some nuance that if one is saying a dab page is an unnecessary disambiguation it should just go to RM to begin with since people watching RMs are more experienced with WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY questions so it could just be an open RM of “Page -> ?” with the text explaining the proposal and community can decide on whether it gets moved to parenthetical disambiguation or indeed just becomes a primary redirect? Raladic (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Party affiliation in BLP infoboxes

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I am an AMPOL editor and I often see articles with party affiliation assumed in the infobox. For instance, Adriana Kugler's infobox states that she is a Democrat, but no inline citation is provided. On the other hand, Todd Blanche does provide a citation for having registered as a Republican. I am questioning the purpose of this parameter for individuals who are not directly associated with politics—in other words, their profession does not pertain to being a politician or political consultant. "If relevant" in the {{Infobox person}} documentation is rather vague. The misuse of this parameter warrants some action.

The rationale for removing the party affiliation parameter is similar to the RfC over the religion parameter. As was stated then, "This would be consistent with our treatment of sexual orientation and various other things we don't include in infoboxes that are matters which may be nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial. The availability of a parameter encourages editors to fill it, whether they have consensus to do so or not, regardless of instructions in template documentation to gain consensus first; new and anon IP editors generally do not read documentation, they simply see a "missing" parameter at article B that they saw at article A and add it." elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Question presented: Should the party parameter in infoboxes be deprecated for non-political BLPs?

Support — As nominator. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and I note that both of the examples given in the original RFC question are "political" BLPs (both of them were political appointees in a system that expects appointees to come from the president's own political party) – people who very much are "directly associated with politics". Whether an inline citation is needed directly in the infobox depends on the usual Wikipedia:When to cite rules, namely whether the information is also present and cited elsewhere in the article. While political party affiliation can be "nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial", it is usually not, especially for people, such as political appointees, for whom this is actually relevant. "If relevant" appears in the documentation for {{infobox person}} more than a dozen times. If you can figure out whether to add |employer= or |height= or amateur radio |callsign= "if relevant", then you can probably figure out whether to add |party= "if relevant", too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I would say that unless they are running/elected in a position that requires a political affiliation to be made as part of the election process so that we have a clear basis to document it, this should be left out of the infobox and explained in the prose. Masem (t) 16:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if they are explicitly running as a candidate for/in affiliation with a given party, and this is cited in the pose, then it should be in the infobox. Otherwise it should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Talk:Sydney Sweeney § RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation was recently WP:SNOW closed with consensus against inclusion, for instance, and editors should not have to waste time dealing with similar disputes on other BLPs whose subjects are not directly associated with politics. Some1 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Too often I see a supposed party affiliation being added to judge infoboxes (Scalia, for example), based not on party registration or self-declaration but by some third party claiming it, and that opinion being claimed as a RS. Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of many local elections that are intended as non-partisan positions, though candidates often assert their position in their campaign materials, in comparison to partisan offices that usually require party primaries to be elected to. In the latter case, the political affiliation is part of the election process and can't be disputed (making it fair to include the infobox). Masem (t) 17:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is explicitly running on a partisan position then that position should be in the infobox. Even if the position is intended to be non-partisan if someone is running on a partisan platform then it is de facto partisan. The job of Wikipedia is to represent what the reality is, not what it is/was intended to be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more clear in this comment and state that the infobox should be following what sources say. Brad Schimel was nonpartisan in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election earlier this year, but he was described as a Republican across various outlets. