Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The proposals section of the village pump is used to discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy-related (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for that).

Recurring policy proposals are listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. If you have a proposal for something that sounds overwhelmingly obvious and are amazed that Wikipedia doesn't have it, please check there first before posting it, as someone else might have found it obvious, too.

Before posting your proposal:

• Read this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
• If the proposal is a change to the software, file a bug at Bugzilla instead. Your proposal is unlikely to be noticed by a developer unless it is placed there.
• If the proposal is a change in policy, be sure to also post the proposal to, say, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and ask people to discuss it there.
• If the proposal is for a new wiki-style project outside of Wikipedia, please go to m:Proposals for new projects and follow the guidelines there. Please do not post it here. These are different from WikiProjects.

« Archives, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213

Community something about ArbCom

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback

Blocking policy

I may not be doing this entirely correctly, but I propose that the terminology of the blocking policy be changed. Currently, the blocking policy states that blocks are not meant as punishment. However, as an elaboration upon that point, the blocking policy states that blocks are intended to deter future disruption.

I have a problem with this. Blocks are punitive, no matter what the policy says. Two things make it quite clear blocks are punitive. First, the policy says they are meant to deter. There are several rationales used by scholars to explain punishment, but I would submit that nearly every scholar educated in penological theory would agree that the two historical justifications for punishment (besides divine revelation) are retribution and deterrence. Like it or not, by conceding that blocks are meant to deter, the policy is contradicting its claim that blocks are not punishment. That’s my substantive problem with claiming blocks are not punishment. My second argument is procedural. The actual administration of blocks is done so in a punitive fashion. Repeat offenders are given longer blocks. More egregious offenders are given longer blocks. That’s a punitive system.

I suggest that the blocking policy be reworded to say that blocks are not for retribution, because they are certainly for deterrence. Those are the two classic justifications for punishment. Blocks deter; that means they punish. However, they aren’t necessarily retributive. This also has some other consequences. I also think that blocked users should be allowed to use “retribution” as a defense against their blocks. If the length of the block or the disposition of the blocking administrator indicate retribution, the block should be shortened or lifted. Hopefully, if applied correctly, this wouldn’t result in more blocks being lifted. Rather, it would result in more blocks being above controversy because removing any hint of retribution would increase transparency on Wikipedia. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you will never get people to admit that blocks are punitive, even though they frequently are. Same as how people insist that votes on adminship requests are not votes, and that there's no such thing as a cool down block, and so on -- Gurch (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Most kind of blocks are punitive. And the fact they get extended is proof they are punishments. And almost every kind of block is a cool down block. Majorly talk 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you know that, but try saying that when asked about it in an adminship request -- Gurch (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make Wikipedia more transparent. I don't think people should fail adminship requests because they stumbled on a trick question, especially when the "correct" answer has no basis in reality. Nor do I think Wikipedia should give its critics a foothold by dogmatically holding to patently incorrect policies. In my experiences editing Wikipedia, it would appear to me that the legitimate criticism of Wikipedia comes from people who are on the wrong end of policy text and policy implementation being at odds with each other. Besides, I don't see any serious harm that could come by changing the policy to say "retribution" instead of "punishment".

And, let me say thanks for the input to everyone who has commented on this. I appreciate it. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this change. Blocks serve essentially three distinct purposes: a preventative measure, to prevent the user from doing further damage, a deterrent measure, to discourage them from taking the same action again once their block is over, and a discouragement to others, who may avoid destructive behavior out of fear of blocking. The analogy with real-life justice systems is clear: we lock criminals in jail so that they cannot commit further crimes, so that they will be discouraged from committing them again after release, and to deter others from committing crimes. However, just as a criminal can get out of jail early if they've shown signs of effective rehabilitation, so may a blocked user; we are only concerned that they do not repeat their disruptive behavior, not that some arbitrary standard justice is meted out. It is in this sense that one can say that blocking isn't punitive (in addition to it not being about retaliation). Dcoetzee 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Does someone want to link to the text in question? I agree with OP. This sounds like a simple case of poor use of english which should therefore be corrected - the word 'punishment' has been misused - if blocking is intended to deter future transgressions, then it is punitive, punishment, whatever, according to any half-decent dictionary. Even Punishment includes: "Possible reasons for punishment ... Deterrence / Prevention: to act as a measure of prevention to those who are contemplating criminal activity." Jaymax (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia block policy. The first paragraph of the policy says in part, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." It may seem like I'm being trivial in trying to get this fixed, but I'm not. This contradictory policy has been repeatedly use to browbeat unsuspecting candidates for adminship. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Further agree - the wording does not make any sense using a correct definition of 'punish'. Entirely valid reasons justifying the punishment (incapacitation, deterrence) notwithstanding. Also agree (best guess) the intent seems to be to say that blocks are not reprisal/retaliation against users for breaking rules Jaymax (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be based on the premise that since people may use punishment as a means of deterrence or prevention, then deterrence or prevention is punishment. However, observing that "A is used for B" does not imply that "B is a form of A". Deterrence is owning a nuclear submarine fleet. Punishment is launching the missiles after being attacked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But we do launch the missiles. Threats of blocking only get so far. Mr.Z-man 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the assessment by SheffieldSteel. To punish is "to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault." A block subjects a user to the loss of editing privileges. A block subjects a user to the confinement of exercising speech in a manner other than through editing Wikipedia. A block is the penalty for an offense, violating a rule of Wikipedia in such a fashion as to warrant a block. A block is punishment. The goal of the block is deterrence, a legitimate goal of punishment. Your nuclear analogy falls apart because the equivalent analogy would be warning a contentious editor that you own the ability to block. Blocking is the actual use of a nuclear weapon. Through the correct use of your own reasoning, not only is a block a form of punishment, it's analogous to punishment of the nuclear variety. Frightening. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I find this discussion interesting because I am currently reading The Roots of Evil ISBN 0313201986 which is a history of crime and punishment. The most salient point is that cruel punishments create cruelty in the people. When I was in high school it was explained to me that technologically we live in the space age, but sociologically we are still in the stone age. However, WP is hopefully on the cutting edge of wherever we are. Apteva (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Compacted discussion

I could go on about how blocks are obviously punitive, and quite often retributive, but I think that would be missing the point. The real point is that the foreseeable consequence of blocking is to stop people from editing. I don't just mean that they can't edit while blocked, which is obvious, but that, instead deterring "bad" behavior, it demotivates them from further participation of any sort. People who get blocked, especially when it's blatantly unfair, often just walk away from Wikipedia and don't look back.

Those who don't immediately leave are just slow to learn, because a block is not a one-time thing. Once a person has a block on their record, even if it's obviously unfair and heavily protested by impartial third parties, they are absolutely guaranteed to receive increased scrutiny and therefore more blocks, with even less of a basis and for increasingly lengthy durations. If the blocks are sufficiently unfair and insulting, the editor might be stupid enough to dispute them or protest, which can be taken as incivility and used as a basis for further blocks. Even asking for an unblock without sucking up hard enough is excuse enough to get a block extended. And if they bother to keep coming back after the blocks get insanely long, they're simply blocked indefinitely due to the "pattern" of their behavior.

In short, blocking is how Wikipedia kills editors. It's not merely punishment, it's Wikipedia's version of capital punishment. Blocking is how administrators manipulate content by removing the people who make changes they disagree with. Adding a few honest words to WP:BLOCK admitting that it's punitive won't change anything; the entire policy is broken from top to bottom. Spotfixer (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who's been blocked plenty of times before, I'm going to agree with a lot of what you've said. There are problems and you've stated them pretty well. However I'd contend that the reason for the problems is more with the people who are given the power to block, rather than with the blocking policy itself. If interpreted and carried out by mature objective people, blocking can be as the policy intends.

The problem is admins who use blocks as a demonstration of power and a "don't mess with me" attitude. I've seen people blocked with sarcastic messages like "I've decided to give you a mandatory break from editing, please enjoy your vacation". I think there may even be a template with wording like that. The attitude towards unblocking is a similar problem. Many admins expect things like apologies and promises that their blockees will "be good" if unblocked. No one with any amount of pride would respond well to that, especially when the action for which they were blocked is something they continue to believe was right. Many such blocks are the result of heated disagreements between the admin body and some individual who has refused to back down, and in those instances, I've seen admins act quite shamefully, using their tools to stick up for one another, under the guise of "preventing further disruption", when in fact the only disruption was heated disagreement that ends easily when one party has the power to remove the other from the debate.

This isn't a problem across the board for all admins. Some are very objective and respectful people who don't bring their emotions into their admin duties and perform blocks and unblocks with the level of sensitivity required to make blocks work the way they're supposed to. Then again, some, perhaps most, are not.

I'm not sure if an extensive block log is as universally damaging as you say. As much as I've been blocked before I've gotten the rollback privilege and also been offered admin nominations on 4 separate occasions. Then again, who knows how my RfA would've gone had I accepted.

So in my opinion the real problem goes back to the admin selection process, and that's a whole other can of worms that's been discussed extensively before. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:16, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks, but I did not intend this proposal to be a vehicle for dissenting diatribes against administrative action. Rather than continuing the line of discussion I've seen in these last two edits, it would probably be better to stick to whether you agree or disagree with the proposal without such extraneous commentary. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Aw but diatribes can be so therapeutic :) It was inevitable... start talking about blocking policy anywhere, and this is what you get. As for the proposal, I personally don't think the distinction would make any difference either way. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:55, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that some administrators are fine and preventing irresponsible people from becoming administrators is important, I don't think this is the side we can solve the problem from. The true measure of a person is not to be found in how they act when monitored and supervised, but when they have arbitrary power over others. We can't know whether power will corrupt until after it is granted, which is why we need to change the nature of how it is controlled. We don't actually want to measure how low people will get at their worst, we want to keep them at their best. This means rewarding them for doing the right thing and punishing them for doing the wrong thing. This is technically the job of admins, but it's not applied to the admins themselves. Nobody's watching the watchmen.

As it stands, administrators receive psychological and social rewards even for incompetent and malicious actions. Just beating down a person with the ban-hammer is fun, like shooting an enemy in a video game. Even better, they get to pretend that this righteous act of virtual violence is heroic, protecting a grand project from vandals and other scum. If the victim is clever but lacking in honesty, they know that the proper step in this dance is to bow down, act contrite, and generally suck up. Of course, this bit of deception benefits them but does nothing but encourage further bad behavior by feeding the admin's ego while enhancing their hunger for power. On the other hand, if someone speaks the simple truth, explaining that the block is unreasonable, not only does the admin get to flex their muscles by extending the block, but they can be assured that other admins will close ranks and protect the privilege of unfettered power from detractors.

If this sounds like a bad video game, that's because it is; there is a reason that Wikipedia has been frequently compared to a MMORPG. And such games need their orcs and other trash to use as cannon fodder, so Wikipdia has to create a weak enemy, in the form of persistent vandalism. This is intentional and systemic, not accidental or unavoidable. The ability of people without accounts to edit articles guarantees vandalism, thus justifying a culture of uncontrolled enforcement. In the flood of vandalism that's ruthlessly suppressed, it's not hard to ruthlessly suppress a few people who dare edit articles into a form you disagree with. If anything, a key motive for becoming an admin is to be able to own articles, working with like-minded admins and editors to maintain a permanent bias in the articles that they think matter. That's where you see patterns of admins grooming sycophants for ditto-head adminship. The word you're not allowed to use here is "cabal".

Getting back to your point, the idea of picking the right people and giving them unfettered power is akin to saying that dictatorship is a great form of government if only you can find the right person to be dictator. The alternative is to pick people who show some character and aptitute, but then bind them by the same rule of law that they are obligated to enforce upon others. Under close inspection, this is more akin to the unelected executive branch than anything legislative or judicial. Administrators are essentially police officers, so some of the same tricks that we use to keep cops in line should be applied here. Rookies get assigned to more experienced officers, who train them. When an officer fires their gun, even in self defense, even without hitting anyone, their actions are immediately reviewed and they don't get to shoot again until we know they did the right thing. The police have an Internal Affairs division of cops whose job is to police the police.

