Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

For questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post at m:Wikimedia Forum instead.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.

« Archives, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84

One comment per day

I've rarely seen an editing restriction that is something like "one comment per talk page, per day" or "one edit per article, per day". This is meant to deal with editors who post many comments per day to the same talk page, especially low-value comments (e.g., demanding prompt responses, or posting nearly identical comments multiple times in the same thread). Does anyone know whether this is a formal thing, and if so, what it's called?

(@Locke Cole, this approach might also be useful for LLM problems. Imagine if suspected LLM bloviation could be reduced to a single comment per day, without needing any agreement that an LLM was actually being used.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a thing... I recently had issues with someone who, if I remember correctly, was under a two comments per talk page, per day restriction but they were able to get around it by posting massive comments with replies to multiple editors embedded within them. In light of that I would want any future restriction to come with some sort of size limit on the comment or the explicit understanding that it isn't to be circumvented by posting walls of text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a WP:CTOP that could cover this, but it would require a willing administrator to place the ban and go through the process. I know the arbs are currently voting on some CTOP changes, but also one of the proposed principles at least supports the concept since non-stop comments invariably drag other editors back to reply. I know for the "nearly identical" they've been referred to as ForestFires before, which are generally viewed as disruption. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some CTOPs have a word limit restriction that is related to this. Here's a proposal to expand it to all CTOPs: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Proposed decision#Word limit restriction (discretionary) added to contentious topic restrictions standard set. There's also the original definition of it somewhere, probably in an old ARBCOM case. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some CTOPs have a word limit restriction. See WP:ARBPIA5 which also brought in a balanced editing restriction, which is measurable using edit filters. TarnishedPath^talk 04:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually hoping to find a "one sig, or we'll block you" kind of rule. I've been watching an editor (now indeffed) whose talk page comments are sometimes very long but frequently both very short and very low-value (e.g., just pinging editors who haven't replied fast enough to suit him/while it's the middle of the night in their timezone). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any restriction is good if it pushes an editor in the right direction. I don't think we need to think about how formal it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot easier to suggest a type of restriction if you can say "Why don't we try a WP:LOWVOLUME?" instead of "So, once upon a time, I remember seeing an admin try this one weird trick, and it really seemed to help..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a name for this. I've looked in WP:Don't bludgeon the process and WP:Civil POV pushing but I can't see any such restriction linked in those. I admit that I haven't read through all of WP:Editing restrictions, so you may find your answer there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard set now lists "word limits per discussion". This wouldn't necessarily stop an editor from creating multiple "separate" discussions, but it might be adequate overall, at least for CTOP articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is good, especially because it's not a binding ruling that covers each and every article.

Even in the CTOPs, Admins 'can' impose the limit if they see fit. Too much restriction might make Wikipedia much slower in updating even uncontroversial information. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it'd be a binding rule for the few individuals who have had the limit imposed on them. I think that judicious application on those of us who are verbose (a group that includes me) has some real potential.

I think that one comment per day might have different/separate value. There are some editors whose names you just dread seeing on a talk page, because they seem to have nothing else to do than to reply as quickly as possible. I get it; back when I was a newbie, I remember one day refreshing my watchlist just to see what the reply was, and apparently the other editor was doing the same. With experience, you learn the value of letting the other person's reply sit for a day. It gives everyone a chance to level out emotionally, and gives other editors a chance to join the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, mostly.

In case of the ruling violation penalty, I think it'd be better to modify it with an increasing time-limit : 1st violation> 1 Day, 2nd> 2 Days, 3rd> 4 Days, 4th> 8 Days, 5th> 16 Days & so on. Furthermore, if the man behaves well, his penalty should be reduced by 1 Level/30 Days (Eg. 32 Days to 16 Days).

