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, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

Tag to prevent plotbloat

I propose that a tag is introduced for when a plot summary in an article reaches an optimum length. At the moment some articles e.g Goodfellas, No Country for Old Men are subject to constant revisions with users placing uneccessary detail, speculation or their own interpretations of what happened.

When a consensus has been agreed upon the tag would be placed before the article which could read The plot summary below is considered to be a suitable length for the article. Please read discussion on talk pages before editing it. Obviously the wording would have to be discussed but I think you get the idea. Users would of course still be able to edit the plot summaries but would hopefully give them pause for thought before firing in. Yorkshiresky (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You might try a <!-- Hidden comment --> that can only be seen on editing, but {{ambox}} style templates should only be temporary. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed blanking

Well, I finally finished with Wikipedia:Proposed blanking and Template:Prob. Whew, it was hard writing all that stuff from scratch, but at last it's complete. (Wipes sweat from brow) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want or need to blank an article? There's deletion on one side and cleanup on the other. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But deletion is so permanent! It's almost contrary to the idea of a wiki. See WP:PWD. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion is not permanent; pages can be restored or viewed by administrators. If you ask me, PWD and XD are some of the most WP:CREEPiest things I've ever seen. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea of a wiki is easy collaboration. How is deleting something that we don't want (and by extension, don't want to collaborate on) contrary to that idea? Mr.Z-man 07:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of ways to allow easy collaboration. But the fundamental concept of a wiki is to focus on making things easy to fix, rather than hard to mess up. Deletion, as it currently exists, errs on the side of making it "hard to mess up" (i.e. by the user coming back and making the content visible again). And that makes it harder to fix as well, e.g. if consensus would have otherwise changed somewhere down the road, and the content would have been resurrected. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is temporary. Keeping all previous revisions in history doesn't just "not prevent messing up" but it encourages resurrection with little or no change to the content, which was decided by consensus to be deleted. Deletion on the other hand forces "resurrectors" to request a copy of the deleted material from an admin, whereby upon fulfillment of such a request, an admin takes the responsibility of making the user aware that restoration of the article in too similar a form will not be allowed. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:23, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The Black Crows Band Info

Does anyone have anything to contribute on this front...The Black Crows, their start in Marietta Georgia, etc. Or do "Wikipedians" consider this to pedantic to write about?

Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.201.33.15 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole bunch of information about The Black Crowes (note the "e"). Or are you soliciting help on the "Early Years" section of this article? -08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkocharh (talk • contribs)

I think it might be better to propose this on the article's own talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bots and the {{bots}} template

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#nobots about whether or not bots should obey the {{bots}} template (especially in regard to user talk pages). Please chime in there. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We all know what you mean; that you don't intend by your post to convey what the words actually say, but please be aware that "chime in" is generally a pejorative, usually employed to mean the insertion of an unwanted and unwelcome opinion.--68.237.2.101 (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Er... I was not aware that "chime in" was a pejorative. I certainly didn't mean it in any negative way... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said "we all know what you mean..." It's crystal clear from the context that you don't mean it in that way. I just thought you should be aware. See, for example, here for a definition:-)--68.237.2.101 (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never before heard that it was pejorative. My dictionary defines "chime in" as 1) interject a remark; 2) join in harmoniously. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From various dictionaries listing only first entries (primary definitions):

To interrupt the speech of others, especially with an unwanted opinion.dictionary.com;
interrupt other people's conversation: to interrupt or join in a conversation between other people, especially in order to voice an opinion Encarta;
To break into a conversation; "her husband always chimes in, even when he is not involved in the conversation" interlingua;
chime in, cut in, put in, butt in, chisel in, barge in, break in -- (break into a conversation...Worldnet; etc.

I just wanted Locke Cole to be aware, not cause a ruckus; I apologize that this is spiraling into a larger discussion and thus causing the original post's topic to be obscured.--68.237.2.101 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Now would be a good time for someone to update the Wiktionary entry; it does not mention the negative connotations of the expression. Waltham, The Duke of 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The pejorative stuff is merely a connotation, which is merely there sometimes when the word is used. Most of the definitions listed above do not have pejorative primarly meanings, only (in some cases) pejorative connotations. In my opinion, a connotation is something different from "what the words actually say." In my opinion there was nothing at all wrong with what Locke Cole said. In fact, I support Locke Cole's usage of the phrase. I generally oppose the sliding of meanings from neutral meanings to necessarily positive or pejorative meanings, and boldly using a word or phrase in a neutral fashion like that helps prevent that slide. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not about right and wrong, it's about word usage and primary meanings. "Merely a connotation"? Language is nuanced and delicate and choosing one word or phrase over another because of its connotation is what we must all do when we set pen to paper (or fingers the keyboard). For good or bad, the primary meaning of to chime in is negative, and of those who know the phrase, the majority will understand it under its primary definition (that's why it is the primary), and will thus read the initial post with a bit of puzzlement as to the word choice. The lady squatted has a different connotation than the lady kneeled; the physical act described can be identical, but the reader gets a very different impression from the one as opposed to the other. I don't understand what you mean when you refer to the "sliding of meanings from neutral meanings to necessarily positive or pejorative meanings". Words mean what the mean (including their connotations) until usage changes in society. There is often a lag time between a change in usage and dictionaries' reflection of that change, but the subject we are focused on here has not, I think, had a usage shift.--68.237.2.101 (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid taking up space here, I continue this discussion at my talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Replace

