平谷分局多种方式发布桃花节出行提示信息服务...

Selected article for tomorrow (1 August)

Hi all! Bobby Robson died today. This article is one of our VGAs. The system how we get the today's selected article is a random choice. I suggest, that our wiki should be up to date. So far, the article should be tomorrow's VGA of the day. If the random choice fail (means not Bobby is on the main page), would it be great if someone can fix it at 00:00 UTC. I am not here at this time. Thanks --Barras || talk 15:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it would be a nice gesture. fr33kman ^talk 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would personally be very touched if we could manage this. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think anyone would disagree. We should just place the article on the front page, and then revert back to the randomized version after. -Djsasso (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. Djsasso, could you have a look at 00:00 UTC. I can't, because it's 02:00 in my time zone. Or every other admin from Amerika or where ever. Barras || talk 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If I am here I will. Otherwise one of our other nightowls can do it I am sure. -Djsasso (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

0:00 will be 7:00 my time, and I'll likely already be out and about at that time. If I'm not, I'll try to take care of it before leaving. EVula // talk // ? // 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done at GMT 2.30 am. Chenzw  Talk  02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing discussion

We need help, and some outside comments please at Talk:Cannabis#Health_Effects. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done fr33kman ^talk 04:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Usernames

I'd like to see what everyone's opinion on usernames (WP:U etc.) is. Today User:Harry potter was created and blocked. This wouldn't have happened if J.K. didn't write her books ten years ago, of course, although besides that we might have lost a potential contributor, and I don't think this wiki much affords that.

Simply because it has an affiliation, or possibly due to their liking the whole merchandise doesn't necessarily mean they're inherently evil or anything, right? And besides the very notions of morality, what's the use of blocking anyone without even seeing what their edits are like? I think vandals have more lenient treatment with all the warnings etc... so why can't we be more rational in this regard as well? -- Mentifisto 12:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in the block. If it were named after a person, yes, there's an issue, but an obviously fictional character? Not really. EVula // talk // ? // 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I probably would have allowed them the time to change their name, and if they didn't respond to my message then I would have blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think this block was necessary. And why was the account creation disabled for the user? -- Mercy (?|?) 13:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously not the real Harry Potter... Shappy ^talk 14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange. There's a User:Harrypotter on enwiki who has been editing for years. Very poor block indeed. Majorly talk 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This username safely passes the squint test (if you have to squint your eyes and turn your head in a certain direction to see a username violation, it's not a username violation). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, alright, so in this instance everyone agrees it wasn't needed (even though username policy was cited, so that must be the case universally) - what about others, though, and particularly usernames who haven't edited? Can we not make a blanket guideline and avoid any actions on accounts with no edits? In my opinion, the edits should be judged, and not whether at face value it's subjectively offensive or not (because as we found out, everyone interprets this 'policy' differently). -- Mentifisto 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"In my opinion, the edits should be judged, and not whether at face value it's subjectively offensive or not" – nonsense. In this instance, we agreed that the block wasn't needed. But there are some usernames that are instantly blockable, contributions or not. Would we allow User:I hate niggers to edit constructively? Of course not. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In all probability it won't, and then it can always be blocked as a vandal-only. What's the difference? With borderline cases at least we're sure of the users' intentions and won't just base their whole existence off a name. As I always argued this is about the 'possible violations'... usernames created with the obvious intention to attack others (à la Grawp...) are clearly vandal-only, which is why I think AIV could easily replace UAA (in enwiki's case). -- Mentifisto 16:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you miss the point of UAA entirely, but that isn't for discussion here. I don't see any problem with adopting enwiki's policy, but we generally do anyway... PeterSymonds (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what does anyone else think about this? -- Mentifisto 09:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Some Fun

Hi all, I'd just like to inform the community of something to help get our article writing back on track. :-) Shappy ^talk 17:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Credentials

Why are a lot of candidates (for CU/OS mostly) stating their offline credentials (to 'impress', perhaps) when it has no real bearing and ultimately unverified? I thought we always judged one's contributions, and not whether they've progressed in the outside world. -- Mentifisto 14:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

CU and OS are positions that rely on technical or confidential experience. Most of that experience cannot come only from online contributions. These positions are not like 'Crats or Admins where you can see their ability to work well with others and their likelihood to be able to judge consensus or on whether or not to block someone etc. -Djsasso (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They're completely unverified though, so if people lie (and they easily can) they'll be untrustworthy and in a confidential position. -- Mentifisto 09:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well ideally their trustworthiness comes from their editing/being an admin. -Djsasso (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

*cough*Essjay*cough* EVula // talk // ? // 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true. -Djsasso (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the exact reason I don't bother mentioning any of my off-line facts when I run an RfA or anything else. That does not mean, however, that they aren't relevant for others. EVula // talk // ? // 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

SimpleWP featured in Wikizine...

