Consensus is pretty clear that it should be changed to "t". Can anyone suggest a simple way to go about implementing this? Ironholds (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update {{navbar}} and templates using the {{navbox}} series will be updated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like it has been taken care of. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit=Quintucket (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)][reply]
I notice that every objection centers around the idea that it would make it easier to stalk users. So I'd like to point out two counter-points which have been brought up in the comments:

1. It's easy to wikistalk a single user. What this proposal would do is allow the watchlisting of a lot of users, which isn't a tool wikistalkers need. They already have what they need, which
2. There's no need to allow watchlisting of registered users. Logged-in vandals are generally dealt with in a timely manner; it's mostly the IP vandals who slip under the radar. [/edit]

I'm surprised this isn't on perennial proposals, but the upside is it means I get to suggest it without (I hope) looking like a total ignorant. I've noticed that the vast majority of anti-vandalism efforts are given either by Cluebot, or with an automated tool like Huggle or Twinkle, which apparently allow first-level warnings. This means that persistent vandals will get a lot of warnings, and often get "final" warnings followed a month later by more first-level automated warnings only. But the users with earlier final warnings in the last year or so I can at least report at AIV. Even more problematic are the users who rack up a large number of first, second, and occasionally third-level warnings, but never get to a final edit. (I generally give users who fit this criteria a third or fourth level warning in line with the total warnings they've accumulated in the past year. I'm not sure this is fully Kosher, but I feel it's completely warranted.)

So I try to check recent changes manually and find these persistent users, and watchlist any pages they've vandalized. This isn't exactly the best way to go about it, and I rarely catch new changes by these vandals, but I don't know if it's because they stop (unlikely in many cases), or because they move on to other pages. But if I could watchlist Special:Contributions pages directly, it would let me follow those persistent vandals without keeping them in a text file (which I've thought about, but I'm lazy, and I've already got quite a large non-vandal to-do list in another file).

While I know this would require software updates, I'm hoping that enough people would appreciate this feature that it can gain the consensus to suggest at Bugzilla. --Quintucket (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK. I don't think I can agree that this would be beneficial, however useful. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: While I acknowledge the advantage of watchlisting vandals but this will have much adverse affects on the constructive contributors who regularly get hounded or stalked. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Yes, with what Izno points out, and the substantial changes needed to software (I think) to "subscribe" to specific versions of what is a virtual "Special" page, I can't see this gaining much traction. There are so many "stalking" concerns it would be bound to open up, and truly, I share some of them. I think you're stuck with another way of doing this if you need to do it legitimately. Begoon ^talk 13:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (reluctantly) Whilst I've often experienced the very same frustration as Quintucket, and have regularly (daily, even) thought how useful this feature would be, stalking vandals' edits shows a failure to assume good faith. We have to assume that they won't reoffend once warned - even if they almost invariably do. Yunshui 雲‍水
  • I don't think I follow the reasoning here. By this logic, we also shouldn't watchlist or protect any commonly vandalised articles, AGF they won't be vandalized again. That's really the exact reason why we would want to watchlist recurring vandals, for the very likely case they will again. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can also remember something that Jimbo pointed out: "our social policies are not a suicide pact." I always try to assume good faith whenever there's any doubt, even with users who add anti-Semitic comments to articles (this is a real example, I tried to reach out to the user). But some vandalism is pretty damn obvious, like adding nonsense or spam. When you see a user who has a long history of vandalism, it's pretty clear that the vandalism will continue until the IP is reassigned or the user grow up.

On the other hand, if a user has a history of non-constructive edits, even if they seems to be in good faith, it runs up against competence is required. I've seen many users who persistently add biased or verifiably inaccurate information despite warnings to stop, and I assume that they genuinely believe they're improving the encyclopedia. When I see these users, I try to add text to whatever template I'm using (this is another reason I refuse to use scripts). These users in particular it makes sense to monitor, because they can become genuine Wikipedians. (I'm a minor case-in-point; my 2004-2005 contribs tended to reflect an anti-Boston bias that I've now outgrown.) Is it better to have Huggle users templating them until a non-script-using user gets fed up and reports them, resulting in a block, or users who can monitor them and attempt to talk to them? --Quintucket (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. There are very many vandals from different IPs/usernames and some recurring individuals could use an oversight. But I don't think the ability to follow their edits arbitrarily outweighs the enabled misuse of the feature for WP:STALKing. I might consider this if users/IPs were "watchlist-tagged" by sysops. But this does sounds a little WP:SHEDy. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after reading other arguments. Stalking is probably not as big of a deal, and stalkers already stalk contributions, this will only make it marginally easier. On the other hand, this is very useful for rarely-editing users/IPs so every one doesn't need to be checked manually. Although I'd like for there to be a way to be excluded from this in cases of obvious stalking. Or some other kind of restriction. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We can implement this feature for IP contributions only to indeed avoid stalking. Then it will make sense for static IP with recurring vandalism issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? I think you first need to establish that an IP editor is less entitled to protection from "stalking" than a registered (still possibly anonymous) username. Begoon ^talk 14:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this is obviously an issue for discussion, but did not the community decide to have higher level of protection from IPs by for instance restricting them to be unable to create new articles? I am not sure the community would support the idea, but I do not think it should be outright rejected as being in contradiction to the five pillars.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about sysops being able to tag only the vandals who can then be watchlisted or monitored through RSS feeds? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they are vandals, why aren't they already blocked? --Jayron32 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are talking about recurring IPs. They may be blocked for 6 months, then return after two more months and start vandalizing articles until caught and re-blocked. This could facilitate catching them on time.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we getting a bit close to being back in HELLKNOWZ's WP:SHED, by now, though? Begoon ^talk 16:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Without regard to the supposed moral hazard this presents, I'm not sure that this is technically feasible using the way that watchlists work. Actual "pages" in Wikipedia consist of text which is only changed when someone changes it; the text itself is stored in the database, which is why it can be watchlisted. "Special" pages do NOT consist of existing text, the "special" pages simply pull info from a database and the page is generated on the fly; there's nothing for one to "watchlist" because the things the watchlist looks for (changes to stored text) don't exist in "special" pages. I don't think this is implementable easily. I suppose it could be kludged by the devs, but it isn't something as easy as flipping a switch. --Jayron32 14:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I observed that it might be difficult. However page-protection already shows up in watchlists, and then there's the watchlist itself. It would seem to be a relatively simple matter of transcluding (not the right word, I know), any new user contributions to the Special:Watchlist page, as they would appear on the Special:Contributions page. --Quintucket (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the principle here, and know of times myself it would have been useful, but also am worried about the potential for abuse in the form of stalking and hounding. Maybe it could say only work on newbies with >50/25 edits, or something along those lines. Could also be useful for adopters and mentorers to track their adoptee/mentoree easily. I'm not sure if this could be technically implemented though. Acather96 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to some of the comments I've seen above: I think I agree that if created, this should only apply to IPs. One thing I've noticed is that admins seem to apply a lower standard to blocking usernames than blocking IPs (usually on the pretext of WP:EDITWAR, whether the 3RR is violated or not), presumably on the principle that it could affect more people than just the vandal. And it seems to me that the vast majority of persistent registered vandals are spammers, who can be safely indef-blocked, while most IP vandals seem to have no such external agenda.

The other point I'd like to make is that I've seen a number of cases where problematic IP edits have gone unnoticed for months or even years, and I'm sure there's more we've all missed. All it takes is for a bot or user to revert vandalism by one IP but not the one that preceded it, or for a user to make another edit that hides the edit from most watchlists. (I doubt that the vast majority of recent changes get patrolled by a human user, even one using a script.) Usually these are blatantly POV statements or factual inaccuracies (often inserted in front of an already cited source), which while not technically vandalism, though these users will often have edit histories that contain genuine vandalism. Presumably if users who reverted the obvious vandalism were able these users, these seemingly valid edits would be subject to stricter scrutiny. --Quintucket (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am more than a little puzzled by the fears expressed here about people misusing the capability proposed. On the one hand, there is nothing to prevent anyone from looking at the contributions of a given Wikipedia user at any time so this will hardly be opening up some kind of Pandora's box. On the other hand, I recall that there is some javascript that can be added to a userpage to do exactly this (a search of common tools would probably find it, although I can't be bothered). (On a slightly different note, "stalking" is a serious form of personal harassment which is often criminal - looking at what someone edits on Wikipedia is not stalking by any reasonable definition and the overuse of the word does a disservice to victims of real-life stalking.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the idea, although its implementation might not be doable inside the current Special:Watchlist functionality. I don't find arguments about the dangers of stalking to be at all compelling. Stalkers already have a single page where they can see all of their target's contributions, so it's merely a matter of convenience. Stalkers are obsessive and they're already stalking without this tool, so this proposal would only change things for actual vandal fighters who don't watch vandals as closely as they might if it were easier to do so. — Bility (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have thought of this too, and here is a perfect example of an IP where this would be needed: User:173.168.93.7. This editor has put in guerilla vandalism across dozens of articles before getting noticed and having the vandalism removed. The editor was blocked 5 times, and as soon as the block is over, the exact same type of vandalism starts again. Now, if we had this tool, I would easily see when this person started editing again, and check to see if they were up the same same shenagins, and perhaps nip the issue in the bud before too many articles were disrupted. Currently, I'd literally have to mark a calender to check the IP once the block is lifted. Angryapathy (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I watchlist the user pages of some vandal IPs, and when I see Cluebot, et al., leave additional warnings I'll double check to see if they have committed enough vandalism to warrant a block.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can appreciate where the nominator is coming from, but suspect that this will create problems - particularly an increase in unconstructive wikistalking - more than it will bring benefit.--JayJasper (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As another user noted above, stalking users is already possible through the Special:Contributions page. It's also possible to watch vandals the same way, of course. The difference is that fighting vandals effectively requires the monitoring of many pages, while stalking a user requires the monitoring of only one or two. Also, as noted, there's no reason to allow watchlisting of logged-in users. The actions of logged-in users already tend to be subject to stricter scrutiny, I think in part because they're easier to recognize than an IP number, and in part because blocking a user will only affect that user, whereas blocking a vandal may affect other users. --Quintucket (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a userright - Mentors may find it useful, but its potential for abuse requires it to be a restricted function. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I actually made a userscript that did this years ago - it would take any user pages on your watchlist, then put those names into the wikipedia api, get out their recent contributions then display the results in a formatted list. Unfortunately the api then changed significantly and I haven't had the chance to rewrite the script accordingly. I understand the concerns that people could get stalked - I don't know how big a problem it is but surely the solution to that would be to either restrict access to contributions pages (which is never going to happen) or to just make people more aware that anything they post on here is public, and hence to avoid posting anything they later regret. Even if people here aren't keen on a feature like this, it's perfectly possible for third party websites to implement this sort of thing. Tra (Talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the idea, but am concerned that it might be abused for WP:HOUNDing. On the other hand, I've done it myself on occasion with nothing more complicated than a simple bookmark. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• That's my workaround as well -- I make bunches of bookmarks of potential problem-user contribs (typically new user names that remind me of banned users, or historically troublesome IPs, things like that) and then periodically open them all in tabs. Easy to do, requires no software update. Antandrus (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• User contributions can be pseudo-watchlisted through RSS feeds - eg this. It's slightly clumsy (you have to use an RSS reader) but it does work (and it can scale as a long-term solution for mostly-inactive users). Shimgray | talk | 12:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the idea although I don't think it will be implemented any time soon: devs discussed this since 2004 in mediazilla:470. In another project I'm currently using my userscript similar to Tra's above but utilizing browser localStorage. — AlexSm 22:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support – Enough with the "stalking" crap. Stalkers don't need extra tools to stalk—they are already stalking just fine. (By the way has anyone actually looked at WP:STALK recently?) This is a feature that I have wished for for a long time, and it would be extremely useful. Currently I have a list of a few users and IPs that I try and check up on every so often, but it's pretty difficult without a feature such as this. It seems more like something that would be on the toolserver at least initially, since the toolserver is where most hacked up tools like this go, but this would be a very useful feature to be integrated into MediaWiki. It also fits with the ideology here of openness and usability. I was just thinking of this recently and how it would be similar to the concept of Linux filesystems, where everything, including devices, act as a file and can be addressed as such (procfs, device files, etc.) The watchlist is not a "page" in and of itself; it's more of a "virtual page", so any action performed with/on it that treats it like a "regular" page will involve some type of abstraction layer. We already have crosswiki contributions tools (here is one) on the toolserver which compile contributions from multiple wikis into a single page. I'm a little surprised that watchlisting of contributions has not already been implemented, as it is simply one of the next logical steps in the ideology of how improvements to the usefulness and usability of Wikipedia/MediaWiki are made, and it also fits very well with the open source software mindset as a whole. The idea of having such a feature be limited to being used by or used on specific users is preposterous. Everyone's contributions are already public; it does not make an ounce of sense to make a feature with takes public information and makes it more useful in a way that anyone could do themselves manually or with a script and then make that feature a restricted or private feature. There is no reason to add extra complication to a feature just because it is new when every other similar feature is publicly available and unrestricted. —danhash (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The benefits of being able to watch for frequent vandals far outweigh any supposed danger of facilitating Wikistalking, and if we really want to prevent users from abusing this feature, why not give it only to autoconfirmed users in good standing? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's not good to trace a user's edits. I think it will be approach more to Wikihounding than patroling. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contributions feature has been and will be available. Your opposition is to the entire idea of tracking contributions, which the community and the software already support. Your comment is not about the proposed feature and is therefore not relevant. —danhash (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for both IPs and registered users. It's not uncommon for warned users to "lay low" after receiving a warning, and return to vandalizing a few months later. There are several occasions on which I've failed to follow up on users after giving them a "I will block you if this behavior continues" warning because it's too much trouble. In the past I tried adding links to users' contributions to my user page for my own convenience - I'm not sure if making the list of watched users public encourages or discourages hounding, is this a good idea? If the devs aren't amenable to it, I might consider implementing a Toolserver tool for this, which would be quite simple and probably isn't against the privacy policy. Dcoetzee 22:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would use this for the students in the classes for which I am an online ambassador. Then I can provide more timely assistance when they actually edit. There already is somthing for this on the tool server, but it is pretty locked down so that it takes a while to get new stuff in. I don't mind if it is a userright or available to everyone, the information is there already, it makes it quicker to access. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's already possible to follow a user's contributions, this proposal would only make it slightly easier to do so. I think the concerns about 'wikistalking' are outweighed by the potential benefits of keeping an eye on vandals and other problematic users. Robofish (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It will nearly be flooding a user's watchlist if the user whose contributions are being looked upon edits too frequently. Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 15:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal as I understand it was to show only the most recent edit of each of the watched users, which would obviate this problem. Dcoetzee 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support' I'd certainly find this useful in fighting vandalism. We can deal with stalkers, that's not a good reason not to make this tool available, particularly if it is a userright that we can grant or withdraw rather than a default. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not that I think this tool would enable more stalking, but perhaps if its implementation were very transparent it would help assuage some of these concerns. If the users/IPs being watched were visible on one of the monitoring user's subpages, anyone could see who they're watching and stalking can be easily identified. Likewise the addition of a "Who is watching me" link in the toolbox would be helpful for quickly finding everyone who has you watchlisted. Since it hasn't been created yet we can make a wishlist for the development of the tool, right? — Bility (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that such a tool would likely improve collaboration? WikiProject members, for example, would probably like to know "what everyone else is up to", because it might be fun to join in and help out. Wikipedia is all about collaboration, right?! Mlm42 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The marginal increase in convenience to wiki-stalkers–nothing unless they are stalking multiple users–is worth the potential for fostering collaboration, as Mlm42 points out, and for adoptors and mentors monitoring the edits of their charges. I wish this sort of option had been easily available when I did more adopting. Danger ^{High voltage!} 01:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, and I didn't even think of the wonders of being able to watchlist the contributions of corporate/institutional accounts that appear to be abandoned to make sure that they stay abandoned. That would be super for work at WP:UAA. Danger ^{High voltage!} 07:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This would come in very handy in several ways. One common scenario is a newly-created account that vandalizes a couple of articles, is warned, then stops... for a while. Being able to add their contributions to your watchlist and getting a heads up when and if they resume editing would be extremely helpful. Another case is for long-term IP blocks; it'd be nice to see, when the block expires, whether it served its purpose or another block is needed. The advantages of such a feature far outweigh any downsides, in my view. 28bytes (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My initial concerns are minor compared to the good reasons given for support. Begoon ^talk 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've often wished we had this. Would be really useful keeping an eye on persistent spammers, whose edits are often not spotted for long periods. I agree that it might be best as a userright that could be withdrawn if an editor is found guilty of hounding/stalking.  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I have wished for this feature and think it would significantly improve our ability to locate and control vandalism. Some ideas for addressing concerns of abuse, if we need that to achieve consensus, (my support is not contingent on any of these):
  • make it an assigned userright (per Jasper Deng),
  • automatically expire watches after N (30?) days,
  • restrict watching to a limited subset of accounts, e.g. accounts with recent level 4 warnings and recently expired blocks.

