Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale

Closing statement
has been posted at WP:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement -- RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, closers. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

, if you'd please archive everything above this section to Archive 4? Thank you for all your help here, it's very much appreciated. Valereee (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Valereee: ✅. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me as well to the closers, to MJL, and also to for doing so much of the heavy lifting before and during this RfC. It was much more work than I expected! –xenotalk  13:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

7-day runoff RfC as requested by closers of WP:ACAS
The closers have here asked for a runoff RfC:

Question: Should we enact Question 2:option C?


 * Question 2:option C: All WP:MASSCREATEd articles (except those not required to meet GNG) must be cited to at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source.

Please simply sign in the appropriate section without commentary. This RfC will be open for at least seven days and will be closed at closers' discretion. , would you please ping the participants? Valereee (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Your input is requested for the above run-off RFC since you previously commented on Question 2 of the main article creation RFC. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Your input is requested for the above run-off RFC since you previously commented on Question 2 of the main article creation RFC. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Support enacting Question 2:option C

 * 1) Scolaire (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Levivich (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Lurking shadow (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Donald Albury 17:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 17:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)   scope_creep Talk  22:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  BJóv  &#124;  talk  UTC 23:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14) — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 17) Avilich (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 18) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 19) Reywas92Talk 23:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 20) Red Fiona (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Although I thought all articles created already had to have at least 1 source that demonstrated GNG.
 * 21) —S Marshall T/C 01:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 22) BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 23) * Pppery * it has begun...  01:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 24) CMD (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 25) Jogurney (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 26) --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 04:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 27) Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - but this is already a requirement. There is no article not required to meet GNG that should not already have at least this and this should not be considered a new lower bar. I suppose the main effect is to make it easier to delete en masse database-imports. FOARP (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 29) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 30) wjematherplease leave a message... 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 31) Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 32) —  HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 33) Loopy30 (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 34) Support  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  01:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 35) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 36) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 37) Clyde!Franklin! 08:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 38) Thingofme (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 39) One independent reliable secondary source is pretty reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 40) Therapyisgood (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 41)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 42)  nableezy  - 18:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 43)  echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  07:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 44) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 45) Aoidh (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 46) Ajpolino (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 47)  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 48) Jontesta (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 49) HouseBlastertalk 21:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 50) AKAF (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose enacting Question 2:option C

 * 1) Andrew🐉(talk) 20:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Ingratis (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 23:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) "Article creation at scale" is still undefined, but we're going to create additional rules about it? &mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) --Enos733 (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 09:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) Hobit (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)  What constitutes "plausibly contribut[ing] to GNG" is not a black-and-white thing. Who decides?  Hobit (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14) James500 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) --Ortizesp (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 17) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 18) This is pointless as there is 1) no agreed definition of what counts as mass creation 2) all articles are already required to pass the test of basic notability unless a more specific policy applies. <span style="font-family:Linux Libertine, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull;  talk  21:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 19) Rschen7754 00:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 20) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 08:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 21)  Hut 8.5  08:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 22) Iffy★Chat -- 10:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 23) -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 24) ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 25) – Uanfala (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 26) Thincat (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of runoff