Hello all,

yesterday I talked with Walter who is the editor of Wikizine. Wikizine is published almost every week. It is about different things that are interesting to all Wikipedias. Anyway, our Wikipedia is mentioned in the current edition. I hope that we get more editors by this. Just wanted to let you know. --Eptalon (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oversight voting modalities

Hello there,

An successful oversight candidate will need to fulfill the criteria set by the foundation (which are the same as those for CheckUsers):

• At least 18 years old
• Willing to identify (proof of age) towards the foundation

In addition, they will need at lest 25 support votes; given that these represent about 80% of the votes (meaning 20% of the voters oppose), this means 32 total votes. At 25% oppose, we are at 33 total votes, with 30% oppose at 35. What I am trying to say here is that even 32 votes is an awful lot for a community as small as ours.

The idea would therefore be to lengthen the time in which voting would be possible (from one week, per our Criteria) to two, or perhaps even three weeks. Note that we can do this, and it is probably unproblematic, as long as it is a decision taken by the community as a whole, before the start of the vote. We need to do this, leaving the vote open indefinitely, that is to say until a consensus has formed is not a good option. The people running need to know that at some point in time they either failed, or are promoted.

Since the people elected will serve this community, I would also like to propose that only people who are active here take part in the vote. Even if this makes getting the 32 votes more difficult, it will be better for our credibility.

Lastly, we should do this election only after the summer break, ie. when the universities have started again; getting 32 voters will be hard enough, even then. --Eptalon (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do not need total votes. If we make here our own criteria, like at least 25 votes are needed, I think no-one will argue, when the stewards give the permission. Stewards check first how many users voted and if they see there are not more users who can vote and they know, that local os would be helpful, they grant the permission (My thoughts).

My thought about how/when:

• Start on Monday 31 August, 18:00 UTC for all candidates.
• Successful will be, when two candidates get at least 25 votes and 80% support.
• Duration: two weeks.

Just my thoughts. Barras (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• And only the two with the best percentage/most votes in support will be elcted.

Again, just my thoughts. Barras || talk 18:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think at one point we were talking about electing three, but eh. *shrug* EVula // talk // ? // 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't have that much os-requests as enwiki has. I am not sure, if we really need three. If the two elected are active/available enough, it should be fine. Barras || talk 18:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And again - why are we postponing this to the end of August? What is wrong with now? I think three is the best number as well - if one resigns, it won't mean we lose all local oversighters. Majorly talk 20:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I agree with three, in the case one resigns, we could get troubles. The problem to the "when" and now: eg: Bluegoblin7 (means one voter) is for three weeks on vacation. Barras || talk 20:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not have to close these rigidly after x weeks. They can remain open until consensus is, or isn't reached. If it takes months, then so be it. We might be surprised and get a lot of people voting. Majorly talk 20:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I'm in support of delaying the voting is because of the (perhaps incorrect) assumption that there would be a relatively small window, meaning we'd be best off having our editing pool at full-strength. We could leave it open until "whenever," but that almost creates a race to get oversight. If we go ahead and open it to voting now and end it, say, mid-September, that might work (and would include the initially-proposed two-week period, so we'd be "getting" our oversighters just as soon/late if we start now than if we were to delay and run it only for two weeks). EVula // talk // ? // 21:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Are the prerequisites for voting here the same as on en.WP (i.e. "Any editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits prior to 15 June 2009 may vote")? →javért ^stargaze 21:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All users who created their account before the vote starts and have at least a few edits can vote. Barras || talk 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I should be alright, then. Thanks. :) →javért ^stargaze 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in this way, you can vote in the os elections. Barras || talk 21:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Change in voting modality

