Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Robin Reece

Resolved

Hey so I just read a book and there isn't a page for the author. I've only been using wikipedia for about a week so I was wanting some help with making this page. I have gathered enough information about him to make a page I just lack the knowledge to do so. If you want to look at the author this is the link to his book i just downloaded. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B013H0ZVEO?keywords=James%20Yarrow&qid=1438821330&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstubbs72 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor has made a request at requested articles. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"You must select editors from the list at random"

This wording is asking the unprovable -- I could easily select 6 names without researching them and just happen to select 6 people who, had I researched them, I would have known were going to pick my side in the dispute. The upshot is that to select a safely "random" list of users, I would have to research their POV in order to get a variety -- but at that point, it isn't random, is it?

For me, this wording makes using the service impossible. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a new RFC template

Moved to Template talk:Rfc#Proposal for a new RFC template Gpeja (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of RfC template in a deletion discussion

I've never seen this before, but Rupert Loup has added an RfC template to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen 'Alik Shahadah. Is this appropriate? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I replied at the AfD page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Russia or Russian Federation?

I'm not entirely sure if this should go here but here goes:

Should Russia be called Russia or Russian Federation? Here there has been a discussion about that because on the page it's called Russia in in this section. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Russia name to use.

@Catmando999:

“ Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. ” — WP:COMMONNAME

Gizmocorot (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Russia per WP:COMMONNAME. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait,

@Gizmocorot: You said

“ Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. ” — WP:COMMONNAME

I was not referring to an article's title I was referring to it in the list. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If you substitute United Kingdom / United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or United States / United States of America in your question I believe you'll see the answer is fairly obvious. Bazj (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Logo Question

The RFC regarding changing the logo for Wikipedia's 5 millionth article has currently been open for over thirty days. We currently have over 4,982,000 articles, and we will need to discuss the specificities of the logo design and any other celebratory aspects if this RfC passes. I would prefer that the RfC is closed in the near future so that we can have enough time to discuss the logo design should the RfC pass. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So what is your question? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 07:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Need opinion of thirds over a dispute

Skopje

Although Albanian is an official language in the capital of FYROM, and the Ohrid pact is enforced implementing bilinguism over its territory, I am not allowed to put the Albanian spelling (Shkupi) in the incipit. Edits are reverted and my objections are ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herakliu (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it's almost impossible to hold this name permanent on the page because of macedonian nationalists. I heard of a special status for pages whith frequent vandalism, but I have no clue how to initiate such a thing... The best may be to just ignore it. ;) --Ermanarich (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Snowded and British Empire

User Snowded repeadetly denies and reverts edits in British Empire ignoring sources supporting it. He ignored the sources which point out that Britain was a Superpower, even if it was in it's latter stages (I've put the sources at the bottom just in case). Despite this, he ignores the facts and even deletes every grammatical error that editors make in the page such as mines and @GoodDay:'s fixes [1]. He stubbornly believes that keeping order is better than to improve the page. Don't get me wrong, I believe order should be implemented, but Snowded takes things too far to the extent of not letting anyone make an edit to the page. I perceived Snowded has a personal issue with me (not sure why) as can be seen with his edit summaries addressing me and him deleting my messages, something he never did to other users [2], [3]. The whole discussion can be seen here.

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

Hope this comes to a resolution. (N0n3up (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

This is not the place to post requests for dispute resolution and requests made here will ordinarily be ignored. Please see DR for your options but, whichever path you choose, be sure to thoroughly read the instructions at that venue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Imperialism in History of Northern Nigeria

Sorry, but is the colonial Flag of the Northern Nigeria Protectorate really the right flag for the complete History of Northern Nigeria? It's even on the page of the Kanem-Bornu Empire. Seems a bit imperialistic to me to put a colonial flag over the complete history of an region which is as double as big as poland. In my opinion, it should be removed as soon as possible!--Ermanarich (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you just wish to post a comment or request about article content, the place to do that is at the article talk page(s) or just fix the problem yourself. If you've already tried to do so and have become embroiled in a dispute this is not the place to post requests for dispute resolution and requests made here will ordinarily be ignored. Please see DR for your options but, whichever path you choose, be sure to thoroughly read the instructions at that venue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I already posted it there (and there is also an ignored post by another one on the Kanem-Bornu-page) but I don't think that it will find regard there. I just searched for a bigger portal to dicuss this problem. After posting it here I realized that this is the wrong section. I just really don't know where to go with this problem, because my english ain't the best and I'm not very familiar with the organisation of Wikipedia. Sorry :/--Ermanarich (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Death of Wikipedian Piotr Domaradzki (User:Belissarius)