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly a situation that I would *not* include the political affiliation in the infobox, because that's not a requirement for running in that election. In prose, absolutely. Its the same reason we restrict calling out religion in the infobox for only those people who's careers are specifically tied to the church/equivalent body of their religion, though we are free to include any stated religious beliefs in the prose of the article. Masem (t) 04:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schimel is in an interesting position because he ran as a Republican in the Wisconsin attorney general elections he was involved in. Most of the cases where a politician running for a non-partisan office is clearly affiliated with a party involve prior elections. I was reading a local news report from Wisconsin that made it clear that Schimel was de jure non-partisan. In cases where a candidate explicitly says they are of a certain party but they are running for office in a non-partisan role and they have not run in any other elections where they would be a candidate for that party, then that should not be in the infobox. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a given individual, in some cases it's clear that they're "directly associated with politics," in some cases it's clear they aren't, but there are some people/positions where it's unclear. Todd Blanche is someone I'd put in the third group. He is a political appointee in an ostensibly non-political position, but in this administration, it seems that the position is political as well. I don't think political party is a "nuanced, complex" issue. I also don't think people should be adding this info without an RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Blanche should not have "Republican" in his infobox. He is not a politician nor a political advisor. The argument that the "position is political" is a reach from what is being suggested here. Wikipedia shouldn't make its own conclusions. In reliable sources, Blanche might be described as a Trump loyalist, but not a Republican, a rather vague term that doesn't encompass Blanche's fealty to the president. The prose can handle describing Blanche properly. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should limit listings of party affiliation to people who ran for office as a candidate for the party or people who served as officials of the party. I have seen party affiliation listed for people who served in political office in a position that was elected on a non-partisan basis, I do not think that is justified. There are of course people who have had multiple party affiliations. If they served in office for multiple parties that can be listed. One thing to keep in mind is on occasion a member of one party has appointed people from a different party to their cabinet, so even cabinet members we cannot assume they share the party of the president. This is even more clear in cases or any sub-cabinet position, for judges many times so. The same probably applies even more so to people who serve on the cabinet of governors. Many mayors and other local officials in the US are elected on a non-partisan basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a one-size fits all solution. There are the obvious cases, candidate runs as a partisan in a partisan election. And on the other side, there are non-partisans who run in non-partisan elections. But, there are many people who may be known (either in independent sources or verifiable non-independent sources) as a partisan. And, there are individuals who run as a partisan in a partisan election who change parties or disaffiliate at some point after that election. And, for many subjects, there are BLP considerations to account for. --Enos733 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Political party is a voluntary act, not something that can be otherwise discerned, even by RSs. Unless there is evidence of voluntary affiliation, through registration to vote or entering a party primary that requires party membership, or being a party official of some kind, I would exclude. RSs without evidence of this are just partisan name callers. Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an RfC then it needs to be formatted and advertised as such. If it's just a discussion, perhaps in advance of a potential RfC, it needs to be relabeled. ElKevbo (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't formatted it so it will be advertised as an RfC at WP:RFC/A. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM/AI generated proposals?