I request that we extend from two weeks, and make it three weeks. Want to be sure that we have 25-30 votes. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that's long enough. We might not even have that many editors any more :(. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What about, three weeks, with the option to extend should no two requests have the required participants? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There has to be some sort of limit, because we can't have a RfO go on indefinitely, but besides that I agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How about we just leave it open until we either have a consensus or it is obvious that we will never have one? Why do we need a set period of time? There's no rush, steward oversight can still be requested until we elect local ones. fr33kman ^talk 04:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine... I'm not trying to accelerate the process, just want to help hash the modality.  :) Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Best case, the elections might end in 3 months, which is a long time. The longer they are open, the higher the chances that people will oppose, and in the end we will waste 3 months battling over the candidates and get no oversighters. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A week or two is fine. IIRC, Majorly got the required 25 votes in a few days. Leaving the nominations open for multiple weeks/months would be impractical, as well as stressful and emotionally draining on the candidates. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oversight voting modalities..

Hello,

I did a few checks regarding the oversight voting process. Here are my findings:

• We must have at least 25 votes in support. These must be at lest 75-80% of the total votes cast. Possible results, with 25 votes in support: 25 votes, all support; 27 votes (95% support) 28 votes (90%); 30 votes (85%); 32 votes (80%); 34 votes (75%)
• I don't think the closing crat should allow for less than 80% support, but that's just my personal opinion.
• The oversight vote will run for 3 weeks; closing dates for candidacies is one week before the vote starts.
• Only (named) users active in this wikipedia before the start of the vote should vote. I think we should not allow users who are no longer active here, nor users who are not active here at all to vote; they are free to comment, but they should not vote; it will be up to the closing crat to say which votes are valid, and which ones aren't.
• We need two successful candidates; that means we want 4-5 nominations at least.
• Unless I contradicted them above, the normal criteria for adminship apply; this is comparable to a checkuser election, so only admins can become oversighters.

Dates proposed:

• 30 August: closure for candidates, Vote runs from Sep 6, to Sep 27.

Comments welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with the modalities. Barras || talk 11:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to discuss: Do we have a number of places (2,3,4..) to fill, and we take the candidates with the best n results; or do we simply let anyone whose request was closed as successful get the status? - If we limit the number of places, how many should there be? --Eptalon (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think three would be the best number. See the former discuss (I guess it's archived). We don't need 5 and 2 can make troubles if one left. Barras || talk 11:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just as note: If no one objects to this or agree or give a comment on this, will this be rule for the os elections. And please: Don't bring concerns about this one day before all will start up. Barras || talk 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Current consensus

Current consensus for conditions of oversight elections:

• Duration: 3 weeks
• Only the best 3 candidates will be chosen.
• Per m:CheckUser policy, candidates are required to have at least 70-80% support, with at least 25-30 votes of approval.

These changes will be applied immediately. The list will be updated as discussion goes on. Chenzw  Talk  12:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Remember we need a min # of votes... so I don't think I would be averse to everyone extending the time if we get there, and it needs to be done. We can cross the bridge when and if it comes. Good luck to everyone and thakn you for all you who volunteered to help in the position. and to all the discussion participants, than you for going to comment. We will need all the comments we can get. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection templates

Are we still using the protection templates on protected pages? I am planning to transwiki the templates from EN as our current ones are (horribly) broken. Chenzw  Talk  04:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should, but it seems to be rarely happening. I think we have become sloppy in this regard and I think we should fix this sloppiness! fr33kman ^talk 04:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. When I protect a page, I use the protection template. The problem is that I forget to remove it, after the protection expires. Barras || talk 07:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, under normal circumstances, the article with the expired protection will be placed in a category. Ours is broken, so... ;) Chenzw  Talk  07:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

enWP has a bot for this... Pmlineditor  Talk 12:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Required Committed Identity for Administrators

Hello, I would like to propose that from now on if a user if elected as an administrator, that they are required to have a committed identity, just like they are required to have a working email address. I feel this is important for regular users, and especially administrators. Thoughts? Exert 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but I don't think it should be policy. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I don't think we should require it... as I keep losing mine. (When I wipe and reinstall linux, for example). Then again, how do you ensure that when I committed ident is changed, is is actually the person changing it. For example, CI revocation? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

CI revocation? Exert 22:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This occurs whenever a committed identity is changed and the user states the first is no longer valid. I usually use combinations of my home phone, drivers license number, email addy, and other random bits of personal information to generate mine. A better solution would be to require strong passwords and a identification to WMF. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