Today, November 8, 2015, is the funeral of longtime Wikipedian Piotr Domaradzki, a Polish-American newspaperman whose (posthumous) biographical entry was created on November 6. Under section header "Wikipedia activity", the article included the following text:
"Under the user name pl:Wikipedysta:Belissarius, Piotr Domaradzki was a prolific and multifaceted contributor on numerous topics in the Polish Wikipedia, where his first edit was on September 26, 2004 and his final two edits were made on the day of the fatal fire, October 20, 2015. On his user page, he wrote: "In private life Peter K. Domaradzki (1946). Historian of military realm and journalist intertwined with Gdańsk, but since many years (1985) living in Chicago in USA. On Polish Wikipedia I started officially editing on 25 September 2004." On October 21, 2011, under new section header "Spis" ("List") he wrote: "When someday I depart from Wikipedia, and such will occur sooner or later, at least this writ will remain after me:" On February 6, 2014, he revised it to state: "When I depart from Wikipedia, and such will occur rather sooner than later, at least this writ will remain after me:" He then listed the articles that he created or translated for the Polish Wikipedia. Domaradzki also contributed (as User:Belissarius) to the English Wikipedia and was active in WikiProject Poland and WikiProject Military history. He frequently contributed to Wikimedia Commons, uploading photographs and drawings. He made over 110,000 edits to various Wikimedia projects."

An appreciation of his life (by Wikimedia Polska Association members Natalia Szafran-Kozakowska and Krzysztof Machocki), published in Chicago's Dziennik Związkowy (Alliance Daily), the oldest and largest Polish language newspaper in the United States, for which he served as editor-in-chief from 2009 to 2013, described him as a pillar of the Wikipedia community whose entries were so well written that granting them the "good article medal" was a mere formality (Talk:Piotr Domaradzki#Tribute to Piotr Domaradzki in his newspaper, Dziennik Związkowy). A link to the tribute [in Polish (readers may cut-and-paste it into Google translate)] is here.

Although Piotr Domaradzki's Wikipedia activity was a major part of his life's work and, according to his words, his legacy, the question has arisen whether it is appropriate for such self-referential text to be part of a subject's biographical entry. Since a number of departed Wikipedians have been sufficiently notable to merit articles of their own, it would seem fitting for us, as a community, to discuss this matter and express our views. The most appropriate venue would seem to be Talk:Piotr Domaradzki, although other, more general venues, may also be brought into the discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisting an RfC

Is it possible to relist an RfC? I tried to do so at Talk:Turks in Bulgaria, which initially seemed to work but then the bot removed the RfC template as expired. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Probaly not. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, this reply is doubtless too late for you, but it is possible. See the instructions about "extending" the date. You have to change the date stamp, to trick the bot into thinking that you started it recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Request manual edit to fix links from RFC/A to RFC

The wikilinks from the transcluded pages WP:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law and WP:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature, and media to the RFC at Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation are broken, they are not going to the RFC section on the talk page. Maybe the long section heading broke the rfc template expansion? Today unfortunately an editor summoned by bot left in confusion without commenting on the RFC. Can you please help? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Why removed from list?