I could go on with more examples, some of which are more relevant than others, but I think the point is made. The solution is in watching the watchmen, not hoping for perfect ones. Admitting that blocking is a penalty is a baby step in the right direction, but will have no effect until an admin knows that they're only one bad block away from losing their power. That's when things will improve. Spotfixer (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Chicken Wing is about ready to beat someone down. All your points are at least interesting, Spotfixer. I agree with at least one, that a level or levels above admin, with the responsibility of overseeing admin action, is probably the only solution (to whatever the problem is). In fact it seems pretty arrogant of Wikipedia to think that it can make an organization work fairly without any such hierarchy. A single class of watchers is just not viable by any stretch of logic. Police need to be policed, you can't just rely on them to watch over each other, and these are universal truths that have been proven time and time again throughout history. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:17, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy break 1

Ok, then let's focus on our current topic. Is there any opposition to admitting blocking is punishment? Spotfixer (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to your opposition below, equazcion, is there some other alternative phrasing that you would support? As it stands, the statement that blocks are not punitive is simply false. I understand your concern that admitting they're punitive might be seen as a license to use blocks to punish, though I'm not sure that any such license is needed at this point. However, perhaps there's some other way of saying it. Any ideas? Spotfixer (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any wording that would impart the honesty you seek while also still offering the same level of discouragement. Frankly I think this proposal is really just a product of people who'd like retribution to correct the injustice of bad blocks and, in the end, make a point, call attention to the issue. I feel the same frustration, I admit, however I think this is not the right way to go about it, and won't help the situation.Equazcion •✗/C • 04:28, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I think that the responses below are interesting in that they show the level of self-deception involved. Utterly refusing to admit that punishment is punishment turns out to be about as harmful as claiming voting isn't voting. Why is Wikipedia policy mired in obvious lies? Spotfixer (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said (and others have said) in our votes, the distinction is in the interest of keeping admins aware of what they're supposed to be doing. The belief that they aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing some or most of the time is no reason to abandon all hope and finally just tell them to do it the wrong way. I don't see that doing much good for the community. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:16, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Support. For the record, I support my own proposal that Wikipedia's block policy concede that blocks are intended to punish. However, blocks are not meant to be retributive. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose... after giving it some thought. I think the stress on blocks not being punitive is meant mainly as a reminder to admins, to not submit to the temptation of blocking someone cause they "did something wrong" and/or "deserve it", for example. Call them punishments and you give license to admins to use them in precisely that manner, and that would be bad. Present blocks may sometimes or often function that way anyway, but replace the statement against it with one that expressly condones it, and I think the problem would get much worse. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:07, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Comment. That's why the policy would continue to say that blocks are not for "retribution". Punishment usually encompasses both deterrence and retribution (that is to say, either deterrence or retribution or both can be cited as an aim of punishment). Users blocked for retributive reasons would have a good case, and we would avoid the bizarre arguments on WP:RFA and other places about whether or not blocks are intended to be punishment. Chicken Wing (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between punishment and retribution? They both come after the fact and are both a form of balancing out a misdeed. The only difference is that with retribution we're admitting that the point is to make us feel better. Punishment, retribution, different ways of slicing the same turkey. Telling admins they're responsible for handing out "punishments, but not retribution", is a laughable statement to me. It's tantamount to saying "you're responsible for punishing people for doing bad things but you're not supposed to like it." Equazcion •✗/C • 16:36, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Response. The distinction may seem laughable to you, but that just reflects an unfamiliarity with penological theories. This has been discussed above. The two classical goals of punishment are retribution and deterrence. Retribution is a possible goal of punishment, but punishment and retribution are not synonymous. As the discussion of penological theory becomes more complex, scholars also define incapacitation, denunciation, and rehabilitation. Some also accept restoration as an aim of punishment. Deterrence can be broken down into general and specific -- the conversation goes on. The academic field is well-established though, so calling the distinctions laughable probably isn't a good decision. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then call it deterrence. If punishment is twofold, then let's just choose the fold that means what we want to say, and can only be taken one way. Why use an ambiguous term that could mean something we want to say, or could mean something we definitely do not want to say? PS. My "unfamiliarity with penological theories" is, I'll go out on a limb in guessing, not likely to be a rare occurrence in the general public. Pedantic objections to policy wording are not very useful. Policies need to be worded so that even people without degrees in "penology" will understand them. PPS. I read your explanation above, and my opposition is not based on a belief that your point is technically incorrect. On the contrary you may have a good point -- but only technically. And technical linguistic correctness is not the top priority. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:33, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a utilitarian reason for changing the policy to call blocks punishment, and that reason is also discussed above. A lot of candidates to become administrators have been burned for calling blocks punishment. They were correct in practice, but not according to the paradoxical wording of the policy. Thus, Wikipedia's version of textualists crucify those would-be administrators for their mistake. The other utilitarian reason is that since blocks are, in fact, punishment, there is no sense in not calling them what they are. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the sense in it is something I've already described. As for candidates getting it for calling blocks punishments, I think that's more because it shows how they view blocks, rather than for a linguistic error. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:08, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy break 2

• Support. It seems clear that blocks are intended to be, and are in fact, punitive. Maybe they shouldn't be, but let's start by stating the truth. Spotfixer (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Truth is in the eye of the beholder. So far people who have gotten blocked multiple times have spoken on this issue, and of course, since they feel they've been wronged, they're obviously going to have a certain POV in regards to the subject matter. But to the point, although they may feel wronged by certain admins, that doesn't automattically make all blocks punitive. Take for example getting blocked for personal attacks. In this case, the block is preventive, as the user in question has not shown that he will stop insulting other editors, an action which creates a poisonous editing atmosphere on the article talk page in question, and in turn, makes it difficult to edit without getting in some argument. Quite simply, it tests the patience of the editors who aren't making the personal attacks, rather then working constructively on the article in question. Wikipedia isn't about poking and prodding other until their limits are made apparent, it's about building an encyclopedia, and in order to do that, we need to prevent such things from happening.

Let's try blocks for POV editing. The user in question is incerting obvious POV, lets say, holocaust denial POV, into an article about the holocaust, writing that it doesn't exist, never happened, etc, and doing this all without a single source. Already, this breaks two policies: WP:V and WP:NPOV. While keeping with WP:AGF, others will warn this editor, and, gradually assume bad faith, as he just either removes the warnings without a response, and keeps doing what he was doing before, or the latter without removing or responding to the warnings. Either way, the editor in question shows that he will not stop editing against the current consensus at the article, and even stop to talk about his edits(let us also remember that truth is in the eye of the beholder). This editor, basically edit warring now, would be blocked to prevent further biased, unsourced statements from being inserted into the article. This block was put in place to prevent, such edits from happening again from this particular user, especially if this user was doing said edits on multiple articles which are in regards to his POV.

The same could be said for IP users, or schools, for that matter, inserting statements, which are unsourced, and heavily biased, regarding homosexuals on various articles regarding california's proposition 8. Need I really go on? I could continue for at least a few more paragraphs.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The blocked editor in your first paragraph was blocked for "preventive" reasons. Prevention and deterrence are the same thing. Specific, reactionary deterrence is a form of punishment. A block is specific to the offender, and a reaction to the offense. It prevents, therefore, it deters. It's punishment.

I'm sure you could continue for several more paragraphs, but given that prevention is a form of punishment, as discussed above, it's still bad analysis. Oppose if you must, but nothing has been said here that changes the fact that blocks are for deterrence, and thus, punishment. What blocks are [i]not[/] supposed to be for is retribution.

PS: I'm also not going to accept that truth is in the eye of the beholder. That is only one of many philosophies concerning what truth is. It doesn't really serve our purposes here to create such a tangential argument. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What you mean is, nothing I've said will change your point of view about what blocks are, but, to continue on to what I was originally saying, you are wrong in your above analysis of my argument.

The above argument, could be both viewed in two respects. It could be viewed that blocks can be used as a deterrence, as they are supposed to deter an editor for taking a specific course of action, say, in regards to personal attacks. But not the second reason, in regards to the POV pushing. Such as when an editor shows that he or she will not abide by our policies, and shall continue to push his or her point of view; blocks in this case are preventive, as it is preventing the said user from pushing their point of view. It isn't deterring them, as they are righteous in what they are doing.

Of course, it could then also be applied to the first argument, in that we are preventing the user who has been rude to others from further being rude to others. Blocks are in fact, preventive. The only deterrent that exists on wikipedia is our warnings, warning users that they will be blocked to prevent further damage to the editing atmosphere, and by the way, nine editors is hardly consensus on what blocks are or are not.

In fact, since this discussion is taking place about a policy here on wikipedia, and admins are going to be following this policy, I do believe that the Village Pump is completely the wrong place for this. I'm going to start a thread on ANI, referring to this thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy break 3

• Oppose - I find the notion that blocks are not punishments but pragmatic methods to prevent disruptions to be useful. There are already to many cases then an admin could prevent a disruption by simply communicating with a user rather then by blocking but preferred to abuse the block button. There is no need to encourage this Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. No compelling arguments have been presented for this very serious change in the longstanding policy and tradition of Wikipedia. Ruslik (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think Equazcion hit the nail on the head: although the distinction between "preventitive" and "punitive" is highly artificial (and sometimes difficult to delineate precisely), the current policy serves to deter the use of blocks for retribution or to easily deal with a prickly editor. The requirement that a block be "preventitive" helps focus the admin's attention on what the future actions of the editor are likely to be, rather than on past bad acts. Futhermore, I'm entirely uncertain the "peneological theories" have any particular relevance in this circumstance. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ruslik. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The large majority of blocks I've seen have had one primary purpose, and that is to curb damage to wikipedia content. To compare being blocked to being sent to jail is absurd. You don't go to jail when you're blocked, you simply can't edit for awhile. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia, and the only "punishment" is possibly hurt feelings and being compelled to do something else with one's time for the length of the block. The purpose of wikipedia is to build a website that the general public can rely on as a source for information, not to stroke the egos of its contributors. Truly punitive blocks, made in anger or in conflict of interest, frequently get overturned. And the fact that block logs draw scrutiny is totally reasonable. Disruptive editors voluntarily make the choice of continuing to be disruptive, or of improving their behavior and putting distance between themselves and their block history. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I had something here to input, but I believe Baseball Bugs stole my words and phrases. seicer | talk | contribs 12:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Response -

I realize this is probably going to fail at this point, but I thought I would address a few misconceptions that I'm seeing. I don't mind that the proposal will fail -- I've proposed other failed things in the past. I am concerned by the poor arguments though. They seem to show a misunderstanding of the proposal.

Baseball Bugs wrote, "To compare being blocked to being sent to jail is absurd." I find this comment to be unpersuasive for two reasons. The first is that I have not compared blocks to being in jail. The second is that the argument appears to assume that all punishment is equivalent to being jailed. In fact, many punishments exist in parenting, criminal justice, and dispute resolution that are not jail. A jail comparison would probably be most appropriate if we were discussing the penological goal of incapacitation, but that is not being discussed here.

Next, with respect to Alex Bakharev’s comment, I agree with the objective but not the interpretation of this proposal. I agree with the objective of not giving administrators’ more rope to make retaliatory blocks. However, this policy proposal, when changing the policy to say “punishment”, would also explain that blocks are not to be for retribution. I’ve read through some unblock requests. I’ve found the vast majority of them to be unfounded, but a few have actually appeared to have some legitimacy. In that instance, those blocked editors should have a policy guideline to be able to point to, as I have also found that the unblock template appears to not be taken seriously, even when it’s not being abused.

Lastly, Daedalus969 makes a clarification of the term “preventive”, which mistakenly reinforces the idea that blocks are punishment. The way you have defined “preventive” is basically identical to “incapacitation”. Incapacitation is “to deprive of the legal power to act in a specified way or ways.” A block deprives one of the power to act in a specified way, for example, POV pushing or engaging in personal attacks. Incapacitation is yet another goal of punishment, more evidence that blocks should be considered as such. Your analysis of deterrence also doesn’t consider that deterrence is both specific and general. Even if we don’t agree that blocks serve the purpose of specific deterrence, but I would think they certainly have the effect of general deterrence as well. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. The Wikipedia article on punishment actually has a subsection entitled "deterrence / prevention". I deemed the irony as relevant. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply - Maybe in some cases, blocks could be seen as punishment, but citing things in regards to today reason for putting people in jail, or punishing them, is not always case in regards to wikipedia. So, you think that all blocks are punitive, instead of preventive. Tell me then, how is it punishment to block a user who has shown they don't care, nor will they ever care, about wikipedia policy. The users who are usually blocked indefiniately, it is done so to prevent damage to WP. Tell me, how is it that blocking the user User:DavidYork71, and his over 500 sockpuppets, punishment? He obviously doesn't care that he's violating policy, and he will do whatever it takes to get his POV into an article. This isn't punishment to block him and his socks, it's prevention to stop damage to the encyclopedia before it begins.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Response. The first sentence of that response is incoherent. The second sentence is wrong, and the rest of the paragraph is built upon the erroneous premise of the second sentence. Chicken Wing (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply I was cut for time, guess I didn't notice my mistakes, either way, in this case, you're wrong: Blocks are not punishment, they are preventive, as they are preventing damage to the encyclopedia from users who have shown they don't care about violation policy here. The user DavidYork71 is a massively abusive user here on wikipedia. He was banned by the community for flagrant POV pushing even after warnings and multiple blocks. He has over 200 sockpuppets, and is rumored to have over 300 more. He of course uses these sockpuppets to continue on from where his other accounts left off, pushing his point of view. Do tell me, how is it, that by blocking, and banning this user and his sockpuppets, we are punishing him? He obviously could care less. My point is thus: People who are blocked are always going to view it as punishment, but that view doesn't make it so. Blocks are meant to prevent damage. They are to prevent the disruptive user from being disruptive. Punishing users is not the way it is, punishment usually implies that the user, in some sense, might realize what they've done is bad, after having a block. Well, this is more in relation to other sites, where users are expected to read the rules, and if any of those rules are broken, there are no warnings, just a flat ban. On wikipedia, as I've said several times now, the warnings are the part of the process that are meant to be the deterrance. If the deterrance fails to work, then a block is in order to prevent further disruptions from the user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Response. This is quite puzzling. Prevention is a part of deterrence. Prevention can be classified as deterrence or incapacitation, but either way, it's punishment. As I mentioned before, even Wikipedia's own article on punishment has a subsection called "deterrence / prevention". A block is an administrative reaction to undesired behavior intended to prevent the continuation of the behavior by the offender. Not only is that punishment, it's textbook. It's not even ambiguous. I am confident that if a hundred sociology, criminology, or law professors were asked to study the nature of blocks on Wikipedia, that more than ninety of them would conclude that they are punishment. The definition of punishment being used on Wikipedia is idiosyncratic to put it nicely, and wrong to put it more forwardly. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note/Reply - Please answer the question I stated above concerning the massively abusive user, DY71.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's just out of line asking if I'm evading on purpose. When you wrote an incoherent sentence, I didn't ask, "Are you pretending to be stupid on purpose?" When you wrongly said that I think all blocks are punitive instead of preventive, I didn't ask, "Are you lying on purpose?"