:), I use bits of song lyrics. Easy to remember and unchanging, unlike my DL number and address etc. (I move too much, and change countries occasionally). fr33kman ^talk 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with having strong passwords, although there is no way to confirm that an admin has one. Also identifying to the WMF seems a bit extreme to me and some people may not be comfortable with that. Exert 23:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the present system is just fine. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I do too. I don't think it's necessary. Majorly talk 23:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always hated the argument "if it ain't broke ..." but in this case I do think the current system has worked well for us. Personally, I have a committed identity but I did that long before I even considered being an admin. I'd like to say I think all named users should have one, but I don't agree that they should be forced; it's just a personal "best practice". fr33kman ^talk 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I don't have a committed identity, and I probably never will. However, there are many users who have met me in person; I am "friends" with many Wikipedians on Facebook; Wikimedia UK has my home address and contact details; see this, for ideas. It would be very simple to confirm that I was the genuine holder of my account. Majorly talk 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as Majorly. (though not in the UK) I'm easy to verify elsewhere online, and I can think of several Wikipedians (hmwith being the most immediate one I can think of) that could verify my identity via text message or Facebook. EVula // talk // ? // 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously I'm in the same situation. My identity can be verified one of many ways, as I've met Wikipedians in real life and I'm meeting many more in the near future. hmwithτ 14:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The near future is going to kick ass. EVula // talk // ? // 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:( Majorly talk 16:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I live in Germany. I am sure, that we have in Germany not such a system to confirm identety and that i have not the chance to meet other Wikipedians of the English WP. We have in Germany an other system, but I don't use it, or know anyr′thing about it. I am not sure if this is needed and there are users, who don't want to meet other Wikipedians. Anyway, I identified myself to the wmf, that should solve the problem for me (diff). Barras || talk 09:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not needed. It complicates things and well, is overall unnecessary. Pmlineditor 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ditto, unnecessary. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• I would be fine with having this be a guideline, or something that is good to have followed, but not necessarily required as per some of the comments above; the commited identity feature is not available in every country around the world. Cheers, Razorflame 00:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I understand this correctly, but If I understand it as I think I do, I think it is a bad idea. Here are some points to think about:

• The quality of the contributions a user makes does not depend on knowing who he is in real life. Perhaps the very best example are writers who publish articles or books with a false name. Many artists chose to have a different name than their real name.
• Each user has an account that is protected by a password. While we cannot guarantee it, we assume that the password is not easily guessed by someone else. So while you do not really know that the person who writes this is really the person you assume they are, you have a strong "guarantee" - Either someone hacked my account long ago, or it is really me who writes this. Impersonators are often easy to detect, because they show different "views" than those of the holder of the original account.
• A committed identity is a checksum of a cryptographic key, protected by a passphrase. Once the passphrase has been stolen, this is just like any other "hacked"" account, except that some people say this is safer - which it really is not.

SO very briefly: this only creates extra work, without really offering extra security. On a side-note: how many accounts on SimpleWP were broken into in the last year? --Eptalon (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• The committed identity system is broken itself. There is nothing to stop a user from changing their committed identity, and when that happens, it is difficult to tell intruder from actual user. This defeats the purpose of the whole system. Chenzw  Talk  14:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • They can disclose the previous string when changing it, proving that they are still the same person from last time round. —MC8 (b · t) 14:05, Sunday August 9 2009 (UTC)
    • Then we will need a "forgot committed identity" system, and that is hard. :P Chenzw  Talk  14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Pardon the question, do we simplify direct quotes? I mean, they would not be direct afterwards, but you know what I mean. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think quotes should be avoided as much as possible. If this is not possible, I think they should be simplified. Majorly talk 03:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree they should be rarely used. But if they are simplified, then it must be made clear that simplification has occurred. When we use a quote, we are verifying that the person actually said such-and-suhc; not that they said "paraphrased" such-and-such. fr33kman ^talk 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A quote is a quote - we can not simplify it, but we can add links and wikt links if they are needed.Peterdownunder (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquote lists a quote with a simplified version beneath it, which I think is a fairly effective method. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we can say that it is a direct quote if it is paraphrased. However, we can note that it is a simplification of the quote, or we can make sure words are linked or otherwise explained. hmwithτ 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a quote if it is shortened. However we can wikilink in it and we can provide an explanation. I don't think there should be any bias against quotes, even if they are complex, so long as they are relatively short and can be easily explained if needed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Popups gadget updated