My request [13] was added on 7 January and removed on 9th without any input from an uninvolved editor. Why? HerkusMonte (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this, but it was removed by the maintenance bot, not by an editor, and I rather suspect that it was because the talk page where it was posted was moved to a new name a few hours after you made the RFC request, which caused the bot to believe that the RFC tag had been removed and it thus unlisted it. I'm not sure of any of that, but it seems highly likely. This is, again, a guess, but you can probably get it reposed by removing the current RFC tags (and you only really need one, not three) and putting a new one on that section. Someone more familiar with how the bot works may, however, say this is all wrong. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

HerkusMonte, I've re-formatted the section, and it might work better now. Please {{ping}} me if it doesn't get listed within the next couple of hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on Wikiprojects - a hijacking strategy

Background: I have been participating in wp: WikiProject Breakfast for several years. WP-Breakfast has always had very sparse discussion and when FLOW was looking for volunteer wikiprojects to test the software, I was instrumental in getting discussion there converted to FLOW. Since FLOW appeared to have serious software bugs, discussion was carried on in spurts of activity. However, recently a group of Wikiproject-outsiders suddenly materialized at WP-Breakfast for the sole purpose of running an RFC to stop the use of FLOW. The RFC squeeked through with a small vocal minority of editors who were never around before to contribute to any testing, and when I objected to this process and tried to ask questions I was told to go off and read wp:RFC.

If don't believe that this process which allows vocal minorities who happen to know all the correct buzzwords to hijack direction is in the spirit of wikipedia. Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Ottawahitech I was the one who pointed you to WP:RFC and suggested you read it, for the purpose of informing you what a RFC is. Let me be perfectly clear what a RFC is. RFC stands for "Requests for comment". The very first paragraph says

Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors. The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions.

What can we learn from reading this? Well its normal when a number of outside editors shows up at a RFC. Thats the purpose of a RFC, to get outside input on a question. Most of the time because there is an impasse with the editors on the page already. Unless you have some proof of WP:CANVASSING, that is the editors were specifically targeted and invited to the RFC based on how they would respond. Pointing out that the people who commented on the RFC were from outside is like pointing out that there are fish in the sea. Secondly, I know of no policy that places a specific number on the number of people that needs to comment before a RFC can be said to come to consensus. The rule is they run for 30 days, this one ran more, and that they are closed by someone who is uninvolved. I have never even seen the page before reading the RFC to close it. By your own words "WP-Breakfast has always had very sparse discussion". We are not going to see large groups of people responding. But the RFC was on the projects talk page, that page was the subject of the RFC. There is no need for a large group. The 10 or so responders are enough. So far I have not seen you point to one policy, guideline, or diff for what you are now placing on uninvolved pages, that can be considered forum shopping. I think it would be in your own best interests for you to find some policy, guideline, or diff soon. AlbinoFerret 07:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• What can we learn from reading this?

I have learnt, again, that wikipedia is a bureaucracy where a small minority of editors who spend their time making up the convoluted system of rules and regulations are those who decide things for the rest of us, never mind common sense or the philosophy on which Wikipedia was built. At this point I concede defeat and will let the rest of the this vast community have their say. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ottawahitech, A couple of points from an un-involved bystander - Do you not see the contradiction between your 2 complaints:

• "a group of Wikiproject-outsiders suddenly materialized at WP-Breakfast"
• "a small minority of editors ... who decide things for the rest of us"

Setting aside your personal investment of time/effort in FLOW - is it serving the needs of wp:WikiProject Breakfast? - Do you expect a discussion at wt:WikiProject Breakfast to be conducted for the benefit of Breakfast or of FLOW?