Jojalozzo 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, we already allow contributions to be tracked via RSS/atom (e.g., [1]). So there is a precedent for methods to more easily "track" edits. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: From Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, I selected the 10 most prolific named users and made a link to each one's contribution page. Together the 10 links constitute the following list.

• Special:Contributions/Koavf
• Special:Contributions/Bearcat
• Special:Contributions/Rjwilmsi
• Special:Contributions/Waacstats
• Special:Contributions/Woohookitty
• Special:Contributions/Ser Amantio di Nicolao
• Special:Contributions/Dr. Blofeld
• Special:Contributions/Alansohn
• Special:Contributions/Hmains
• Special:Contributions/Tassedethe

Any Wikipedian wishing to make such a list can easily do so. (Here is a link to Special:Contributions/Wavelength.)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC) and 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think that this has become a very interesting discussion. My first reaction had been to oppose out of concerns about hounding, but I've been won over by how useful this could be, both for monitoring problem users and for collaborative projects. I like the ideas of making it a user-right assigned, on request, by administrators, and of having a "who watches here" link available, as two ways of combating misuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Yes, I agree it would assist in tracking problem users. With that said, what about the editors in good standing. Why should they be subject to unnecessary stalking? The potential negativity of this greatly outweighs the potential benefits. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been my observation that stalky types tend to focus on a small handful of editors, often just one or two. They can easily do that now by bookmarking the contributions pages of their targets; are you concerned that these people will expand their stalking to more editors with this feature? 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it could be possible such a feature would increase stalking problems. Right now, in order to stalk an editor, you have to look up their contributions page. Most editors don't constantly stalk another user's contributions. Additionally, you really can only stalk one person at a time. Even if you used multiple tabs, you wouldn't be able to look through several editor's contributions at once. Adding a feature to the watchlist, allowing someone to bulk watch editors, makes stalking extremely convenient. While it might be useful for watching vandals, it would be highly prone to abuse. Particularly during heated content disputes, making it more likely for a dispute to spill out into multiple articles. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be abused, I agree. I'd hate to lose a useful feature just because people might abuse it, though; there's a case on AN/I right now where action is being tabled because the editor has stopped editing (for now, at least). I would be really helpful to know (without having to remember to check their contribs manually every few days) when they're resumed editing so the issues with their editing can be addressed. 28bytes (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I often track multiple users in multiple tabs, while doing other things totally unrelated to Wikipedia, without breaking a sweat. It is already not at all hard to "stalk" multiple people, and this feature would have many very useful legitimate uses. —danhash (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per 28bytes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a useful tool to monitor for trouble; suggestions for restriction to IPs are misguided, as plenty of vandalism comes from user accounts, and spammers, COIs, SPAs use accounts too. An ability to only show all fresh edits would be very helpful. Extending this convenience to all editors will have a dramatic net good. Josh Parris 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I already use externals tools to do this, not least to follow what people I collaborate with on certain projects are doing, so I can assist, and avoid duplication of effort; the proposal would make life much easier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Toolserver prototype

One way to try out this feature before asking the devs to do it, and get much earlier feedback on how useful it is and how to refine it, is to implement a Toolserver tool where you log in (with TUSC or a separate account) and add users to your user watchlist. For the sake of transparency these user watchlists would be public, and you would be able to easily check who is watching a particular user. Just like the normal article watchlist, edits would be shown in reverse order by date/time, and only the most recent edit by each user would be shown (with a link to their full contributions on-wiki). To make it easier to use, a custom Javascript tool could be built to add to user pages a link reading "add this user to my watchlist". I plan to do this and it shouldn't take very long, but would like to get feedback about the design and features. Dcoetzee 19:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, although I see no need for watchlists to be public. Users could take offense thinking that they are being accused of vandalism or sockpuppetry. But really it's just not necessary. As has been stated, a tool such as this would not add any new information, simply make available information more usable. No use to make lists of watched users public for people to complain about and start asking to be removed from. —danhash (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a number of the supporters above noted it could also be used for collaboration, for Wikipedia in the classroom, for helping newbies, or even a mentor who they follow to learn from, so I think it would be erroneous for people to infer anything from being on someone's list. A notice to that effect could be included. However, such a feature would have actual uses beyond mere transparency (for example, checking whether someone is already watching a vandal, so you can avoid cluttering your own watchlist with them). Dcoetzee 20:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This does seem like something best done off-wiki, at least for now. But if it ever does come on-wiki, it should be done "by permission only," sort of like "Friends" on social networking sites. Privileged users such as administrators would be able to bypass this provided it was logged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no benefit of the extra complexity and overhead it would take to implement and support such a permission system. People who want to abuse Wikipedia will do so with or without this feature. Even if this tool was used for stalking/harassment it would likely just make it easier to find such users (their contributions could obviously also be watched). —danhash (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Added note: I've been considering renaming this to "Followed users" and allow you to "Follow/unfollow" a user. The intention is to make it sound a bit less sinister (e.g. "we are watching you") and suggest a similarity with other websites where following just lets you check out what other people are up to (as in "following your progress"). I know this is a small detail but let me know if you disagree. Dcoetzee 00:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shared watchlists and collaboration

• Perhaps more useful for collaboration would be to allow multiple watchlists per account and allow watchlists to be public rather than private. If I could create a public Special:Watchlist/User:Davidwr/WikiProjectPoland then transclude it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Watchlist, that would be useful. Even better if watchlists weren't owned by a particular user and could be created directly in WikiProject space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You can do the public collaborative watchlist thing now, using Special:RecentChangesLinked. For example, if you want to watch the pages for the letters of the alphabet, you could just go to Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:Latin alphabet navbox (because that template links to them all). Anomie⚔ 21:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prototype tool now available

See http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/followedusers/. It requires a TUSC login, but provides a link to set one up if you don't already have one. Please try it out and let me know what you think! There is also now a Javascript extension at User:Dcoetzee/Followed_users.js you can add to place "Follow user/Unfollow user" in your toolbox and add "Followed users" to the upper-right. Please help spread the word about the tool so lots of people can try it out and help test it out! Dcoetzee 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the tool doesn't allow the following of IPs?  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just forgot to implement that. :-) I've updated it and it now allows following of IPs. Dcoetzee 03:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon request only

To avoid abuse, access should only be granted upon a request that will have to be approved by an administrator.

• Support as nom. PaoloNapolitano 20:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Ideas of the feature being abused are pure speculation at this point. If someone wants to harass a particular user by following their contributions, it's straightforward to do that today using Special:Contributions. Anyone could reproduce the tool in a couple hours using the public Mediawiki API, and they will if they're denied access to it (and give it to all their friends). The proposal would require a request and approval process that would involve considerable overhead. Any barrier to using it will result in less people using it, and it producing less benefit. I think a better strategy in the short-term is to simply ask me to ban users who are abusing the tool. Since the lists of followed users are public, you can tell if this is happening. Dcoetzee 02:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Liam987 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose as nonsense. Not a single credible argument has been made demonstrating the need for this feature to be limited any more than Special:Contributions is limited (which it isn't). There is no way to keep anyone from making an external tool to do this either, since the entirety of this feature request is based on totally public information. So adding this as a MediaWiki feature and then limiting it will not have the intended effect anyway. Also, it would add completely unneeded complexity and overhead to make it a per-user permission and have a request process. It's simply a bad idea. —danhash (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as I was earlier going to make the same point. Glad to see that there's a section. Aslbsl (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – People should give actual reasons why they think the added complexity of a user right is warranted. The number of votes is irrelevant; it's the quality of the arguments that matters. So far I have not seen a single good argument for making this a user right, and furthermore it doesn't much matter at this point since it is not currently an available feature of the software. Therefore, what would be helpful is a discussion based on reason and argument, not simply on the number of supporters. —danhash (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe people didn't flesh out their rationale here because it synthesizes discussions already made above, i.e. administrator approval is the remedy for avoiding abuse people mention above. Aslbsl (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I moved this here from the idea-lab village pump since it is a proposal. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a new noticeboard started. One for reporting and sanctioning rude and abusive admins. Rude, abusive, or policy-abusing admins are one reason the total number of active editors is steadily declining. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors for initial info, and then come back here for discussion.

I helped start this idea-lab village pump, and so I know it is possible to start more village pumps and noticeboards. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It already exists at WP:ANI. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not specific enough. We need a specific noticeboard solely for reporting and discussing rude and abusive admins. People should be encouraged to go there, and the title of the noticeboard must be clear. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. I haven't personally had interaction with abusive admins, but this seems to be a major problem this encyclopedia is facing. Abuses of administrator priviliges are wholly unacceptable and cannot be tolerated on this website. We must demand very high accountability from people in whom we vest the community's trust, and we must be able to know that our administrators need to remain mature and responsible, using their priviliges only to make this encyclopedia a more efficient and welcoming place. A noticeboard dedicated just for this purpose is entirely necessary. dci | TALK 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• About 95% of the "administrator abuse" complaints are on closer inspection actually cases of administrators being abused by rude editors. wp:ANI has its problems, but those are not specific to administrator abuse cases and would not be solved by splitting that out to a separate board. You can also mail arbcom about it if you prefer. Yoenit (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom. You are kidding, right? They are way too busy to handle the many cases of day-to-day abuse by admins. Many admins like to claim they are being abused whenever their abuse is pointed out to them. That is why we need an independent noticeboard whose sole purpose is to sort out what is really going on. Over time the admins and other participants of this dedicated noticeboard will be able to figure things out better. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you are on a divine mission to defend the encyclopedia from windmills abusive administrators. Have fun. Yoenit (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries of yours like "not in touch with reality" just shows what an idiot you are. Have fun. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's comments like those that administrators face every day from abusive editors. Not you persay, but imagine how many times administrators get called names on a daily and constant basis because folks just don't like something or other? "Abuse" is so loosely thrown around when folks are angry without real appreciation or respect for the word.--v/r - TP 14:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re Yourit: 95% of the "administrator abuse" complaints are [...] administrators being abused by editors. Sure. And most airplane crashes are not caused by pilots, but by gravity force. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC) (me no admin)[reply]

Comment. Here are some links to previous discussions and articles concerning the declining number of active editors, and various reasons for it, including abusive admins:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_93#Declining number of editors and donations.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-02/Interview. Interview of Sue Gardner.
• Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-02/Interview.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-26/Opinion essay.

Editors are leaving for various reasons. Many editors have been driven away. See also: User:Timeshifter/Unresolved content disputes and User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Yoenit. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of Yoenit's ideas was to use WP:ANI. If you look here, and skim/skip to the discussion at the end, you will see that the people experienced with WP:ANI want more noticeboards, not less. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact that is a minority view with little support. I think most people prefer to keep AN/I as a single board. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Y'see, Timeshifter — this thing is an excellent idea, but hopeless. Said noticeboard will either need enforcement or will simply be a private rant-'n-vent group. Enforcement can only be done by admins, and they won't act against their own group. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Well, they will act against their own, when the case is obvious enough. The problem is that they are far more lax with other Admins than with the average Editor. (Of course, they have good reason, as other Admins can turn around and block them, too.) What we really need is a recall process whereby common editors can remove abusive Admins on their own. There should also be an "equal punishment" standard for Admins. For example, if an Admin puts an inappropriate block on an Editor, they should then be blocked for just as long as the Editor was. This would quickly cut down on inappropriate blocks. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure you that Wikipedia has countless records of admins taking action against abuses by other admins. 05:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BD2412 (talk • contribs)
    • Nope. Not enough> Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - While ANI is great for general incidents, there needs to be a place, with a closely followed archive, devoted specifically to reporting issues with administrators. Among the constant barrage of lugens, the occasional real administrator-caused issue is lost and forgotten in the current system. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The community needs a better way to deal with admins who exhibit problematic behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think many good editors flee this project upon encountering administrators who fairly consistently but with subtlety and skill support what amount to violations of WP:NPOV. I think admins should be put under special scrutiny. I don't expect it to happen, but the suggestion above for a special noticeboard for reporting suspicions of improper activity on the part of administrators in my opinion is a very good idea. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What abusive administrative behavior are we trying to correct? Improper blocks?[2] Or page protections?   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All kinds. Many people could give many examples. Some are rudeness, some are abuse, some are misunderstandings, some are abuses of admin power to get something done faster, some are poorly-implemented guidelines, some guidelines themselves are abusive because the guideline itself is vague. On and on. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But those are problems with all editors.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but when someone with a loaded gun calls you an asshole, it feels a little different. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that the overall number of editors has declined the reasons for that are many, including but not limited too: As we create more sister wikis, the folks that live there will be less apt to edit the english one and edit the one for their native land; As the number of articles increases the number of obvious articles needing creation reduces, biting newby's makes them stay away, its too difficult to be an admin, too much fussing about little things, too hard to make changes, too many rules and guidelines, etc. These are all comments I have personally seen from people who leave and don't come back. This is not just limited to a couple of rude admins. --Kumioko (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard about policy-abusing admins. Section break