Feel free to discuss, but realize the closers won't be reading. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, I had suggested ranking the options for question 2, and in doing so I had envisioned they would be evaluated as ranked choice votes. In retrospect I can see that wasn't obvious. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I really wish I'd made this clearer sooner. By my count, when all other options are eliminated, the count is 32-25 for C over D. I imagine it's too late to revisit this? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what would be changed in the revisitation? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a !vote in which options are ranked should be closed as if it were a ranked choice vote, and if the tally is evaluated as such, I'm seeing a consensus, albeit weak. Obviously I !voted myself, so I'm not unbiased, but I'm asking if it's reasonable to revisit the closure of 2A. I wouldn't suggest it for purely procedural reasons, but it might alter the outcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what the closers asked for was basically just to confirm that, in the runoff above. Are you instead suggesting the closers should just consider it as carried, without the runoff? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing discussions =/= counting !votes and enact something that has a slim majority.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that it absolutely wasn't clear how votes were going to be counted/ranked, it would seem impossible to give consensus to anything other than an overwhelming majority of opinions in this case. Plenty of people voted "D only" and one "anything but D", for example - how do these fit into any form of weighting? Genuinely, I don't think it's appropriate to do anything other than some form of runoff - given that's what the closers suggested. I'm slightly dubious about that even - certainly without any ability to make an argument one way or the other. It might also be a good idea, given that C is dependent on articles being mass created, to wait until we have a definition of mass created first so that we know what we're actually talking about. Fwiw I'm also slightly wary of this standard being retrospectively applied to any article that's ever been created - no matter how. We need that definition and to know whether we're applying this only to articles created in the future or to any article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

How can we enact a rule about sourcing for mass created articles if there's no consensus for what defines a mass created article? Would probably default to oppose based just on the lack of clarity, though I'd probably support if this were accompanied by some assessment of consensus re: definitions. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This, @Blue Square Thing's point above about application, and the very vague "plausibly contribute to GNG" (plausible according to whom?) are why I oppose this. I've not been following the RfC after it got far too unweildy but I don't understand why anyone is supporting something so ill-defined. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposed rule would apply to articles that are covered by the policy WP:MASSCREATE, which may not have a "specific definition" -- e.g. no bright-line rule or numerical cap -- but I think that's ok: Wikipedia is filled with fuzzy terms that don't have hard definitions, like "consensus", "notability", "credible claim of significance or importance", and many more. Levivich (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is fine until you enforce a bright-line rule based on at least three layers of subjectivity, which is what is proposed here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am supporting something that is not completely defined because we have to figure out a way forward in the attempt to eliminate Wikipedia from being overwhelmed with junk that needs 5 - 10 times the amount of energy to get of of than it took to create. Wikipedia should not be a search optimization tool, or an interesting problem for coders scraping databases, or a way for editors to up their article creation stats. And I think that even if I can't quite define mass-creation, I know it when I see it. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WomenArtistUpdates says that they know it when they see it. So, as a test case, consider one of their recent creations: Lillian Adelman.  This is one of a series of similar stubby articles about women artists.  That's mass creation, right?  And this example doesn't seem to have any sources which plausibly pass GNG -- all the sources are just lists of paintings by that artist with little to no biographical detail.  So that's a fail, right?  But do we actually have consensus on this?  And, in any case, what is supposed to happen next?  A sanction or what? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't personally be pushing to delete the Lillian Adelman article by WomenArtistUpdates, but I suspect those sources – none of which contain even one single sentence, none of which is a true secondary source, none of which actually contains SIGCOV by itself – is exactly the kind of trustworthy but non-secondary database that JoelleJay was trying to get excluded outright in Question 14.
 * WomenArtistUpdates, you might know it when you see it, but the real question is whether other editors know the same thing that you do. I suspect that quite a number of people would look at your recent article and decide that not only Lillian Adelman, but also Mathilde De Cordoba, Harold Black (artist), Shirley Julian, and others that you created last month and think "I know it when I see it, and this editor is engaging in mass creation of articles with sources that do not plausibly contribute to the GNG". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Touché (and how) ouch. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. C is going to cause a lot of extra work for you, assuming that we end up with a definition of "mass creation" that includes people creating ≤30 articles a month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If Adelman has multiple pieces in the permanent collections of the MoMA and Met then she meets NARTIST 4, and therefore wouldn't require GNG sourcing for the purposes of this proposal. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assumed I was (rightfully) being called out for my statement that "I know it when I see it." While it seems obvious to me that Adelman is notable per WP:ARTIST, to someone who is not fluent in notability for that area it might seem that the stub falls into the undefined WP:MASSCREATE. I stand behind the creation of the article. Thanks JoelleJay :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been around for some time but this particular clause of WP:NARTIST is new to me. Looking at option C above, I notice now that it has a get-out for such SNGs "(except those not required to meet GNG)".  But I'm not sure how this is supposed to work in practise.  The cases of mass creation tend to be those where there is an SNG of this sort -- villages, species, national politicians &c.  So, it doesn't seem that option C would achieve much because the exception would usually be claimed, as in the case of Adelman. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How have so many editors missed the "this only applies to articles under GNG" part of this proposal??
 * If people are mass creating articles on notable subjects -- whether notable through GNG or an SNG -- then that's not a problem. If they're mass creating stubs on non-notable subjects based on incorrectly applying SNG criteria--like the Iranian water pump situation--then those stubs must be evaluated under GNG since they didn't meet any SNG in the first place and would therefore be governed by option C. Also species don't have their own SNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to ask: why would a reasonable reader think these are bot-created? As of course, creating lots of stubs is not the same as WP:MASSCREATION.I would say something is mass creation if, for a set of articles, a simple substitution applied to all of them would make them all equal. As in, they literally fit the format of a template with a few placeholders for variables. Example: could literally be a template:   The ones you linked by User:WomenArtistUpdates may be stubs but are clearly not mass creation, as they cannot all be defined in terms of one single template (equivalently, you can't apply the same transformation to those articles to turn them into the same thing). In my mind, that's what distinguishes bot-like 'mass creation' from 'creating lots of articles': could a dumb bot (i.e. not some fancy AI) do the same thing? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ProcrastinatingReader, why does it matter what a reasonable reader thinks about the method used for creating articles? Even if we stipulate that the reader would see enough in a row to notice the pattern, and even if we stipulate that the reader would guess that this is due to automatic generation rather than an editor manually following a style guide, what does a reader's thought about the creation process have to do with the problems caused by creating very large numbers of articles in a short timespan?