An RFC is an open request for comment, I don't think you can complain when "outsiders" offer comments at odds with your "small minority of editors". Regards, Bazj (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Ottawahitech: In reference to you saying "wikipedia is a bureaucracy where a small minority of editors who spend their time making up the convoluted system of rules and regulations are those who decide things for the rest of us, never mind common sense or the philosophy on which Wikipedia was built" (and this does not reference the issue of the RFC at the WikiProject, but only that statement): What you fail to see is that Wikipedia is a community of users and, just like the community where you live, some folks contribute to the community by participating in civic projects (for example, by attending and speaking at City Council meetings or serving on boards or commissions), others contribute to the economy by working, and others just live there. Anyone, however, can do any of those things. The "small minority" to which you refer would include you if you cared to join in, but just like in your city, if you don't care to join in then you either have to live by the policies that are adopted, argue for their inapplicability in particular situations, or decide to join in to get them changed. In fact, the barrier to entry into participating in those decisions is much smaller here than in the real world. All you have to do is to go to the talk page of the policy or guideline you think needs to be changed and propose the change. Why so many and so complex policies? Again it's the same reason as the real world: We get tired of addressing the same issues again and again and policies not only provide a standard answer, but they provide a consistent answer so that the same issue or question is not answered one way in one place and a different way in another place (with the "losers" in both places then yelling, "See, we were right, it was done our way over there!"). But each time you propose a policy, questions then arise how that policy is to be applied in particular situations. So for the same reason the policy was created in the first place, new sub-policies are formed and the "rules" become increasingly complex. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RFCs are indeed intended to get the views of uninvolved editors. However, the views of uninvolved editors are largely irrelevant when the question is how a small group of editors should work together, per the official guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. WikiProjects have significant leeway in their internal operations.

In particular, if someone wanted to demonstrate that there is a widespread consensus to disable all Flow pages, then that editor would need to start an RFC on that point. The community can say "nowhere at all", but it cannot say "it's okay in general, but not on the page used by this particular little group". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: "the views of uninvolved editors are largely irrelevant when the question is how a small group of editors should work together, per the official guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide." Strange, I can find no mention of "uninvolved" there, and not one of the mentions of "involved" has anything relevant to say about your claim here. Nothing else in that texts seems to support your claim either, but I may have missed the relevant bit. However, the more important point is that, as stated at the MEdiawiki page, there is no consensus to enable Flow anywhere on Wikipedia, and no requests to enable a page will be granted. A long time ago, permission was given to have two temporary tests on two Wikiprojects, and an RfC has now decided that that temporary test is over. The wikiproject members have no authority to override that decision (they are free to participate in the RfC, which they did), and the wikiproject council guide has no bearing on this. The decision to end the Flow trial will also have zero impact on how the project works (or, in general, doesn't), no processes, discussions, ... will be made impossible or even more difficult. Fram (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If Alsee wanted to demonstrate that there is a consensus to remove Flow from all pages, then Alsee should have (a) actually asked that question and (b) done so on a more appropriate page, e.g., a village pump. If there were actually evidence of a community-wide consensus to remove Flow from all pages, then the WikiProject would have to go along with that. But – and here you may want to go back to the /Guide again – WikiProjects are groups of people, and, like any other social group, they are most effective when given responsibility and authority over their interactions. "Outsiders" don't get to demand that they work or talk in a particular way. (All of us can insist that all of us work or talk in a particular way, but that's not what the instant RFC was about.) You can't use an RFC (or any other process) to force a single WikiProject to change its scope, to change the color on its banner, or anything else. You can use an RFC to force everyone to stop using the color green in the Wikipedia: namespace, if that's what the community wants to do, but to achieve that, the RFC actually needs to be about everyone, not about six editors who are occasionally working together in a small group.

This is all sort of academic: There were bona fide participants on both sides of the question, and strict exclusion of all non-participants might well result in the same result. (Also, the devs aren't bound by RFCs here anyway.) But in terms of procedures, and in terms of showing respect for volunteers who are trying to work together, this shouldn't have been an RFC, because the views of non-members/non-participants on the question of how participants ought to be permitted to talk to each other are actually irrelevant. When you're talking solely about that page (and that RFC was talking solely about that single page), then all that matters is the views of the actual participants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdong, as community liaison you should know better than to include technically correct but irrelevant and inflammatory aspects like "(Also, the devs aren't bound by RFCs here anyway.)" into such discussions. Yes, the devs can do whatever they like. And all that will achieve is huge problems for the WMF in the end, with the trust some people still have in it completely eroded, with every kind of attempt made to sabotage those devs in such an instance, and (in this particular case) with a huge backlash against Flow as well, as something that the devs would try to impose against our wishes. The Devs aren't boudn by RfCs here, and the enwiki community can decide to fork and leave the devs to play with an dying site. Neither is very relevant to the discussion here.