As for substantive matters, you've already answered your own question. The blocking of that user was to prevent further damage to Wikipedia. Prevention is a goal of punishment. As I previously stated, a block is an administrative reaction to undesired behavior intended to prevent the continuation of the behavior by the offender. David York behaved undesirably. David York was blocked. The block was to prevent his continuation of the undesired behavior. That's textbook incapacitation, deterrence, and prevention. It's punishment. All the things you have said only further the reality that blocks are punishment.

Everything you're saying (other than the specific denials that blocks are punishment) is basically the utilitarian view of punishment. I'll even put it like this. There is a WikiProject on law, and I think there is probably one on crime and maybe one on sociology, also. People can probably be found in one of those projects that actually has an education in these matters. Ask them about what I'm saying. Or do a Google search. Read about theories of punishment. Read about deterrence. This is the basic, low-level, first chapter of the book analysis on punishment. It's not even the hard stuff. Read the Wikipedia articles entitled punishment and incapacitation (penology). Even those articles, which aren't even very well written, back up what I'm saying. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When you wrongly said that I think all blocks are punitive instead of preventive, I didn't ask, "Are you lying on purpose?" Lying? You obviously do think that all blocks are punitive instead of preventive. That's what you've been arguing this entire time. In regards to my edit summery, what then, were you avoiding my question? Yes, I see that you answered it, above, but you did not answer it before, especially when you made it apparent you were taking the time to read through my posts. Or is that a fallacy? To the case of DY71, the lead of punishment states that such a thing would be abhorant(this computer doesn't have spellcheck) to this user, an unfavorable end result. In the case of DY71, he obviously doesn't think much of blocks. He views them as a stone in his path that he can easily step over. Blocks are preventive in this case, not punitive.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this conversation. I don't think I can phrase a response to your latest reply in such a way that it wouldn't be construed as a personal attack, so I'm just done. The proposal is going to fail, so there is no reason to risk a policy violation by going on with this. Chicken Wing (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What? You accused me of lying for stating fact. You believe, under what you have learned, that blocks are punitive instead of preventive. How am I lying? I believe otherwise, we obviously aren't going to change each other's point of view. Sure, the proposal is going to fail, but that is no reason to hint that you're going to make a policy violation. What, you can't form something that isn't a personal attack? At least take back your accusation of me lying, strike it through, because we both know what you will hold steadfast that you are right, that what you believe is true, but as I said above in my oppose, truth is in the eye of the beholder. My point is is that you can't argue something to be true, unless it is at least strictly logically, or mathematically true, eg, $1.{\bar {0}}+1.{\bar {0}}=2.{\bar {0}}$, of course assuming that it is exactly, precisely, 1, versus cases where 1+1 could equal 3. But all that aside, I'm sure you should be able to come up with a response, in regards to at least DY71, and how we are punishing him, without being incivil, or personally attacking me. I've managed to do it, you should be able to too.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I have read this, but I still decline to substantively further the conversation. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion has spun somewhat off course (or so it reads to me) and appears to have some people fighting over Larger Issues - but what Chicken Wing was trying to get at is true - blocks are meant as deterrence, and deterrence is associated with punishment, and vice versa. The semantics are confusing, but the substance of Chicken Wing's point - that blocks should never be retributive, and that blocks are used in a way reminiscent of judicial punishment in MeatSpace, is true. Chicken wing, this proposal looks like its going to fail, but I encourage you to write an essay on the line between deterrence and retribution - sounds like you have something valuable to say.--Tznkai (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree - Tznkai's comment here makes a lot of sense. Trying to reword the policy to be less ambiguous on that point is going to be much more controversial than writing a clarifying essay explaining the point. Assuming the essay ends up generally agreed to, it can even be linked to from the policy without much issue. Gradualism this way wins... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• I have long believed that the claim that blocks are not punishment was no more than a fiction we liked to tell ourselves. They are punishment. But they are punishment for the sake of deterrence and prevention, not punishment for the sake of retribution, and that is a meaningful difference. They are meant to say that the triggering conduct is really and truly unacceptable. Unfortunately, focusing on deterrance also opens the door to telishment, which is a door that I believe we should keep firmly shut. The gradual approach Tznkai suggested makes sense for how to move the documented policy to the reality of what we are already doing. GRBerry 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Partially agree. In many cases blocking is clearly intended as punishment, though we rationalise it as preventing further disruption. It's sometimes very hard to specify the difference, because obviously someone who has been disruptive is somewhat likely to do so again. But most of the time we do not know that, and are motivated in good part by how obnoxious the behavior is. To quote from WP:3RR "Administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility when doing so. " That's punishment. More generally, people say "You've earned a block" That's punishment. Or, "this conduct deserves a block"--that's punishment. I d If we really meant preventing disruption, we'd block long before the 3rd RR, & the technicality of 24hrs wouldn't matter. (and similarly for other reasons.) Any look at AN/I will show blocks as retribution. I don't see how we can avoid that--humans, not being saints, behave that way, and we would do better to admit our motivations. DGG (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with just about everything say, especially since you've taken the time to explain it and give examples. However, I would still like to see what you would say, in regards to preventing disruption, in regards to the DY71 socks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the purposes of punishment is deterrence of repeated offenders or other offenders. There are many true block as prevention--to interrupt an edit war. But the 3RR policy as applied is clearly blocking as punishment. If we really meant to prevent we'd do it a good deal earlier; doing it even though the immediate warring has stopped is always punishment, and that's what usually happens/. Ro quote from that policy "

• Commment we have a long history of not speaking the truth, and blocking policy is probably one of the last places people want to start. This is going nowhere. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment No matter what you think about blocks of users, take a look at the IPs and new accounts getting blocked nonstop at AIV—that's almost all preventative (since most of them are IPs and accounts that are actively vandalizing at the moment they are blocked). rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Response. You've made the same mistake several other editors here have made. Prevention and punishment are not mutually exclusive. Prevention is a goal of punishment. Even if you go to the Wikiedpia article on punishment, you will see listed a subsection called "deterrence / prevention". Punishment can generally be for deterrence/prevention or retribution. What the policy should say is that blocks are a punishment meant to deter/prevent certain behavior, however, they are not a punishment meant for retribution. I think that would be the better wording of what you're saying, which is what I agree with. Most blocks are not for retribution, and no block administered correctly is for retribution. Basically, Wikipedia had adopted the utilitarian philosophy of punishment, but its users just don't understand the terminology. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The ultimate goal of blocking is prevention of further harm to the encyclopedia. How blocked people interpret justly applied blocks is their problem. This proposal will lead to the insinuation that blocking is because of punishment, which was not the goal. —kurykh 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Central overview page for certain processes

I would like to propose the creation of a page where all the current cases involving disputes etc, are listed in the one place. So, in other words, one would have all the current RFC, RFA and RFAR cases listed, in abbreviated form, so that users could see at one glance who or what was being debated. Part of the current problem we have, I think, is that such processes are scattered around on different pages and obscured from ready view. If we had a central page that listed all such processes, users would know they needed to go to only one page to keep tabs on things, and it might encourage more participation, which is often woefully lacking. Gatoclass (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. It absolutely makes sense. Rivertorch (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. The whole layout of the behind-the-scenes Wikipedia needs a way more centralised approach I think. Autonova (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. I'd like to see something like this. §hep • ^Talk 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Anything to try to get the system to work properly, which it doesn't at present (see my user page). Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice for all blps

To see how the blp edit intro works, add the line   importScript('User:RockMFR/blpeditintro.js');   to your monobook.js and edit any blp after bypassing your cache.

I propose to use an editnotice for all biographies of living persons. It would be added to all articles in Category:Living people, similarly to what has been done for disambiguation pages. We may use the text from {{blp}} for example, thus it would render this (from Template:BLP editintro):

I'm sure it would help highly that editors become more aware of the blp policy, and it's prevention, which is particularly important when it comes to blps. We really should try this before considering implementing some drastic measures. Cenarium (Talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea - is there an automatic way to do it, or does it have to be done on a per-article basis? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been done for all disambiguation pages, see Template talk:Disambig editintro. I've asked at VPT if this is adaptable. Cenarium (Talk) 23:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this can be done. You can try to add User:RockMFR/blpeditintro.js to your monobook to see the result. I'll add this discussion to WP:CENT. Cenarium (Talk) 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like this. I think the wording of the editnotice should be changed to something along the lines of 'if you want to add material that might be controversial, make sure it's reliably sourced, otherwise please don't add the material' rather than focussing on what to do after the bad material is added. It would also be good to also have a template which activates the editnotice, in addition to the category. This could be added to certain articles which are not biographies but which contain a lot of content about living people. Tra (Talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The wording can be changed, this is just to begin with something that I used the text from blp. Cenarium (Talk) 15:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As for non-blp articles that may need this, it is possible to directly use the editnotice for the page. But a template, why not. Cenarium (Talk) 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the main idea that we want to tell the editor?

1. That they should includes sources for everything they add.
2. That there is a Wikipedia policy that covers articles on living persons.
3. That vandalizing an article on a living person is bad and can have real-life consequences.

The editnotice should focus mainly on one thing, and it should be the thing that causes the most problems. In my opinion, it is #3. --- RockMFR 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, we're dealing with people that have trouble with the concept of "saying someone is dead when they really aren't is a bad thing." I don't have much faith that an editnotice will actually have any positive impact. I'm not trying to rain on the parade here, just pointing out the obvious. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm bearish on the idea of edit-notices that admonish people to not vandalize or otherwise fool around actually working. One of the reason edit notices...get noticed (Sorry) is that there aren't many of them. The dab edit notice jumps out at you because you aren't used to seeing edit notices. Before we consider reducing the overall effectiveness of edit-notices in general, we should be pretty sure that this one will actually stop people. Unless we can be sure of that, I'd rather we not have one. Protonk (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not about asking people not to vandalize (to which I'm also opposed), it's rather to spread the knowledge of the blp policy and explain to editors how to deal with blp issues (and how to report them: at the blp noticeboard). It's wrong to say that users breaching WP:BLP are necessarily evil, vandals, etc, some are just not aware of blp policy and the consequences of their edits, so it's also preventive. Cenarium (Talk) 15:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, replace the word "vandalize" with the words "not follow the BLP policy". I'm just not sure that we will get a significant return out of it. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have seen users who violated WP:BLP but later became aware of the problem and stopped, and are now in very good standing. Informing users is needed, and it also gives a direct link to BLP/N, to report blp-related issues. We'll certainly have an increase of participation there. Cenarium (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Good call. Go do it :) Stifle (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, this is an excellent idea and deserves at least a trial run. Protecting BLPs from crap is our highest priority, far more important than properly formatting dab pages. Point of information: other than dab pages, article edit-notices currently number about 60: [1].--chaser (away) - talk 04:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• This is a good idea indeed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be enough support for a trial at least. Before implementing, let's agree on the wording of Template:BLP editintro (). I have reworded it a bit to say 'should not be added'. Cenarium (Talk) 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I changed living persons biographies noticeboard to biographies of living persons noticeboard - it's like that everywhere else. Also, I added please to the request to report problems. Oh, and I support adding it to all BLPs. – wodup – 17:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The technical implementation is discussed at MediaWiki talk:Common.js#BLP editintro. Cenarium (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Notdirectory should be clarified

I AFD'd a large group of lists (about 150) basically named "List of companies in ..." as violations of wp:NOTDIRECTORY. It seems from the initial responces that the NOT policy is either unclear on this point or I am misunderstanding it's purpose. Please consider either commenting at the above linked AFD or helping to reword the policy to give clearer guidance. NJGW (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Still no comments at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Can_we_clarify_NOTDIRECTORY.3F. I plan to start rewording this in a few days, so any input would be helpful. NJGW (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to NOTDIRECTORY

A proposed change to the text has been made. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposed_change_NOTDIRECTORY. NJGW (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Adoption of V2-style Infobox headers, as developed on other Wikipedias (includes links to mock-ups)

Propose adopting, or investigating adoption of, "Infobox/V2" graphical style in Infobox headers on English Wikipedia. The presentation is much more professional (& better looking) than the current style. Basically, the title/topper of each infobox type (Music, film, person, society, etc) gets its own background color and background graphic. (For example, infoboxes about transport have a specific background, as seen in Golden Gate Bridge article link below) Other mock-ups can be found in the link below. I raised this at the Infobox Wikiproject's talk page about a month ago, and the response was that while technically possible the question would be if it should be done (so proposing it here to see if there is interest in pursuing/investigating its application here). Examples below (including link to French Wikipedia's Infobox V2 project)

• File:Infobox-french-music.jpg — French Wikipedia mock-up of music infoboxes, other examples at next link:
• French Wikipedia: fr:WP:V2 — French Wikipedia's Infobox wikiproject (V2 subpage) Rough English translation courtesy Google at: [2]
• fr:Golden Gate Bridge — Golden Gate Bridge article at French Wikipedia, infobox uses V2 style.
• Commons:Category:Infobox_pictograms — transparent-background Infobox pictograms used as watermark-type graphics on top of background colors & under title text in the infobox titles.
• Hungarian Wikipedia: hu:Sablon:Képregényszereplő_infobox#Minta comics character infobox.