This can be applied, both in case of the CTOPs, and the 1 Comment/Day proposal being discussed. I suggest so because I believe everyone deserves a chance of rectification. Although, it would require quite a bit of work to be done by the coders. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's handled this way. If you're under this restriction, you've been give personal notice. Maybe on a first violation, especially if it's been a while since your last problem, the admin would revert the 'excess' comments and remind you about the rule. But mostly I think you'd expect the standard escalating blocks (often 1–3 days, 1–2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, indefinite/until you can convince an admin that you won't repeat the same mistake, but there is no required pattern.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my suggestion, nevertheless.

I think a couple of lines of coding would be much more neutral compared to human emotions, which would vary from one admin to another.

A hybrid model would be ideal, where Admins put the sanctions and the rest is carried out automatically. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of lines of coding would be more consistent than human emotions, but we choose our admins for their human judgement, which includes things like knowing when it's best to repeat a short block, jump to a long block, or Wikipedia:Time to take the dog for a walk and come back to it with a clear head. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think individual restrictions on commenting frequency is a good approach. I sympathize with the concept of cringing at rapid-fire off-topic comments from person X, but I think restricting one person would just encourage other participants to progress further without that person. When their personal respite period ended, person X would probably make a massive catchup comment, and the discussion could get fragmented each time it has to reset to cover this megacomment. I would prefer a round-robin discussion phase, where all participants are throttled, and a moderator flexibly manages when to proceed to the next round of comments, and when enough progress has been made to end the round-robin phase. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it seem that all hell would break loose at the final phase of this process :⁠' ) Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "individual restrictions on commenting frequency" amounts to "Stop WP:Bludgeoning or I'll block you", and I'd rather have one comment a day than a block.

I see these possibilities:

Someone is bludgeoning the discussion, to the point that nobody else wants to participate in the discussion. They keep it up. The dispute ends up at the dramaboards for edit warring.
Someone is bludgeoning the discussion, to the point that nobody else wants to participate in the discussion. They get blocked for a while. During this time of relative calm, the rest of the editors achieve a consensus. The blocked editor vehemently disagrees, but consensus is reached, and when the blocked editor reappears (and probably re-edit wars), uninvolved editors can see that a consensus exists.
Someone is bludgeoning the discussion, to the point that nobody else wants to participate in the discussion. They are told that they can post one comment per day. During this time of relative calm, the editors have a discussion that reaches consensus. The restricted editor vehemently disagrees, but consensus is WP:NOTUNANIMITY, and with the lower volume, uninvolved editors can see that a consensus exists.

In short, I think that a discussion restriction is no more harmful to achieving consensus than a block. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think if someone's participation is not desired any longer due to their uncooperative behaviour impeding progress, restricting them from any participation is the appropriate remedy. Restricting them to one comment a day is giving the false impression that their contributions are welcomed. If their contributions are still desired, just with a lower frequency, then in order for them to have a roughly equitable amount of input to the discussion, everyone else's contributions should be throttled down to a similar frequency. isaacl (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors "self-throttle" (whether intentionally or due to external commitments), so restricting one or two people often has the same effect as throttling down everyone's contributions.

I've also been in conversations with people who I think are hopelessly bad at the process of collaboration and developing consensus, but who provide important information about the subject matter. I don't want to spend all day arguing with them (which is saying a lot, from me) or to read thousands of words from them, even though I have benefited from them saying "You've misunderstood that source" or "You've got Alice and Bob backwards" or "We need to pay more attention to _____". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't been my personal experience. I see editors continuing on, assuming that an agreement between themselves on one assumption is sufficient to starting building upon, and then chains of assumptions get built up. Then when someone who's been away for a while chimes in, their input can get lost, especially if they follow the usual convention of directly replying to the corresponding comment.