Alsee didn't want to "demonstrate that there is a consensus to remove Flow from all pages", the RfC was about the removal of it from one page only. But every discussion on enwiki has shown a great reluctance to allow Flow anywhere (apart from the one wt:Flow test page probably), and every Flow page that has been challenged (RfC or AfD) has been shut down so far.

And I note that finally, you have, as I have become used to, made strong claims in your initial post, "the views of uninvolved editors are largely irrelevant when the question is how a small group of editors should work together, per the official guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide.", which you are unable to back up when challenged, but are unable to retract as well apparently. I know that you were answering here in your personal capacity, just like you happened to propose and defend the Breakfast project for Flow trial in your personal capacity, not your community liaison one, but please remind me why we would support a WMF cronie who regularly spouts nonsense about policies, guidelines, technical issues, or nearly everything that could put the WMF and their pet projects in a bad light, for the position of "community liaison"? Oh right, because you display the same attitude in your "personal" capacity when someone touches your pet project, no matter how dead as a dodo it is.

Flow is technically unfit to be deployed anywhere, an accident waiting to happen (remember when I blocked the echo notifications of dozens of editors with only 10 characters in a single Flow page?) and not having Flow is no problem for any of the discussions people theoretically might have on the project talk page. Your defense is based entirely on red herrings, and your comments about the freedom any project has, including the implementation of new software not wanted by the wider community, is not based on any reality.

TLDR: WhatamIdoing, stop talking nonsense. Fram (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fram, I try to rewrite my posts if I catch something like "cronie" in an edit-preview. (I do a plenty of rewriting, with mixed success.) We all need to work together and I try to remember that a rewrite might increase the chances of reaching a positive long-term outcome. Alsee (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually do as well. With some people, the chance of reaching such an outcome is next-to-zero though. If you have had many discussions, on multiple topics, with the same person (sometimes in their WMF guise, sometimes in their personal-but-just-happens-to-support-the-WMF-preferred-outcome guise), and you have witnessed the frequency of their incorrect statements and their lack of correction once these things are pointed out, then you just give up hope for them. Using or not using "cronies" won't change this anymore. Fram (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I would like to point out a couple facts. 1. The RFC was started by a non member of the wikiproject. 2. Only 2 members participated in the RFC, both with remove Flow comments. Had more members commented and those members wanted to keep flow, the closer should take this into consideration in the close. But that isnt what happened here, "If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas." sounds about right for this discussion. AlbinoFerret 15:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, there were more than two WikiProject Breakfast participants who commented during the RFC. For example, Ottawahitech is a long-time participant, and is also a proponent of keeping Flow on the page. But as I said above, ignoring the irrelevant POVs of non-participants would not necessarily change the end result. My interest in this discussion is a matter of principle, not a matter of practical effect in the instant case.

Fram, I'd be happy to see a diff in which I proposed enabling Flow at WikiProject Breakfast. I'll make it easy for you: The original proposal is right here, and my name isn't anywhere in it. I support the right of WikiProjects to determine, for themselves, the best ways for their group to work together. If they decide that they do or don't want Flow, then I support their decision. What I can't support is a couple of people who have personally contested this software in multiple forums trying to impose their antipathy for Flow on the WikiProject. If you want it off all pages, then you need to have an RFC about getting it off all pages, not an RFC about imposing your wishes on a small group that you don't even pretend to belong to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing please provide the diff where Ottawahitech signed his name to the member list. Because I cant seem to find it in the list. AlbinoFerret 21:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, the membership lists are irrelevant. They're never up to date, they often overstate the membership by including people who signed up and then quit editing. There are many people who participate but didn't want to officially sign up (in some cases, "signing up" means getting spam in the form of newsletters). Some WikiProjects refuse to have them entirely. If you want to know who the actual participants are, then you look at comments (especially replies). For small groups, and all inactive ones, it's also a good idea to take a look at the active editors in the area, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Breakfast. And since I know that it's impossible for everyone to know that such resources exist, then the easy "rule" to remember is that whenever you've got questions or disputes involving a WikiProject, then you should drop by WT:COUNCIL and ask. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