I've copied the code from en to MediaWiki:Gadget-popups-API.js?, per a request from over a week ago. If something is terribly broken, an admin may revert. Otherwise, please leave comments here if anything needs to be tweaked. EhJJ^TALK 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Hi there all. Please remove all my flags on my account here. Thank you, Razorflame 23:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Come back! Griffinofwales (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for doing this, but I revoke my previous statement. I have decided to come back full-time now. I hope to see you around the site! Cheers, Razorflame 00:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure now? What changed in 10 minutes? -Djsasso (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict) You e-mail admins 2 weeks ago to tell them that you are retiring, we don't remove your flags, you come back to have them removed, I post a comment, and then all of a sudden you want to come back. We need you. Thanks for coming back. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, I guess the pull of the Wikipedia was stronger than I thought =D. Cheers, Razorflame 00:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Welcome back, anyway... PeterSymonds (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't sound too happy that I am back now. Is this true? Anyways, thanks all for the warm welcome! I will get back into the loop of things and start working on building more articles :). Cheers, Razorflame 00:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just no one line stubs on topics that can't be expanded....things have changed since you left. -Djsasso (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

GoblinBot4 reverted my edits to Cascada

Hello, I'd like to know why User:GoblinBot4 decided to revert my "Useful, constructive" edits to Cascada and slap a tag on my talk page!? I added some constructive content to the article and added some reliable references, so whats with that? Harlem675 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was an FP (False Positive). 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Really sorry about that. GBot4 is one of our more faulty bots, so leaving a message at this page is pretty much all that can be done. Shappy ^talk 15:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats ok, I was totally confused at first but didnt want to revert back the edits in case it blocked me. Harlem675 15:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it can't. Its not an adminbot. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, cool. Harlem675 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been fixed (hopefully). The bot reverted the edit as it contained "gay". You will no longer experience this once you have more than 40 edits. Chenzw  Talk  15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, cheers! Harlem675 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this... in future though, if it does throw up an FP, come and let us know at User:GoblinBot4/FP. And Shappy, it's hardly broken... any AVB will throw up FPs from time to time - they do at EN (where they have many more rules too) and so does EN's Abuse Filter. Regards, Goblin 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ? Chenzw!

Ref tools gadget

I have just been editing of the enwiki and using the reftool they have available in their list of gadgets. Does anyone know how we could have that tool added here? --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Add it into MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, along with all the subpages etc. Have fun :). Goblin 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ? Juliancolton!

Numbers.

Hey,

I am just here to bring up the issue of how many editors are being given the bureaucrats, oversighters and checkuser tools. I don't want to bring this up on the RFA page as it is not a discussion for there. I am going to support the users at RFA currently because I can trust them, but I am not sure if we need that many people in the posts that these editors wish to occupy. What are your thoughts here?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been shot down a number of times that "too many" is not a valid argument for most positions. I personally think we have too many admins but most proposals for restricting numbers have been shot down. In fact we just had one a couple weeks ago if you look in the latest archive. -Djsasso (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I never use that as an argument as it is not a reflection of the editors ability to do the job well, and am about to !vote support in a few minutes. Can you please find a link for me, as I am not sure how far back to go. I am just worried that if we start making every user who has been here a while an admin, and then every old admin a crat and so forth, soon enough everybody will have the tools and we will just have a huge amount of wheel warring. I am really concerned about this. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk

Actually upon looking I was wrong, the most recent request was actually about making every admin a crat after a set amount of time. -Djsasso (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have stewards :) Griffinofwales (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-) This Wikipedia currently has about forty regular (high-volume) contributors. Of these, roughly thirty have the "admin" flag, and are active among these "high-volume contributors" (forty admins total, some inactive). We currently have seven people with the "bureaucrat" flag, and three with the "CheckUser" flag. Six people are currently running for "Oversight" privileges. I am not concerned about these numbers, but I think what we would need most is more editors:

• Editors do not need a username to edit here, most have one though.
• Editors do not need "admin" or other flags to edit
• Editors are the people who make this Wikipedia better. Admins (Bureaucrats, CheckUsers, Oversighters,..) are just there to make it run smoothly. But what is the use of a smoothly-running car, if no one drives it? - Editors are the drivers, Admins (etc) the mechanics.