• Comment I must say I worry about the potential problems such a noticeboard could create. Call me a pessimist, but I think that if not strongly moderated, it could easily turn into something like WQA where disgruntled users go simply because an admin took action against them ie: "Admin X deleted my article/blocked me because of X, they are abusive". I do see the need for better dealing with admins that go off the rails, but am not quite sure if this is the way to do it. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It won't work unless other admins make it work. My personal experience when reporting violations of Wikipedia guidelines by admins is that a large percentage of the admins ignore the problem, go into defensive mode, and eventually insult me in one subtle way or another. Usually, but not always, a few admins step up and analyze the problem clinically and methodically according to the specifics of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Those are the admins holding Wikipedia together. They point out gently to the admin where they have not followed the guidelines, and they point out problems on my end if any. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. What are we gonna name it? WP:WHINING? WP:MUDSLINGING? WP:DISGRUNTLED? WP:WEWANNABYPASSTHEARBCOMBECAUSEWEARESOIMPORTANT? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anybody who points out when an admin goes against a Wikipedia guideline or policy is a whiner. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a valid concern, bring it in front of other admins. If other admins don't respond, bring it in front of ArbCom. If ArbCom doesn't respond, leave and find a better place to contribute to. Just, for the love of $DEITY, don't open a board so that every other common vandal can whine and clutter up the place. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 06:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea: if admins don't solve admin's bad behaviour, others should go the long route. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Unless we are tossing the burden of proof out of the window too? Are you requesting admins to formally defend every single decision they make that some random editors walk by and say, "hey, I don't like that!" ZZArch ^{talk to me} 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are indeed cases where some admins' behavior is inappropriate, but we don't need an entire noticeboard for it. WP:ANI will suffice, and indeed is a better location since it will get more eyes onto the situation. If an administrator is genuinely out of line, it's really not difficult to rouse the community about it. --Elonka 06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI is way too busy, and some there are trying to split it up. We have dozens of noticeboards. See Template:Noticeboard links. Not one is just for dealing with admins violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. What is more important than accountability of admins to Wikipedia guidelines and policies? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is no evidence that there are a sufficient number of cases involving policy-abusing admins to warrant a new noticeboard. The linked subpages of User:Timeshifter do not show a problem with policy-abusing admins. Those who follow WP:ANI and WP:WQA know that nearly all cases of someone claiming they received abuse from an admin are without merit. In a small number of cases (really small) an admin has "abused" an editor in the sense that after being goaded beyond human endurance, the admin used some crude language to tell a tendentious and unhelpful user that they should go away—we are dealing with humans, and just as editors should not be told to duck off, so admins should not have to tolerate IDIDNTHEARTHAT nonsense indefinitely. My alternative proposal (which also is not going to happen) would be for the establishment of a fast track process to remove unhelpful POV pushers because it is the latter who are causing quality editors to leave the project, not admins. Start with warnings that quickly escalate to topic bans, then blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that true. I personally gave up contributing to another Wikimedia project because of a POV editor on a page I maintained. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 08:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq says "we are dealing with humans". Sure, admins are human. But poor admins should be subject to scrutiny for shoddy behavior. Elonka says "WP:ANI will suffice, and indeed is a better location since it will get more eyes onto the situation." I think a noticeboard for potentially wayward administrators would have no shortage of eyes on it. Bus stop (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose I agree that rudeness and abuse is a big problem but admins are not the problem. We have WP:WQA for dealing with rudeness a bit amicably and WP:ANI when that doesn't work. Personally I don't know or care in most circumstances if people are admins or not and they normally use admin powers only for straightforward admin duties. WP:ANI deals with admin problems fine and there's no need to treat admins different from anybody else. If anything my main complaint about Wikipedia is that it doesn't have strong enough mechanisms to deal with content disputes effectively, if there were better mechanisms to cool them down and stop them being so disruptive then I believe a lot of the aggro would go. Attacking admins when there's no great problem there and not doing anything about content disputes which are a major problem and cause general aggro is just a recipe for total anarchy. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that content disputes are a serious problem. See User:Timeshifter/Unresolved content disputes. But admins not following Wikipedia guidelines and policies is also a serious problem. In fact, from my observation the two problems are intimately connected in many cases. When I first started as an editor here in 2005 I went for a very long time without problems. Then I started editing more controversial topics, and then observed the anarchy that passes as content dispute resolution. Little or nothing has changed since 2005. In fact, in some ways it has gotten worse. The Wikimedia Foundation is busy with other things. Arbitrators are overwhelmed, and their purview is not content disputes anyway, though in fact nearly all conduct disputes they handle are rooted in content disputes. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - drama is a bad thing. More noticeboards => more drama => less time spent writing articles. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboards also solve many problems. This allows the editors to go back to editing. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Splitting to a new forum will not solve a social issue. And how would this differ from Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC) (disclosure: Admin)[reply]

WP:WQA is only for civility issues (WP:Civility). Admins not following Wikipedia guidelines and policies goes beyond just social and civility issues. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin abuse? Killiondude (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"Abusive admin" would be the more correct term, Killiondude. Abusive by violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. From the same WP:WikiSpeak page:

administrator n.

The be all, and end all of Wikipedia. Alpha and omega, the ultimate wikipedian. Administrators are the role models all wikipedians should strive to emulate. They display superior intellect, outstanding article building abilities, captivating physical attractiveness and, above all, a stupendous and awe-inspiring modesty.

(If anyone removes this, I'll block them.)

Paul Blart role-playing as Dirty Harry.

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but useless proposal. Admins don't turn in Admins ever. Editors loose a debate for this reason. First they have the WP:WHEEL argument to stay away from each other (=do not overturn another admins decision -- any more questions?), that is: they are not allowed to even criticize another admin. On top of this, as a group, they have no responsability. They are the soldier-guards for WikiPower. Think WiKapo. An editor cannot defend themselves agains an Arrogant Admin. No way. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Blah, blah, blah, more vitriol and smoke screen. And we are opposing WP:WHEEL too... Are you asking for administrator wars? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll think about that the next time I catch an administrator with a drawer full of socks. --MuZemike 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Yes, there is a problem with declining editor numbers. I fail to see how abusive admins are a significant part of that. There's a whole stack of candidate reasons for it: lack of visual editor, the shooting gallery at Special:NewPages, lack of friendly welcomes for users <100 edits (an explanation that research done by the WMF has endorsed), too many rules (I mean, really, a notability standard for civil aviation disasters?), the fact that unlike back in the day you can't just come and create the page 'Africa' and type "Africa is a continent" and hit save, BITEyness towards newbs (hence the experiments to improve Huggle notices etc.)—but abusive admins don't seem pretty high on that list. So the justification for this seems to me to be a load of codswallop. As for the issue of admin abuse? Yeah, there currently isn't a good way of handling it... not because there isn't a noticeboard for discussing administration issues (WP:AN, WP:ANI), but because when there actually is abuse of admin tools, it is a whole load of work to get them desysopped. But this proposal doesn't fix that problem, the actual problem. If there was a process for community desysopping or community reconfirmation, the venue wouldn't matter. If those were in place, then a discussion could take place on AN or ANI like we do for community bans. Unless a procedure is in place for acting on admin abuse, there's no point spinning a board off. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how abusive admins are a significant part of that - neither do I. But that does not prove that Admin Abuse does not exist, nor that it does not steer away editors. WP doesn't interview gone editors. Editors on the brink of leaving - how do you treat them? -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception that "unlike back in the day you can't just come and create the page 'Africa' and type 'Africa is a continent' and hit save" is totally correct. You know why? Because pages like Africa have already been created a long time ago. New editors these days generally create things like "X is a singer" or "X is a writer" or "X is a guy". If we are saving all these pages like we saved Africa (because anyone with half a head knows that Africa is notable), this page would have become Messypedia. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...which is what I was saying. I wasn't making a moral judgment that the old days were better. The point is that the premise of this proposal seems to be that there are a declining number of editors. I don't buy that OMG rogue admins are actually a big cause of that. Yes, admins being abusive may cause some users to leave Wikipedia. But editor retention is a much bigger problem. And given that ther eare a whole string of reasons which are both more intuitively plausible (that maintaining a mature encyclopedia is less fun for most people than starting a fresh one, hence there are less people willing to do it, hence "editor decline!") and more evidentially warranted—the WMF research into new editor retention has found that the big dropoff is between 1 and 100 edits. We have the same number of editors turning up and making their first edit, but we somehow manage to drive them off sometime between 1 and 100 edits. The issue is finding ways of ensuring more editors make that first edit (hence work like the WP:AFT5) and those new editors are sufficiently motivated to continue editing past the initial unfamiliarity (hence some of the fluffy stuff like WikiLove and MoodBar/Special:FeedbackDashboard).

Given that both of these issues have almost no relation to the behaviour of admins, I fail to see why all the arguments about editor retention have any relevance to problematic behaviour by admins. Problematic behaviour by admins is far more likely to affect long-term editors, those who are likely to actually bump into the admin corps in a non-trivial way. Problematic behaviour by admins is a problem (obviously) and editor retention is a problem. But the whole thrust of this debate has been to blame one for the other. I'm wondering how long it will take until admins get the blame for bestiality and reality television too. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morris. I think you are in denial. Many new editors experience problems with admins ignoring abuse of those new editors. Many new editors experience problems with deleted articles, external links, lists, edit reversions, and much more. They get warnings galore. They ask questions on the article talk pages, and on the noticeboards. They are routinely belittled, ridiculed, cutely insulted, etc., oftentimes in threads with admins participating. Now the admins may not be the ones actually doing the belittling, ridiculing, condescending, etc.. But their participation in the thread without stopping those activities by others is part of the problem. And I have seen many admins doing the belittling, ridiculing, condescending, etc.. And also using WP:Edit warring and other cudgels to block only one side of editing disputes. Oftentimes without following WP:3RR standards. There is soooo much obvious unfairness that is ignored by admins, or actively encouraged by admins by their own actions. You can continue to talk about the problems of new editors, but you should stop ignoring this part of the problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morris. I am not trying to get admins desysopped. A noticeboard for discussing policy violations by admins would rarely need to recommend that. Nearly all admins will listen to a consensus from other admins. At least temporarily. The fact that a noticeboard for this exists would also be an incentive because the admin in question would know that if he/she repeats the policy violation it will come back up again there. People who watch this noticeboard will be more likely to notice such repetition because it will not be buried in the noise of the many topics covered by a board such as WP:ANI. And the admin noticeboard will have a searchable archive as do other noticeboards. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This week there has been a lot of fruitful discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard and I hope those who have visited WP:ANI in the last 2-3 days may have noticed a difference. Whether or not a separate board for admin abuse comes about, if anyone is having problems right now with what they perceive as abuse by an administrator, please don't hesitate to bring it there. You will get help and it is simply not the case that admins do not criticise other admins. (Anyone who has been watching there will know this is so...!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are playing it down to editors having experienced problems, like incidents. The issue at hand is: it is sytematic, and there is no remedy provided.

Oh, and by the way, nice to get so much attention from higher levels. Kim Dent-Brown, are you sent somehow to direct this off road? ~Deviation intended? Already 2-3 days at ANI and it is solved? Must be done by admins then. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, I'm afraid I don't really understand most of your comment just now. I was simply offering AN/I as a venue until a decision is made about a separate board. But I don't think a systemic problem is going to be solved by a new board anyway. No, I'm not from a higher level and haven't been sent by anyone; this was a genuine offer of help. I'll undertake to assist anyone who wants to report a case of abuse of admin powers at AN or AN/I. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A separate noticeboard for policy violations by admins would be a lot more useful in solving this problem. WP:ANI has to deal with much more than this problem. Why would you be against a separate noticeboard for this? I have been on Wikipedia since 2005 and I see many abusive admins on the noticeboards. A noticeboard to point out policy violations by admins would by its very nature see much less abuse by admins than most noticeboards. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Noticeboard to waste time. Let's do that. Make a page where people can vent and rant and nothing ever happens. Great idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ANI is ineffective, lets deal with this properly and with a sensible scope. That should mean we can keep discussions "on topic". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I do agree that some administrator abuse their position and powers; however i) they are not in the majority, and ii) a noticeboard about it is not the way to solve the problem. Firstly, although there will be cases of admin abuse, these cases are outweighed by the cases of falsely accused admin abuse. I have seen quite a few accusations of admin abuse; I have never seen an actual case of admin abuse. There may be a problem; if there is, it is much smaller that some editors will have us know. It seems to be a big problem, simply because people shout about it. It seems that those who are most enraged by an admin who deleted their article about their band are the ones likely to shout about it. We never hear the other side of the story because most admins are mature enough not to get into an argument, and instead ignore or calmly deal with such false accusations.

