Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

A1: Mark MedCom as historical

MedCom has mediated only one case in the past year—that mediation failed, in any case. Furthermore, MedCom technically has no chairperson. The term of the last chairperson ended in August 2016, and in violation of its policy, MedCom has failed to elect a new chairperson.

Thus, it is proposed that MedCom be marked as historical.

Support

1. Support. Seeing that MedCom has dealt with only one (failed) case in the past year, and seeing that the term of its last chair ended about a year ago, I think it's safe to say that MedCom is inactive and thus historical. Biblio (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Prose : G14: Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing

1. The main difference this time is in the specifics : This applies only to articles created by users blocked for paid editing or for being confirmed sockpuppets.This applies only to articles created by users blocked for paid editing or for being confirmed sockpuppets, and have no substantial edits by others.
2. Optional Specific : The articles must fall into either of the two categories - WP:BLP or WP:ORG.

Why this helps?

• Most paid editors are experienced folks, and they know how to write articles which rise above deletion. Most often they operate different accounts at the same time, which are not easily linked back to the original sockmasters due to their experience with SPI. So G5 is powerless as the articles were created before they were blocked.
• However I feel there should not be a difference between articles created before they were blocked and those created after they were blocked. Why :

1. If they were blocked for paid editing, it is self explanatory as to why they should be deleted.
2. If they were blocked for being a confirmed sockpuppet, they mostly likely had a WP:COI in creating the articles. The emphasis on confirmed is to avoid any qualms of arbitrariness. For example in - WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitabhaitc/Archive, the administrators blocked KuwarOnline on the suspicion of being a sockpuppet, even without CU evidence to confirm that. So that would mean all the articles created by him would not be eligible for deletion under this criteria, but those by the other confirmed sockpuppets would be eligible for deletion. What this does is rule out deleting contributions by all the editors who were blocked as sockpuppets exclusively based on behavioural evidence.

• Most often Wikipedia is part of the package for online promotion, per this. So paid press often accompanies these articles, and are used as references. Voonik and its CEO Sujayath Ali were created by a large sockfarm, and many of its subsequent editors have also been blocked. However they will probably survive AfD, as there are references to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG, and the article will continue to remain, with probably just a COI tag. Well meaning inclusionists will oppose moves to delete this citing the references, scuttling any efforts to delete this.
• If the articles are deleted as soon as sockpuppets are identified, then it would break the back of paid editors, as customers will not be willing to pay for articles that are deleted soon. I also believe this would lead to more voluntary declarations of WP:PAID as they would try their best to stay away from being blocked. Suspected paid editors are always keenly watched by Sockpuppet hunters, as the paid editors know, and the fear of loosing all their work, and thereby their reputation among customers would invite more WP:PAID declarations.
• WP:BLP and WP:ORG is good for a start, as these are the most abused areas.
• As with all CSD, the reviewing administrator would still have discretionary powers to look at the suitability. So for example, our current AfD position is to let articles that satisfy WP:NPOL or WP:NFOOTY stay. However we do not extend the same for WP:NFILM and expect them to satisfy WP:GNG. Same goes with the CSD. If they are sure to survive AfD based on such provisions, they should not be deleted. However in all other cases they should be deleted.

End of long post. Now for the comments. Jupitus Smart 07:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

{{cite journal |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |title= |url= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |access-date= }}

Versus:

{{cite journal
| last       = 
| first      = 
| last2      = 
| first2     = 
| date       = 
| title      = 
| url        = 
| journal    = 
| volume     = 
| issue      = 
| pages      = 
| doi        = 
| access-date = 
}}

See these diffs for subject of the edit warring: [1], [2], [3].

WP:CITESTYLE states in part:

While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook.

WP:CITEVAR states in part:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. ... As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved.

Since the discussion above ("WP:CITEVAR") shows there is disagreement about whether the current policyguideline covers usage of horizontal/vertical citation templates, the RfC is phrased to determine if it should so that the issue can be settled. An earlier discussion about the issue resulted in no consensus. It's time to settle this issue. AHeneen (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)