Outsider80 (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It does look quite good. The selection of background graphics looks like it could use some refinement. I'd like to see a more comprehensive set of examples, at least covering the top-level subject areas seen in Portal:Contents/Portals . —Michael Z. 2009-02-02 07:28 z

fr:WP:V2#Feuilles de style has examples of various top-level topic areas (afaik this is the most comprehensive examples they have, apart from the pictograms on Commons). the examples all use orange backgrounds, but the mock-ups in other examples show different background colors used for different topics. Outsider80 (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

hu:WP:IB (project page @ Hungarian Wikipedia) also has some examples about 1/4th of the way down the (long) page. it is mostly redundant w/ the French examples, though it does use a Bridge-specific graphic for bridges, and a football instead of the olympics symbol for sports. Outsider80 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Current guideline discourage decorating and inventing icons Gnevin (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

True (mainly for user-level editing), but this would be built-in to the template at a non-user-editable level, as an automatic design based on which type(topic) of infobox is used, and would not be very distracting. Outsider80 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks nice, sure, but whatever they're doing to get that effect hides both the title of the infobox and the lead image in text-only browsers like Lynx. --Carnildo (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

aside from resolving that bug, I think this is something we should simply move to as quickly as possible. the only questions I have show it will work on some of the more complicated infoboxes--the ones shown are rather simple. I certainly do nott thinks we'dwant an orange color in general, sicne we use that a a color for warnings. DGG (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The French model (and likely other Wikipedias) use different colors for different topic categories, the orange was just used for all of them on the mock-up. English Wikipedia could of course decide which colors to assign to which topics (I think we already do this w/ infoboxes, or at least I have seen different colors used) Outsider80 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: The following message was just posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes, in the thread I mentioned at the top of this proposal. Am cross-posting it here since it contains useful links (and examples/mock-ups) for other language Wikipedias not mentioned above. Outsider80 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hallo. Also the both sorbian wikipedias use such background images. The project pages are at hsb:Wikipedija:Infokašćik and dsb:Wikipedija:Infokašćik. But also the Esperantowikipedia has such a project at eo:Vikipedio:Informkestoj. I added some background images there, which are not in the french page. You can find all my added images on my commons user page. Greetings --Tlustulimu (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's attractive, but it needs some consistent graphical guidelines and set of icons before it's ready for deployment.

Specifically, the theatrical masks, game console, and compass are realistic 3-d images, with a lot of detail and shading, while most of the others are 2-d solid-colour graphical icons. Some are light-coloured only, while others have a lot of dark tone in them, and the bridge and highway add dark backgrounds for some reason. They vary too much in size (e.g., the filmstrip is 4 times the width of the beer mug). And a few are poor quality, like the planet and star, which seem to have contrasting edges, which appear to be antialiased for some other background colour.

We also need a comprehensive directory of subject areas, so that a full set of icons can be assembled. If we start with 20, then there will be 100 others of varying appearance and quality thrown in by various wikiprojects.

I think we need one or more artists ready to develop icons specifically to meet some guideline, rather than trying to mix and match found icons. This is on the right track, but if we're going to suggest changing infoboxes project-wide, the design should be a bit more mature to have a good impact. —Michael Z. 2009-02-02 16:50 z

It looks great. Work out any bugs and deploy it gradually to infobox templates. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• (Prodding this since it is about to hit the 7d archive point...) So is consensus to slowly test-roll out, or should it go to a MoS talk page (or elsewhere) for further discussion? Thx, Outsider80 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Proposal regarding "moving pages"

Recent events show certain users abuse this feature. In a similar fashion to the number of rollbacks a non-admin users can perform per minute, I propose limiting the number of page moves done by autoconfirmed users to 1 per minute. This has the benefit that ligitamate users can still move pages ,allbeit more slowly, without the need to be penalized. --DFS454 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DFS454 here. It would stop Grawp in his tracks if he is throttled... for a while anyways, at least until he manages to get a bunch of socks to bypass it. But even then, he can only do so much with those accounts. UntilItSleeps PublicPC 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What technical capacity exists within the revision of mediawiki employed currently here to do this? I know admins are free from "rate limits" but I was under the impression that we don't actually have rate limits enabled anyway. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We didn't do this for Willy on Wheels back in the day and I don't see a reason to do it for Grawp. Page-move vandals move pages because they know it's more disruptive, but sometimes legitimate users do need to move large numbers of pages; for example, when naming conventions change, which may be happening right now with regard to plants. Dcoetzee 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe have it throttled for non-rollbackers? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But that isn't what rollback is for. I could see devolving the right to users like rollback, but that is always a contentious issue. I'm not against placing technical limitations on the wiki for the purposes of restraining vandalsim, but I think we need to know what is within our capacity and what we intend to do. For instance, what is the average page move/mintute for editors working at RM? At NPP? How is that distributed? Could we get a guestimation of some threshold which would restrain only 5% of those editors? 1%? do we have that data? Protonk (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to create yet another rights group just for something like this... If you're gonna go the group route, just use rollbackers. Rollback is only given to people who are trusted enough to have a feature that could allow the potential for the perpetration of faster vandalism -- which is the same case as here. Whoever we trust with one should be trusted with the other, as it's a very similar risk. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:26, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)

How about a throttle that eases up automatically (without additional rights being granted through any formal process) based on the length of time the user has been active, and the number of edits made? I had proposed a moves-per-day limitation algorithm above, but a moves-per-minute would be similarly effective. (And if anyone should object on the grounds that such an algorithm would be too complicated to put in the software, remember that a computer program is all algorithms). Cheers! bd2412 T 05:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And here is exactly the kind of thing that we need to adjust our defenses towards preventing. A tailor-made sleeper vandal account. One edit made in August of 2008, followed by nothing for nearly six months, followed by a handful of "legit" edits - less than a dozen, actually - followed by a short blast of page moves. The speed with which the page moves were done suggests that the vandal opened up multiple move screens and pasted the same message in all of them. What is it, exactly, about an editor who has made a grand total of ten very minor edits that allows us to trust them with the power to make page moves (and to make this many in the space of a minute)? And how is it that our system is set up in a way that allows articles and project space pages at good titles to be moved to titles that are, to human eyes, so obviously bad? I simply don't think that the above edit pattern could be made by any user with a legitimate purpose. Newbies don't launch into good and useful mass page moves after their tenth regular edit, and following a six month period of inactivity. bd2412 T 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with above comments. Without going all BEANSy, page moves are probably the most disruptive thing a vandal can do. They should definitely be limited to rollbackers. It won't stop Grawp, or anyone else if they're determined enough, but it'll help. Majorly talk 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Protonk asks the right question above - do we have the data? So lets get the data. Can someone generate for me a list of recent page move vandals? For parameters, let's say anyone who was permablocked in the past three months after having made four or more page moves. That should be enough data to pull out the most common patterns of behavior. If we compare that up against a list of page moves by newbies, we'll find the gap, the behavior that we can prohibit through technical means without impeding good edits. bd2412 T 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another example (they're falling in our lap today). Account made in August and never actually used at all until today. Very first edit was a vandalizing page move. How do we permit this? bd2412 T 04:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the current system of allowing page moves after 10 edits is ludricous. I recently saw someone literally write "sock edit no.1" "sock edit no.2" [on the sandbox no less] all the way up to 10 before starting to perform disruptive page moves. In fact this happened twice.--DFS454 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the main reasons for objection against this proposal is that it may penalise users who want to make legitemate moves from namespace to article space or when naming convention changes. Well, we could have a "whitelist" that includes users who created an account before 2005, users who have made more than say 1000 edits, rollbackers and account creators. Users may request to be put on the whitelist and will be put on accordingly per Admin's discretion.--DFS454 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

^That's a good idea. Heck, we could even just apply it to new accounts rather than change existing ones. We'll deal with the existing sleepers as they reveal themselves, but at least we'll know that no new ones can be created. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:22, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOMORE proposal is being redirected to WP:CREEP without wide consensus

Please consider giving your opinion at the discussion here. Latest non-redirect version of the page is here. Thanks. 212.200.240.241 (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no grounds for redirecting the page without a deletion discussion, I've reverted it. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:32, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)

A couple of editors, and perhaps more, continue to edit war, after Equazcion's last coment, to delete / redirect the (now) essay, claiming a consensus to do so. Frankly, I don't see where they are coming from. I don't really see the point of the page either, but some people seem to be working on it and there would have to be a very strong reason to want to delete a policy proposal people are still drafting. I've restored it one time but don't want to end up in an edit war... normally I would suggest the page be protected but that seems to defeat the purpose of letting people work on proposals if they wish. Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The people working on it are mostly the same person, and the person who originally wrote the essay. The consensus on the talk page there was to redirect. Thanks. Verbal chat 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. –xeno (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't they just move or copy it to a sandbox and come back when it's ready for prime time (which, at the risk of sounding too harsh, may be never)? Also, if as they say it is a proposal for augmenting CREEP, when they are ready to propose something it would seem to make the most sense to add a sentence or a brief section to CREEP about the hurdle that a new proposal should overcome before it gets added to a policy or guideline page, which is itself....CREEP. Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that userfication seems to be the path of least resistance. –xeno (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. There is an ANI discussion about this editors account and IP hopping. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, all the discussion was suddenly "archived"[3], and the decision made that the consensus of what to do would come from here. Is this a case for userfication (per Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays), or should this very unstable essay remain in WP namespace (after all it has in the past few days undergone a drastic change in scope)? NJGW (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

age and education requirements

I know this is similar to other proposals, but I propose that (1) Wikipedia allow editing only by users at least 18 years old and with at least a high school education, (2) a Kidpedia be set up so they can do what ever they want. We have too many problems with edits from kids. Bubba73 (talk), 03:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this would be policed, or what purpose it would serve. The important thing is the ability to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. In the natural run of things people too immature to contribute either go away or end up permanetly blocked. But if under-18s are able to contribute, why on earth would we want to deny them? Algebraist 03:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Against for reasons too numerous to mention. We have means at our disposal to handle problem editors of any age, and we should welcome productive editors of any age. The only reason we should have age limits of any kind is where required by law. For example, users with certain privileged access rights have to be legal adults and file their real-life identity with the Wikimedia foundation. But other than that, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is one major problem with the "anyone can edit" policy, and that is that anyone can edit. Bubba73 (talk), 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That is rather the point of that policy. How is it a problem? Algebraist 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Still, that line is classic "signature/userbox" material :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me you wouldn't let Peter Jennings, Patrick Stewart or Sydney Poitier edit Wikipedia? They never graduated high school. And most of the banned users are over 18 and high school graduates, so those barriers of entry would not serve your desired purpose. We have loads of responsible "under age" and "not yet graduated" editors here, and even some admins. Anyway, there are important reasons we allow access to anyone. A cornerstone of the foundation of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit. We want to attract new users, and we are willing to help new users learn the ropes. Anyone has potential to be helpful here. We block and ban those who can't comply. Kingturtle (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the edits by kids are a net negative - more problems than positive edits. And that doesn't count the time lost by good editors. I spend at least 10% of my wikitime fixing these type of problems. Yesterday I had to spend a great deal of time dealing with it. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to have a useful source of information, not to give every idiot a soapbox and to let him have fun wasting more of other people's time than it cost himself. OK, I can see this is going nowhere, so this is all I have to say (it is off my chest). Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that edits by people who are mentally immature are a net negative .... However, there are plenty of 12 year olds that are more mature than some "adult" Wikipedians. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's something for Bubba to do: please offer proof of all your assertions, please. —kurykh 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't doubt that Bubba is accurately presenting the vandalism issue we're all more than familiar with. But where's this assumption coming from that it's all being perpetrated by "kids" and those lacking formal education? Equazcion •✗/C • 05:23, 5 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I oppose and denounce this proposal in the strongest terms. Many of our best admins have been under 15. Kids are frequently immature, but they can be highly capable if they're just given the tools and the trust. Besides that, there's no technical way to ascertain the age of contributors, particularly anonymous contributors, who are not ever going to be forced to register. Dcoetzee 07:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The only way we could do this would be to have no anonymous editing, unless if we went with the honor system... Plus, some children are indeed genuises, just as some adults are not. In any event, we would no longer be the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Extraordinarily poor idea. I'm all for reducing immaturity, but to do that, we should remove the immature people, who aren't necessarily children. I spend a lot of my time dealing with disruptive adults. You don't see me suggesting adults be banned do you? And the point about the High School education bit is completely ludicrous. Majorly talk 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Aside from it being impossible, on a practical level, to enforce this proposal, it's also wrong-headed. One of the editors I most respect on Wikipedia is, as I understand it, only 13 years old. And I personally am a high school dropout. Yet I am so learned even I sometimes have to get out a dictionary to understand what the heck I'm saying. ;-P --Father Goose (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can understand why you would suggest such a thing but it is entirely streotypical. Not all children are immature and not all adults are perfect. The fact anyone can edit is Wikipedia's Achilles Heel and simultaneously it's greatest asset. A prima face argument against you is the fact on the whole the site is usuable ,not full of complete nonsense, is testement to the system working.--DFS454 (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that it is up to the parents or guardians of children to keep any eye on how they might use the Internet, and, if possible, to block their children from accessing certain websites. They may be able to guard their children against using Wikipedia if they feel that children were using Wikipedia for poor purposes. However, let us be realistic. Is it really likely that young children will edit articles on quantum mechanics, existentialism, predicate logic or genetics? There is a Simple Wikipedia - the one that is written in Simple English - which is likely to be more accessible to children than this one, and so may be more likely to be read (and edited) by children. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay... trouble is, nobody knows about the Simple English Wikipedia. Besides, kids could well be more mature than adults. Which does bear repeating. By the way, tell Bubba that the Wikimedia Foundation, as a condition for supporting us (i.e. we couldn't make it on our own without it), requires that "anyone can edit" be preserved.