 * The problem with mass creation is the MASS part, not the readers' hypothetical reaction. Actual, true, indisputable "large scale", "mass" creation floods the New pages patrol.  Flooding the queue with near-identical stubs is flooding the queue.  Flooding the queue with FAs is equally flooding the queue.  How does anything you've written relate to the problem of flooding the NPP/reviewers' queue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess "reasonable reader" was poorly phrased, I didn't mean 'reader' as in someone who reads articles. I was going more for 'reasonable observer'... i.e. why would one look at WomenArtistUpdates's creations and think they're mass created?
 * My point follows on from the "I know it when I see it" statement made earlier in the thread. My instinctive feeling was that "I know it when I see it" is a decent rule of thumb, and I'm curious why it isn't. I tried a tighter definition above in the comment I made, based on why I don't think WomenArtistUpdates's creations qualify. I think any mass-creation has to appear like a process without human input could've made the same thing. If it looks like it required non-trivial human input, then it's not bot-like mass creation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion related to this at VPI, about how to define mass creation; I agree with what you are saying and have tried to propose a definition that aligns with that; "A single editor, creating articles at high-speed or large-scale, based on boilerplate text and referenced to the same group of sources". BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ProcrastinatingReader, why would one look at WomenArtistUpdates's creations and think they're mass created? Because there are more than 25 to 50 of them, and MASSCREATE says that less than 25 to 50 is not a problem.  This implies that more than 25 to 50 is a problem.
 * BilledMammal has proposed a definition of objectionable (if not pre-approved) mass creation (rate + content + refs), but mass creation per se is just a volume/rate question. One could have highly desirable mass creation (WomenArtistUpdates's work) as well as objectionable mass creation (bot-like creation of lousy substubs with bad sources and doubtful notability), and the whole spectrum in between, but there's nothing about mass creation per se that requires the resulting article have any particular visible characteristic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's part of the bot policy, and was originally intended to address automated and semi-automated (incl, per WP:MEATBOT, anything that looks automated or semi-automated) mass-creation. Semi-automated mass-creation requires that things follow a particular template (or, as BilledMammal calls it, a boilerplate text). So while it's not a named requirement, it's implicitly there as one feature of semi-automated mass-creation. Since WomenArtistUpdates's edits can't be defined in terms of one template, they can't be mass-creation. At least that is how I would see it. I would call it "bot-like mass-creation", as it's not about "mass-creation" in the sense of creating lots of articles - that'd just lead to absurd conclusions/decisions I think.
 * It's a definition that's consistent and makes sense to me (it's equivalent to 's definition above), though I recognise that since it hasn't gained traction perhaps it needs to be wordsmithed a bit, but I don't see why it's not workable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These things are both true:
 * MASSCREATE is part of the bot policy, and
 * MASSCREATE is invoked in attempts to restrict people who are not engaged in bot-like article creation.
 * I want the second to stop. BilledMammal's definition doesn't seem to be a way to make that happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an area where we need a better definition. Just so everyone understands, because this uses the current vague wording in MASSCREATE, it wouldn't even apply to cases like e.g. Lugnuts' mass creation (which is part of the impetus for this RfC). I still have faith the closers can extract some super basic working definition from the discussion to work with. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Why are we now voting on the talk page? As if this hadn't been made complicated enough already. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And what happened to WP:NOTAVOTE? This process is a farce. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently that only applies to WP:NOTATALKPAGE. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTAVOTE specifically points out that polls can be a "means to help in determining consensus" [emphasis in original]. Since there was a lively discussion already, my understanding is the closers felt a runoff RFC would help to confirm whether a consensus existed for the prevailing option. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 23:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The main event is concluded, we're in the endgame now. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 23:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No, there is no such requirement. New articles within the scope of WP:CSD must make a credible claim of significance, which is a lower standard than notability and doesn't require any sources to be present in the article. Articles submitted via WP:AFC need to demonstrate notability (which requires multiple sources) before they will be accepted, but AfC is not (and should not be) compulsory. Other than that, or restrictions on individual editors, the presence of GNG sources only matters when an article is nominated for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely skeptical that a pure vote in order to establish a content policy is in within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, especially since Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not as the result of a vote. The so-called "runoff" is firmly outside of the scope of established policy and is not in any way a valid RfC. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The ultimate close can always be appealed to the community at AN, so it's still global community consensus that will determine the final result. If it's a bad result, the community will throw it out in the end. Levivich (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In theory, that is correct. In practice, RfC fatigue cuts in and the debate gets fractious, and fewer people contribute usefully, making the probability if a useful result diminish the longer the process continues.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk):