I will go a step further, and ask: Look at what the admins did in the last half year. How many admins could simply do with the status of "regular user", and a "rollback" privilege? - Look at other wikipedias, and compare the number of regular, high-volume users they have to the number of "administrators" (including crats, cu's, ..oversighters,..).

When a bureaucrat and checkuser left at the beginning of this year, this brought weeks of re-electing new checkusers; with the drama that followed. It was my decision to make more people into bureaucrats (and checkusers), so that this situation would not repeat. That said, I would look forward to us getting at least three overighters. That way, we are not pressed to re-elect one, because we are below the number of people in a certain position. These are of course just my thoughts.

Technically, given the current numbers, we could do with about four admins, two bureaucrats, two checkusers, and two oversighters. Note also that we require our crats, checkusers and oversighers to be admins, other Wikipedias do not have this requirement.

I hope this answers the question. --Eptalon (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Opinion - Last year there was a brief effort to attract editors from enWP and other wikipedias to start editing here, at least being semi-active. However it is soon forgotten as several banned or blocked users started causing distruption here. There were several users who I kind of remember that gave the admins a hard time over disputes on what to do with the troublemaker. All simple english projects have not turned out to be popular, many who edit here leave after a week or so. The ones who do stay usually end up becoming admins, except for about 10 users. (But most if not all of those 10 users then have rollback.)

Truth to say, this wikipedia is small compared to others. However several small wikipedias like us who have regular editors are also mostly admins. IMO, restricting the number of admins has its pros and cons side of the issue. Discussions to keep the admin level to a ratio between the number of active users or desysoping admins after a certain time period of inactivity have all resulted in fail or with no consensus. Gordonrox24 came up with the idea that having all active users as admins would lead to wheel warring. In that case, leave that up to the stewards. Also a few users have been opposing RFAs, with the only reason: "We have too many admins". Is that a reasonable statement to oppose someone's RFA? The candidate would have worked hard to earn his or her adminship and the community's trust.

Some people view sysophood as a trophy. I disagree. I don't think someone should get a promotion just for writing a lot of GAs/VGAs or having reverted the most vandalism. Some people even think users should be promoted after barely reaching 2k edits or being a long-time user. Adminship was founded based on the idea of community trust. But define "trust". Is it whether quick thinking like saying "I trust him" or "I don't trust him" after a 10-second thought? Or is trust meaning to review a person's contribs to the wiki and whether he is fit enough to handle the tools wisely and understands the policies.

Rollback is seen by some as a stepping stone or as an alternative to adminship. The rollback feature is one admin tool that is used to revert vandalism quickly with only one click. All active or long time non-admins have the rollback flag I assume. People have a variety of opinions on this one so I just going to drop it. Another thought is, would a small dedicated admin team do the job better at maintaining this wiki, or does a diversity of admins sound like a better option. Eptalon mentioned that about 4 admins who also have extra privileges could handle the job. Then I guess those admins would form its special junta on ruling wikipedia. But sysophood can last forever in most wikis including this one. Some admins can voluntarily put themselves up for readminship, but restricting the number of admins may need to require "re-election" or term limits, as some admins have been sysops for years. (Gosh that sounds very political.)

I guess I have said too much. But the debate about adminship won't likely go away, at least until we get more active editors here. Forming new admin policies or raising the requirements and expectation levels on admins won't do much to solve this debate. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 11:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

hey guys

i havent been here in a while so i want to know what has happendned. FR^{Sign Here} 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OS elections have started. Please vote. Fr33kman and Djsasso are now 'crats. BG7 resigned as admin and failed a RFA. Razorflame and Kennedy came back. Exert left. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi FastReverter! Good to hear from you. You've missed so much. I hope you're back for a while and will be editing regularly. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Number pages