(Besides, I'm not even 16 yet!) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia is primarily targeted at speakers of English as a second language, not at children - anyone young enough to not have the language skills to read the English Wikipedia, is most likely also too young to have the technical skills to edit anything. I think most kids 8 or older can probably read a lot of English Wikipedia articles. Dcoetzee 23:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly against imposing age or education requirements, for a number of reasons, but I've been working on a page providing some introductory guidance and suggestions for our younger group of editors, and hope to have it completed and up for comments within a couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I think its a good idea. Although i support raising the age requirement to 25 at least and a college degree. Silk Knot (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that'd really lower the server burden, being that roughly 99% of registered members would need to be evicted. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:58, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see some statistics to back that claim up. Silk Knot (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are none, for the same reason that implementing this idea would be impossible: Wikipedia doesn't keep track of, or even ask for, any credentials or personal information upon registration. Hell they don't even make you register. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:50, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• It occurs to me that this proposal is already implemented... on Citizendium. Strangely, it has not resulted in a superior encyclopedia.--Father Goose (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, we're the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. Also Silk Knot, you're joking around right? ViperSnake151 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, LittleDan, Ilyanep, One, Messedrocker, etc. Blanket statements don't work. §hep • ^Talk 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Page move vandalism proposals

I have undertaken a searching investigation of recent bouts of page-move vandalism, and I have identified the following patterns, and steps which I believe will significantly impede such conduct.

• Observation 1: The worst page-move vandals are aware of the existing four-day delay before new users are able to engage in page moves, and they evade this measure by setting up sleeper accounts, which they may not access for long periods of time - sometimes six months or more - before awakening those accounts to engage in a vandalism spree.
• Solution 1: In order to hamstring sleeper accounts, I propose that page-move permissions be automatically reset for any account with fewer than 50 mainspace edits that goes for a particular length of time - perhaps sixty or ninety days - with no edits emanating from that account. The sleeper wakes up the account and finds that they are still unable to make page moves with it, and will have to make good edits and then wait another four days.
• Observation 2: Page-move vandals tend to make a very small number of "good" edits - maybe a dozen - before launching into vandalizing edits.
• Solution 2: Set the a higher minimum number of mainspace edits before an editor is granted page-move permission. I'd say at least 25 would be worthwhile - it would at least inconvenience vandals who make dozens of sleeper accounts, to have to make 25 edits from each of those accounts before being allowed to move a page.
• Observation 3: Page-move vandals tend to make large numbers of moves very quickly, indicating that they open and prepare a number of page-move screens at once.
• Solution 3: Take some measures that put a brake on first-time page movers:
  • 1. The very first time a page move is performed from any account, direct that editor to a screen explaining policies governing page moves and require that they check off an acknowledgment of having read it before the page move will go through. For typical editors, this will be a brief one time inconvenience. For page-move vandals who make numerous sleeper accounts this will be a more significant impediment.
  • 2. The very first time a page move is performed from any account, flag that edit on a list for quick review.
  • 3. A throttle mechanism was proposed above, which would limiting page moves to one per minute. This would be a reasonable restriction for very new accounts (or potential sleeper accounts) which have not previously made page moves. I would propose that such a limitation be put into place for the first six page moves from any account which has not produced at least 50 mainspace edits, as that should provide enough time to catch and stop any vandals, and will create a substantial brake for vandals with many sleeper accounts.

Please discuss the above on their individual merits. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like solution 2, we only quite recently (I think in the last year) introduced the 10 edits requirement for autoconfirmation and I have seen no evidence that it has reduced page move vandalism and cannot see them being discouraged no matter how many edits the requirement is made as. The only people who are going to be put off are the good faith new contributors. Moving pages is also linked through autoconfirmation with being able to upload files and edit semi-protected articles both of which I would strongly oppose making more difficult. Davewild (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am highly skeptical that anyone other than a vandal will find it necessary to move a page within their first 25 edits. bd2412 T 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The number of new artcles created by new editors at bad titles (wrong capitalisation for instance) is quite large. Further making it more difficult for them to correct their own mistakes is not something I think we should be doing. Davewild (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe an exception could be programmed to allow users to move pages they've created themselves. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:05, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I would very much support such an exception. But frankly I don't think those editors frequently correct their own bad titles - more often than not, that is probable done by seasoned users watching the new pages list. In any event, very new users can't move pages until they have been registered for a few days anyway. bd2412 T 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the number of page move vandals who would be discouraged by an increase in the number of edits from 10 to 25 would be less than the number of good faith newer editors who would be prevented from sorting out their own mistakes. Page move vandals are the most committed type of vandal and for them a few more edits would make no difference. The introduction of 10 edits has made no difference and I see no reason 25 would either.

However if this was disconnected was autconfimation (ie. 10 edits would still be the standard for editing semi-protected pages and uploading files) and if there was an exception for them to be able to move pages created by themselves then I would withdraw my opposition. I would still not be supporting however because I think this would be a lot of work for very little benefit and some potential downside. Davewild (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can show me one instance where a user has made a non-vandalistic page move within their first 25 edits, I will withdraw that prong of the proposal. bd2412 T 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Fractalgirl Tra (Talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That was to correct mis-titling of pages created by that user, for which we said there should be an exception. I think BD was referring to moves of existing pages, cause that's where the risk for vandalism lies for new users, rather than in moving their own created pages. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:27, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Page move vandalism break 1

• I think unrestricted page moves should simply be limited to rollbackers. As I stated above in the original discussion, the rollback rights group was created due to a similar concern -- that rollback permission had the potential for faster vandalism. Page moves entail a similar risk, so anyone we trust with rollback should be trusted with unthrottled move privileges. Autoconfirmed users without rollback could be prohibited from moving, or allowed in some very limited capacity. Moving pages is really not essential to new users, and most well-intentioned editors probably wouldn't even have the confidence to try it until well into their Wikipedia experience. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:43, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a difference - a person without rollback rights can still "roll back" an edit, just not as quickly. However, a person without page move rights can only approximate a page move by cutting and pasting, which leads to duplicated pages and attribution headaches. bd2412 T 21:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Then like I said, we can restrict moves for autoconfirmed users, only allowing unrestricted moves to rollbackers, so then it'll be a similar system. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:48, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
      • That has been proposed before, and shot down. What I have proposed is sort of a middle ground - restrict or throttle page moves for very new users (by time or by edit count) or users who have gone a long time without editing. bd2412 T 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Well I guess I'm proposing it again, cause I think it's the best solution. Hey, I'm pretty sure rollback was shot down a few times before it was implemented too. Big changes take time to gain support. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:09, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
          • You propose to ban me from moving pages (move log)? Care to elaborate why? NVO (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Of course not. Ban means you can never do it. I'm suggesting restrictions on non-rollbackers, not a ban. And besides which, you could always just request rollback. If you're a somewhat experienced editor in good standing, you'll get it. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:15, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)
              • Why should I request something that's with me for the last two years? What's next, approving each edit? Fingerprinting? First they took my guns, my cigarettes next, and now ... my battery-operated love machine! It takes quarters! NVO (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Because in addition to protecting your rights you also possess a passion for helping to protect the encyclopedia from vandals, and to that end you would accept the very minor inconvenience of having to put in a one-time request for a feature to be switched on for you permanently. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:33, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Page move vandalism break 2

I don't like any of the proposed solutions: all this means is that pagemove vandals will change their patterns and continue vandalizing, while new users are inconvenienced. Pagemove vandalism is dead-simple to spot after the fact, so it's simple enough to have a bot watch for it, block the offender, move the pages back, and delete the redirects. --Carnildo (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My rollback suggestion wouldn't have that issue, cause people would need to be approved by a live person to gain the privilege. That said, a bot sounds like a good idea, if malicious moves are that simple to detect. But if it really is that simple then why hasn't it been done yet? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:21, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! If it is that simple to resolve, then why are we dealing with nonsense like this: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. bd2412 T 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because such a system is reactive rather than proactive. If you look at the logs, the user was detected, blocked, and reverted in less than 60 seconds. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That does not seem to have dissuaded the vandal, who was able to make over sixty page moves from those collective edits (counting talk pages, that's 120 pages that had to be moved back). Anything that slows a sleeper down would have cut the repair work substantially. bd2412 T 01:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

*Actually, 158 pages were moved in this latest streak. I went back and counted. bd2412 T 01:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, weren't we discussing possible solutions? You seem to now be questioning whether there's even a problem. The block was rather fast there, but that's not always the case. And the cleanup seems to have taken a bit more time. Also, the reverts were easy in this case because the redirects weren't edited afterwards. Many move vandals know that reverting moves is more complicated if the redirect has a history, since in those cases an admin needs to manually delete the redirect and then move the page back. In any event, it seems plain that move vandalism is a more serious problem than ordinary vandalism, as evidenced by the multitude of times this issue appears at Village Pump. The multiple steps required to correct move vandalism, often requiring an admin rather than just any user, and the fact that page moves are a separate right that we could restrict, makes a preemptive system something to consider. Although again, a bot sounds good too, if one can be written to reliably detect move vandalism and perform all the necessary steps to correct it, even when the redirects have been edited. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:53, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm questioning whether there's even a problem. 158 pages got moved in the past day? Almost all of them got reverted in less than 60 seconds? Is this really worth locking down the pagemove function for? --Carnildo (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be just looking at the block, which was done rather quickly, but the actual reverting seems to have taken a bit longer. See here for example: [16]. And again, easy reverting of move vandalism depends on the vandal not touching the redirects afterward. Besides which I'm under the impression that most editors familiar with the issue are in disagreement with you, and do indeed consider move vandalism to be a problem that may be worthy of some additional restrictions on new users. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:51, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Page move vandalism break 3

As has been said before, the reason rollbacking is fine is because it's simply a shortcut for what anyone can do ANYWAY. IPs can do the same function as a rollbacker, just with a couple extra clicks. Moving pages isn't like that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, so if we then restrict moves for most people, but allow it unrestricted for rollbackers, then it'll be the same system -- Most people will still be able to move pages, just not as "fast" (though technically, it would probably be "not as frequently"). Equazcion •✗/C • 23:28, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

A Few points:

1. I don't mean to boast but we do have a bot, as well as this at least two other admins run anti grawp bots on their main account
2. 10 edit limit is good, 25 is overkill. The 10 edit limit is good because it allows for detection of sleepers building up their editcount (the real problem is we don't have enough admins online who are able to pick up the sleepers when they do the sudden ten edit rush)
3. Throttling, this should be possible with the Abuse Filter
4. Sleepers, the real problem here is we need more checkusers around to dig out the sleepers when grawp starts moving
5. If we really want to get rid of grawp we need to contact his ISP --Chris 02:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't know about that abuse filter thing. Sounds interesting. It seems like that could help significantly with all vandalism issues, including this one. Maybe we should wait and see how effective that is. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:12, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

As the Abuse Filter is still in progress, it's hard to say how it will work out until then. However, you should remember that it's main purpose is for serious Grawp-style vandalism only; basic vandalism is not a part of it cause the false positives would be really bad, in that case. ~ Troy (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the throttling idea. It could significantly decrease the damage by a page-move vandal and it has create very little inconvenience - the only way I ever did more than 1 page move per minute is when I reverted a moving vandal. Regarding locking the pagemove permissions IMHO we have three different classes of articles:

1. User's own article (created by him) - he should be able to fix his own errors as soon as possible. In ideal world as his own second edit. Moving of those articles is of no interest to vandals.
2. Newly-created articles- they often need their title fixed. More people can help here the better. Not much interest of moving those articles from vandals as the new articles are hardly visible.
3. Established articles (say more than 1 year old with more than 5 editors). Every move of such articles is controversial. In an ideal world they should only be moved after an WP:RM by a closing admin. Strong interest of moving by vandals.

IMHO the software should be smart enough to separate those classes. 1 should be moved by everybody, 2 by somehow experienced users, 3 - only by rollbackers or even only by admins Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Page move vandalism - What about resetting the permissions?

I do not see that anyone has squarely addressed proposal #1, which is resetting the permissions of a user who has (a) made fewer than 50 mainspace edits, and (b) been completely inactive for a sufficient length of time (60 or 90 days). This would in fact encourage productive users to log in and contribute more often, as they would thereby retain those privileges. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't help. The sleeper accounts usually make the necessary edits right before they start moving pages. Mr.Z-man 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have certainly seen sleeper accounts "wake up" after many months and start making page moves right away. I was under the impression that a brand new account can not move a page for around four days. Is this not the case? bd2412 T 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

From my experience, they create an account, let it sit around for 4 days to several months, then make 10 edits and start moving pages. Mr.Z-man 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the permissions were reset after, say, 60 days, then the vandal who had let the account sit for more than two months would come back to find that they had no move permissions, any more than they could on their first day. bd2412 T 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's already the case. You need 10 edits and have an account > 4 days old to move pages. They leave the accounts to age for a while, then make the 10 edits when they're ready to start moving pages usually the same day. Resetting the permissions after 60 days wouldn't do anything, as there would be nothing to reset. Mr.Z-man 03:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What I mean by resetting the permissions is that after no use for 60 days, the account reverts to the status of a brand new account - until an edit is made from it, at which point the four days would start running. So if the account requires four days plus ten edits, the sleeper account would revert to being treated as one that lacks the four days. bd2412 T 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So all that means is they can't create accounts more than 60 days in advance, or whatever we choose the threshold as. That sounds even easier to get around than the 10 edit requirement. Mr.Z-man 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, that means that if they create an account and do not use it within 60 days, it becomes useless as a sleeper account. All of Grawp's accounts made last summer (and they do keep popping up) would be rendered useless as sleepers, because their permissions would be reset. He would not be able to wake one up and use it; he would wake it up to find it having no permissions, as if he had just created it that moment. That is what I am proposing. bd2412 T 04:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, with little or no downside. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