 * Leaning support, but there is more to be supported. An RfC in which most of the proposals failed, is not a satisfying success for something on which we have been discussing for months.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I echo the concerns that, even if there are times when we can decide things by a straight-up vote, this isn't one of them. Supposing that the decision is "to C or not to C", why is consensus formation not the goal? Fine, let's say we're in the endgame now &mdash; but the rules for how the pieces move don't change in the endgame, do they? I fail to see why a pretty basic principle is suddenly being avoided. It's like declaring that once an AfD has been relisted, it's now a vote, because the initial discussion has concluded. Likewise, I'm not enthused about a bright-line rule based on at least three layers of subjectivity. This entire multi-page discussion has become so disconnected from any particulars that I can't even tell what bad behavior this rule would supposedly stop. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless the outcome of the vote is as close to unanimous as makes no difference, it's pretty much guaranteed to be appealed given how even in this very discussion we have people disagreeing about what they are supporting or opposing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this is claimed to be an RFC ("7-day run-off RFC"), but is not tagged or formatted as an RFC, and is not being advertised in the manner of an RFC (ie. to all interested editors, not only those who have participated in a previous discussion). It's hard to see this as legitimate even on it's own terms and even if you ignore that RFC means "requests for comments". Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd add: The real world has to have sources.  So far, articles do not technically need to cite those real-world sources.  This means that if we didn't already have an article about Cancer, you could create a stub that says "Cancer is a disease that sometimes kills people", and nobody could delete it purely on the grounds that you didn't add a source.  Or for a more lighthearted example, User:WhatamIdoing/Christmas candy could be moved to the mainspace without fear of being deleted over its complete lack of sources.  (Of course, the moment you wanted to add some solid content, like how many billions of dollars are spent on Christmas candy each year, then WP:V's rules would require an inline citation, though you wouldn't have to cite the kind of source that matters for demonstrating notability.)
 * The question here is whether a source must be cited in each mass-created article that some unspecified editor (i.e., not you) believes "plausibly contributes to GNG". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it's the vagueness of "mass-created", "unspecified editor" and "plausibly contributes" to the GNG (which is itself subjective about what is in depth coverage) that makes this whole bright line rule completely inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf Ah, that makes sense, I submit all of mine through AFC which explains my confusion. Red Fiona (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m supporting but I honestly I’m not sure what this will actually achieve. Isn’t this already a requirement? I suppose it will be a delreason for a particular subset of mass-created articles perhaps? FOARP (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely what's going to happen here: we're going to create deletion policy that will be cited over time. This conversation - which is what it needs to be - needs to take place at VP or something, not here and absolutely can't be left to a simple vote, especially when people voting are suggesting they don't really know what they're voting for or the context(s) in which it will apply. Sorry, but this is a really, really bad idea just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * e2a: and, to be clear, I could support something along the lines of C if I knew how it would be applied. I said as much in the original discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am supporting as well, but I see it more like a yes for in the case there is no such source in the article, the article can be nominated for Speedy deletion. An article sourced with this can be speedy deleted. And article with this has to be discussed. Lets see if this works.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll predict right now that both would be speedily deleted without anyone even looking at the source, because the assumption will be made that Olympedia is a database only source/unreliable/user generated and so not worth looking at. I'd do it the way you've suggested, but unless we're very careful indeed I doubt very much that that's what'll happen in cases like this Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The one thing almost everyone agreed on is that the meaning of mass creation/creation at scale is insufficiently clear to make policy based on the current description, now we are asked to make a yes/no decision with no comments, based on the same clearly inadequate definition/description? Really? I could support or oppose this, depending entirely on how the terms are defined. For the current description I can only oppose. Define the terms first, then ask whether people agree with the proposal based on those terms. This should be closed as inappropriate until the redefined/clarified terms have been accepted. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, some might say that mass created pages should have at least one GNG source regardless of what the definition of "mass created" is, so we don't need to change the definition before agreeing to document this consensus. With respect, some of these concerns are over-wikilawyering. Do you or do you not believe that all articles should have at least one GNG source upon creation (except the exceptions)? If the answer is yes, you should be voting yes here, because if all articles should meet GNG, then all mass created articles should meet GNG, regardless of how we define "mass created" exactly. It's not really that novel or complicated of a question. Levivich (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Levivich, the comment above from @JoelleJay has made me take another look at this proposal, and I think Joelle's right and you're wrong. This would only require "one GNG source" for subjects that aren't covered by SNGs.  