Secondly, we do have a process for dealing with problematic users. As we would with any other user, an RFC/U can be lodged against an administrator when there really are problems with power abuse. This is why I have always opposed term limits or recall procedures - they are unenforceable, compared to RFC/U. I agree that ANI is not a great place to raise a problem with an administrator: we all know that threads can turn very basty very quickly there. I don't see why a similar noticeboard which is just for complaining about administrators will be any better: if anything, it will attract the most disgruntled editors and become worse than ANI. We have a useful alternative in RFC/U, and we can do without creating another noticeboard for users to complain about admins who do a difficult but necessary job. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ItsZippy. You wrote: "I have never seen an actual case of admin abuse." I noticed this on your user page: "I've been actively edited Wikipedia since August 2011." As I said earlier, I have been editing here since 2005. I went a long time without noticing admin problems. Then I started editing more controversial topics. Then I noticed many examples of admins violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. My experience is fairly common. The number of active editors has been actively declining for years. As far as I know there has been no poll of editors who have left as to the various reasons why they left. That would be very useful. Or we could continue to give lip service to the problem. I am trying to deal with one of the reasons some editors leave. I know for a fact that some editors are leaving due to this problem. I don't know the numbers though. But does it matter? We have dozens of noticeboards: Template:Noticeboard links. We can add another one for this important problem. And anyway, what is more important than maintaining Wikipedia guidelines and policies? Admins should set the highest example. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - there are many editors here with more experience of Wikipedia than I have and, though I have never seen any administrator abuses, I do not doubt that there have been cases where administrators have abused their position and power. My perception of things is that there is less admin abuse than it seems there is. Of course, I do not have the numbers to hand, but without solid evidence that this is a real problem (you do not seem to have provided any diffs or links to examples of admin abuse), I cannot commit to or support anything. If we do not know the scale of abuse, beyond what we've experienced or heard through the grapevine, we cannot hope to produce a workable solution. I would suggest you spend some time gathering as much evidence as you can - doing that will allow us to make a decision based on the full facts of the matter, rather than what we just perceive to be happening. Until then, I maintain that the current procedure, using RFC/Us and ArmCom, is as sufficient for admins as it is for regular users. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More facts are always good. But the facts are obvious to many editors. Note the support votes. Also, did you read all the discussions, articles, and pages I linked to. I doubt it. If you were more intellectually honest, in my opinion, you would change your vote to "I don't know." Or "Abstain." Because, as you say, you do not know the facts. The way you change your vote is to strike out "Oppose." Oppose.. Then type in something else. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: If ANI doesn't work, why would this new noticeboard work? What's going to be different exactly? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose yes we have some problematic admins and some problematic behaviour by imperfect admins. Some of that behaviour, especially out of process deletions, contributes to our problems of editor retention and this place becoming a generally less welcoming place to be and makes it a less efficient place to write an encyclopaedia. We also have some effective ways to deal with that such as those admins talkpages, RFCs, ANI and Arbcom. The biggest weakness of those methods is that many editors hesitate to use them, and especially to use them at early stages. The second biggest weakness is that the process is complex, and a complainant has to get things raised in the right sequence, the classic mistake being to escalate too early and then see an RFC fail because you didn't first try to talk to the person you have a complaint against. Another noticeboard would not help the primary problem that people are hesitant to go through the vital first steps of discussing the problem with the admin concerned, and it would exacerbate the secondary problem by further complicating a complex process. So yes there is a problem, but this is not the way to solve it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The processes you describe for dealing with admins is not working adequately. And those processes are, as you say, complex. Their complexity causes the hesitation to use them. Their lack of effectiveness in many cases exacerbates the hesitation to use them. A separate admin noticeboard is direct and simple. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)--Timeshifter (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current processes are complex and imperfect, adding another noticeboard would neither simplify things nor improve them. Any such noticeboard would be only an indirect way to resolve things, the problems resolved successfully would continue to be those where editors go direct to the admin's talkpage or where that fails, the cases where Arbcom desysops or otherwise circumscribes an admin. To persuade people to support such a noticeboard you need to make the case for the added complexity of an additional step that would sit somewhere between talking to the admin and taking them to Arbcom. How exactly that fits in beside ANI and RFCs would be hard to define and would inevitably create complexity. ϢereSpielChequers 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to an admin's talk page is oftentimes a waste of time. What then? There is nothing simpler at that point than going to a noticeboard specifically for dealing with the problem of violations of guidelines by admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is complex, but still simpler than if such a noticeboard was introduced. If you introduced a dedicated noticeboard then the risk is that people going to AN/I or filing RFCs would be told they'd gone to the wrong place and they needed to go to this new noticeboard. You then have to decide how much discussion is required at such a noticeboard before you can escalate matters to an RFC/U. Remember when you have a complex system even a relatively simple looking addition can have multiple complexities. ϢereSpielChequers 13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to like the word "complex". There is nothing complex about a noticeboard for problem admins. Most problems can be dealt with there. Admins can be blocked there. Admins can be warned there. Problem solved. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for all the discussion. I see that some people get it, and some don't. Many of those that oppose a separate noticeboard seem to think that the current methods for dealing with admin problems are adequate, regardless of the scale of the admin problem. If those methods were adequate, then why the many support votes? Others that oppose the noticeboard do not see much of a problem with admins. I ask them, did you read all the discussions, articles, and pages I linked to? If you don't see the problem, but others do, then should you not seek more info first before voting either way? Those that have been around here awhile, see the problem, but oppose a separate noticeboard; I do not see that you have proposed any other realistic solutions. You are dreaming if you think WP:ANI, WP:Arbcom, etc. can handle the problem. They haven't so far. We may not know the scale of this admin problem and how much it helps cause the continuing loss of active editors. But as the saying goes "a fish rots from the head down." If we can't fully hold admins accountable, maybe Wikipedia is paralleling the problems in banking regulation and social inequality in general. In any case I have made some efforts to "Occupy" the Village Pump for awhile since I am no longer really actively editing Wikipedia articles. I am part of the 99% who aren't admins. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there anything above that links to an example of a problem? Do you have any evidence that there is a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous replies to various people. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: per ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ and Bus stop. Though I've not seen such abuse, but the above comments show that this would help. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I've seen such violations personally, I'll reiterate the need for one to deal with the issues where there's no bias in favour of admins. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While admins do sometimes become abusive, those incidents are few and far between. ANI and ArbCom are the best place to go to; a new noticeboard won't solve anything, it just shuffles the problem to a new page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, TS, you're really not helping your proposal by comparing yourself to the Occupy movement. There is no "social inequality" here, just people who disagree on editing a web site. You are not oppressed, and implying that admins are akin to corrupt bankers is appalling. Finally, saying that those who believe this is being adequately handled by the current system "are dreaming if you think WP:ANI, WP:Arbcom, etc. can handle the problem" is condescending. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not condescending, because it is accurate. I did a lot of editing of the Occupy articles a few months ago. And your understanding of the Occupy movement is appalling. Bankers are just doing their jobs for the most part, which is to make as much money as they can within the law. Few have been indicted for crimes, because few have committed crimes. The laws are the problem. They are lousy laws, or vague, or inadequate. Just like some of the inadequate and arbitrary laws here at Wikipedia. Such as WP:Edit war. Many admins are stretching the guidelines and wikilawyering to the limit of the guidelines and beyond. They get away with it many times because there is no simple and direct way to bring up violations of guidelines by admins to one single place. The 99% of us who are not admins can not compete with the crony adminism (kind of like "crony capitalism") and the Alice in Wonderland nature of the Byzantine bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's problem is less of a problem with the quidelines themselves than with the enforcement of those guidelines. All bureaucracies and governments are susceptible to this problem of entrenched authority, stagnation, transparency, accountability, and inequality. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained what your new noticeboard would do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous replies to various people. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've read those. It still doesn't explain what it would do... but alright. Let's play that game. Suppose I was an admin — "Timeshifter, you're a fuckin' asshole." — now what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a right to your opinion. :) See again my previous replies to various people. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I call you an asshole, and you say I have a right to my opinion. Why do you need a noticeboard then? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to refrain from using words which will trigger vandalism alerts if you can. It would make our job much easier. Thanks!Jobberone (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The users who are empowered to deal with admin abuse are other admins and Arbcom. We currently have methods for alerting both groups to an admin abuse issue; these are ANI and the arbcom-l mailing list. What would this new noticeboard do to improve that communication? Yunshui 雲‍水 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would focus more attention concerning problems with admins in one centralized location. More would be learned about the scale of problems. Other admins would learn by watching what happens here. Admins and average editors would know that there is accountability in one place. Direct and simple. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support  IMO, we have a problem at Wikipedia of Somalia-style warlords.  I don't know that this proposal is the best, or even a good solution, but it is better than ignoring the problem.  Perhaps it should have a six-month trial period.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Support: This is an excellent idea. This is what I call improving Wikipedia. It is high time a specific mechanism of accountability be in place for admins. ANI simply isn't enough, is too general and sometimes becomes a Punch-and-Judy show. I think an admin complaint board would be just the opposite precisely because it isn't ANI. Why not put forth this idea elsewhere? It is an excellent policy idea, and I think this village pump is something of a joke sometimes.--Djathinkimacowboy 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Although I support the idea and in addition to my comments earlier in the discussion this endeavor is unlikely to succeed. In order for anything to happen in result of a discussion about an admin, an admin or beauracrat would have to take action to do anything and they are unlikely do to so. Its like the current situation in the US Congress to hold congressman accountable for insider trading. It would work against them so there not going to support it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This idea is the first step to chaos. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and soon followed by Armageddon, and the end of the world as we know it. See Chaos theory. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IMO, putting another layer over ANI (which... let's face it... would be resorted to in a j'accuse manner, WOULD be no different from having a special court to try police officers in for doing their jobs, instead of the common courts. Oh, and the one doing the accusing would of course have their ANI put on hold until the thread on the admin is concluded. Holy Byzantinism Batman! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh come now, Markvs88. This proposal doesn't "put another layer over ANI". And I don't see any j'accuse taint present in a complaint that has supporting diffs- which everything ought to have. To compare the proposition to a special police court in which to try police officers is misleading. The proposal is, in fact, something the police already have, and it works fairly well: Internal Affairs. This proposal is an Internal Affairs for Wikipedia Administrators. That strikes you as wrong? Let me point out that it is the citizen who generally initiates what will become an IA investigation- it occurs when citizens complain about what the police are doing wrong, not just when one cop gets another cop in trouble.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Markvs88. And what is wrong with J'accuse? That is a proud moment in history. Emile Zola's remains were laid to rest in the Panthéon in Paris. He is a hero. Whose side are you on? Alfred Dreyfus was railroaded by "admins" in the military. Are you on the side of secret courts? I am opposed to closed noticeboards. I am simply for another open noticeboard strictly for dealing with admins problems. And no special rules different from any other noticeboard. Open noticeboards and open media. Alfred Dreyfus was liberated eventually because of the court of public opinion and public discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djathinkimacowboy: It doesn't? Here's the deal: if you want to consider the IA route, will this board be open to all editors or to just Admins and those invovled in the incident? If the former, it is another layer of ANI. If the latter, then it still forks the resolution process, slowing down whatever issue is at hand. I really don't see how this would do anything that ANI already does not.

Timeshifter: Yes, Zola is a hero, etc. My point is that while he took on the establishment, he did it in public view and in existing courts. The founding of this seperate board would IMO engender even the most trivial things to be taken to the "Supreme Court". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is just another noticeboard. See: Template:Noticeboard links. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Timeshifter above. And may I add, a much-needed noticeboard that is specific- one we specifically don't have now.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your earlier query, Markvs88, was not answered, sorry. I suppose you can read, and see that Timeshifter wants something where anyone can go and make their case against an admin for very specific reasons. So, yes, any editor can go, bearing in mind an admin is nothing but an editor with a few extra and mostly undeserved buttons. This whole new board forces others- mainly admins probably, but also respected editors, anyone- to review and respond to the cases raised there. Of course I have to ask, what does it matter anyway if people ignore it like they ignore everything else here?--Djathinkimacowboy 01:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard about problem admins. Section break