All he would have to do is make an edit, wait sometime less than 60 and more than 4 days, make 9 more edits, and start moving pages. The downside is that nothing like this exists in the software, so it would have to be coded first, yet it provides virtually no benefit. Mr.Z-man 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Out of all of these proposals, I rather like the third one the best. This essentially would act as a better stopgap measure until the Abuse Filter arrives (any day now, hopefully) and educate new editors at the same time. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The third proposal is a three-parter. You mean 3-1, sending first-time page movers to an instructional screen to check off before they can engage in moves? bd2412 T 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That could be easily bypassed using scripts. --Chris 07:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Presuming that we are dealing with a vandal who uses scripts, or knows how to use them. Otherwise, it imposes a burden on the vandals with little or no cost to us. bd2412 T 03:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, I can think of a way to keep up the same rate of pagemoves as now, even by hand using tabbed browsing. It'll add a small amount of inconvenience (on the order of a few seconds depending on internet connection speed), but except possibly for some surprise the first time it happens, I don't see this having any effect at all on the amount, frequency, or rate of pagemove vandalism. Mr.Z-man 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• This proposal would make it harder to vandalize, but it would not stop determined vandals. They would need only make 4 edits every 2 months to keep their sleepers active, and do it in such a way that it didn't arouse checkuser suspicion of all the socks if one sock was flagged. However, if it reduces the workload on vandal-fighters so they can concentrate on the most hard-headed cases, then it's a good thing. Just be aware of its limits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing will stop determined vandals. All we can do is make it harder on them. bd2412 T 03:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising...could donation requests target both editor-contributors and readers

Hi, during the last donation request period, I noted that the requests for donations seemed to be aimed at general readers and users of Wikipedia (and not enough towards editors and volunteers). Even after you logged in with your user-name, there did not seem to be a change in the types of appeals that were appearing in the header box. I am worried that general appeals to donate to Wikipedia (aimed at readers who just come on the site to read an article here and there) may not be motivating to a Wiki editor who volunteers hundreds of hours a year to Wikipedia. That is, if an editor spends many hours a week working on Wikipedia, they may respond to requests for donations with the sentiment that "Donate to Wikipedia?? Excuse me, but I ALREADY donate to Wikipedia..with my time and expertise as a programmer/editor/ administrator/ etc." Perhaps next year, during the fundraising campaign, there may be some merit to consider specifically targetting Wiki editors and volunteers (e.g., once an editor has logged in). A Wiki editor-targeted donation request might go something like this............"Thank you for giving many hours of your time to write and edit articles and maintain the encyclopedia. However, even with your generous contribution of your time, Wikipedia still needs financial assistance to pay for servers and other administrative costs."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would find that even more offensive than the begging messages I already get when logged in. DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a possibility to do something like this, but it would still be better for the Foundation to concentrate mostly on the messages for readers, since there's a lot (I'm not sure of the exact figures) of readers per editor. Tra (Talk) 15:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Make bullets, numbers and tabs all indent by the same amount

Moved to VPT, more appropriate forum. Happy‑melon 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:1911 talk

Template:1911 talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

NOTE: This particular discussion has been going on for more than a week already. I am a bit surprised that there has not been a greater response. I feel that I have given a good rationale for deletion in my nomination statement, but I would like to see what you all think. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 09:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this canvassing ? --DFS454 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's an announcement. I'm not telling anyone how to vote. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not canvassing. Posting in one or even a few neutral forums to call attention to a discussion is fine, and often necessary to garner a more broad consensus. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:55, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

RfC to add line to criteria for speedy deletion

I thought it would be important to let you guys know about this.

Essentially the call is to add:

If an article is deleted under any of the applicable Criteria for Speedy Deletion, this deletion can only be reversed via WP:DRV discussion or via disciplinary discussion in the case of misuse of tools.

Please see why at the RfC here: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#RfC:_Reverting_speedy_deletions_-_administrator.27s_guide

Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Free media categorization

I have made a proposal to make an All free media category like for the non-free media template in order to improve bot detection of free media, and possibly better facilitate bot recognition of "interesting" scenarios for WP:PUI (like automatically listing it and notifying the uploader if there is a Non-free media tag present and a Free media tag on the exact same page).

Think this could be good? You can never have enough categorization! ViperSnake151 17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A bot could just as well use all subcats of Category:Free images to the same demise. §hep • ^Talk 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Year bug

From Template talk:Citation

When I type

* {{citation|last=Staniland|first=Martin|year=1973a|title=The Three-Party System in Dahomey: I, 1946-1956|journal=The Journal of African History|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=14|issue=2|url=http://www.jstor.org/pss/180543}}.,

I get

• Staniland, Martin (1973a), "The Three-Party System in Dahomey: I, 1946-1956", The Journal of African History, 14 (2), Cambridge University Press.

What the hell? I never said it was published on February 8. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The notation 1973a would only be used with Harvard style notation. When using footnote numbers, there would be no reason for the "a". That doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.

Also, I disabled the editprotected tag, since no solution to the problem is ready for implementation. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But how am I supposed to cite two sources by the same author in the same year? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By avoiding Harvard notation. DuncanHill (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Chain of subjects

I have used Wikipedia to compile information supporting a group of topics. For example, in preparation for a family vacation to London, I entered the Tower of London, the London Eye, Kensington Palace and Big Ben. I printed each wikipedia write-up separately. It would have been very useful if there was a place to list a collection of Wikipedia articles that could be compiled into a mini book with an index and page numbering which could be either printed or formated into a .pdf. Add the ability to include directions with maps, and that would rock!

This would be useful on holidays (example above), but it could also be useful elsewhere in areas such as research, or general familiarizations of topics, that could be compiled while connected to the web, but then studies or otherwise used off-line.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.233.76 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is something currently in development (except for the maps and directions part). Its being tested on wikibooks now. Mr.Z-man 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at User:Pediapress - you already can prepare a collection of pdfs of Wikipedia articles, and then print them out yourself, or for a smallish price get them printed and bound as a book. DuncanHill (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To use the PediaPress JS you need an account though. §hep • ^Talk 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Multi-column TOCs

The automatic TOC's could make better use of space on the majority of monitors if they displayed headings in a multi-column layout, rather than a single column as they do currently. The useless whitespace created on a page can be enormous, depending on how many headings an article contains and how large one's monitor is.

The caveat would be small screens and mobile devices. However, I'm pretty sure coding could be concocted such that if the horizontal space is available in the browser, the TOC would expand into multiple columns, while staying single-columned otherwise.

Just to preempt one response, I'm aware of some quasi-TOC "index" templates for long pages, that extend width-wise along the top or bottom of a page, but those either contain an index of all alphanumeric characters or need to have their entries set up manually. I'm not looking to make this modification in particular instances for my own use. I'm talking about the standard automatic article TOCs, which I think would benefit universally from the modification I describe. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:05, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Also, an option could be added in preferences to toggle multi-column TOCs on and off, since I know some users will prefer to keep single-column TOCs. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:17, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

One issue with this is that some articles take advantage of the space to the right of the TOC for lead images and that sort of thing. But in many cases it would be an improvement. Dcoetzee 20:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that they do collapse.

I don't think I'd like a multi-column TOC which monopolizes a chunk of vertical article space completely, or pushes article content below the fold. I'd prefer collapsible TOC subheadings or something (also see Brittanica Online's approach, with collapsed subheadings and a scrolling TOC box, but I don't like their mouse-over scroll widgets). —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 21:06 z

Just to clarify, I'm only suggesting TOCs should extend width-wise when that space would otherwise be empty, not that content should be pushed around to make this possible. The point of this proposal is only to utilize space that would otherwise be wasted. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:08, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Could you prepare a mock-up please, or point us to a website where this layout works well? I would like to test my instinct: that the eye works better guided down a single vertical column. I often use a 'landscape' monitor (aka widescreen) and despair at the amount of unused space. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... this would still be single vertical columns... just two or three single columns, rather than one :) I'm only half-joking when I say that. I mean, it works in newspapers and magazines, and no one seems to have complained in a hundred or so years. I think your theory is correct as far as how wide a contiguous line of text can be before it gets more difficult to read -- that's been proven, and that's why newspapers and magazines use multiple narrow columns of text rather than long lines that stretch from margin to margin. But long contiguous lines isn't what this would be -- rather, multiple relatively narrow columns, which should be pretty easy to read. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:31, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a Public Domain Media Mechanism

In many articles (for instance: "grapes"), I have found that the main image of the article is not in the public domain, while there are many other similar images in the public domain.

I thought the idea was that the more free content should be preferred to less free content. However, the opposite seems to be true. People are using the least free license they can get away with. There is a profit or vanity reason for contributors to do this-- public domain images don't require attribution, so they will just replace PD images with their own!

I have no idea how this could be controlled.

Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Table_grapes_on_white.jpg "If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you permission to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms." -- not compatible with free usage, much less public domain usage.

--Agamemnus (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That image is freely licensed (GFDL 1.2). The copyright-holder also offers to release it under other licenses if you ask, but so what? Algebraist 21:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1) GFDL 1.2 is not public domain, and (2) his little message there is contrary to GFDL 1.2--seems like trying to trick people to pay for use even though it is not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnus (talk • contribs) 21:36, February 9, 2009 (UTC)

He has the right to offer to license it for use under other terms, for a fee. For example, someone might want to incorporate the photo into a proprietary work without having to release that entire work under the GFDL; or they may wish to use it without attribution. Dcoetzee 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

1. We're not required to use public domain materials, merely freely-licensed materials. Where a freely-licensed image is better than a public-domain work, we'll use the freely-licensed image.
2. As the copyright holder for his work, he can violate many of the terms of the license without fear—he won't sue himself. Further, his offer allows individuals or organizations to use his image(s) without the restrictions of the GFDL, which is a significant difference for many applications.

There's no issue here. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) & (2) That is true, but ...? I am not against this one person using that particular image, but against the general process in which public domain images are being passed over for other images.--Agamemnus (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think public domain materials are automatically better than freely-licensed materials that can be used by anyone for any purpose, then you've come to the wrong website. Wikipedia is built on free licensing. Algebraist 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said that.--Agamemnus (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You certainly appeared to say that. You complained that Wikipedia did not give enough priority to PD images, citing as an example a freely-licensed image that was used when a PD image could be. When it was pointed out that the image was freely-licensed, you replied that free licensing is not public domain. If this wasn't a claim that PD is preferable to freely-licensed, what was it? Algebraist 23:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a claim that PD is preferable to freely-licensed (and I thought it was the policy), assuming that the quality of both images are the same. That's the basic problem I would like to see addressed--if public domain images are preferrable for wikipedia, how can wikipedia reconcile these aims with the aims of the image uploaders, who may change articles from PD to their own, due to their own selfish reasons?--Agamemnus (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when do public-domain images not require attribution?

What they don't require is permission. But one still tries to attribute them if at all possible. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They don't require permission (free images don't require permission by definition) or attribution.--Agamemnus (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Wikipedia text requires attribution anyway as its released under a free license, and not PD; I fail to see how having images that also require attribution creates any sort of problems. If there is a PD image that's better in quality than a freely licensed one, we should use it, but we shouldn't prefer PD over free licenses where it sacrifices quality simply because its freer. Mr.Z-man 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, but again, how do you reconcile the interests of uploaders to replace PD images with their own... with that of Wikipedia (as an entity) to use as much high quality PD material as possible?--Agamemnus (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an interest in using as much high-quality PD material as possible? That's news to me. We make little distinction between levels of freeness here. Something is either free to use, which may or may not include an attribution requirement or a free license, or its not free because its either copyrighted but not under a free license or it uses a license with incompatible restrictions. There's no obligation to use the "most free" image. We use whatever free image suits the usage the best. Mr.Z-man 03:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this...--Agamemnus (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Public domain images can be used with or without attribution without fear of copyright infringement. Depending on the situation, however, using an image without attribution (public domain or not) may constitute plagiarism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Public-domain images do not require attribution (they impose no requirements whatsoever). It's still considered good practice to attribute them though, for the sake of being able to track down the source. Dcoetzee 23:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, some moral rights jurisdictions require attribution in perpetuity even once the material becomes otherwise public domain. The US does not have such a law, of course. Dragons flight (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I apologise for my US-centrism. :-) To respond to the original poster, we generally prefer freely-licensed works to works used under fair use, but we consider all free licenses (and PD) roughly equivalent and use other factors such as quality to choose one. The desire for attribution does not come into play, but it is common for the highest quality image to be a licensed one, just because authors of high-qualities works frequently prefer to be guaranteed attribution for them. Dcoetzee 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think public domain should be preferred because it's not viral. The GFDL and relevant CC licenses require that if you modify the content, you make your resulting work available under the same viral license. Public domain content has no such requirement and is therefore detrimental to the promotion of free content. --B (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So, you want to force people to use a certain license... consider the amount of people who WON'T use non-PD instead. Non-PD images are difficult to use for people who want to include them or parts of them in their websites or website designs. Consider photos-- not just logos or diagrams or whatnot--the amount of use a "viral" license is minimal, and there are many uses for regular unadulterated good photographs that are made that much harder by a non-PD license.--Agamemnus (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I said nothing of the sort. I don't want to "force" anyone to use any particular license; I only said that we should not prefer PD over an acceptable free license—they should be treated equally. I didn't say that non-viral content isn't useful to someone somewhere, but promoting the business interests of a third party is outside of our scope. In my profession, I often have a need for images and would, of course, love it if all Wikipedia images were public domain. That serves me and my employer and my professional interests. But then whatever work I produce using those images, we are going to copyright. That's great for my employer, but not so much for someone wanting to promote free content. Our goal is not to create a public domain clip art library—our goal is to promote the growth of free content. To that end, I don't see any reason to prefer public domain images. The ONLY exception to that rule is that I think we should actively get rid of images where the author demands attribution in the article itself (as opposed to on the image description page). Under the CC licenses, I think that gives us legal problems. But that's a different subject. --B (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not. Wikipedia does not need another "mechanism". It needs fresh quality editors, new content, enforcement of existing policies. Simply replacing licenses (or images with ... other images) does not improve anything; rather, it alienates long-term contributors who, until today, were unaware of any "their own selfish reasons". Thank you, Agamemnus, for reminding the unwashed masses of who they really are. NVO (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious Redirect