Pages like 4 (number), 5 (number), 66 (number), 72 (number), 24 (number), 12 (number), 54 (number), 56 (number) seem useless to me. Wouldn't it be better to redirect most of them (except 1 (number) and others like that) to Number and expand that article? It would eliminate quite a few stubs. Same for years. Couldn't we merge years of the same century into articles and redirect each year? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually had a dream last night where I proposed that stubs should be discontinued on Simple, and instead, we concentrated on the real vital articles that people might actually come and read. So I'll make the dream come true and propose it: no more stubs, only substantial articles allowed. We are different to other Wikipedias; our mission is different, our purpose is different, and our readers are different. Majorly talk 14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You seriously need to take a wikibreak if you are dreaming about this place!! :P fr33kman ^talk 14:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that's a good idea (what majorly is proposing). Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 14:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember, that we need sometimes stubs for (V)GAs. For Romania, I restored some romain rivers... the redlink rule. Barras || talk 14:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would note, the standard is not that there can't be any red links, but that red links should be kept to a minimum. -Djsasso (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The rule for VGAs is no redlinks. Barras || talk 16:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, I forgot this is where we differ from en. Either way the normal way to handle this situations is to just unlink the word. -Djsasso (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If the word is important, it must be linked, because major words must be linked. Depends, important or not. Barras || talk 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A stub would be unimportant. -Djsasso (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But it is linked and contains two sentences more then the article provide. Otherwise would links be useless. Barras || talk 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just saying what is standard practice at en. If its a relatively minor subject in relation to the subject of the article. ie a minor river to the Romania article as compared to a major city. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Inactive sysop guideline

Guideline?

Hello there,

I think we need to agree on what to do with admins (cats, checkusers,...) who are inactive over a longer time. I would propose the following:

• Inactivity counts from the last edit made in this Wikipedia.
• After 6 months of inactivity, a Request for deadminship can be filed for inactivity; Our criteria apply (those for becoming admin). The admin bits will be removed, if this request is successful; the default should be to remove the flag, not to keep it.
• Between 6 months and a year after the last edit, the admin can re-request his/her flag, if they become active again. It will be given without going through an RFA process.
• After a year of inactivity, the demoted admin must go through a new RfA to get the flags back.
• Admins that know they will be away for that long ask for their status to be removed at meta, by themselves; within a year they can request their flag back, as outlined above. After the year they go through a normal process.

Things to discuss:

• The two barrier dates 6 months, 12 months.
• Should this also apply to CUs, crats (and oversighters), or should they go through the re-election process all the time?

Please comment.--Eptalon (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think 12 months for de-sysop without de-adminship request: that means automatical. The user get a not one month before the deadline ends (see the current de-sysopship). For crats, cus, os: removal after four months of inactivity. Barras || talk 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep the process simple - same procedures for all, admins, crats, CU's, and OS. The barrier dates at 6 and 12 months seem quite reasonable. Eptalon's proposal makes sense to me. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support policy. I will create a list of inactive admins that meet this criteria. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• User:Barliner, last edit December 22.
• User:EchoBravo, last edit October 27.
• User:Tree Biting Conspiracy, last edit October 17.
• User:Yegoyan, last edit, October 18.

Griffinofwales (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Err... we have an inactivity "policy" already - go look in the RfA logs... Thus, Oppose. Goblin 13:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ? GoblinBots!

Discussion

Please see the new proposal for an actual community approved guideline for the desysoping of inactive sysops at WP:Inactive administrators. Don't worry if the page title or location is not right at the moment, it can be moved if needed. fr33kman ^talk 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Only one thing: I would prefer 1 year of inactivity. I agree with the rest. We should mention, that the same will be for crat/cus/oses. Barras || talk 09:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

1 year is a better time, after all, Wikipedians have lives ;). Also, you might want to allow for "explained absences" (aka long-term wikibreak). In this case, then maybe they are not eligible to be desysopped. Chenzw  Talk  11:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah 6 months is way to short. Needs to be atleast a year. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree in keeping a quite ample time frame... (1 year is ok) --M7 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

@ChenzW: Eptalon agrees with six months and so do some other admins (check the current RfDA). So consensus isn't against me (not yet). Griffinofwales (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify this: I think it is irrelevant whether it is shorter or longer; each has its benefits and drawbacks. What we simply need is a "guideline", so that admins who have gone inactive can be stripped of their flags easily. (In this respect, shorter is probably better than longer). And yes, we definitely need to provide for "excused absences" (To a certain extent though: "Hey guys, I am leaving, I will be back in three years" should probably mean a desysopping, and a RFA when the editors's back). --Eptalon (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing articles..