So you dont have a diff? I disagree, to be a member of a wikiproject your name should be on the member list. Ill grant you if a member list does not exist then its harder to tell who is a member, but that isnt the case here, a member list exists. If your name is not on the member list, your not a member. The home page of Wikiproject Breakfast has a member tab thats quite large. Anyone can put their name on the list. If you havent , then your not a member. The whole argument is that "members" were ignored. Well so far IMHO only 2 members commented on the RFC, and they said remove flow. The rest is just arm waving and distractions. AlbinoFerret 04:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. Speaking as one of the editors who has spent many years supporting WikiProjects, updating the guideline on them, helping people organize new ones, and resolving disputes between them, I'm telling you that your personal opinion does not reflect the general way these groups work. Adding your name to the list, and then never editing a single page within the project's scope (e.g., "Planecrashexpert", one of the so-called members), does not actually make you a participant. (And if you go back and look at my comments, you will find that I use the word participant almost exclusively.) WP:WikiProject defines a WikiProject this way: "A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia." The link there is to social group, which defines that term in part as "a social group has been defined as two or more people who interact with one another". You cannot be part of a social group if you don't show up and interact with the other people in the group. But you most certainly can be part of a group even if you don't fill out a particular piece of paperwork. This fact is even recorded in the FAQ on WikiProjects: "What's the biggest WikiProject? Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date."

BTW, if you'd like to talk to someone else about this, then you might look at this Signpost report to find the names of some of the most experienced editors in this area, or you can post your question at WT:COUNCIL. But you're not going to hear experienced editors agree that a "member" who does nothing more than sign his name on the membership page is actually a member, or that a participant who is active in the group but never signs the membership page is somehow not a valid part of the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion, FAQ's are not policy. Anyway this whole section is in the wrong place, and the RFC close was reviewed and passed, so this whole section is rather a waste of time. AlbinoFerret 06:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

So you didn't propose it and I was wrong about that, fine (see how hard that is, admitting when you have made a mistake?) I've done more Flow testing than most project members there, and that was the purpose of the trial, not some way to improve the prohect (which it hasn't done clearly). Not a single good argument has been given why Flow would be beneficial to the project, only some principled "stay of our turf" comments. You are free to make clear what you consider the best way for your group to work together, but a) no work is being done on that project anyway, and b) no indication of why Flow would be a better way to work together has ever been given. And I didn't start the RfC, but once such an RfC was started, I was free to participate in it. So don't lecture on what kind of RfC I should have started when I haven't started the "wrong" one to begin with. I have done my part in getting rid of Flow on pages that protested against getting it but got it imposed by the WMF anyway, I have done my part in testing the things that go wrong (or horribly wrong) with Flow, I know the problems in adminning Flow pages, I have read the messages of people removing Flow pages from their watchlist because of Flow (good way to promote Wikiproject participation). Are you even aware that your precious project (of which you aren't a member apparently) talk page is not even editbale by IPs and new editors? Yes, it has been protected since September 2014 because it is a Flow page (and not by me, by the way). So please explain again, for the benefit of all of us, how having Flow as your talk page format has helped the project and its members in any even minute way, and how keeping it in Flow format will be beneficial? Fram (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I tried to avoid commenting here to let this section die naturally. Apparently it didn't work. Chuckle. We really shouldn't be debating Flow here, we shouldn't be debating the WMF-Community interaction here, we shouldn't be debating the close here (that was handled and resolved at Admin Noticeboard).

If/when I want to start an RFC about the site-wide status of Flow, WhatamIdoing is absolutely right. That is a Village Pump discussion. I've considered it, but I'm in no rush and I have other priorities at the moment. Of course anyone else on either side of the issue is welcome to start that RFC. It might be helpful to get clarity on what the general consensus is. It is common for people on both sides of an issue, any issue, to mistakenly believe they have more support than they do. If *I* am misjudging the general community consensus on Flow, I'd certainly want to know. I'd certainly ease up on my comments and actions.