We had an RFC earlier this year around how to handle LLM/AI generated comments. That resulted in WP:HATGPT after further discussion at WT:TPG. Recently, an editor started a requested move using LLM generated content. I ran that content through two different AI/LLM detection utilities: GPT Zero says "highly confident", and 100% AI generated; Quillbot stated 72% of the text was likely AI generated.

Should HATGPT be expanded to allow for the closure of discussions seeking community input (RFC/VPR/CENT/RFAR/AFD/RM/TFD/RFD/FFD/etc) that are started utilizing content that registers as being majority written by AI?

I was tempted to just start an RFC on this, but if there's alternate proposals or an existing WP:PAG that already covers this, I'm all ears. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. Editors shouldn't be required to waste their time whenever somebody posts LLM slop. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m hesitant still with suggesting the use of gptzero except as additional evidence alongside with conclusive proof. But otherwise I’m always of opinion that most use of LLM in discussion is a bad faith usage of editor time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I say every time things like this come up, the focus is completely wrong. We really should not care whether it is or isn't AI-generated, that's just wasting everybody's time trying to determine something that is irrelevant. If the proposal is understandable, relevant to the page it's on, isn't just rehashing something that's already been discussed to death (even if you disagree with it) then whether it was written by a human or machine couldn't be less relevant: deal with it as a good-faith contribution unless you have evidence it is not (use of an LLM is not evidence of good faith or of bad faith, it's completely independent of faith). If it is in bad faith, not understandable, trolling, rehashing a settled discussion, etc. then close it to avoid wasting time - this applies regardless of whether it is LLM-generated or human-generated. One of the many advantages of this approach is that it doesn't require any changes to policies or guidelines, because that's how Wikipedia has worked for many years. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair" points perhaps, but not good points. Real editors who could be doing real things to benefit the project should not have to spend their time parsing machine-generate bloat in the hope that it will turn out to be the one-in-fifty case that isn't anywhere from fatuous vacuity to bullshit hallucination. The OP's linked example is an unfortunately poor exemplar of the problem, but anyone who's been active in project space over recent months has seen examples of text which makes you angry that someone expected you to waste your time reading it. You know how you can tell a tsunami is coming because the ocean suddenly recedes, leaving asphyxiating fish flopping on the sand? That's the stage we're at right now. We should respond to AI-generated text the way we'd respond to text in Klingon: tell the author to come back when they can write in English. E Eng 01:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EEng's statement above matches my own sentiment exactly, and I support the expansion of HATGPT to cover LLM-generated proposals. Comments in a discussion shouldn't be generated and neither should requests for discussion. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And take a look at this [1] ANI discussion for a truly epic example of how one AI-drunk incompetent can waste hours of the time of a dozen competent editors. `E Eng 02:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. LLMs are getting better, and we will very soon be unable to spot their output.[2] We need to deal with problem posts and edits the way we always have. Donald Albury 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy at some company says his people have trouble recognizing fake videos with their naked eyes. So what? You want to throw in the towel right now based on that? E Eng 03:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel better, pretend we're enforcing our existing policy on meatpuppetry to remove text written by some~~body~~thing other than the user account editing it onto the page. —Cryptic 01:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think that that agnosticism about the source of commentary is correct but I have changed my mind. The choice is not between using an imperfect heuristic like "is this LLM-generated" and sedulously evaluating the content of discussions. As others have pointed out, editor time is a limited and precious resource. Since LLMs make it easy for editors who would not have otherwise been able to do so to add superficially plausible content to a discussion, we can expect that volume of content to increase, without a corresponding increase in time to evaluate it. That means our standards for discussion are going to shift in the direction of being more BITEy and intolerant of imperfect contributions regardless of whether we adopt any rule regarding LLMs. If LLMs really do improve to the point of undetectability, as Donald Albury suggests, then we're probably going to be driven into a different set of heuristics with hard and stringently enforced limits on WP:BLUDGEON and so on. But for now, LLMs do seem to have a distinct "register", even if it's hard to prove with certainty, and I think it might be more fair to go after that while we can. Choess (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (kind of): I support the idea in theory. But the linked move request would have been WP:SNOW closed as oppose anyway. What happens if someone posts a LLM-generated RfC that people support (which will likely happen)? Or if someone posts a LLM-generated RfC on a perpetual source of drama, and people respond to it before the LLM use is noticed (which will also, maybe even more likely, happen)? Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice for discuassions that don't need closing seems to be someone asks if llm was used, and then either it is rather unbelievably denied, or there is some pivot to "you should focus on the argument rather than the method" which I'm pretty sure llms must be offering as a reply given how consistent it is. After that the discussion tails off. For those that do need closing and would otherwise linger wasting everyone's time, I would agree with the proposal that the guidelines should allow someone to quick close them, while not making it mandatory. CMD (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If LLMs are to be allowed to generate such requests then simply ask an LLM to generate a reply based on your position, make sure to ask it to give detailed explanations now all the points it raises. If it's the case then maybe someone could create a script to autogenerate comments, or even the whole discussion. Editors shouldn't be expected to put more effort into replies than the original poster put into theirs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your good sense to troll back basically. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to support this, although with two caveats. Firstly, that AI detection software, while useful, isn't perfectly accurate and shouldn't be exclusively relied on for that purpose. And, secondly, that proposals getting reasonable support shouldn't be closed just because the original proposal was AI-generated, while those with no support can be immediately closed based on that.