This wouldn't touch WP:NATHLETE, WP:NARTIST, WP:NPROF, WP:NROAD, WP:GEOLAND, etc.  If, as Vanamonde93 was saying elsewhere, the main problem is "almost entirely about athletes, villages, and roads", then this won't touch the problem at all.  AIUI athletes, villages, and roads are all exempt from GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It definitely would affect at least NSPORT, which explicitly requires GNG be met. Most roads are also under GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, NSPORTS is covered. The others are not, but the community should be taking a hard look at GEOLAND and NROAD in particular anyway. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The closers won't be reading. Is this a prediction or an instruction? Have the closers been instructed not to read the comments? What if they do? Would that disqualify them in some way? This is not how Wikipedia works. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither prediction nor instruction. The closers specifically asked for no comments, just simple statements of support or opposition. Valereee (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion happened in the actual RfC, this isn't a rerun. The question in the RfC had many, many options (7 total) and there was not a consistent voting or ranking system used by all responses. I don't see any sort of issue here. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * yet one was arbitrarily imposed by the closers who used it as the basis for this RFC-that-isn't-an-RFC that attempts to distil nuanced positions into a binary choice between an incompletely defined proposal to use an undefined term based on three different subjective measures into a bright-line rule. The issues with that should be obvious to everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think that's true. The C options together had the most support, and instead of assuming that all users who supported one of the two C options would support the other they asked for a quick sanity check from us, the participants, to verify that. That seems entirely normal and appropriate. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Except people that didn't participate in the original discussion are now voting here. Making it functionally a new RfC (without the C). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That... Is not ideal. I'll hold my tongue on saying anything stronger, but to my mind that kind of empties the runoff aspect of meaning. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 02:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The closers do not get to tell the community that they will ignore their opinions, comments, arguments or reasons and then expect the community to accept their closure as legitimate. There may or may not be new and relevant information discussed. They are expected to take it into account when assessing consensus, otherwise this is just a vote which is not how this should be done. By this point I do not consider it even possible to reach a meaningful, far less a binding, conclusion based on this run-off non-RfC (WP:Request for Comment in which the comments will be ignored).&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 06:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm, tricky thing is...when is someone MASSCREATING articles? Per MASSCREATE there is no definition for that (if one exists, it would be more than 25-50 a day). If one creates 24 articles a day, they'd be below the (non-existent) bar and the whole discussion starts again. The manually created articles are not included in WP:MASSCREATE. Therefore I see this closure as a not really a satisfying solution to the problem of mass creation.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for a definition of "mass created" before participating in this AFC. From the above, it appears that we've gone with WP:Bot policy? So all we are discussing now is bots? Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, plausibly meeting GNG seems overly vague and subjective. We increasingly can't meet consensus whether something does meet GNG or not, with one person's in-depth and independent being another's person routine, and automatically disqualified because the subject is asked some questions that make up a small part of the article. Surely better options would be to have either have some bot-committee approve any bot-creation of article, or that allows for bot creation of articles that meet an SNG. I don't see how - at least for humans - that you'd be able to insert a GNG reference for each person, through a bot. I'm leaning oppose with the lack of clear criteria and definitions. It's so vague it adds little to existing rules. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First ArbCom tells us we have to make policy changes under supervision, then the supervisors come up with an over-complicated and under-thought ranked choice voting system that produces no discernable consensus, now the closers tell us we have to have a straight-up poll to try and salvage something from the trainwreck. "No commentary allowed". This RfC is an absolute joke and the outcome is meaningless. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we're having a runoff; if it's not close enough to call it a clear consensus, then no consensus exists. It's that simple.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How is that going to work in practice? Imagine there's a proposal to create 500 articles about a certain group of species using a taxonomic database as a source. A discussion follows up, which attracts participation from twelve editors and all of them agree that the articles are of high enough priority, that the source is reliable and that the project should therefore go ahead. But then a certain User:W.Laywer will come along and point out that inclusion in a taxonomic database doesn't amount to significant coverage and so, because of this rule over here, the mass creation won't be allowed to start. "But we've got consensus for this project here!", the other twelve would say. "Tough luck, per LOCALCONSENSUS, that means nothing" would be the inevitable rejoinder by W.Lawyer. Or is there any reason why situations like that wouldn't arise? Species are often seen as not GNG-dependent, but replace them in the above example with any subject that's not inherently notable, then replace the taxonomic database with a source that guarantees GNG without contributing to it (say, a bibliographic database), and you have the same situation all over again. Or is the new rule meant to apply only to bold, undiscussed mass creations? But in that case, it doesn't really change the status quo: anyone setting off to create more than a few dozen articles per week without discussion will almost certainly be stopped, whether this rule exists or not. – Uanfala (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem in this hypothetical? The 500 articles would not be created using a taxonomic database as a source (assuming that database doesn't contribute to GNG), even if 12 editors wanted it to be, because those 12 editors' local consensus would yield to the global consensus of the dozens of editors participating here. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So this global consensus here would allow any wikilawyer in the future to stop a project that otherwise everybody would agree should go ahead, and you don't think that's a problem? – Uanfala (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it's a problem that consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. And your statement has an error: in your hypothetical, "everybody" would not agree it should go ahead, only 12 editors would agree. Those 12 editors would need to respect the decision arrived at here among 60-something participating editors. I'm confused by your comment because this is how Wikipedia has always worked, and I find it weird that I'm explaining the concept of local/global consensus to someone who's been editing for over a decade? Levivich (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So in your view, the collective opinion of a group of editors discussing a proposal in the abstract should automatically override any decision that another group of the same size may reach about a specific concrete instance? My main concern here is: what problem is this new rule supposed to solve and is it worth it the collateral damage? The aim of this, I imagine, is to prevent undesirable mass creations, but the undesirable mass creations we've had to deal with in the recent past (if I recall correctly) have had to do with topics that at the time were not dependent on GNG, so the new rule wouldn't have helped with those. On the other hand, the new rule can have negative side effects in preventing desirable mass creations. See for example this discussion from four years ago that authorised the mass creation of a group of articles about arthropod species. It was attended by a comparable number of editors to our discussion here, it was more extensive than it, and it resulted in overwhelmingly strong consensus for the proposed mass creation (which was a stronger consensus than any that could possibly emerge in this discussion here). However, if this new rule has been around at the time, then that discussion, with its wide participation and strong consensus, would have been overruled by a technicality that itself had much weaker support. – Uanfala (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So the text following adds a whole bunch of words that I never wrote, like, , and . My view of global/local consensus is exactly the same as what is written at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. That means that if this "C" proposal passes, WikiProjects could not decide to make exceptions, without following the usual WP:CCC procedures. (Meaning: a new RFC.)
 * The problem this new rule is supposed to solve is the mass creation of stubs that don't link to any GNG source.
 * I do not agree that recent problematic mass-creations had to do with topics that were not dependent on GNG at the time. Cricketers and footballers come immediately to mind.
 * The discussion you linked to would not have been overruled by this proposal "C" if "C" was in effect at the time. That discussion was an RFC at the Village Pump, which is exactly the type of discussion that would legitimately carve out an exception for "C", per WP:CCC.
 * So to bring it all back: the dozen editors in your hypothetical would need to follow the same procedure followed in the 2018 discussion you linked: have a widely-advertised RFC. And that is WP:CONLEVEL working as intended. Levivich (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Who says it would be a WikiProject? What if there's a discussion at Village pump (proposals), in which someone says "I think we need these articles, I've got this information at hand, and I'm willing to do the work of creating them myself."  A dozen editors agree – remember, this is at the village pump, not some under-watched back corner of the wiki – and you still think that's not evidence of consensus from the community? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe until we can either agree on deleting at scale many seemingly non-notable articles or on an efficient incentive (like the WIR, or similar) for expanding stubs/articles we will keep on discussing on the mass creation. As long as it is more attractive to create new articles than expanding them, I believe the discussion will go on. This is why I thought that if the expanders get the same rights like the creators it would discourage the creation of new stubs. If expanders get the same rights or even more, then Wikipedians will think twice whether they invest time into creating a stub or expand a stub into a start article and I believe many opt for quality instead of quantity. In Wikiproject Asia for example a 3000 bytes and 300 words bar exists. How about if the one who brings a stub to over 3000 bytes and 300 words (or X...) can add his name to some list of expanders? Then another bar for 5000 bytes and 500 word and so on until one takes it to a GA.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What "rights" do article creators get?   The right to have their contribution edited mercilessly by others, plus ...um, nothing?
 * WikiProject Asia is inactive, and they shouldn't be setting requirements for minimum article length anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that this "runoff" has now been listed at WP:CENT so it will attract editors who were not part of the original discussion. And, being presented as a straight VOTE, rather than a nuanced discussion seems to make this too crude.  Asking the general community to vote on how mass creation should be done, without defining what mass creation actually is, seems unwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was too crude before it was listed, given that even people who did comment on the initial proposal disagree about what the options mean. This has just made it an even less reliable indication of anything. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Time to close?