Comment. Groupthink can be a big problem. That is one reason I want a separate noticeboard for admin problems. Groupthink, when it happens, will be more obvious to many people watching such a dedicated noticeboard. Therefore, there will be less and less of the kneejerk "admins-rarely-do-wrong" groupthink on a dedicated noticeboard over time. Also, over time as problems are resolved, it will become obvious that admin problems are not being overlooked. Since it is all out in the open, the wider audience reading the noticeboard will have an overall moderating effect. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It must also be indicated that if Timeshifter succeeds in this, it may actually help supplement an ANI (should the need arise). In this way the average editor all the way up to disagreeing admins would have the bare bones of their difficulties out in the open. This might distill a conversation or discussion in a good way. A new layer over ANI?- perhaps, but it is a necessary one. May I also say, I am unhappy with the way past discussions are archived and I hope Timeshifter will consider a humble addition that there be some clearer way of archiving closed/resolved discussions on his new board.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I haven't personally dealt with abusive admins on Wikipedia, but I have on forums elsewhere on the internet, and it's an unpleasant experience. Luckily, Wikipedia is a very big organization that has the capacity to double-check possibly abusive admins, while on another website, the admin usually gets to do whatever he/she wants. While WP:ANI is used for this purpose currently, I am always in support of organizing large pages into reasonable categories. I see two downsides, however. The first is the number of users that will report administrators for "abuse", due to administrative action being taken that is actually fully appropriate. The second is that administrators will, naturally, be biased towards the accused admin's point-of-view, making the user's job harder or even impossible. The second issue could be solved by giving equal weight to non-admin voters, and also including bureaucrats. The first issue, however, will require much sifting through bad complaints by voters.--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yutsi, your points are good. I especially like the point you made about admins favouring admins automatically. That is why we need this new board and need full participation- about which you also made good points. In reply to your concerns, I think the magic term is diffs.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wanted to make a suggestion: could we have another sec. break here? This is getting impossible to edit easily- and I know I've done my share to make that a pain in the neck. Can we initiate a new sec. break?--Djathinkimacowboy 16:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive. Danger ^{High voltage!} 07:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Yutsi. No matter how the individual complaints are resolved on the admin noticeboard, one good thing about the noticeboard is that it will make it much easier for observers to notice patterns concerning problem admins. Right now that is difficult because those patterns are buried at WP:ANI in the many other non-admin-related problems. The archives at the admin noticeboard will be an invaluable tool for sorting out priority problems, and dealing with them more effectively. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Oppose I've seen a lot of commentary above about "there are many problematic admins" and equivalent arguments. If I were reading over this like an AfD, I'd dismiss those as vague waves. If I were to see some hard evidence of what you're talking about (a whole string of RfCs/ArbCom cases, lots of valid ANI threads about abusive admins, or some case studies presented here), then I'd think differently, but I really can't say I do. And Timeshifter, I didn't fully appreciate this before becoming an admin myself, but almost anytime you have to make a judgment call about something someone will scream at you. I've had the pleasure of wading through the morass of Indian caste articles using my admin tools, and there are innumerable people there who think I'm an evil, colonialist-minded Westerner trying to reimpose British hegemony on India (I'm from New England, not the UK, so the irony isn't lost on me); were they to find out about such a noticeboard, I'd have to spend half my time warding off those people. I'm willing to deal with people making baseless accusations about me on individual article and user talkpages, but I'm not willing to provide people with a forum which will help them launch their attacks and bias people against me (the "if there's smoke, there's fire" mentality). I have enough going against me in those problem areas without that already. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the problem in a nutshell, right? Admins are always right. Let's all go home. Move along. Nothing to see here.... --Timeshifter (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man argument, but none of us are perfect; after all, besides a few adminbots we're all humans. My problem is that far too often, complaints of admin abuse fall firmly under the remit of point 37, and do nothing but waste our time. Think about it from our perspective for a moment; why would we want every disgruntled user who's angry about something we did running to a centralized forum and screaming "ABUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", hoping that if they sling enough mud something will stick? I've never once blocked, or threatened to block, someone who simply asked me what I was doing, and I've always been willing to revisit my actions; I suspect that's the case for the vast majority of admins. We're expected to be communicative, and ArbCom will desysop admins who aren't. To use my Indian caste example, I have to be very heavy-handed to keep things under control, and people have asked me what I was doing; when I get a chance to respond and give them the full picture, they understand. But if people immediately run in and scream "AN ADMIN BLOCKED ME FOR ADDING CORRECT INFORMATION!!" people jump to conclusions (in that topic, a lot of things that appear to meet WP:RS don't, it takes a long time to learn to distinguish between those and actual reliable sources) and start dragging my name through the mud before I can even explain the situation. We don't need to make it easier for people to launch those kinds of attacks on us; infinite patience is not one of the tools granted upon adminship, and we have our limits too. And once again, you haven't provided any solid, hard evidence for your position; if you can show it to me, I'll gladly reconsider. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is always therapy. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are just trolling well reasoned oppose comments. If you have truly sunk as low as your latest comments suggest, would you mind moving to wikipedia review? There you are free to whine about abusive admins all day without having to present things like evidence. Yoenit (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one of your edit summaries in this thread was "not in touch with reality". See you at Wikipedia Review along with all editors that point out admins violating Wikipedia guidelines. "The Blade of the Northern Lights" sounded depressed. I injected some humor. I even took your previous trolling with humor. Try it sometimes. I am admin too (not at Wikipedia), and I recommend it. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I could tell you were being facetious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There is no point trying to patch up the messes that inevitably result from the way Wikipedia gives unsuitable people the power to jerk round and block the people who actually write the encyclopedia. It is the very concept of an "administrator" on Wikipedia that is fundamentally flawed. Any pretenses at "reform", such as the farcical Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011, involve protective circles of incumbent administrators who systematically suffocate any attempts to address the real issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, you were going to show me some hard evidence of that? If you do, I may reconsider, but all I've seen are dogmatic waves with vague buzzwords. Please, by all means back up your position with something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to, Blade? I have no idea what you mean by "once again, you were going to show me some hard evidence of that". I've never talked to you before. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epipelagic. So you actually support the goal, but think a separate noticeboard will not help? Would it not be better than the current situation? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many individual admins behave with honour and decency, but the collective behaviour of our admins as a body is another matter. I do not believe natural justice can prevail now on Wikipedia until systemic flaws in the way adminship is structured are addressed. Setting up a board to slap band-aids on unnecessary gaping wounds is just bypassing the real issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my specific question. And what is that saying that talks about perfection getting in the way of the pragmatic. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both have the same goals, Timeshifter, and I agree it's silly to expect perfection. But is trying to prop the current ghastly system up really the best way to going about it? I think your board would be doing just that, and it would be better to rebuild the admin system in a more rational and workable way. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your opposition, Epipelagic, more discouraging than most of the other opposition here. Much of the opposition here is typical fanboy groupthink one sees all over the web. Kneejerk opposition to anything that questions the status quo. But you see the problem, and yet oppose incremental improvements. Wikipedia is becoming mediocre in many ways lately. And even worse, now I see things falling into ideological nonthink. Which is even worse than groupthink. I find the Commons much more interesting lately. Also, other stuff on the web has more potential. The brains are leaving Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree Wikipedia is trying to lurch along weighed down by a lot of unnecessary muck, and many users have kneejerk fears which prevent them from seeing that muck for what it is. But Nick-D below makes an important point. If your board was set up in the current mess, then sound and fury from malcontents using the board inappropriately would just make things worse. It would just add to the silly dramah and become an incremental deterioration. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are already posting such stuff in WP:ANI. The difference is that with my proposal the admin-related stuff will go to a different noticeboard. So how is that a deterioration? It may even improve the level of discourse since it is more focused. But drama is not a reason to get rid of noticeboards. Following that logic we should get rid of all noticeboards. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of pushing for half-hearted measures like this, which may just make the current system even more byzantine and unworkable, why not push for proper reform, a rethinking from the ground up of how this site should be administered. The workable solutions seem quite clear to me, though they will be bitterly opposed by many of the entrenched incumbents. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any reform concerning administration of the site will still leave people who need to be held accountable. A separate noticeboard is direct, not Byzantine, accountability. There is no interference between our goals. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI is an unpleasant place, destructive to Wikipedia, where people mostly try to bury hatchets in each other. The same would happen on your board. We agree on the goals. I just think the problem should be tackled from the opposite end. With a more carefully thought out admin structure, many of these dramas wouldn't arise. The worst outcome of your solution might be that it partially succeeds. Then the real issues might never be addressed. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason the problem can not be approached from both ends. Following your logic I should not support your end of the issue because it may only partially succeed and the real issue of truly adequate oversight might never be fully addressed. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Epipelagic, although I wouldn't quite express it in the way that he has. The fundamental problem is the historically lazy loading up of administrators with every new right invented or ever to be invented, without any effective way to remove them – those rights or those administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus. So you actually support the goal, but think a separate noticeboard will not help? Would it not be better than the current situation? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ANI is sufficient. Nobody Ent 02:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is neither sufficient nor relevant. It exists only as a forum to have your foes blocked, nothing more. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The ANI is a perfect example of conflict of interest, and the fox guarding the henhouse. Administrators have a collective interest in circling the wagons and showing solidarity against sanctions as a general rule. No matter how well-meaning Admins may be, they are in a situation which structurally induces them to make a biased judgment in matters like these. I think anyone would agree with one of the tenets of those who oppose this, that most administrators are good, and most do a good job. However, in the same way, while I think most policemen are good, there are bad apples, and I wouldn't trust the management of internal affairs to the people in the same department who clock in with those bad apples day to day, eat lunch with them, have put their life on the line together with them, etc. etc. It's impossible to keep a clear head in an environment with a high level of group cohesiveness (which exists for many of the most frequent contributors to Wikipedia, of which admins are an even more cohesive subset group). You can't have the fox guarding the hen house. You need people who don't have collective interest at stake. To put this all in plain language: Users don't have any incentives in tearing down all the admins. However, Administrators have a strong incentive in keeping up all the admins, lest one of the many administrators they know and like be the next one to be shamed. But it's more than that - their group cohesiveness also makes it hard for them to see it when another administrator is at fault. It's a matter of structural bias which even the most wise, impartiality-loving individual can't guarantee their immunity from. --Monk of the highest order^(t) 04:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's to prevent the "foxes" from taking over the new noticeboard, shutting down any discussions they feel would put their buddies in a bad light? 28bytes (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine. Kind of like how sunshine laws help keep governments and government officials in line. This is a noticeboard dedicated to problem admins. It would be harder to cover up admin problems. Plus the archives would be invaluable. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This could serve as a clubhouse of sorts for disruptive trolls who enjoy playing 'whack an admin', but would not actually be helpful for solving problems and duplicates several existing forums. Admins tend to be pretty self-critical of each other, and ArbCom seems to be on the warpath against admins who make mistakes at the moment, so this is totally unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When admins come together to make life hard for another admin, it is usually because that admin has offended against the sanctity of adminship itself. This has nothing to do with correcting injustices committed against powerless content editors. And talk about "disruptive trolls who enjoy playing 'whack an admin'" is the usual red herring produced by admins who want to draw attention away from the actual issue here. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D. Arbcom is a small group of people that can not possibly deal with all admin problems. A separate noticeboard would have far more participants over time. I believe a reasonable percentage of admins will take this noticeboard very seriously and do their best to moderate this noticeboard, and to be fair. Many admins are not "self-critical of each other". That is why a dedicated noticeboard will help. It will be much more obvious when attempts are made to bury problems. Therefore the sunshine will make it far easier to solve problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about "the real issue", but you can't seem to come up with any concrete evidence of it. How about detailing exactly what your problem with admins is, using things like diffs and threads to back it up. Think of it like writing an article with reliable sources; if you want to convince me that your position is correct, you need to give examples to prove your assertions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights. Who are you talking to? I can't find "the real issue" in my comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa; fixed the indenting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, who are you trying to patronise Blade? You don't make yourself clear. If you are patronising me, the issues underlying the dysfunction admin system are crystal clear and have been discussed exhaustively in many places over many years. The arguments have always been systematically shunted aside by admins protecting admin privileges. You will find current accounts fully detailed in the recent histories of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. I'm surprised you are expressing opinions here when you apparently haven't studied and thought about this material. A current restatement of the issues was made by an admin just a few hours ago. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not patronizing you, I'm trying to be clear; apparently I wasn't. And funny you complain about being patronized given your subsequent comment regarding what you think I know. I'll try again, more concisely. I'd view complaints of admin abuse as more valid if people were pointing to specific instances where admins are being abusive; so far, all I've seen are general vague comments about "admin culture" without any specific instances of said problems being pointed to. If it's really that big a problem, I'd expect people to be able to give demonstrative examples of the problem in action; I hope this is clearer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, now you are shifting your position. You asked about the "real issues", and I gave you the links to them. Now you want something quite different. If you haven't come across suitable examples of admin abuse, I suggest you look at some of the admin notice boards and referrals for comment. You must know very well that listing specific examples here would just open a Pandora's box and set admins scrambling for defensive positions. Why would you advocate such an utterly inappropriate approach unless your aim is just to torpedo any useful discussion here. Makes me wonder if perhaps you are an admin yourself, though you don't appear to be from your user page. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I sincerely apologize if it feels like I'm setting a moving target; that's on me for lacking clarity. See here. I work in some of the most toxic places here (Indian caste articles, AE, and the like), so I'm especially prone to making people unhappy with me. I certainly know of some isolated instances of admins doing something crazy, but far too often I find point 37 applies; this is my main issue. I had written a longer version of this, but I realized it basically duplicated my comment above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins certainly need empowering to deal with genuinely toxic situations, but that has nothing to do with unaware admins, who don't know what they are doing, running amuck and leaving a trail of wreckage amongst the small group who build Wikipedia. If you want, I'll email you some particularly nasty examples, but they are historic and there is nothing to be gained by revisiting them on community notice boards. I apologize for getting shirty, but in this context, when you invoke point 37, as you just did above, the one-eyed shibboleth about admin abuse being abuse of admins, you are again refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of these very real issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could have done a better job acknowledging the legitimacy of your comments; after all, ArbCom has recently desysopped 2 admins who were abusing their tools, so it's not without merit that you bring up admin abuse. I suppose it might help me a bit to step back from some of these areas for a while, maybe it will help get a better perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as there is a problem, it will be dealt with through the current mechanisms. If they're broken, then this will be too. Nothing about this proposal specifically seems to be uniquely different from the current strategy. Aslbsl (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin problems are not being adequately dealt with by the current mechanism. A separate noticeboard focuses the mind. The fact of its existence will make it unique. Also, its existence will show that Wikipedia cares a lot about these problems regardless of the scale of the problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the same rationale as Nick-D. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I suppose it might end up as a "honeypot" of sorts, and whilst that would, indeed, make it easier to identify users who habitually accuse admins of abuse, I don't think the other drawbacks identified by opposers here are overcome by that minor usefulness. To try to be a little more serious: maybe there is a problem that needs addressing, but just starting a new drama board is not a cure. Those already opposing have explained more adequately than I can without repeating them - Nick-D in particular. Begoon ^talk 03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D wrote 2 sentences total so far. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I tried. There are more articles, less editors, and many low-quality articles. Many editors have left. The number one reason in my opinion is unresolved content disputes. The number 2 reason, and it often occurs in conjunction with the number one reason, is unchecked abuse by admins (what this Village Pump discusssion is about). And now I see that it is unlikely to be addressed as long as the Wikipedia Village Pumps are overrun by fanboys (and groupthink) that refuse to acknowledge other people's points (remember WP:NPOV?). The previous sections had many more supports, so maybe there is hope in the long run, but in the meantime many more active editors will leave. Some of the last few opposes cite the oppose from Nick-D, but ignore the long thread concerning Nick-D's comment. Nick-D only wrote 2 sentences total so far. Nick-D posted once and ran. Groupthink has now devolved into nonthink. Editors are leaving for various reasons. Many editors have been driven away. See User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. All the problems below are admin-related. Either abuse by admins, or admins not doing their jobs.

Many editors are on full or partial strike from article editing. Editor retention problems: Unchecked admin misconduct, arbitrary guideline interpretation, unresolved content disputes, not enough moderators, rude or speedy deletions, etc. See also.

Unresolved content disputes combined with abusive admins and policies drive away editors and donations. See also.

The lack of enough moderators and arbitrators drives away editors and donations. More info.

Rude or speedy deletions of articles and categories drive away editors and donations. See also.

Non-admin closures of articles and categories drive away editors and donations. See also.

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While fanboys and groupthink are two reasons why this proposal has not received consensus support, a third reason might be that the majority of users disagree with you that the problem exists, Timeshifter. A fourth reason might be that people agree there is a problem, but disagree that a new noticeboard is the solution. Either way I think you've done your best but it looks like the time is not ripe for this proposal at the moment. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's wait a day or two to see if all the info I posted just above brings in any fresh ideas. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's a fresh idea: just do it. That is, simply create Wikipedia:Administrator abuse noticeboard and see if you can or cannot ride out the inevitable and immediate WP:MfD that follows. (You might want to file the MfD yourself immediately upon creation; if so, if should be neutrally worded e.g. "Should this entity be deleted, or not? Discuss.").

That is one way to get things done on Wikipedia, operating on the basis of the well-known principle "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission". This actually exploits (or, if you prefer, leverages) a characteristic of Wikipedia governance: consensus is required, which in practice usually means a supermajority. It's hard to get supermajorities in life, so it's hard to get consensus to do something, but it's also hard to get consensus to stop one from doing something. This is after all a wiki, and you can create whatever pages you want to.

(N.B.: I'm not saying I support the creation of this entity; I don't have a strong opinion yet, but might vote against it at the MfD after further consideration. But I don't know if it'd be good or bad (and neither does anyone else commenting here; we can just guess). I'm simply offering tactical advice.) Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support you. I got your back. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather rude to say that I 'posted once and ran'. Is this really a good-faith, serious proposal to make things work better? If it is, attacking people who you disagree with is rather self-defeating. I stated my views, and didn't see the need to respond yesterday to the above people who posted comments in regards to them as others had already done so and the thread had moved onto other topics, and I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I wish I'd known about this proposal earlier. Admins do indeed band together to defend each other, especially at AN/I - they have considerable motivation to do so, since ability to get along, particularly with other admins and popular users, is an important part of success at RfA and since they can be punished for "wheel warring". An awful lot of them don't just scrutinize the record of someone who posts a complaint there, they give the impression of delighting in changing the focus to that person. The OP is right, harsh admins do a lot of damage to the project by driving away good editors. We need to retain both good long-term editors and potentially good new editors. In the past 24 hours I've seen another new person treated harshly by an admin and go from positive about Wikipedia to furious and swearing never to edit here again. Yes, admins are needed to defend the project against bad articles and bad edits and to point out policies to those, including me, who don't know them inside out. No, this does not equate to bullying, taunting, or destroying things that could have been saved. And we see in the Wikipedia admin corps a nasty demonstration both of power corrupting and of the attraction of "cop" positions for people who like bossing others around. If they are merely editors entrusted with mops and buckets, they need to be held accountable. Instead there is very much a power dynamic. A separate noticeboard is a good suggestion and might encourage admins who do care to respond to complaints there; I understand many currently avoid AN/I. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the original poster (OP) I believe that once a complaint reaches WP:ANI things have oftentimes gotten so bad that the damage and discouragement is already too far along. Some editors leave regardless of the outcome. At least with a separate admin noticeboard more problems might be dealt with at earlier stages. Admins will see and learn from other admins' problems what is better for Wikipedia. Groupthink might actually help in this situation. Admins might learn how to defuse situations earlier all over Wikipedia. If people get rewarded for proactive conflict resolution they do more of it. Admins can gently teach other admins at such a noticeboard. The goal is not to desysop admins but to educate each other about how to best, and most fairly, implement the Wikipedia guidelines. Both admins and people complaining about admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New noticeboard proposal for proposing proposals of new noticeboards proposals. I think this Village Pump (proposals) isn't adequately handling all the new noticeboards that need to be proposed. We should make another notice board, because that won't be just shuffling the problem about, it'll solve it. This new noticeboard somehow won't make the Byzantine bureaucracy of Wikipedia worse, because new users will still be able to post proposals for new noticeboards here and then be told that they're really supposed to post it in the noticeboard for proposing proposals of noticeboard proposals. I mean, if we had all the proposals in a central location (like vandalism at WP:AIV, incivility at WP:WQA, or issues requiring admin attention at WP:ANI), people have to pay attention to a few different pages, instead of having to search multiple pages, which makes things so much easier. As we all know and can plainly see, every post in this thread is a new noticeboard proposal, so it's obviously a huge problem. It's not like anyone can propose anything else thanks to how this board is structured. That's how we'll keep this site free from those damn monarchists and their Catholic church!

:P Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for that?

--Timeshifter (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost. Latest Wikipedia Signpost mentions this discussion. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Discussion report. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I've seen an editor denigrated at Wikipedia Review and on RfC/U for keeping an embarrassing image on his user page. The impact of the harassment has been substantial. But actually, the file was altered on Commons to make it much more 'embarrassing' than it had been. The result is that anyone could link to his contribution history and it comes up as a page that never existed. The 'remedy' applied appears to have been to delete all the past revisions containing the picture, but that makes it much harder for me to look at the past issues of relevance to the RfC/U, and is no good general answer.