The main issue for me (and the reason why I believe this is not comparable to existing human-written discussions) is that it is trivially easy to generate long proposals with AI, and that it comparatively takes a much larger amount of volunteer time to analyze (and usually dismiss) these proposals. This imbalance is simply not fair to our volunteers, and having to repeatedly deal with AI-generated proposals will just slow down community discussions and divert precious resources from more well-thought proposals. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - To address the concerns about good proposals written with AI being closed, if it's so obvious a good idea, it would certainly be proposed quickly anyway. I don't think the benefit of a theoretical wonderful AI-written proposal that wouldn't be suggested anyway is worth the massive downside of giving any kind of additional foothold to LLMs. LLMs are an existential threat to Wikipedia as a useful project, and I see it as our mission to stop it wherever it is possible to do so.
CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy-closes of formal discussions created primarily/entirely by chatbot - It's highly unlikely the people using the chatbots are willing (assuming they're able) to make coherent arguments based on policy and a reading of the available sources, but if they are there's no reason to bring in a fallible script that's huffing nutmeg. Even the most perfunctory human-written discussion is better than a long AI-written post simply because the human is far better at source critique and rebutting opposing arguments. As Enby says above, I wouldn't support speedy-closing any discussion which has already attracted some amount of commentary before its provenance was discovered. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely the people using the chatbots are willing (assuming they're able) to make coherent arguments based on policy and a reading of the available sources, but if they are there's no reason to bring in a fallible script that's huffing nutmeg. – Yes, this is another excellent point. I believe our attitude should be that use of AI to generate either article text, or discussion text, is ipso facto proof of incompetence as an editor -- because no competent person would think that AI-generated text is a useful contribution -- and should result in an immediate indef. I am not kidding about this. Shoot to kill. (Unblock only after a clear statement that they now understand the issue, but a second offense should be another indef, with a minimum 12 months before unblock may be re-requested).
As for the wikt:bleeding hearts who worry about people who would not be able to contribute without relying on AI to write for them: well, if you can't write it yourself, neither can you review what AI wrote for you, so I'm afraid we can't use you on the project. E Eng 22:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly astounded and appalled by this attitude. Whatever happened to WP:AGF, WP:BITE and the other half dozen or so things you've tossed by the wayside in your haste to hate? Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning someone's competence is not questioning their good faith, but stupid sincerity is not enough. And I do not apologize for BITE-ing a robot, even if it speaks through a ventriloquist's dummy in human form. To paraphrase someone that I'm not likely to quote ever again: Extremism in defense of Wikipedia is no vice. Moderation in tracking down and stamping out AI-generated crap posted by script kiddies is no virtue. [3].
If we don't take dramatic action immediately, our cherished Neutral Point of View will soon give way to the Neural Point of View. (You can use that quip free of charge.) E Eng 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I dare anyone to take a gander at this [4] ANI discussion and not be angry at the time wasted by competent editors who are forced to wade through the AI slop being posted -- and defended! -- by this one incompetent. And I have no problem calling him incompetent, since he obviously lacks common sense. E Eng 02:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dare accepted. I'm more angry at the people who are choosing to insult editors on a project page while yapping about how we "must take dramatic action immediately," instead of taking dramatic action immediately. Be the change you wish to see in the world. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you're not kidding. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've literally been tracking down hundreds of AI-generated articles for the past several days. Please don't tell me what I do and don't worry about. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're addressing me: I didn't tell you or anyone else what they worry about. I addressed any editors who happen to harbor a particular worry which I specified, and discussed that worry. E Eng 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant - given that the actual proposal at an RM is simply “current title —> proposed title”, I don’t think it matters if someone uses an LLM to generate it. Similarly, an RFC question/proposal is supposed to be brief and neutral (example: “Should the article say ABC instead of XYZ?”) and, again, I don’t think it matters how that basic question is generated (In fact, I would love to train LLMs so they generate RFC questions this way).
What I think is actually being objected to is using an LLM to generate the proposer’s opening statement (explaining why they think the move should take place, or why ABC should be replaced with XYZ) … but that is commentary on the proposal, not the proposal itself… and commentary is already covered by HATGPT. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, and it's because the opening statement is essentially the proposer's argument for why XYZ should happen. It isn't something an LLM actually has the capacity to summarise or explain in most cases, especially if offline sources are being used for the argument (as LLMs generally cannot access those); using one for the purpose basically forces the proposer to waste time clarifying whatever the LLM said than actually defending their proposal, and that's outright ignoring the LLM's divinorum addiction. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But HATGPT already says we should discount comments generated by LLMs. So what is the point of this proposal? Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent people from wasting time clarifying or arguing over whatever the LLM said instead of defending their position. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the LLM generated the entire request. If you go back to the diff I posted, go look at that page as it looked during the first edits: they inserted it into the wrong place on the page, and I get the impression it didn't know how to fill in certain fields so it left some blank. But if it makes any difference, I also object to the "opening statement" being majority-written by an LLM. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "entire request", you mean only the first of the 10 comments posted in that RM by the newbie, but none of the significant and substantive arguing you and the OP did over (a) the actual question and (b) whether an LLM was used in the first comment, right?

I'm somehow getting a different feeling about which part was the waste of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Blueboar presents a convincing enough argument in favor of this proposal. I consider this to be an extension of existing policy. Talking about discussions over whether a proposal is AI-generated should be conducted in criticisms of the existing HATGPT rule. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) has an RfC

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tomiĉo (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, can't seem to find this RfC. Dege31 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations. CMD (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]