The page Austria-Hungary is supposed to redirect to Austria–Hungary. However a few users (including myself) have raised concern that it doesn't work. Yet it does work fine for other users. It appears like a soft redirect (except it doesn't say soft redirect) for me. Any suggestions why it doesn't work, or better yet how to fix it? --DFS454 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That is really strange, the talk page redirect works fine otherwise I would have said it was something to do with the emdash--Jac16888^Talk 19:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't work for me either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Looks like this might be the same as a recent error, which could be fixed with a dummy edit to the redirect. For some reason it's protected, so I can't test this theory. Algebraist 20:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just added an extra space before the wikilink; appears to be working now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For completeness, here's the previous discussion. Algebraist 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Working for me now EVula.--Patton^t/c 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Perennial review of policies

Perhaps it would be a good idea to conduct an official review of at least the core content policies (i.e. NPOV, V, OR) every six months or so? To make sure that #1, everything is clear, as things can become garbled over time, and #2, that what is therein still reflects community consensus, with parts that didn't being changed or removed (possibly relocated to a guideline, information page, or essay.) I know some will say that this is what the policy talk pages are for, but there is the recurring question of how many editors it takes to form a policy consensus (or to override a historical consensus.) Such a review, however, could be widely advertised so as to attract anyone who cared. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Uch, I don't like the sound of that, too bureaucratic. Any possible problems in policies can wait until someone encounters them and either changes them or complains, in my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:43, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Again, that leaves the question of how many editors it takes to evoke a change. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, if it's positive change, then it can be implemented at any time. But change for the sake of change is pointless and sometimes harmful. —kurykh 04:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Who decides whether a change is positive? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The community. Whether there is a policy review or not. —kurykh 06:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think that question would still rear its ugly head during the proposed reviews. Although the advertising aspect would be solved, I think that would also mean perennial headaches, because it would invite trivial policy complaints. I think it's better to deal with proposed policy changes as they come from editors. I could be wrong. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:01, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I think in the context of an official review, if half of the respondents disagreed with a particular policy point, then it would clearly not have communal consensus and should be changed or removed. Whereas if those involved in a regular policy talk page discussion are split 50-50 on something, then the status quo will likely remain. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are already reviews of policies, they're just not "official" or scheduled. Anyone who thinks it's time to reevaluate a policy can invite the community to discuss it, such as the current RfC for the Notability guideline (here). These types of policy evaluations occur pretty often as it is, with no official scheduling, because editors take it upon themselves to do so -- and they often do reveal the community's consensus objection to certain long-standing aspects of policy. I just don't think scheduling them is necessary. It adds unnecessary bureaucracy. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:23, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

This proposal entails instruction creep. If anyone wants to make a comprehensive review of any given set of policies, they're free to waste spend their time reading through the applicable pages. Since changes will be made by consensus either way, there's little gained by a formal review system. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 05:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And what constitutes "consensus" regarding policy changes? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The age-old question of what constitutes consensus wouldn't be solved merely by scheduling policy reviews. It would just mean a lot more people would be involved in each debate, and probably also that there would be a lot more debates. Consensus would be determined the same way during those reviews as it is in any other situation. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

"It would just mean a lot more people would be involved in each debate". Exactly. Then it would be much more clear what had community consensus and what didn't. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I had a feeling that was coming. My answer to that is, no, it really wouldn't. I'm not sure if you've ever been involved in one of those really massive debates, but larger does not equal easier consensus judgment. It's harder, if anything, and the final call gets disputed and argued about long after the decision gets made, cause of all the people that got pissed off. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:27, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

If in a truly community-wide discussion, consensus were not clear regarding a particular point of policy, that would be your answer right there—it should be removed or scaled down to something which had wide agreement (at least as far as NPOV, V, and OR are concerned.) Policies are supposed to reflect communal consensus. PSWG1920 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I do think it is really difficult to repeal policy that isn't being used, which is unfortunate - it's far easier to create new policy than destroy old policy. But I don't think periodic review would change that - what seems to be needed is a higher bar for a policy to satisfy in order for it to exist. Dcoetzee 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The other options would be to demote NPOV, V, OR, and other "policies" which are not WP:3RR-exempt to guidelines (I touched on this at a different Village Pump but no one seemed interested) or to shift the burden for repealing policies. Currently the burden is squarely on one who wants to repeal a policy, and it really shouldn't be that way. If there is no consensus either way, that means the policy in question no longer has communal consensus, hence it should no longer be a policy. However, there is the nagging question of how you figure out what still has the broad consensus of the community. Editors who respond at a policy talk page may constitute a very biased sample. Hence my suggestion to schedule wholesale reviews. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

IM and VOIP

Have we considered a way to use IM or VOIP to help in the editing process. If we could integrate it in a transparent way, I bet we could reduce acrimony and increase collaboration. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be completely missing the point, feel free to ignore it if it is Unfortunately I can see a few problems arising with this, firstly - contributing to the wiki isn't the easiest thing in the world at the moment, we make editors jump through hoops to learn how to edit and how to use talkpages and a lot of new users have problems understanding these even though we have vast amounts of documentation. Adding another level of complexity might not be a good thing. If on the other hand we integrate some form of IM or VOIP, how will it be logged? Any discussion that would affect the article or wiki would need to be able to be read/listened to at any future point in time so that future editors can find old consensus', decisions and notifications. This is relatively simple with the current talk page facilities, I can't see how we could do this for IM or VOIP. On the one hand I can see it helping on current events or collaborations, but these types of articles generally attract a level of acrimonious comments - can we deal with BLP violations and uncivil actions that happened in a VOIP or IM session? If we use it purely as an admin 'call to action' hotline, do we then have to instigate some kind of ticket system? We use irc a lot, this of course comes with it's own rules, and some collaborations, wikiprojects and sister projects utilise it extremely well (Wikinews in particular sees regular breaking news discussions in irc) but that comes with it's own pitfalls of having both to make users aware that the servers/channels exist and the etiquette for using them which in a lot of those channels including the prohibition of posting logs - stopping the creation of any documentable consensus ("we sorted it on irc last night" "prove it" "err..."). And my last issue, users edit Wikipedia at all times of the day all around the world. IM and VOIP would only be useful if there were other people available on a call/session at that particular time. So in conclusion, it's a nice idea but I can't see it ever working in practice. Nanonic (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be quite the undertaking, I'm sure. There's probably some free IM client that could log the discussion and include it on our servers. It would be like a talk page converstion, but real timish. Obviously, it would only work when both people are online, but a lot of pages enjoy this. VOIP is probably a lot harder. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather read through carefully-crafted talk page comments rather than the chatter of IM logs to find out what went on. I don't think this is viable for Wikipedia. Things need to be documented, and IMs and voice recordings make for significantly lower-quality documents. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:48, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

They may be hard to read or listen to, but I bet many days of talk page tag could be worked out in minutes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Users are welcome to use any means at their disposal to improve Wikipedia. However Wikipedia itself generally only facilitates fully transparent and documentable communication. While possible with more complex systems, what we have seems to be working. Chillum 05:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, in fact isn't there an IRC server or channel or something for Wikipedia? I'm not sure how much it actually gets used, but anyone wanting to live-chat can check that out. I'd post links if I knew where to point them to, I'm sure someone else will know. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:55, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:IRC. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:57, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the work is half done. I have a degree in computer science, but I've never bothered (I looked into it for maybe an hour) to figure out the whole IRC thing. What we need is where editors can, with a click, talk to other editors about an article or page. It would probably require a (hopefully easy) installation of some open source software, but after that, they just click on a link and talk. I don't know how IRC works, but maybe it can do this. My experience with IRC is that it ain't that easy. No newbies or non geeks allowed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's gotten easier over the years. There's a web link protocol for it now, so the entire process is pretty much 1) install the client software and 2) click a link, and then the client puts you in the chatroom automatically. The links are at WP:IRC#List of useful channels (click "show" to expand the list). Once in a room, you pretty much just chat like in an IM. The text input box responds to text commands also (they start with a /forward slash ), but I don't think knowledge of those is really necessary just to chat. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:08, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Can we set it up so that people 1) install a program 2) click on a talk page link and they're discussing a particular article 3) profit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, I don't know, but if it is I don't think that's likely to be implemented. You want to have links on every article, each leading to its own chatroom? That would be a lot of mostly-empty chatrooms. The logistics of this would be a very large undertaking. And, "profit" -- HA, excellent reference, I did laugh out loud. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:17, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well, my first imagining would be this. Included in every talkpage's header would be something with a link to download the program. There would also be a link to start the articlename/chatroom. They would only be created as needed, and every talk page that has such a chatroom would have a link to it. Probably some instructions, or a link to some instructions as well. The instructions might tell people to set up a time to talk on the talk page in the normal way, plus whatever else they need to know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

←It's an interesting idea, but again I doubt its viability for Wikipedia. Chillum said it best above -- things are generally transparent and documented clearly here. Even the present IRC rooms are not officially part of Wikipedia, as WP:IRC states very deliberately. I'll let others chime in on this though, see what they think. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:31, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I will too, after this comment. I've been recently uploading videos, which is a new and cool thing. Everything is getting fancier as technology improves. It's clear to me that we will also improve our ways of communicating, but the question is how and when. I'm of the opinion that we figure it out now, and start as soon as possible. 10 years ago, just the idea of a wiki was like magic. Let's take it to a next level, whatever that may be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently talking to another editor on AIM right now and I've been part of Skype discussions. Before becoming an admin I also published my IM contact info on my userpage (I only ever had two people contact me). I'm sure other do this as well, but I can't see this working on a sanctioned basis (e.g. WMF run Jabber server). It may however be worth it to try and start a "IM contact info" page for people to post their username. BJ^Talk 07:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a Category:Wikipedians who use IRC though. There was a similar page for Wikipedians by IM, but I can't find it now. Jay (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where there's a will, there's a way. It looks like people are skeptical, though. There's lots of ways for users to talk. What I'd like to see is something centered around articles. I'd converse with people about this proposal using IM or IRC right now, if I could. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IRC is pretty easy to use, I'd reccommend the Chatzilla extension if you don't want to worry about installing software. (To connect to the wikipedia channels on Chatzilla type in /server freenode then /join #wikipedia and /join #wikipedia-en) If you really don't want to install anything there is always Mibbit and [17]. As far as the proposal I think that due to the problems of logging real time chat it is something that we should encourage, but not implement directly. VOIP and video chat would be espically hard to implement, because you'd need to have someone transcribe the chat sessions if you want to do it accuratly. Though I wouldn't mind having a vent server around. --Nn123645 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaborative Moderation

Similarly to Wikipedia, other social networks also have to deal with massive amounts of low quality contributions from the public. It seems that the moderation model on Slashdot works fairly well. I propose to use something similar on Wikipedia.

The challenge is to design a mechanism for orchestrating the collaborative moderation effort on Wikipedia. I propose the following model.

1) Edits can only be done by registered Wikipedians.

2) Wikipedians will have a reputation or karma, depending on the quality of their contributions.

3) Long standing Wikipedians of good reputation are selected to moderate edits. Alternatively they can also moderate any page they want. These are Level 1 moderators. Authors of high quality edits will rated up, and authors of low quality edits will be rated down, and this will affect their reputation.

4) Wikipedians with reputation under a threshold will be restricted or banned from doing edits.

5) Long standing wikipedians of good reputation are invited to moderate Level 1 moderators. These are Level 2 moderators. They will judge whether the Level 1 moderators were fair. Altenratively they can moderate any Level 1 moderator they want. Fair Level 1 moderators will be rated up, and unfair moderators will be rated down, which will influence their reputation.

6) Wikipedia staff are all-powerful, and can sanction any Level 1 or Level 2 moderator.

Introducing reputation will give Wikipedians recognition for their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josang (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 February 2009

I have many reservations about this:

1. We already have a shortage of both reviewers and admins. I doubt if many editors would sign up for yet another non-editing task.
2. IP editors often do useful copyedits. Instead of restricting IP editors en masse, we should be much tougher on vandals, including those using shared IP addresses (if the shared IP's admins complain, we should tell them to produce evidence that they are taking effective steps to control their users).
3. "Long standing wikipedians of good reputation" creates a danger of domination by cliques, of which WP has enough already.
4. The alternative would be to create an automated system such as used by EBay. However Ebay's "reputation" system has been gamed by suppliers who give complaining customers black marks. And an automated systemfo rWP woudl be more complicated and less reliable, as it woudl have to rely on assessments by other editors who have watchlisted the articles, rather than by the principals to discrete transactions. Reliance on other editors who have watchlisted the articles would also increase the danger of of domination by cliques. --Philcha (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just not going to happen, for various reasons. It's not even worth discussing why, because it simply won't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fundamental premise of your proposal, that only registered users (that is, those capable of collecting 'karma') are able to edit, has been explicitly rejected innumerable times; see PEREN, WP:Editors should be logged in users, meta:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles, WP:Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement etc etc. Any proposal which involves disenfranchising anons of the ability to edit Will Not Succeed. Happy‑melon 12:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Too hierarchial, given the amount of opposition flagged revisions got there is NO way this would ever be implemented. —Nn123645 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Slashdot, and we do not intend to make it so. If you want a collaborative writing site based on a karma system, you may want to check out Everything2 instead. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable Sports Peolple / Speedway Riders

Whilst I appreciate the reasoning behind the editors seeking some agreed selection criteria of notable riders I would suggest that there are some sports, like speedway, where riders could be considered to be notable for example they were characters with a strong personal following (fan base) yet did not achieve any of the above. For example a rider who raced at Glasgow Speedway called Joe "Whaler" Ferguson. Joe wrecked bikes regularly but still came back for more. He was never a star but was nonetheless a natable. Views please.