So why don't we just fix this? Change the display of versions from the File History so that they use the historical version of the file from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, so that the page displays the same way as it did?

(You could also do this with transcluded pages)

Wnt (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if the prior version was removed or altered for cause (like copyright or usage issues) then that would also be a "bad result." I would suggest that where an image is altered for any reason, that links in userspace be noted and an "original image unavailable" notice be returned. Wouldn't that accomplish as much as you wish? Collect (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in that. If an individual revision was a copyright violation it was likely deleted; if not, including it in a historical version here is no different than displaying that historical version of the file page at Commons. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most non-free files have had the old versions deleted per F5 Unused non-free media. Of course, user pages should not have non-free files, but you would have to have some mechanism to differentiate. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be OK with having a deleted version end up as a redlink in the history version - though of course a bluelink would be a better outcome. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  We don't allow editors to revise old revisions, why do we allow software to revise revisions?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support  I think that this is possible and practical, by adding a time parameter to the picture-retrieving subroutine.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Of course if the old file revision has been deleted we have to decide whether to show a red link, or the current revision. Old file revisions that are copyvios need to be deleted anyway - merely uploading over them is not sufficient - so that's not an argument against it. Note however that transcluded templates present exactly the same problem - do we want to use older revisions of those too? Dcoetzee 00:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment you're going to have to deal with templates as well as files. I suspect the devs may so "no" on performance grounds. Josh Parris 05:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Performance issues are not stable over the years, given changes in both software design and hardware design.  Nor, as a function of implementation tradeoffs, is it necessary that there must be performance delays.  I'm not one of the devs, I'm just saying that these are general principles.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal to come up with a systematic means by which members of subsets of Wikipedia articles (chemicals, protiens, railway stations, etc etc) can be accessed by means of Universal IDs.

The subjects of many wikipedia article have unique IDs assigned to them. Chemicals are identified by their CAS registry number, for instance; protein sequences are identified by a range of UIDs such as UniProt; nucleotide sequences and their protein translations by GenBank ... UK railway stations by NaPTAN, etc. As you'd expect, UIDs are used to provide access to all sort of database repositories. Techniques include web service interfaces, APIs, etc. UIDs make information available on a systematic basis.

UID are already widely used on wikipedia, notably in infoboxes of articles. But right now, any info wikipedia has about a subject is (as far as I know) mostly inaccessible by the UID. Searching for the Ensembl UID for Rhodopsin, ENSG00000163914, brings a pretty useless result.

Equally, right now, any number of software products exist to search third party databases for information by UID. Other than by article name, wikipedia will tend not to feature as a source.

The proposal, then, is make such changes as are sensible to make wikipedia articles accessible by UID through the normal web interface. There are a number of ways this could be done; I come here for thoughts and direction both about the general idea and also the specific implementation. A low-tech example implementation is to create a redirect for each UID - e.g. Ensembl-ENSG00000163914 - and expect it to redirect to the article, Rhodopsin. A better approach would be to reuse the data already in infoboxes to seed the interface, so that we're not double entering data.

If it needs answering, the "why do this", "what use will be made of this" questions resolve to "because we can", "who knows", "until we do we'll not find out" and "if we don't, then we prevent these things from being realised". Those seem good enough reasons to me. Grateful for proposal and implementation detail feedback. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely endorse this proposal - I'd be happy to be considered a co-proponent - which accords with moves to increase Wikipedia's metadata and machine readability; as well as interoperability with other websites and apps. Alternative formats (and there will be others) would be Ensembl:ENSG00000163914 or to set up a UID namespace, for example: UID/Ensembl/ENSG00000163914. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect system. Redirects are cheap, and I can't see how the it would interfere. If other commenters have a negative outcome in mind, then I may need to re-evaluate. At the moment I can't see it. Not sure what "A better approach would be to reuse the data already in infoboxes to seed the interface, so that we're not double entering data." means. Automatically creating (or even maintaining) redirects based on infoboxes could be suitably trialled and implemented, I would think, if that's the sort of thing you meant. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "who knows" is a sufficient reason to spend the time & resources of the WikiMedia on fixing a problem which does not yet exist, when they could be used to fix problems that we do know exist. If I've just not fully understood the proposal (which may well be the case), just let me know. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say, ItsZippy. Who knows what's in your head? What I know is this: right now anyone who has an app which uses UIDs finds wikipedia inaccessible. If we re-use UIDs to enable access to article text, it becomes utterly trivial for any third party dealing in UIDs to access our content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know a great deal about UIDs. If you think it's beneficial, then I won't be opposed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than onwiki namespaces, it might be possible to do something using a simple lookup database - toolserver.org/UID/Ensembl/ENSG00000163914 spits out the relevant article, with the option of adding /en or /de to the URL to select the desired language, etc. I do like the idea very much - I can see an obvious application involving LCSH headings resolving to specific Wikipedia articles, for one thing! Please let me know if you go ahead with this...

One other approach would be to increase our use of hidden infobox fields, and make sure they search properly. It's not much help to prominently display relatively technical identifiers in an article, but if we used something like persondata - a hidden metadata template - this would be a great use for it. Including this alongside the referrer database or redirect would also help ensure we don't get errors creeping in due to page moves (which is likely if we start using geographical or personal identifiers); we can have a script patrolling for mismatches and flagging them. Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we put something on the toolserver, when Wikipedia itself can host it adequately? Also, I'm not in favour of hidden fields. We should be displaying UIDs in infoboxes; but that's a separate issue and should not be conflated with this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not wedded to the idea of an off-wiki solution (and toolserver was just an arbitrary suggestion), but I think it's worth considering the benefits. The model I'm thinking of here is the very successful QRpedia, which does a similar trick of going through an intermediate layer before resolving a specific Wikipedia article, rather than leaping straight to an enwiki address.

Firstly, in the short term, it's simpler. We can set up a test database of these links elsewhere as a demo without approval, since it doesn't have to tie directly into the wiki; going straight for onwiki namespaces involves getting consensus before being able to do a practical demonstration, which risks becoming a vicious circle... (Transferring a proof-of-concept database to the wiki should be relatively simple, if the namespaces are later enabled - it'd be a matter of running a script to populate the redirects. The converse is true, as well, of course!)

Secondly, it has greater potential for future development. Using an intermediate layer makes it a lot easier to expand the functionality with things like:

• adding alternate-language capacity via the same URL, without having to seperately query xx.wp and xy.wp and xz.wp to see if there are entries in the preferred languages. (I can imagine a case where a database would say "We need results in Polish, alternatively falling back to German or Russian, and if all else fails use English.")
• more versatility in what we send back - some users might want microformat metadata, some might want full articles, some might want mobile ones, some might want us to spit out a copy of just the lead or the infobox image, etc.

...to take a couple of examples. Shimgray | talk | 12:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems desirable, but probably needs a project page somewhere so ideas can be worked through. Is it wanted that a Google search for "ENSG00000163914" would include Wikipedia in its results? And/or a normal (article namespace) Wikipedia search? (Currently, a Wikipedia search finds nothing unless searching in the template namespace.) Roughly how many articles might end up with a UID? How would they be maintained? While a bot might happily create thousands of redirects, there should be some planning for how the results could be maintained. For example, there could be a master list somewhere, and a bot would make the redirects from that list, and would periodically report any changes to the redirects that disagree with what is in the list. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; a project would be a good idea. Google searching would be one benefit, but the primary purpose would be so that other websites (online databases) and apps could programmatically create URLs like, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UID/Ensembl/Foo, where "Foo" is a UID, and be redirected to the relevant article. Hopefully, this would also, eventually, be possible through the API, too. The use of categories would serve to provide lists of such articles. A bot could create the redirects, by scanning, for example, sub-templates of {{PBB}}; like {{PBB/6010}} for Rhodopsin. I like your ideas of a bot reporting suspicious changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, POTW, ... will you please stop having good ideas before I have them! .... :-) I'm currently talking to Library catalogue folks in Sheffield. I think we have an agenda! (ItsZippy - our resources are volunteers - the resource is infinite! We just need discussions about where the value and the enthusiasm best match. This might be one of them Victuallers (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created WikiProject Unique Identifiers for discussion and coordination of all UID related matters. Please join! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for ENSG00000163914 within the en.wikipedia.org domain gives {{PBB/6010}} and Rhodopsin as the top two hits. It is also worth noting that at least one external database can be search for ENSG00000163914 (see for example GeneCards) that leads to a link that points back the the Wikipedia Rhodopsin article. I don't see any harm in adding these types of redirects, but at the same time I do not see any particular advantages either, especially considering that search engines can rapidly locate the desired article. For the rhodopsin article alone, there would be an almost endless list of possible redirects starting the rhodopsin ensemble accession numbers for a half dozen additional species, the refseq RNA and protein IDs, UniProt IDs, etc. Boghog (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The particular claimed advantage is that a third party database using UIDs can link to wikipedia articles at something like nil marginal cost. Given that we have UIDs in articles, leveraging them to create redirects is also pretty much nil marginal cost. There may be many redirects to a single article, agreed, but I don't see that as a problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see any cost to adding millions of redirects? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember making a proposal to this extent earlier at some point, and quite a few people agreed with my idea. Yet, nothing has happened, the only change made was one apparently forced by WMF legal. I still think that consolidating the messages down there into just one area would make a whole lot more sense. Maybe something like this:

For articles...

And for talk pages

How's this? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I like the idea; it will make the important notices clearer and more comprehensible. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You're missing the reference to foundation:Terms of use that is required by Wikimedia (see meta:Licensing update/Implementation#Terms for edit screen). And I fail to see how either of the above gigantic boxes are more consolidated than what we have now. I'd oppose this, except that I hide the whole mess with my user CSS anyway so I wouldn't see it. Anomie⚔ 02:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, "both the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL" is linked to that. Wouldn't that be enough? ViperSnake151  Talk  13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, it's an easter egg link. It seems to me that "CC-BY-SA 3.0" and "GFDL" should instead link to the texts of those licenses, and a link with the text "Terms of use" should link to the terms of use. Anomie⚔ 15:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and add "not forum" point for talk pages. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: yeah, I looked and thought about the last proposal as well. But it got bogged down in the need for the legal team to have a look. Since none of them were around, it was rather pushed into the long grass. Also as I recall WikiEd or somesuch reorganises the lower sections. Speak to Geoff or someone and come back with approval, I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, please, speak to Geoff. The language of that wording is very specific ("by clicking the save page", implies affirmative consent, for instance). It's really really important that the WMF's Legal and Community Advocacy department be made aware of what language is decided upon here, prior to implementation. I know that Geoff will work with you, but there are some things that have to be, for legal reasons. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you really do try to have your finger in every pie, don't you? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You should be looking at ways to reduce the amount of text, rather than simply trying to consolidate it. Nobody reads the warnings because they're too much text. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! Just a note to tell you that (finally) the report on the NPP survey we ran late last year has been released. All comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :). I'm really, really sorry for the delay; I finished this in early December. I'm not too happy about the long turnaround time either ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it was a lot of work, Okeyes. Thank you. A minor comment: there are about three charts in there where the text is nearly impossible to read until you click on the graphic. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that :(. I've got to regenerate a couple of them anyway when I have some free time, so if you want to point out particularly problematic ones I'll add them to my to-do list :).

Okay. The two that were the most difficult to make out on the article page were:

• File:Types of editing patrollers engage in.png
• File:Why patrollers engage in NPP.png

But these two are also somewhat of a challenge:

• File:Other locations where patrollers work.png
• File:Difficult patrolling elements.png

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk)

Thanks for the list; I'm going to stick them on tomorrow's to-do list (got a bit wrapped up in usability studies today, I'm afraid) and should have them available Monday at the latest. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ech. Okay, looks like it's a problem of spacing; I'm afraid I can't actually work out how to fix them :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I used to do new page patrol. I gave it up because I quickly wearied of being bitched at by admins disagreeing with CSD tags. To be clear, I didn't care that the CSDs were declined, it was the lack of good faith and accusations I was wasting admins time. Nobody Ent 14:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like me. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal concerning the omission of edit summaries. If a user who edits an article leaves the edit summary blank, their changes (such as text inserted/removed to the article) will be shown, making it an automatic edit summary. However, if an edit summary is provided by the user, then that edit summary will be shown instead. The reason for this proposal is that there are far too many edits without edit summaries, leaving it inconvenient and time-consuming for other editors who want to view changes which have not been explained. Not only will this promote the use of edit summaries, but it can be used to view and stop vandalism to an article as the vandal's edits will be visible. Till I Go Home (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Question: The edit filter (the way we would implement this) is dumb. How can you expect it to provide such a detailed edit summary? Or, are you talking about putting the diff into the edit summary (impossible)?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is inserted or removed will be shown in the edit summary (e.g. if "abcde" is inserted in the article then the edit summary will say "abcde". Till I Go Home (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

We can't afford to do that, especially for page blanking, unless we greatly expand the edit summary field (which is not feasible).Jasper Deng (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if none is given, something descriptive could be added. For instance, "X characters added/deleted to Y sections" or something of that nature. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editsummary field has a limit, so we actually can add (as much allowed in that limit) the text that was added or removed with an indication of which ever on a blank editsummary. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, for small edits I routinely copy paste the text I added into the edit summary. My Wikipedia:Persondata-o-matic tool automatically produces detailed edit summaries describing exactly what was added, removed, or modified. For larger edits we'd just need a bit of technology to automatically summarize the edit in a useful manner (e.g. I could imagine an automatic program producing "Add paragraph to Cuisine section beginning `Fish are commonly eaten in Japan...'"). Dcoetzee 14:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The issue really is that editors don't leave proper edit summaries. This proposal would hide the problem by putting automatic text in for the edit summary. At least seeing it blank is an opportunity to educate the user to proper Wiki etiquette. Plus, no computer system is going to be smart enough to explain why the edit was made. You can look at the diff if you want to see the edit itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like it would be easy to add some kind of marker to visually distinguish automatic edit summaries from manual ones, so that nothing is being "hidden." Moreover, intention can often be inferred easily from the content of the edit (for example, if it's "changed serius to serious" you can reasonably infer it was a spelling correction). If an editor omits an explanation or justification for a controversial edit, they're more likely to be reverted and have to explain it on the talk page, so the incentive to include one is still there. Dcoetzee 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems unlikely that such a thing could be done accurately. I love the idea, I just think it is technologically unfeasible. How is the editing process itself supposed to detect then summarise edits not summarised by the editor? See my proposal below... I do actually think my proposal is a better idea because what has been originally stated here is a branch of the problem I have addressed below[3]. My idea in its basis is to try to strongly encourage edit summaries but also to make it clear what the edit summary IS and what it is NOT. Why make things easier for those who are already abusing the edit summary?--Djathinkimacowboy 13:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my comment: There is another problem revealed here: many editors do not fully comprehend how an edit summary should be written. I believe some of them don't even see the box when they edit, or simply don't know what to put. I myself as a raw newbie used to mark too many edits as 'minor' because I did not know the proper definition of a minor edit. See, we need to push editors to provide edit summaries, understand it well, not use it as a text-messaging service and be clear about why the summary means so much. Of course there are editors who simply want to make it hard for others to see what they've done and refuse to summarise anything.--Djathinkimacowboy 13:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeThis will automatically incorporate any attacks, copyvios or other bad edits ("poop fuck shit hahahahahah") into the edit summary. It's bad enough when they occur and aren't revdeleted, but now, instead of being hidden in a prior version and only likely to be discovered or viewed if a user specifically looks at prior versions, will now be evident just by looking at the edit history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If a lack of edit summaries is such a concern, and I'm not sure that it is, a much simpler and easier solution would be to have the "prompt for edit summary" option in prefs enabled by default --Jac16888 ^Talk 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I proposed that in the past and it was rejected but I still support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, partially: If there is one of two things we can try: a simple prompt to encourage edit summaries with emphasis on what an edit summary is; or, a simple indicator of an edit's length, such as we now have with the indication of words added/removed in the diff.--Djathinkimacowboy 14:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fuhgettaboutit. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as opt-out: can be annoying for regular editors who don't want all their edits filled with the text they add to the articles and are used to adding manual edit summaries for their own edits. Should be enabled by default to allow the benefits discussed above. Edit summary has a limit so there won't be issues of huge amounts of text flooding. On a side note, this can not be taken as an alternative for manual edit summary, so this should be marked as an 'auto-edit summary' like a filter so that the issue is not hidden under the carpet. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would the automatic summary actually be helpful? This already happens on page creation, and its not necessarily clear what is going on from that... Aslbsl (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a "my contributions" link visible somewhere to anonymous IP editors, like there is for registered users. It should probably be called "contributions from this IP" or something similar, though, because the contributions may not be those of the current user of the address.