Project Breakfast: There had been zero project activity in fourteen months. If it had been an active project then WhatamIdoing is right that the most appropriate action would have been to discuss it with the active users of the page. There was no one there using Flow, and one one there to request an end to the trial. In my opinion the obvious thing to do was open an RFC to try to draw people in to discuss the question. In my opinion it was perfectly appropriate for the community-at-large to ensure an inactive project is properly maintained for the benefit of attracting and serving future editors who may show up. The consensus of the discussion was that the inactive Flow trial was no longer serving any useful research purpose, and that maintaining Flow on the page had negative value for the future of the project and the community in general. Alsee (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the Flow page has objectively helped the group. What matters is what those editors want to do with it. And, yes, Alsee, I can understand why you assumed that the group was inactive (especially if you didn't know that projects which are actually inactive get tagged that way...), but it still would have been reasonable to post a friendly "Anyone home?" message before posting an RFC in which you request that outsiders impose their POV on a small group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that active users of a project should get substantial deference on how to run a project, within community-accepted limits. However I think you're coming uncomfortably close to asserting OWNership of a project that no one used in over a year. That is inactive, regardless of whether it is tagged. All pages are fundamentally owned by the community, to serve all current and future editors who might show up. Every Flow page has had activity drop to zero and there were very reasonable concerns that Flow may have contributed to the death of the project. That is a valid global-community-management issue.

I'd also like to note the thin consensus to activate Flow in the first place. Breakfast was converted to Flow based on a consensus of four, two of whom never used Flow once it was activated. The situation was egregious at Hampshire. The WMF declared a consensus existed to convert Hampshire to Flow after a whopping two people Supported and two people Opposed. Staying on topic for this page, a weak consensus is easily reversed. Alsee (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The valid global-community-management issue is whether Flow ought to be present on any production page – which is not the question you asked. The community wouldn't have a valid reason to impose the views of non-participants on the actual participants, over the objections of the participants (assuming, of course, that the actual participants really did object, which is doubtful). Or, to put it another way, you have a good reason to ask them about whether they still wanted Flow on that page, but you did not have a valid reason to ask BethNaught and Fram (to name two firm opponents of Flow, who never participated in that group but still showed up to vote on this RFC) whether WikiProject Breakfast still wanted Flow on that page.

This is "ownership" only in the sense that you have "ownership" of your user space: The person who "lives there" deserves some respect. The community has the right to declare that nobody may do something that seems harmful on their user pages, but it does not have a right to declare that you individually, having committed no offense, may not do what is (theoretically) permitted to anyone else. The community is not supposed to treat individuals or small groups of editors so arbitrarily and capriciously. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Alsee didn't ask me anything, he asked all editors to give their opinion. Note that actual long-time project members asked to disable Flow from that page a long time before the RfC. Note also that editors and admins have lost time only because Flow was used on that page. And finally note that using Flow for your talk page (user or project) is not "permitted to anyone else", contrary to what you imply; and that there is no "you individually" here, this is a group effort, with members, passers-by, admins, and everyone else who may come into contact with it. In your view, someone like Doug Weller (a long time member opposing the use of Flow) may not, "individually, having committed no offense", do what is permitted to anyone else, i.e. use the standard talk page for his project communication, instead of Flow. Please think about what you use as arguments before posting them, it would help if you stuck to the convincing and reasoned ones and dropped the untenable or irrelevant ones. Fram (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"you did not have a valid reason to ask BethNaught and Fram (to name two firm opponents of Flow, who never participated in that group but still showed up to vote on this RFC) whether WikiProject Breakfast still wanted Flow on that page" - I'm assuming that is just poorly worded, but for the record I did not Canvass anyone to the RFC.

And since we keep circling back to the topic of asking the community-wide question, WhatamIdoing would you like to collaborate on a Village Pump RFC? 1: Ask if we want to enable the new opt-in Flow User_talk pages. (I'm opposed, but that question certainly belongs in the RFC.) 2: Sort out expectations for creating/removing Flow pages in general. 3: Whether to keep the three(?) remaining Flow pages on EnWiki. The only one with significant activity is the Flow testing page, which makes that one rather circular in purpose. Alsee (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)