Can you provide reliable sources for his notability? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"speedy" mass category moves in progress

Please note Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Speedy removals.3B opposition to hyphenations. In the spirit of "adjectival hyphenation", all "nth century $THING" categories are being speedy-moved to "nth-century $THING". This affects literally thousands of long-standing categories. The "consensus" this is based on is a couple of CfDs with two or three votes. As far as I can see based on a generic rule of "adjectival hyphenation", not on evidence of actual widespread use of hyphens in the case of centuries in particular.

I am opposed to this move as premature and misguided, and would ask that it is backed up be a wider community consensus before these speedy moves proceed. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenation aside, I don't see what's wrong with following consistent consensus on Categories for Discussion. If only two or three people were interested enough to vote, so what? We would get the same problem with voting for page moves. What happens if you need five votes to move a page, but only three people are interested enough to vote? It might be nicer if more people were interested in CfD, but in the meantime two or three is enough.

Anyway, I think the hyphenation checks out. When "second century" is used as an adjective it should be hyphenated. Rather than being called "adjectival hyphenation" is called "grammar" -:) — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that Wikipedia has been going for eight years, with its share of grammar nazis, and until late 2008 nobody ever objected to "20th century philosopher"? I will tell you why: when "second century" is used as an adjective it should be hyphenated is simply not a rule that is alive in the real world. I readily admit it sees some use. But by no means is it more common than the unhyphenated spelling. Check the google books results for

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

at first glance well below 1:10. This is nowhere near anything that would make this giant move at all arguable. What irks me is that this huge transition went underway with all of two CfD votes, no community review, and nobody even bothered to check who is prescribing this, which major publications use it and which don't, the very basic minimal standard for any significant rename. --dab (𒁳) 09:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And on top of that, it's now a precedent which can be used to make the same change to articles. I have to agree: making sweeping changes on the basis of the discussion of two or three people is not adequate consensus. The original CfDs should have been denied procedurally and forced into a larger discussion context first. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Category of redlinked categories

Could somebody create a "Category of broken categories" (or "Category of redlinked categories")? I'm serious. I would be willing to put in some serious work on emtying such a category. I know about Special:WantedCategories, but that is a list and not a category, and just of the 1000 mostly found, not of all of them. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See Special:UncategorizedCategories.-gadfium 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is 5 months out of date, and displays bluelinks when they should be red. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not what I meant. I checked a few of those categories. Most have been deleted (the right way, without leaving articles that link to them), while at least one of them (and probably a few others too) is a nice category with a lot of articles and 2 parent categories. See the Special:WantedCategories talk page for a discussion on the subject. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict notification on preview

As long as previews require a server query, they might as well check for edit conflicts while they're at it, and notify the user. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:35, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I agree; it's particularly annoying to catch an edit conflict using the "Show changes" button as well—an explicit notice of the intervening edit would be useful. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to file a feature request over at bugzilla. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, once consensus is shown here that it's something everyone wants, that will be the next step. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:32, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

No, changes to MediaWiki don't need the approval of the English Wikipedia. We aren't the only ones who use the software. If you want a discussion before going to Bugzilla (Bugzilla itself isn't especially suited for long-ish discussions), the wikitech-l or mediawiki-l (there's a lot of subscriber overlap between the 2) mailing list would be best or possibly meta, if you think this might be for some reason controversial. Unless its a feature specifically for the English Wikipedia, like a feature no one else will ever use, a config change specifically for here, or an extension installation, it doesn't need consensus here. Mr.Z-man 17:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I've submitted a bug: Bug 17467. Please vote for it if you think this would benefit MediaWiki/Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:49, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for slight but important change to main page layout

We often have a number of articles featuring topical subjects on the main page. For example, currently there is a featured article on evolution, and a whole bunch of Darwin/Lincoln articles in DYK that are being featured for the 200th anniversary of both Lincoln's and Darwin's birthday.

The trouble is, there is no obvious announcement that the reason these articles are being featured is because it is an important anniversary. Only if you happen to look at the bottom right hand corner of the main page, in the "On This Day" section, do you notice a line mentioning that this is Darwin's and Lincoln's birthday.

I would like to suggest that on dates on which we are featuring such topical content, there should be a line at the TOP of the page, right above the featured article/in the news sections, which announces the anniversary, so that readers can instantly make the connection between the content of the featured article/DYK sections and the anniversary in question. Otherwise, readers are liable to miss the anniversary, see a lot of articles on similar subjects, and just conclude that there isn't much variety on Wikipedia, which is not the sort of conclusion they are supposed to draw! By making it clear it's a special day on the other hand, we showcase the topical relevance of the site. Gatoclass (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. It'd have to be coordinated across multiple areas of the project, for example in a case where there are multiple choices of thing to choose as a topic for a particular date - and different parts of the project choose to highlight different events on the same day... Cirt (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Maybe there can be a subpage (like Wikipedia:Main page/Topic banner and Wikipedia talk:Main page/Topic banner) and at the talk version of it people could leave suggestions for what to do with a banner on a certain day (something along the lines of "Hey this is Joe from TFA and we're gonna be doing an article on X on March 5"), where people from multiple subprojects could coordinate the stuff beforehand; then it would just be a matter of Joe alerting all the other main page projects ("hello DYK, just so you know, we are doing a TFA on some topic, do you also have topical stuff?") and yada yada. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I think that featuring something related to a specific day is a complete waste if the average reader doesn't see the connection, or believes it to be a coincidence. I remember that I saw the January 20th TFA (Washington, D.C., for the presidential inauguration) several times before I suspected a connection, and then I had to dig through the TFA discussions to confirm it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually sorta always considered that to be a subtle and welcome clue that we were an institution of intellectual standards. Not explicitly telling everyone something they could figure out with a little brain power and maybe a single link click really said something. Something about not catering to the lowest common denominator, or something. Something like that. It's a subtle message that I can't completely articulate without sounding elitist, which isn't how I mean it. Or maybe it is and I'm just in denial. Whatever. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:18, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

It's not "elitism", it's "avoidance of condescension" ;) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it's not obvious, I completely agree with your sentiment, and I think that it's quite nice that we leave the fact that we'll feature stuff on relevant dates completely unspoken. It's also quite useful to leave it unspoken as we often don't feature things on relevant dates. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm .maybe something like:

Today: Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday

or in another situation:

Today: The 2008 United States presidential elections

Would this be sufficient? ViperSnake151 15:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more of a line of discreet italic text saying something like: Today, Wikipedia celebrates the 200th birthdays of both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln, or, Today, Wikipedia commemorates the anniversary of [anniversary here].

But yes, I think you have the basic idea. The actual layout and formatting would obviously be a matter of negotiation. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This presents an implicit endorsement of the subjects mentioned. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I rather like this suggestion - I was thinking about typing something similar myself on this day (Feb 12) being the Lincoln-Darwin anniversary, but I see it has already been made. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For Milton's birthday, we handled it by adding "born 400 years ago today". However, a common denotion of a whole range of specialty hooks being devoted to a topic would work as well. It all depends on how broad the topic and how many articles are devoted to it. Allowing it? Definitely. When and where and how? That could be discussed later. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New template to help new users

I suspect the first part of the following is a template because I see it so often on the Help Desk. The second part was written by a separate editor and probably is not a template.

I would like to propose the following text be used for the question "How do I create an article?"

Please see Your first article.

1. Ensure that you have an account and you are logged in. If you don't have an account, create one
2. Make sure the subject is notable enough to have their own article
3. Find references
4. Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box to the left (←) and clicking 'Search'
5. Type the page name in the search box to the left (←) and click 'Go'
6. Click 'Create this page'
7. Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines
8. Be aware that Wikipedia deletes thousands of new articles for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are at extra risk of deletion, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones.

If you are sure you should create your article after reading all of the above, then go ahead. If you are unsure, then, after creating an account, you can then create a sub-page in user space. For example, if your user name is Foobar987, your user page will be User:Foobar987. If your new article is to be named "Blatification" then you can initially create it at User:Foobar987/Blatification. After you create the article and get it up to a standard you are happy with, come back here and ask for someone to review your article. We will then help you to make sure your article is OK according to our strange and wonderous rules. We may even help fix the article or help you to find someone to assist you. Once the article is good enough, you can move the article to "mainspace:" that is, use the "move" feature to change the name of the article from User:Foobar987/Blatification to just Blatification. This approach works because by convention a subpage of your user page is not required to follow all of the rules of a mainspace article. (Note, however, it must still adhere to some fundamentals such as no copyright violations and no personal attacks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchimpanzee (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two templates in common use for this purpose: {{HD/new}} and {{creation}}. Since these questions are asked almost exclusively at the help desk, the correct place to discuss the templates is probably WT:HD. Algebraist 14:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured they get enough questions, but OK.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, that's a different page.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"show/hide cleanup tags" button to pages

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Drive-By_Editorials for background.

Proposal: Add a "show/hide cleanup tags" button to the top of each page, which would make article, section, and in-line cleanup templates visible or invisible.

There are many variants of this which can be decided later. I'm just trying to get a feel if the basic concept is useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea, Ambox would need a bit of a change for it to work out. --Izno (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see most of these templates show up in compact form, providing a minimal interface and explanatory tooltip, and being individually expanded with a click. In many cases there should be an indication that there are content issues, but there is no need for a huge array of banners always in the reader's face, or a flotilla of inline tags reducing readability, when a few icons or widgets can inform the reader. —Michael Z. 2009-02-13 21:10 z

• Oppose. The very purpose of the cleanup tags is to be obtrusive and annoying. If you don't want the tags, then fix the problems. —kurykh 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A tangential discussion was moved to User talk:Equazcion. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:46, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • Per the linked discussion, I would be amenable to compacted tags rather than hiding altogether. —kurykh 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Kurykh Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur with Kurykh on compacted tags. I oppose show/hide but support compact/uncompact. It is important that the banner is present, it is unimportant that it be obtrusive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support We are supposed to be producing an encyclopedia. It's also a work in progress, but the overwhelming majority use is simply for reading it. (I need to check the numbers, but its over 99%), Reading is therefore what shoud be facilitated. DGG (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - As long as we don't shrink 'em by default (but, hopefully, do allow for users to set that as their preference), I say go ahead. To attempt to impose on our readers as Kurykh would seems unprofessional and annoying which, admittedly, is the point - It's more important to amass knowledge here than to be reader friendly, hence my disinclination to have this feature enabled by default. To allow the reader to dismiss these messages, however, would seem like a nice in-between. You may have to get in people's faces every once in a while to serve your ends, but you're going to just piss people off and break Wikipedia:Don't be a dick if you refuse to get out of their face when asked nicely afterwards. MrZaius^talk 07:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  Mr Zaius, Mr Zaius, amassing knowledge is not in the least bit incompatible with being reader friendly. If by the latter you mean making the encyclopedia as readable, usable, and accessible as possible, then we are clearly obliged to do it. We just have to aspire to good design for the reader, and avoid bad design, or design which favours editors over readers. —Michael Z. 2009-02-14 16:04 z

• Support As I said at VPP, I think this is a neat idea. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:11, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • PS, I like the idea of compactable notices too, as Michael Z describes, as long as there's a way to show and compact all notices on a page at once. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:31, 14 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Support compacted tags but not doing away altogether. Our real audience is the reader and user of the free content, not the editor. They should be cautioned when they are at an admittedly substandard article. A compacted, expandable tag strikes the right balance of dignity, readability, yet not misleading readers. Ideally this should be universal with the compacted as the default, to avoid any contention. I'm mainly annoyed by NPOV and related tags inserted by editors who fail to gain consensus... the tags themselves become a point of contention and end up diminishing otherwise decent articles.Wikidemon (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox

Sorry if this isn't the place, but everywhere else was locked from editing. So here's the question: do any users have the ability to copy the taxobox over to another site? If you could, that would be very helpful indeed. The site in question is RationalWiki. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I put it in Template:Taxobox2 (taxobox was taken). It's a complex template though and might rely on some other templates specific to Wikipedia... Give it a try and see I guess. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:05, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Proposed guideline on close paraphrasing

Recent investigations have uncovered some contributors who habitually employ close paraphrasing over a long period, causing frustrating copyright issues. A while ago I wrote an essay about close paraphrasing, what it is, and how to avoid and detect it. Since it's linked from the cleanup box {{close paraphrase}}, I'd like it to have the force of a guideline. Please visit Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing#Proposed_as_guideline to leave your opinion. Thanks! Dcoetzee 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change default coloring of navboxes

There's a proposal to change the default styling of navboxes, here. Any comments would be appreciated. SharkD (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the word "Excise " in article

In the bold itilatc under how to fix I see the word "excise" I'm confused did the writer mean exercise in the article? 2600:1008:B055:9D1E:7FC5:2195:EA9F:B48B (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No. See wikt:excise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of an RFC that may affect this policy

An RFC proposing to move WP:MASSCREATE out of WP:Bot policy has been started at WT:Bot policy#RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL. One of the options suggested for its new location is to move WP:MASSCREATE into this policy. Other options are a standalone policy page, or some other policy page. Please comment there if interested. Anomie⚔ 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Conservative" is being misused to describe far right and nationalist views.

When attempting to correct descriptions of nationalist far right groups, currently described as "conservative" Chris X deletes these changes. This wrong! Pjtawney (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to seek help with this issue. See the "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editing policy page" box at the top of this page for suggestions regarding where you should go for assistance. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-free reduce bot proposal

A bot has been proposed to deal with the non-free reduce backlog. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NeuRobot 2, and everyone is encouraged to participate and assist in establishing consensus. — neuro^(talk) 23:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)