User talk:2604:2000:E010:1100:F955:25EB:548E:D8B0

Pictures in high school alumni sections

Please stop adding these pictures. This was extensively discussed and consensus was to not allow pictures of alumni. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Pictures in alumni sections. Meters (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. Interesting.

Given the number of editors who edit these articles, I think the discussion was not extensive. Instead, it was limited to a very few editors (with initial editors reaching out to the editors they had a relationship with).

I think this needs an RFC to have the weight you would like to see. This vote of a few editors and their editor friends is not very impressive. And the thinking is not as convincing as it could be. The editor who closed the discussion said for example that images are ok in separate "list of" articles. But why? Some of the issues raised are the same. If they are ok for the list of articles, each argument that was raised against the images in the list in the article is not significant enough -- (photos of individuals are off topic; potential for NFCC violations; layout difficulties and potential for conflict over selection.)

Also very unconvincing is the argument that instructions are to only include brief descriptions. Where is the word "only?" Someone made that up. Look at what they linked to. It only describes minimum requirements. Not maximum requirements. It says "Entries should be bulleted and have a very brief description of their notability."

This looks like a couple of WP editors contacting their friends, getting a friends consensus that is very limited, applying very flawed and inconsistent (and incorrect) reasoning, and then using that as the camel nose to make a major change that affects very many articles. Not good.2604:2000:E010:1100:F955:25EB:548E:D8B0 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It was raised at the high school project, which is where items of interest to the topic of high schools in general are discussed. It's the best way to reach a number of interested parties. You're free to attempt to revisit the issue of course, but I would suggest that you not make any further assumptions of bad faith. And tone down the hyperbole please. This does not affect a large number of articles. It's clear from the discussion that there are relatively few high school articles where this is a problem. In fact, the majority of the articles that I have ever seen that contained pictures of high school alumni are the ones you created today. Meters (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Ah, I see. I was referring to the editor reaching out to other individual editors in that discussion. This is a big issue. Affects how many articles? Edited by how many editors? And the thinking applied should affect other articles where there are institutions made up of people -- like countries and teams. I did not say there was bad faith. Where did you read that? I said the reasoning was bad. And that there are only a small fraction of editors commenting on an issue affecting many more. And that there was some reaching out to editors the reaching out editor knew. And this affects all high school article and college articles (how many are those) whether they have an image now or one might be added -- isn't that a big number? Plus, if this thinking is adopted, it affects country and state and city and team etc. articles. That seems like a huge number. That have been edited by many more editors than the few in this discussion, including ones who were reached out to .. not in bad faith, but not the best way to get a consensus of unconnected editors, I think. I followed your suggestion and put my thoughts on the issue and the impact that discussion should have on the page you pointed me to. I don't know which bothers me more. That a small group makes a decision with such impact, without an RFC. Or that the thinking here was so in my view bad and (on the subject of minimum against maximum requirement) bad. 2604:2000:E010:1100:F955:25EB:548E:D8B0 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. What part of "don't make any further assumptions of bad faith" did you not understand? Repeating the exact same attack on the project page is not a good start to the discussion. Meters (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• Huh? What was not civil? --2604:2000:E010:1100:F955:25EB:548E:D8B0 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously. As I said above, "I did not say there was bad faith. Where did you read that? I said the reasoning was bad." Please explain. 2604:2000:E010:1100:F955:25EB:548E:D8B0 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You accused us of colluding to push through our desired outcome. That's an attack. The question was raised a the appropriate venue. It was discussed relatively extensively for four weeks, by a number of experienced editors, and the consensus was clear. There was no canvassing. One of the project coordinators simply pinged two of the other coordinators. Meters (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• • That is not true. I did not make an accusation of collusion.

I pointed out that the group of editors was not only small. But that it included editors who were called in to the conversation by another editor. That is true. You can see it. It is important. Because it has something to do with how the small amount of editors commenting were formed. When an editor selectively asks editors he knows for comment, the result is that him choosing to contact certain editors can effect the body of editors from where the views are taken. That is really important here because there are very few editors commenting. And it is important where policy is being made.

That has nothing to do with where you are going -- you saying there is a an accusation (?) of collusion. Where do you see that? Collusion is a secret agreement between editors, and nobody said or even implied that. I'm really puzzled by your reaction. I'm really puzzled that you reacted this way while you are talking about civility too. 2604:2000:E010:1100:F955:25EB:548E:D8B0 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I consider "This looks like a couple of WP editors contacting their friends, getting a friends consensus that is very limited, applying very flawed and inconsistent (and incorrect) reasoning, and then using that as the camel nose to make a major change that affects very many articles" to be an accusation of collusion. And we did not make a major change. We did not make any change. I raised the question of whether it was appropriate to include pictures of alumni, and the finding was that the high school article guidelines already prohibited including pictures of alumni. I don't know who wrote the original guideline, but it likely was not thee same editors who participated in the last year's discussion. Meters (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which part of that is collusion? Where did I say anything about secret agreements between editors? Anything? I said that the group was small. Only half a dozen editors responded when you started discussion. And made up in part by an editor calling into the conversation other specific editors. That impacts who the group is made up of. Since you say we should all be civil, and if you think I am not just being a bad person, how do you get from A to B? And me saying what I think about the thinking behind the decision - that's all honest and good and civil and I think you can see the thinking.

Plus you say the finding of this small group, made up in part of editors who were asked by one to give their thoughts, was that the guidelines already prohibited including pictures. But I already pointed out why the guidelines do not do that. Saying a list should include x does not mean a list shall not include y. And my pointing that out is not something that should lead you to warn me about being uncivil I think. Really, this does not feel nice. 2604:2000:E010:1100:F955:25EB:548E:D8B0 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to change the way Wikipedia has been working for years, I would respectfully suggest that you register an account, rack up some substantial content contribution so that we know you understand how WikiProjects and RfCs are structured, then start your own RfC and see how far it gets - the fact is, consensus can in fact change but the way we change it can sometimes be a bit of a lottery. A bit like a British General Election or referendum, and elections for presidents of the US. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

---