A frequency limitation won't end the need to read thousands of words; they'll just be delayed by a period of time and accumulate responses to everything that has been said in the meantime. A word limit might be more effective (though that depends on whether or not the editor chooses to keep the information you find important within the limited number of words). isaacl (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your scenario (editor stays away for a month, and comes back to say all the same things later), I don't see why one comment per day for a month is worse than blocking the editor for a month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The scenario I discussed was if someone's participation is no longer desired due to their uncooperative behaviour impeding progress, then restrict them from any participation. The discussion would reach its conclusion without the disruption of the unwelcome editor. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion would reach its conclusion without the blocked editor. But as we've both seen, the minute the block is lifted, the problematic editor will be back on the talk page saying that we need to discuss this again, because the article is wrong.

That postpones a problem. One comment a day might change the editor's behavior. If you spend a long while being required to think "I only get one comment today, so what is the single most important thing for me to say?", you might learn how to participate in a discussion without WP:Bludgeoning it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor's participation is no longer desired due to their uncooperative behaviour, then restrict them from any participation – namely, an indefinite topic ban. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if an editor's participation is still desired, just at a much lower rate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've already discussed this. isaacl (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a custom restriction a few years ago like this, which is categorized at WP:EDR as an "anti-bludgeoning restriction" (which appears to be the only place on that page that that phrase is used). It says that its subject is banned from making more than two comments per discussion per day, [but] may ... reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and ... may add very brief clarifications of their own comments. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of one in 2017 where we topic-banned someone but left an exception for may make a single !vote with a short (<300 words) rationale if the discussion calls for !voting, and give single short replies (<300 words) to other editors when directly asked a question (1 reply per direct question). It was just categorized as "topic ban" on WP:EDR though. ArbCom later superseded that one with a topic ban lacking that exception. Anomie ⚔ 12:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that I've been thinking of Awilley's #Anti-filibuster sanction, though that one sounds fairly complicated and was 'retired' in 2019. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to write the problems highlighted so far, and the potential solutions.

Problem on 1 Comment/Day : Problematic editor will just write a single heap of text which will cover all his counters against the arguments made by his opponents throughout the day.
Problem on Word Limit : Problematic individual may be lesser represented.
Problem on Complete Ban : Problematic editor's viewpoint could be missed, and the editors having the opposite PoV could end up in a dominating position (I might as well add that this exact thing happened to me because of a delayed clarification from the Page Admin, of a rule suggested to me earlier by another Admin. Since then, the 2-3 ECUs having an opposite PoV started enjoying a field day of WP:POVPUSH against a handful of interested ECUs).

Potential Solution : To encourage neutrality and discourage disruption, a system that penalises bad behaviour, while incentivising the good will be perfect. I suggest the existing 'Word Limit' system be modified to add the timeout feature I suggested earlier.

An increasing time-limit : 1st violation> 1 Day, 2nd> 2 Days, 3rd> 4 Days, 4th> 8 Days, 5th> 16 Days & so on. Furthermore, if the man behaves well, his penalty should be reduced by 1 Level/30 Days (Eg. 32 Days to 16 Days).

Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is too expensive in terms of admin/enforcement time. There are no school teachers or playground aides watching the students all day long, to decide whether someone is being disruptive today and, if so, to order an exponentially increasing series of time-outs. The approaches that usually work are simple, objective, and absolute: "One comment per day" or "500 words per discussion" instead of "Do what you feel like, and if teacher subjectively decides your behavior is bad, she will send you to the timeout bench". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"500 words per discussion" will stay. What I'm suggesting is to add the dynamic timeout feature to it.

Regarding Admin's time, my experience has been different. I got investigated for WP:PROXYING almost instantaneously. So I think they will have sufficient time to deal with this kind of a job.