It has always bothered me that I have to jump through some hoops to see the contributions from this address, either by going to Special:Contributions and then having to figure out the IP address to type in, or to look at the history of an article I know I've edited, find one of my edits, and click on my address to see the contribution history. If there's an easier way, I don't know what it is. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see your own contributions quickly, just use Special:MyContributions. Due to dynamic IP-addresses, I'm not sure how useful the link would be. --He to Hecuba (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In that case, I amend this suggestion to ask that Special:MyContributions appear on the list at Special:SpecialPages. Currently it doesn't.

Some IP addresses are static, and some dynamic ones persist with the same customer for months, depending on the ISP. Such is the case with me. It wouldn't be useful for AOL users, who get a different address on each HTTP request. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For an easier way to see your contributions, simply click edit on any unprotected Wikipedia page, type four tildes (~~~~), which can be done automatically using the edit pane button, click on show preview, and then click your linked IP address.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible oppose: there is already a mechanism for watching one's contributions: create an account. The my contributions thing is guaranteed to be abused by bad-faith dynamic IP users, who would only add select contributions to their lists and then pretend that this is all they did. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would stop them from doing this right now, consider several easy workarounds are available? Why would they suddenly start doing so with this change? Yoenit (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing. They do this, and I see no reason why we should facilitate such behaviour. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Czarkoff, I have rarely seen a more blatant example of disregarding WP:AGF. There is NO requirement to create an account on Wikipedia to participate here.

    Going to a page and typing four tildes to see my IP address, or hunting for one of my contributions in an article history, or looking up my own IP address to type it into Special:Contributions, are all unnecessary hoops to jump through.

    There is no valid reason I can see to make the anonymous IP experience deliberately more difficult. Anons don't get a watchlist, and that makes sense from a technical standpoint. However, an anon who wants to perform maintenance to some articles should have a way to see past articles of involvement. Special:MyContributions is the way to do that, but currently there is NO way for that link to be found. All I'm asking is that Special:MyContributions appear on the big list of other special pages at Special:SpecialPages, which is supposed to be a comprehensive list. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Er, I'm not following. Yes, there's no requirement to EDIT Wikipedia, and there never will be. But people ARE "strongly encouraged" to get an account. I'm not opposed per se to making it easier for IPs to see their contributions, but to say that "There is no valid reason I can see to make the anonymous IP experience deliberately more difficult" is silly. There's a VERY valid reason -- the whole POINT of making an account is to make things easier, on everyone. You might have a static IP but for even so it's not your account. If you ever move, you'll change your IP and someone else will potentially use it. It's not "you" any more. Not to mention editing from elsewhere. So yes, if you want an easy way to find all your contribs, register an account. If you refuse, well there's other ways of keeping track what pages you edited -- your broswer's bookmarks for instance. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pardon, but where is the argument to exclude Special:MyContributions from Special:SpecialPages? Where is the argument that a comprehensive list of special pages must omit this particular link? 66.159.220.134 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There seems absolutely no reason why it should be omitted from the list. I'll post a request on the administrator's noticeboard asking for it to be done. --He to Hecuba (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only way to do this is to change the MediaWiki software, as these special pages are marked in the code as "unlisted" and this cannot be overridden; to request such a change, file a request on Wikimedia's bugzilla. Anomie⚔ 19:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your reading of WP:AGF is plain wrong: nobody is supposed to assume the good faith of each and every human being. This policy is the editing policy, it is applicable on individual talk pages. Still, anonymous IP edits are not difficult at all, and there was a good way provided to facilitate tuning of the editors' experience: registering the account. You are not obliged to state your personal details if you don't want to, but re-inventing accounts just to save the ability to indicate your IP instead of random word just doesn't make sense at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • • • • • I believe what 66.159.220.134 is proposing the implementation of a link to Special:Contributions. Accounts already have it through a button called "my contributions" in the top right corner. It is technically feasible to add such a link to an IP editor. For example, if 66.159.220.134 clicked the link, it would lead to Special:Contributions/66.159.220.134. I don't see how that could be abused, it would merely be adding a helpful feature that accounts currently enjoy. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Firefox search pulldown set to Wikipedia and generally just type "special:my" into it, so it auto-finds MyTalk and MyContributions, and that's how I usually get to my contributions page. Browsers also have a feature called "bookmarks", so overall I think the proposed new feature is of minor benefit as best. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppopse: This would remove a big reason to create an account and could be as a tool for sockpuppetry: just hop to a new IP and there's all the articles edited by the last one. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a reason to create an account, but it is technically possible to add an IP editor as well. With that said, the second part of your comment is plain wrong. IP editors already have a Special:Contributions page, it is just hard to find because it isn't in a prominent location. Sockpuppets already know the process, and they know how to get to IP contribution pages. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some socks already know the process. I get where you're coming from, but I still feel there's no reason to make it easier. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any serial sockpuppeteers that don't know how to get to a contributions page. This change will only make it easier for IP editors to find out what edits came from their IP. How on earth is that a bad thing. The page is already generated, it can't be abused, so what is the problem here? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it is quite sensible to have a tab for IPs to see their contributions. Although they don't have an account, they may want to check back on a page they previously edited. Before creating an account, I edited as an IP, and it was very annoying trying to check back on edits I previously made. There is no requirement whatsoever for users to create accounts. Providing a link to an IP's contributions page would be extremely beneficial for IP editors. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - None of the oppose rationales seem to make sense. Yes, it would be possible for an IP user to abuse this feature, but that is already possible. If a committed vandal or sock-puppeteer is going to abuse the fact that they can see their IP's contributions, they will do so regardless of whether there is an easy link for them to use. Preventing such a link will not deter those who actually want to abuse it. Despite what people have said, there is not requirement to create an account; users only encouraged to create an account insofar as some pages describe the benefits. Nowhere does it say that IP users ought to create an account, just that they can and that there are benefits to it. IPs are human too expresses most of my feelings nicely. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Role accounts. Where is the page showing the Foundation supports such a feature?.Switched to Conditional support below. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This oppose doesn't make any sense. IP editors are not role accounts. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking they are not. Yet no editor owns a specific IP address and there is nothing prohibiting another user from making edits under the same IP (see WP:SHARE). Furthermore anyone wishing to have the benefit of having all their contributions shown in one place should simply register an account. I don't see the net benefit of this proposal. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors are already capable of editing. They already have a contributions page. This proposal is about making it easier for IP editors to actually find their contributions page. Presently, they have to figure out what their IP address is, visit Special:Contributions, and enter their IP. Either that, or they have to edit a page and use the contributions link on the history tab. There are many, many IP editors that are more active than some logged in users. For example, User:220.101.28.25, an IP editor has almost 12,000 edit. Account registration isn't required. It is an option open to allow IP editors extra tools (i.e. rollback, adminship, scripts, edit protected pages, etc.). What is the harm in adding a link to their contributions page in the top right corner near the login button. The page already exists, so how can a simple link be abused. All it will do is make it easier for IPs to find their contributions page. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Account registration isn't required.", but neither is editing under an IP. It seems reasonable to me to require anyone wishing to have the benefits of an account to register an account. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support under the caveat that it is called All contributions from this IP or something similar and with a note saying something like This is the contribution page listing the edits performed from this IP address. Please note that the edits might be attributable to several distinct individuals. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Alpha Quadrant. None of the opposes make sense to me, how can one abuse a Special:Contributions page? It's a page no one has control over and it already exists since it is dynamically generated; linking it would be useful for many unregistered contributors just like it is useful for registered contributors. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't give a better rationale than CharlieEchoTango or Alpha Quadrant, so this support is per their comments. I too, fail to understand what "abuse" this virtual, dynamic list of contributions is likely to cause. There are many very productive IP editors to whom this would be a boon, and I can't see any reason to deny them what appears to be merely a convenience link to a page that already exists, unless there are technical issues. Begoon ^talk 04:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support at Special:SpecialPages but oppose on every page. Most unregistered visitors are only readers and many would be confused by a link for edits made by "their" IP address. In most cases there will be no edits anyway, but checking this and only displaying the link if there are edits would probably be too expensive. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Logout and type Special:MyContributions into the search bar. IPs already have this page. I don't think it would be that difficult for the devs to work something out so that it only displays for IPs with actual edits. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an interesting idea, to make the link visible only if the IP has edits. Another idea would be to have Special:Contributions default to have the username field pre-filled with the username or IP address as appropriate. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt devs will add any "conditional" link because of caching issues, for the same reason mw:Manual:$wgShowIPinHeader is disabled here (I think you can see the result of that option here: http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Main_Page in the right top corner). — AlexSm 02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. This is a simple matter of making an existing, useful feature more accessible to users who edit while logged out. Being able to review their own edits allows new users to reflect on their work, learn from their experiences, and grow as an editor. Even registered users usually have some edits they made before registration that they would like to review, but if they can't figure out how, they won't be able to learn from it. It shouldn't be interpreted as endorsing editing while logged out. Dcoetzee 20:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It seems pretty uncontroversial to make a link that's already available from the search bar a little more accessible. 28bytes (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The easiest way to find your "My contributions" link is to get this warning. Sole Soul (talk) 05:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Alpha Quadrant Nobody Ent 11:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose before any gadgets is enabled by default (for users) that it needs to go though a decent discussion for this, parahasing MZMcBride's comments here, That gadgets have generally been opt-in in the past compared to opt-out, which isn't quiet the case now. These can also cause load issues (For example a gadget on en.wiki managed to ddos bugzilla: the other day and resulted in it being disabled by Tim) and the user sandbox gadget had very little discussion before activation.

tl;dr: Defaultly activated gadgets should be treated the same as changing site wide js/css. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 02:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the classification of 15 supports, 3 opposes and several comments as "very little discussion". The bugzilla crash is bit of a mess though, perhaps we need to ensure that people test stuff with default off before they turn it on. Yoenit (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure testing with the default off would really have caught the bugzilla one. According to the request, it had already been in use on one of the beta wikis for a while. Anomie⚔ 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Yoenit, and I think you overestimate the amount of discussion that goes into changes to the site-wide js/css, too. Anomie⚔ 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll go tell Okeyes (WMF) about this. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay; someone summarise precisely what the issue or suggestion is, please? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue: The Bug tracking helper gadget was created and set as "enabled by default" after a request from MarkAHershberger (talk · contribs) with little or no on-wiki discussion, and overloaded bugzilla. The "my sandbox" link gadget was created and set as "enabled by default" after discussion on this page that Peachey88 somehow missed.

  The suggestion: To require discussion of some sort (what sort, exactly, has not been specified) before any gadgets are set as enabled by default in the future.

  I'll leave it to Sven to explain why he thought you would be particularly interested in this. Anomie⚔ 19:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably because I'm the community liason for the Engineering department ;p. Okay, I can't promise this is how it will be done, but I will have a talk with mark and a few high-uppy people to discuss it with them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the High-uppy people are on the case, I think there's very little to worry about. Thanks for the quick response, Okeyes. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you say that, but it's a US holiday today and then there's 3 days of on-site training, so I can't promise an immediate response. I've spoken to Mark, though, and he apologises for any disruption caused. Gut feeling, speaking as an editor: he's a damn good bugmeister. He's looking for better ways to report bugs and better ways to engage the community over deployments; genuinely one of the best staffers in Engineering (along with User:Sumanah) for engagement. This deployment is not reflective of SOP. I agree there needs to be more involvement when we enable-by-default, and I'm liasing with the relevant people to work on it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the talk page on the article on Diabetes mellitus has been archived, and - unusually for archived talk pages - we can actually see the dates of the archived contributions. Can I suggest that this becomes the norm for archived talk pages? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it currently takes a lot of human work to find out when sections start and end. Also, there is the complication of people starting sections at the top of the page that are never moved into chronological order, or people replying to years-old threads. Oddly enough, the way that the archives were presented at the Diabetes mellitus talk page should have made it even more clear to people that old messages were effectively being archived to a black hole for the last two years. And that's the other problem with automated archiving and manual archive boxes ... when archive 15 is created, will somebody remember to update the archive box? Or will messages be archived into a void once again? Graham87 06:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I am not sure how the people who edited the talk page of Diabetes mellitus managed to do what they did - whether they did it manually, or used some clever technology that helped them to achieve this result. If they did use some technology (which I suspect they did), it is a pity that they have not made it more widely known to Wikipedians! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like not only the index to the archives but also the archives themselves were created manually by User:Coro, and sometimes with big delays.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's done manually. In this instance, I think someone may have subst'd the {{archivebox}}. There are more elegant ways to go about it (documented at the template's doc page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical articles about living persons should include at least the year of birth of the subject, if not the full date of birth. The place of birth should also be included. This is the minimum information that one would reasonably expect from an article in any encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.92.42 (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - do you mean that in cases where the year or place of birth cannot be reliably established, we should not have an article? I agree that we should include the best information we have on these things from reliable sources. Begoon ^talk 07:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't mentioned in secondary sources I do not see why one should go ferreting around for them. Primary sources should only be used for things secondary sources show are of note. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see the merit in that point of view, too. Begoon ^talk 10:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:BLPPRIVACY for our policy on this. Yoenit (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem to thread starter, who uses IP. I object to adding birth dates and places without sources; let's compare that to our past relationships. Asking a person about an age and birth place can be considered disrespectful, especially if a young mate asks his very old mate about his age. People have their own rights to publish their own dates and birth to right sources, not to the wrong hands. That's why I recently removed unsourced birth dates and places and replaced them with categories of "missing" or "unknown" data. --George Ho (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When reliable sources can be found to attest to a person's DOB, that will be there anyway. When there are no reliable sources, it would be inappropriate to insert a DOB which we cannot support with evidence. I don't think any policy changes are needed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any such proposal would seriously undermine our coverage of spies, fraudsters and con-people of various sorts. These people commonly lie about and deliberately obscure their identity and past life, including making fraudulent documents. General only events immediately prior to their discovery can be accurately documented. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Article editor redirected lots of pages which are extrasolar planets discovered by the spacecraft (For details, see Special:Contributions/Article editor, these edits are in the first and second page currently). I don't think they are constructive, since French, German and many other wikipedias have already had these articles. The redirects may leave these articles uncreated for a long time. --Makecat_Talk 10:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to creat them then. Yoenit (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a redirect does not prevent the creation of an article at a later date. They tend to serve as a placeholder until a full article about a subject can be created. If you think that articles could be created, go ahead and create them. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are useful substitutes for articles in this case, and per Itszippy in no way prevent the later creation of articles on these topics. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, and this isn't WP:RFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we add hovertext to wikipedia citations? So if you hovered your cursor over a citation - like [1] or whatever - a textbox - like this http://code.google.com/gme/images/hover70.jpg - would pop up with the citation info, preventing the need to scroll or browse to the citations section?