Hell, I think writing articles is a fun thing to do. If that's too boring, making existing articles better is also a fun thing to do. What do you others think? --Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See TRM's comments at WP:AN (located near the end of the thread about me). The community doesn't spend enough time writing articles (nowhere close). Griffinofwales (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy link: WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Mentorship. hmwithτ 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice thing to do when several people actually collaborate on a certain article. If they don't, it's less fun. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember when me and several other editors made Romania a VGA. That was fun and it was several editors collaborating on a single article. I agree that there is not enough active article building going on here. I was the main person who was introducing new articles onto this Wikipedia, but now because so many of my articles have been deleted, I've waned off from creating articles because of the very real possibility that they would not be enough to sustain an article on here. I think that we need to get less strict on what kinds of articles we can write so that we can just get more and more people interested in writing articles. There are several administrators on here that don't really do much article building or writing on this site, and this worries me that we just need to stop all the drama everywhere and just get to writing articles, which happens to be The Rambling Man's motto here ;). Razorflame 21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Neither Crich Tramway Village nor Victoria line would be where they are now without significant help from various other member's of the community - and I think the same goes for many of our Good and Very Good articles. Now then, if anyone wants to help with the final step on Victoria line, we've got a large to do list :). Goblin 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I ? Shappy!

Huggle

Note that I'll be working on importing Huggle over the next couple days. Simplifying user warnings and such is still to come. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

→javért ^stargaze 09:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:DD I'd heard of it earlier though. ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 09:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We need Huggle? Majorly talk 13:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple users asked for it. I personally see no need, but it doesn't hurt to have it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's not as much vandalism here as they do on en, but I won't mind having it. :) иι?кч? 13:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What a good idea. Thanks, JC. hmwithτ 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On this wiki, the undo button works faster than twinkle sometimes. Well, good luck anyway!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would probably not be very much used here, but there is no harm in getting it set up here for when we get big enough that we do need to use it. Cheers, Razorflame 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Take it from me. You will be bored out of your mind if you try using Huggle on this project. For the most part, at least to me, Huggle is extreme overkill even for the Spanish Wikipedia, much less here. J.delanoy ^talk_changes 22:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Crat chat

I would propose that all "crat chats" regarding any on hold RFA occur on wiki, on the RFA talk page:

• Transparency

• Collective memory

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better for it to take place on a sub-page of the talk page (with a link there) to allow for an editnotice restricting the talk page to crats and people whose input they solicit. (As I understand it, the purpose for a crat chat is to allow the crats to talk among themselves.) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Are they going to be conducted for every single RfA or just for specific cases? Please specify. Chenzw  Talk  14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage creator bot

I've noticed that most articles here on Simple don't have talk pages. Earlier this morning I created Template:Talkpage to put at the top of every article talk (much like on en). I went ahead and put the template on the talk of the articles I have created but it's not feasible for one person to template every talk page. Plus it would wreak havoc on my edit count. I was talking with Chris G on IRC tonight and he said that he could code a bot to do this if there's consensus for it here. So, my question to you all is: what do you think, do you think that this is a good idea? Cheers, →javért ^stargaze 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know if the wording on the template is fine as it is, or if you would prefer me to change/reword it and if so, to what. →javért ^stargaze 08:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming my calculations are correct the bot will edit about 23125 pages. At an edit rate of about 9-12 edits per min the bot should be done in about a day and a half. --Chris 10:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely uneeded imo. I'm sure we stopped someone in the past when they started doing this? A red linked talk is better than a pointless header imo. Goblin 10:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ? Juliancolton!

Agree with BG7. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What about just adding the template to already existing talkpages that don't have it? (about 2527 pages) --Chris 11:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  (change conflict) Not really "stopped someone who started...". I proposed it and it was rejected. Anyway, I said on IRC that this would be rejected. Anyway. /me goes to edit other pages And I am in agreement with Chris' idea. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chris. While I believe that it would be best to put the template on all talk pages, Chris's idea would be a nice compromise. →javért ^stargaze 11:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a TP /editnotice extension floating around? —MC8 (b · t) 11:33, Saturday August 15 2009 (UTC)

Chris' idea of just putting it on existing pages is better. No need to create a load more. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 11:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) What was opposed in the past was the proposal to create every single talk page with the header. Replacing the header on existing talk pages is fine though. Just don't do it again, if possible. Think of the server kitties. ;) Chenzw  Talk  13:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This serves just about as much purpose as an automated bot making cosmetic changes, which change nothing about the page but changes the underlying text to make it easier to read. Completely unneeeded and a waste of server bandwith. Razorflame 18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)