Besides, most of the process will be automated. Admins will just have to enforce the restriction, and the rest of the process will be done automatically based on the behavioural data of the specific users stored in the servers. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I believe I've told you before, we already use a "dynamic" block length, but we add something called "good judgment" to it. So instead of always increasing block length, we say things like "It's been five years since his last block, so we can restart with a short one" – or "He's made the same mistake repeatedly for five years, and even though he hasn't gotten blocked in the meantime, it's time for a long one". Or we say "He was blocked for edit warring in the past, but this is a completely different problem, so I can do a short block now." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we really don't want people to be thinking "Hmm, I've only been blocked once before, so if I do this, I'll have a 48-hour block. I think breaking this rule is probably worth the chance of a 48-hour block, especially since I'll be out of town this weekend, so I won't be able to edit much during those 48 hours anyway." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I too had given my example as a proof that Admins might not always possess a good judgement. Explaining the rules after an instant perma-ban in particular takes away all incentives to act better.

My suggestion is an escalation ladder, which people can climb up/down based on their own acts. Admins will always be the ones to report, but the rest will be dictated solely by the actions of the individual, good or bad.

Comments breaking the rule can be deleted, just like an ongoing RfC can be closed because it wasn't opened by an ECU in a restricted page. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:MichaelQSchmidt has died

This is not, however, intended as a memorial posting, as that has been taken care of elsewhere. This is a notification that the deceased editor left behind a large number of drafts in various stages of completeness, and it is the Wiki thing to do to honor the editor's contributions (and the potential interest of readers) by ensuring that those drafts that can be completed and turned into useful mainspace articles will, in fact, be completed. If anyone has interest in taking this further, this list could be subdivided by topic area and subsets could be directed to the attention of relevant Wikiprojects. The list follows. BD2412 T 03:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 T 03:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the user is deceased. Is this possible for someone working on one on these drafts to send it on the mainspace ?

The drafts are on the userspace , I don't know if someone can send a draft to the mainspace if this is not his/her/its own userspace.

I didn't read all the drafts but if someone is able to work on any on these drafts.

I don't know if this person should make a copy-paste on his/her/its own userspace or if it can be send to the mainspace from the userspace of MichaelQSchmidt. Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anatole-berthe: Yes, it is possible to move the articles from userspace to mainspace, or from userspace to draftspace for further work (although, if moved to draftspace, they would be deleted if not worked on for six months). This content should not be copy/pasted, as that would break the edit history. BD2412 T 17:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer ! I hope that some people will work on these. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several of these are for articles that were separately created in mainspace by other editors. These should be checked for content that can be merged into the mainspace articles. They are:

Cheers! BD2412 T 18:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a push on to do a special Halloween set at DYK. Perhaps City of the Damned would be a good fit if somebody wants to take that on. RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aika Tappaa, Dead Game (2009 film), Delaney (film), Killer School Girls from Outer Space, and The Locals (2012) are also apparently in the horror genre. BD2412 T 22:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary accounts rollout

See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Temporary accounts rollout for a discussion on the imminent deployment of temporary accounts, which are assigned automatically to non-logged in editors (thus their IP address information will no longer be visible, without obtaining the temporary account IP viewer user right). isaacl (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of file on Commons

Could someone who knows what has to be done, please, add the "Now Commons" mark into File:Diatret.jpg? The file is an exact duplicate of c:File:Cologne Diatreta detail.jpg. If you want to export the file from Enwiki to Commons you will get this information, as well. As an aside I would be interested what has actually to be added or edited in File:Diatret.jpg page to get the "Now Commons" information. — Speravir – 00:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, resolved myself. From the same duplicate in German Wikipedia I learned I had to add {{Now Commons}}, and so I did just now. — Speravir – 01:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving this yourself, and for telling us you had done so. I just wish more people would do as you have done. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Speravir 01:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discord

I wanted to say something on the Wikimedia Discord... until I saw it wasn't there. I think I got banned cause when I tried rejoining I could not. I had some... questionable behaviours but for sure not enough to get banned without notice. I also don't know how long is the ban. Brickguy276 (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brickguy276: As it says at Wikipedia:Discord#Ban appeals, the place to appeal is Wikipedia talk:Discord. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pay rates...

...are now posted at WP:PAYRATES. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]