I don't have the chops to do it myself, but wanted to put the idea out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.148.24 (talk)

Do you mean automatically? Citations are created with Cite.php so it could be done there or maybe with JavaScript. If you just want a simple tooltip, you can add a titled span around the ref in the wikitext. — Bility (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Reference Tooltips. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPUPS also provides this already. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that this requested move should be advertized more widely. The proposal is more complicated than a simple move, but the essence of the proposal is to change the title of the Republic of China article to "Taiwan". Cheers, Mlm42 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if there was anyway Wikipedia could add a search box to the very bottom of the page just like the one at the top of the page. A lot of times, I will be looking at long articles and be in the bottom of the pages looking at references and it would be nice that if something struck my mind to look at I wouldn't have to scroll all of the way to the top. "The Duke" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.243.145 (talk)

Try the Home key to get quickly to the top. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I've been on the Internet for over ten years and I never knew about that one... :/ Robofish (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new (to en.wikipedia) method of providing links to Google and Bing maps has been devised, for articles on linear features (roads, railways, rivers, etc) and bounded areas (counties, states, electoral districts, etc) - discussion is here: method for creating map links for linear features & outlines.

Now there's a proposal to tag articles suited to such map links, to add a hidden KML missing category where a KML map link is missing. Discussion here. Please join in and/or acquaint yourself with the KML method; it's really rather good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a proposal at Meta, to complete unified login for all eligible accounts. Unified login is a relatively new feature to the WMF wikis, allowing each user to have a single combined account in every project. Users that only have an account on one wiki would extend that to all wikis, and users that already have accounts on multiple wikis would have them combined. It was initially an opt-in for existing users, but it is now done by default for all new users. This leaves us with three groups of users: those with UL, those that cannot complete UL because of a naming conflict on another wiki, and those with no conflict that have simply not completed the process. I am proposing that account unification be completed for all eligible accounts without requiring the user to take any additional steps. This would make UL the rule rather than the exception that it currently is, and bring us closer to the goals of universal watchlists, recent changes, interwiki page moves, etc. This would be especially helpful on Commons, which has so many images that were originally uploaded at another WMF wiki, enabling better attribution without interwiki links. I propose that it be carried out as a one-time process rather than a continuous automatic software process, allowing users to still adjust ULs as they see fit.

If you have any opinion one way or the other, please reply at the proposal at Meta. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all. I've started a discussion here as to that subject. dci | TALK 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roaming around Wikipedia, I found Wikipedia's biggest backlog. Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter has 620,000 pages in need of a description parameter. Basically what this is, for those who are new to this category, is a few words that summarizes what a person did for a living for statistical purposes. Now, the few words, like "rock musician" for example, can be predicted through a number of ways. One example is by infobox. An article can only have one infobox, obviously. So, that infobox would describe the thing the person was most famous for. An idea that 1ForTheMoney developed in the idea lab was that a bot lists articles with infoboxes and missing short description. Then, the bot suggests a short description and all an editor has to do is to click an "okay" button which would trigger the bot to ammend the persondata. Other ideas thrown around at the idea lab were using stubs, titles, WikiProjects, and categories.
Vote below with Support or Oppose or suggest using something instead of infoboxes. Thank you, BCS (Talk) 02:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As per Wikipedia:Persondata#Short_description, disambiguation text should trump infobox text, or both could be used. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I could possibly write this up if there's consensus. My initial thought was a user script, but my second thought was a Web page that just rotates through articles, shows the article title, lead, maybe an infobox if there is one, some automatically-suggested short descriptions, then lets the user enter one and press Enter to move on. If two or three people agree on the short description, it's removed from the rotation and assigned to the bot. — madman 03:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The remainder of the first sentence after the Forename, surname (19xx-19yy) is another likely contender. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would guess that this is too difficult for a bot to do accurately. See Wikipedia:Persondata-o-matic for a tool to assist human editors. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've seen articles with multiple infoboxes, for example both Aussie Rules and NFL players. Categories might work. Josh Parris 11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think what makes more sense is to develop a script that can make a good guess at what the short description should be, then incorporate it into Persondata-o-matic, so that a human can view it and approve it very quickly. I already do this for names, and doing it for short descriptions is an obvious next feature. Dcoetzee 19:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting with the big win categories, Actors, Athletes, politicians and military persons. Depending on how detailed you want the description (can you say American politician or does it need to be Arizona governor) could depend on how easy or difficult the logic need be. Frankly I don't think it would be that hard to kock them out and it should be rather easy to write a script that could be done by a bot. --Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both examples would be okay according WP:DATA. I like your idea. Would you like to volunteer to program the bot? Or will you leave soon? (I saw your userpage) BCS (Talk) 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not really interested in doing any bot work. There are plenty of other folks that can do that though if you take it to the Bot requests page someone may volunteer to do it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a small snip-it of AWB code that will add Footballer if the SHORT DESCRIPTION field is blank. This will probably be all you need if you are getting a list of articles based off of a category. I agree with Kumioko, that the big ones should be knocked out first and sportspeople is the #1 big one. I could run this as a bot or if somebody else wants to have some fun, go for it.Bgwhite (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the code ready, then by all means use it. Knock a big one out. WikiProject Football has 37,000 articles missing the short description. Infobox footballer could be a football player or manager if you use that, by the way. So, sometimes a manager who has never played football will have Infobox footballer. @Kumioko It's okay, I wasn't forcing you to make a bot. BCS (Talk) 04:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it by category and not infobox. I can do those that have both footballer and manager categories and then do just the individual categories. The same procedure can then be done for other sports. I think things would be more complicated for politicians, arts and the other groups. Bgwhite (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. BCS (Talk) 16:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• BCS refers to my idea of adding descriptions based on infoboxes/categories/project banners, and requesting human confirmation (using Madman's idea on the Toolserver or somewhere else) on the ones it doesn't like. Though I was just jotting ideas down at the time, it was made to address the problem of articles with no defining features, and those with multiple infoboxes. (In fact I remember participating in a similar thing with interlanguage links a few year ago, where editors compared articles in different languages and pressed a button to say if the articles were about the same subject or not. If enough people agreed a bot automatically added the links, and if they disagreed that pairing was taken off the database.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Rcsprinter (orate) (Contribs)
(Not Rcs) 20:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What about using PersonData from interwikis? We could just steal the values from other wikis. Josh Parris 11:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German wiki is the only other wiki to use persondata. Persondata actually started there. How do you steal German language words to put in the short description parameter? Bgwhite (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two bot tasks have had BRFAs raised, and they look likely to fail due to unacceptable error rates. I now believe that crowdsourcing is the only viable solution, and encourage development in that area. Josh Parris 11:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they shot it down because any bot would produce an error, therefore a bot can't work on it. It sounded like they didn't even like "normal" people working on it because of the errors a normal human would produce. As the number of articles missing the description parameter has gone up every year since persondata was started, this categroy will never be empty. Bgwhite (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable summation. A crowdsourced solution ought to address both problems, by waiting until enough humans agree on what the short description ought to be. I think someone pointed out earlier that the backlog was getting smaller, but I haven't sighted any data one way or the other. Josh Parris 02:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to point out that a crowdsourced solution might seem like a good idea in theory but in reality Wikipedia is the modal of crowdsourcing and these entries have been empty for years (and apparently will be empty for years to come) so if you have a good idea then please present it. You are both very good programmers so I imagine you both have some really good ideas about how to solve this problem other than writing it off to crowdsourcing that you know won't work. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh: That would be me. I keep a record of the number of templates missing descriptions that I update once a week, though I admit it's more for my own purposes than anything else. And no, I don't think that bots are the best answer to this one - slightly ironically, persondata was made so that biographies could be made accessible to machines, and bots are in fact the cause of this backlog thanks to mass automated additions that should have been reined in before they started. At the moment, the best move is for more people to get involved with the backlog - tools such as Persondata-o-matic allow for semi-automatic additions but with human intervention. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recent decision on the use of indic scripts in the leads of India-related articles was made (see main discussion here and clarification here). This decision has not been properly communicated and User:DeltaQuad and I agree that it should be placed in the Manual of Style somewhere. The most appropriate place would be in the India-related articles subpage, but it is currently inactive. Surely there are now enough India-related article to warrant the resurrection of these guidelines, so I propose that this happens. What are your thoughts? Please join the discussion here. Bazonka (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-posting: see proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#New Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard: ready for production. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People have believed that separating titles and URLs from each other in one format may presume link rot and bare URLs. Fortunately, that is precisely one of acceptable formats of MLA. Another format of MLA for websites omits URL because a URL is optional to add.

For example, from previous revision of Sam and Diane:

Shapiro, Ben. Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV. New York: Broadside–HarperCollins, 2011. Google Books. Web. 04 Feb. 2012 <http://books.google.com/books?id=ymAWgveoxW8C>.

I have previously discussed this issue in WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Presumptions of link rots vs. MLA format. Per WP:CITEVAR, I want the MLA format to be accepted into essays, guides, and guidelines of citations, such as WP:Citing sources and WP:Bare URLs.

Sources for MLA usage:

• http://www.library.cornell.edu/resrch/citmanage/mla
• http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/

Right now, Frasier Crane, Sam Malone, and Diane Chambers are tagged for link-rotting, in spite of using MLA. I wonder if MLA formats are acceptable.

To be honest, I don't like using cite templates anymore; too inconvenient to search and less readable. --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your asking - but the format used at Frasier Crane, Sam Malone, and Diane Chambers are what you see when you print a page. We dont realy have a need to do this for our readable version because the print version will make the ugly hard to read references automatically. Are you saying you like the url to be seen at all the time? We have templates to prevent this from happening because some Urls are simply to long and thus makes pages looks sloppy and unprofessional. A bare url does not help our readers and in fact I would say long urls impede readers ability to read references properly. We have tools to help you with this see Google book tool for an example More at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools. "All that said" - there is no set way for referencing see Wikipedia:Verification methods. Moxy (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is more user friendly and professional looking

Ben Shapiro (31 May 2011). Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-193477-3.

Then this I think

Shapiro, Ben. Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV. New York: Broadside–HarperCollins, 2011. Google Books. Web. 04 Feb. 2012 <http://books.google.com/books?id=ymAWgveoxW8C>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit in any style, as long as you establish the style as the first editor or gain consensus to change it. Given that, you can use MLA with or without templates (which we don't have). You need to discuss style changes on the article talk page. MLA uses bare URLS in that manner because it is a style guide for print. I predict that exposing bare URLs won't be popular. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which article talk page? Not specific article, such as "Frasier Crane", isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MLA is already acceptable. In fact, WP:CITE says that editors may use any citation style, including styles they've just made up. See the second question at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are formats tagged as "link rots" or something like that? MLA optionally includes URLs separately, but I use the MLA's URL format because I don't like templates as much as MLA. Is this of all MLA formats acceptable? --George Ho (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because the user who tagged the pages didn't know any better? Maybe because he took a quick look and didn't realize that those are full bibliographic citations? People make mistakes all the time, and Wikipedia is so complicated that nobody can keep up with all the details. Have you considered asking him what he was thinking? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator or experienced yet. I wonder if you can contact him about this issue. Sometimes, he dislikes bare URLs. --George Ho (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it was just an honest mistake of the sort that all of us make on occasion, but I've left a note for the user in case he wants to comment.

By the way, you might like to read the documentation at Template:Cleanup-link rot. As with all such templates, if one is added to an article when it shouldn't be, any editor can remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that user; also those at WP:DYK. See Template:Did you know nominations/Sam and Diane. --George Ho (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy they did. Seriously, compare [5] to [6]. You are free to use any referencing format you want, but other editors are also free to change it if they think it improves the article. Yoenit (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Exactly like you can't convert from British to American spelling "if you think it improves the article", you can't unilaterally convert citation styles from the authors' choice to your preference. The rules are outlined at WP:CITEVAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, please Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Let's_move. Petrb (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a suggestion, and arguably, it might have been better in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab),but I guess that more people look at this page of Wikipedia. My proposal is as follows. It is sometimes said that people will get more out of Wikipedia if they did not merely read the article, but the talk pages (indeed, I am sure I once read a magazine which said that). Can we therefore have a template at the top of at least some articles, encouraging readers to read the talk pages of articles? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. If we did this then some talk pages would be considered quasi-articles by many readers – and by some editors who would start speculating in spreading their crap on talk pages when it's kept out of articles. All sorts of unverifiable nonsense and rude discussions are already on talk pages. If people want to learn more about the subject than the article and they aren't studying Wikipedia culture then they are better off searching elsewhere on the Internet. Talk pages are also treated less strictly than articles concerning legal issues like BLP violations and copyvios - especially when it's discussed whether something in the article is exactly that. We shouldn't give the impression that we want readers to read talk pages. They are for editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with PrimeHunter. I will note, however, that many of the article cleanup templates that flag content disputes or biased articles (e.g. {{POV}}) already link to a given article's talk page. While these template messages are principally aimed at editors, other readers are certainly able to discern the presence of a dispute and view any related discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Its just more clutter theres a tab at the top of the page already for the talk page, adding a template at the top is just going to detract from a persons ability to read the article Gnangarra 01:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hi ACEOREVIVED, it goes without saying that talk is used to settle disputes, improve the article, etc. However, sometimes it goes... well, way beyond. Please check out talk:Gustave Whitehead... is that what you're trying to engender? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Yes, readers should read more deeply. I meet people and brag about being a Wikipedia editor, one of millions, and tell them it's one of those iceberg things, 90% underwater. I advise them to use the tabs at the top of the page, and the "About Wikipedia" on the left edge, and the "Help" also on the left, all of which lead them to read the highly informative underwater parts. It's all there; just have to point, click and read though perhaps "Help" ought to be made more immediately helpful to readers and less focused on editors. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all the people who responded to this proposal. The comments in response are well taken. I should also say that I was very impressed with how polite and civil people who responded to this discussion were, even if the general consensus appeared to be oppose the original proposal. It goes without saying that that is exactly the good manners that, one hopes, will characterise Wikipedia discussions. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a count on the 'Talk' tab of the number of recent discussion sections added or updated. (For example: '| Talk (2 updates) |'.) That way I can tell at a glance whether discussions are taking place. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RJH's idea sounds interesting, but I would think like the above proposal, it doesn't totally jive with WP as an encyclopedia. All of the behind-the-scenes work should be accessible, but probably shouldn't be to prominent. Aslbsl (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]