This "7-day runoff RfC" was started on 5 November, 11 days ago. Should it not be hatted at least, and the closers invited to close it? Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Or alternatively hatted as an unqualified mistake and quietly forgotten about. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith @Krakatoa Katie @TheSandDoctor Valereee (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. It was closed several days ago, but we neglected to hat the discussion.  I've fixed that.  Please see  Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added the line to WP:MASSCREATE. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Question 17: Amend WP:MASSCREATE
In your closing statement you said that Question 17: Amend WP:MASSCREATE technically passes on the numbers – what does this mean? Is there consensus to change the bot policy, or not? And if there is consensus, what exactly should be changed? As you noted, Q17 was rather unclear, had two parts, and proposed no specific text. has already tried to change the policy citing your close, which I've reverted because I don't see support for it. As this is potentially the only tangible outcome of this mega-RfC, I think a less concise summary summary of your assessment of Q17 would be very helpful. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The question was not unclear - it was very clear as to what should be changed. If a specific text is needed then this can be the result of a further discussion. I think we should be very careful not to simply declare that this whole process has no outcome at all. FOARP (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, FOARP, it may not have been unclear to you, having proposed it, but it was to many others. Whether this whole process has an outcome isn't really up to anyone to "declare", it's a question of whether, objectively, the participants reached any consensus. That fundamental principle seems to have got lost in all the bureaucracy and polling. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With equal respect, you are not the only one frustrated by the bureaucratic attitude taken by some in this discussion. If clarification is needed, then a further discussion can be held - surely that is uncontroversial? FOARP (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes... hence me asking the closers for clarification here. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there's a problem here in that WP:MASSCREATION says BRFAs are required, but Q18 rejected that proposition. Is the community ready to enforce the provisions of WP:MASSCREATE to the letter if a WP:ANI case comes up? I don't think so.
 * The specific change being made doesn't work because that entire sentence assumes a BRFA is actually being filed. The part about consensus just means the reviewing BAG expects to see an appropriate consensus for the mass-creation task. The net effect of the change to MASSCREATE is to remove the discretion of the BAG reviewer, but that part isn't the problem; there is nothing for BAG to review because BRFAs aren't filed for semi-automated mass-creation in the first place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader - WP:NASTRO mandates that this process should be followed for Astronomical articles and has been followed. I do not know why people have been catastrophising about a process that is already being used. FOARP (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:MASSCREATE needs to be read in entirety, it begins with Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved at Bots/Requests for approval. Everything else in the section presupposes that a BRFA is being filed, which doesn't happen currently. The part that's being changed: It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) -> It is also required that community consensus be obtained would work if the problem were BAG approving mass editing jobs without requiring community consensus, but that's not the problem.
 * Nobody files BRFAs in the first place, so tinkering around with the process for how BAG deals with these requests doesn't make sense. What I'm trying to say is: does the community feel that mass-editing jobs need to go through the WP:BRFA process and get approved, with community consensus demonstrated, and are admins ready to block any systematic creation that hasn't followed this requirement? I could be wrong, but skimming this I feel like the answer is no to both; I don't think people are intending to use the BRFA process (doing so was rejected in Q18), so WP:MASSCREATE remains a dead letter policy, as it is currently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader - If MASSCREATE is a dead-letter policy, then I would expect that attempts to mass-create astronomical articles about e.g., asteroids that ignore it would be successful. Are they? FOARP (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that one should seek consensus before systematic creation is sound.
 * That's really what WP:NASTRO says. It's written in clear words, and in a place content editors actually read. So yeah, I suspect that is actually effective. But note they're not reading/following WP:MASSCREATE (this is evident as no BRFAs are filed about creating asteroid articles), they're following WP:NASTRO. There's a distinction there, and the two are not the same. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The revert by Joe Roe has been re-reverted by Avilich . Bot policy has edit notice Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Joe has asked for clarification, it is better to wait for it instead of edit warring over the wording. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I very strongly encourage Avilich to self-revert. Reverting during the discussion portion of WP:BRD (which is what is happening here) is disruptive and unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't BRD, that wasn't a WP:BOLD edit. The D was this RFC, and Q17 passed. I'm surprised anyone doesn't think Q17 passed and would be even more surprised if the closers agreed with them. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Joe explicitly explained above why they reverted, explicitly asked for clarification in the appropriate place and is awaiting a response to that. It might technically not be BRD by the letter of the law but I cannot fathom any way in which it does not meet the spirit. Whether or not you will be surprised at what the response to that clarification is could not be less relevant - everybody needs to wait until the discussion is finished before reverting the action that prompted it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually re-reading the proposal and the close, this was actually BRD. The proposal (which I would personally have closed as no consensus) proposed making a change, but did not specify what that change specifically was. BilledMammal boldy implemented that with form of words they (presumably) believed reflected what passed, Joe disagreed with that and so reverted and sought clarification in the form of this discussion here (unquestionably the right place to do so). At that point everybody should refrain from making other changes until the clarification was received and any other ongoing relevant discussion had concluded - regardless of whether Joe was right or wrong to revert, once discussion has started it is wrong to continue reverting - especially on policy pages. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's how I would have closed it, too, but the closing statement said it's a technical pass, and if it's not a pass, the closers should clarify that. Levivich (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, clarification was asked for and until it is received the only states it is justifiable for the page should be in are either (a) the status quo before any changes were made, or (b) the status quo at the time the clarification was requested. In this case (a) and (b) are the same. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Pass" by itself is unusual language. RfAs pass, ArbCom motions pass... votes pass, basically, so it's unclear to me whether they are saying "this has consensus" or simply remarking on the headcount. Usually complex discussions are closed with a summary of what there is or isn't consensus for, an assessment of the level of consensus, and an explanation of the closer's reasoning. They seem to have been in a rush here. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted as requested, but I am concerned that Joe Roe's rationale smacks of "I don't like it" and stonewalling. Unilaterally undoing a policy change immediately an RfC was closed is higher in the scale of boldness than enforcing it. If anyone wants to revert my revert, feel free to do so. Avilich (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for self-reverting. Whether it is "I don't like it" or not (something I have no position on), once clarification was requested it was incorrect to revert before that clarification has been received. If the RFC had been closed with a clear consensus to make a specific change, then reverting a change implementing that specific change would be inappropriate as there is no good faith way clarification could be required - however that is not the situation we are in. What passed (and not with a clear consensus) was "make some sort of change that has the effect of doing this sort of thing". If there is a dispute about whether the given change does have the effect of doing that sort of thing then that absolutely needs discussion, and nobody should be reverting while that discussion is ongoing (regardless of where in the sequence the discussion starts). To be clear, I don't know whether I think the change BilledMammal made does accurately reflect the close or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You can rest assured my rationale wasn't intended to "smack" of anything other than what I wrote. An RfC closed as successful on a 17–16 headcount is bound to be challenged even if it had a clear closing statement, which this does not. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I just want to acknowledge that the closers are aware of this thread and we're discussing it internally. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see Special:Diff/1121230899 for our update to this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions
Consider adding a link to the closes to Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale, somewhere prominent. It's a bit odd to have a bunch of closed RFCs but no closing statements or results (or if they're there, I wasn't able to easily find it).

Consider linking to the second RFC mentioned in the closes at Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale, somewhere prominent, or mention that it's coming soon.

Thanks to everyone that's worked on this. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, @Novem Linguae, probably not enough coffee yet, can you clarify what are you asking for? The nutshell and status box both contain links to the closing statement for the RfC on article creations at scale and for the runoff above, and the status box contains a link to the the talk for the RfC on deletions at scale, is that what you're looking for? Valereee (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'm just blind. Clearly I didn't get enough coffee yet either :) Thanks for pointing out the nutshell. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there are a LOT of links in that status box. :D Valereee (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

7 day runoff
Is the seven day runoff limited in those who can participate to those who participated in the RFC? Or is it open to anyone? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As for me, you are free to comment, maybe you have a pacifying idea some participants did not though of yet, and if not, it would just be one or some comments more in a huge discussions spanning several venues since months. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually I shouldn't speculate. Valereee (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * We never actually discussed that. Speaking just for myself, I can't see any reason to limit participation. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That was my feeling, too, but I realized after I first posted that maybe I shouldn't make assumptions. :) Valereee (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you've disallowed commentary. That's semi-defensible if you're just asking to clarify an existing consensus in the previous discussion. But as it is, it's just a vote. We don't know whether the new voters have read the arguments previously set forth or what they think of them, and you have no way of assessing the strength of arguments or the level of consensus amongst them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm with Joe on this one. When I read the ping, it all made complete sense to me. A lot of weird self-made ranked choice systems and vaguely worded votes are a difficult issue for the closers to address. After tallying things up best they could parse, two very similar positions, one a derivative of the other that varied only in whether the number of GNG sources by 1, were a combined favorite. A lot of voters indicated they were fine with either but to be sure all voters were pinged and asked that. Everything about that is chill and I approve. Then seeing that it was open to new participants... thats a new RfC then. We need reasoning and rationale statements. We need to evaluate arguments. So which one is it? Not directing that question at you the person, just so I don't come off as hostile. More that the management of this process needs to make a decision. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Seven-day runoff seems to already be closed
This page says "Closers requested a 7-day runoff to gain consensus for a multi-part question; that runoff began Nov 5 here, will remain open for at least 7 days, and will be closed at closers' discretion". It appears that this discussion has already been closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was closed at Arbitration_Committee/Requests_for_comment/Article_creation_at_scale/Closing_statement. Valereee (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Machine-generated text
There have been some discussions on content generated by computer programs, including concerns about large-scale submissions of machine-generated text. I think this is better handled in a general matter, regardless of provenance (or suspected provenance) of the text. See Wikipedia talk:Large language models for some discussion. isaacl (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)