• {{birth date and age}}
• {{death date and age}}
• {{Birth date}}
• {{Death year and age}}

with User:Gnevin/sandbox2 which gives User:Gnevin/sandbox, have a look , works like standard templates expect takes 7 fields , if the first contain a char is indicates its a birth box if it's blank it does the death stuffGnevin (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you have a look I've made some further updates Gnevin (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

{{AgeDobDOD}} in used with Albert EinsteinGnevin (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Language Settings

Copied from Wiktionary:Feedback Conrad.Irwin 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I just noticed that i am not supposed to write about Wikipedia but about Wikitionary. I just found out that it existed and i had somehow stumbled onto it somehow. Well I've just finished writing a long message about Wikipedia now so I might as well send my opinion and suggestion for improval of Wikipedia. Maybe someone to do with Wikipedia as well will read it. If you know where this would be better in place you could copy it there and give me the link: <email removed>

Opinion about Wikipedia

I really like Wikipedia. Its the best source for knowledge in all areas I ever had and I use it very often. I also really like the fact that anyone can contribute. It simply makes it up to date and much better and much more complete than any commercial encyclopedia could ever be. And I really believe knowledge is and must be a public good of humanity and everyone should be free to share his knowledge and should be able to have part in this public good for free. After all knowledge should be spread and preserved and the best way to do this is to share it. I really like the idea of Wikipedia being free and having the option to donate if and whenever one wants to and according to what one can afford and what one is willing to give. When I get wealthy I will donate for sure. I don't contribute a lot, but when i see something wrong or something to be improved, that I know about, I take my time to correct or improve it. Thats simply because I like to share my knowledge to help others. And I really want to give something back to the comunity and to contribute to this great website, which has helped me a lot and is a blessing to mankind.

Suggestion for improval

I have one suggestion for a small improvement I would like and I think it would help everyone and disturb nobody. I grew up bilingual in german and english and as these happen to be the the two most present languages on this site I use it in both languages and switch between them very often.

I mostly visit wikipedia via the german Url www.wikipedia.de, which I find very handy (more intuitive than de.wikipedia.org), and sometimes I don't find what I need in german and want to search for it in english. And now it would really be very handy to have the languages on the left hand side all the time, wherever you are in Wikipedia in whatever situation (maybe with few reasonable exceptions). I know they are there for most of the time, but for example if you search for something and there is no article found, then the main frame and the sidebar are both nearly empty and there are no language settings on the left hand side. I noticed that the languages are displayed according to the search keywords and in which other languages they are found in the search result list. Similar thing with articles, there are only languages displayed for which an article about the same topic exists. That makes sence, its a good feature and should not be changed.

But if you don't find the article with an english searchword, maybe you want to switch to another language quickly and then you will miss the languages that are not listed at the side because there is no article containing the enlish keyword in the german wikipedia for example or because no article was found and therefore no language links are displayed. Or maybe you read some english article and would like to read about something else that has to do with the subject, but you can only think of the german word, then its handy if you can just click german and type in the word thats in your mind to find the article you want. These are just 2 examples for loads of situations that happen where you want to change the language of the site, preferably at one click and without having to press the back-button repeatedly or having to type a new Url.

So I think the section languagues that exists should keep its functionality the way it is, but there should be a second section as well for the languages the article or search word or section is not available or found in, lets call it "other languages" for example. At the same time the current language section should be renamed into "also available in" or "also found in" to make the difference between the two clear: "also found in" for corresponding sites/results found in other languages and "other languages" for the rest of the languages without any hits on the keyword/topic so you can still choose one of them at a klick if you want to.

So there would be a section working like the current language section and another new section beneath that, displaying the languages that were left out in the first, because the article, page or searchresults are not available in those languages, so that users can still switch to these at will.

The names I made up for the two sections in "" are just examples to make my idea clear, there might be better ones for the same thing and then they should be named whatever is best.

I think there are more such situations where the languages should be added on the left hand side in some form, preferably the two-section solution I suggested, because they are simply missing and there are equivalent pages in other languages and there is enough space to add them at the side.

For example if you visite the sidebar-links "content" or "recent changes" or "special pages" there are no language settings at the side. There might be more such situations to be found if someone knows his way through the site well.

I would be happy if that change could be done. I know its not a very big or important modification, but it makes navigation through languages much easier and more consistent, so it does not happen, that you wonderingly search for the languages and think they were somewhere here on the left hand side. Because exactly that happened to me once, when I was fairly new to the site. So changing the language could be faciliated and speeded up a bit. Seeing that there are so many views of wikipedia daily from all over the world I think even such a small improvement would repay the effort hundertfold by saving each of the millions of viewers a little bit of time each time they want to change the language. It would help everyone even if only a tiny little bit. Thats exactly the reason why I just spend so much the time to think and write and explain so much about such a small suggestion.

Thank you to whoever takes the time to read and consider my suggestion! Before you delete this, please send me a link to where it should be post it or post it there yourself and send me the link. Thank you. <email removed>

I would suggest the Qwika tool [1]. It searches in 1,158 wikis and (machine-) translates the text. JoJan (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea! And when you're looking at search results and click on one of the interwikis which you're suggesting, perhaps it should automatically display search results using the same search term you just used. I don't know whether that would be hard for the developers to set up. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

View oldest non-patrolled?

On New pages patrol, by experimenting with the offset parameter in the URL I discovered that there are more than 14,000 pages that have not been patrolled - and who knows how many older than one month. Could we get an "oldest" button to make it easier to patrol old articles before they disappear unpatrolled from the list of new pages? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as changes go, this would (hopefully) be fairly non-controversial. It would require a software change though, I would suggest filing a request on Bugzilla. Mr.Z-man 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like random non-patrolled, actually. The advantage is that odds are low that 2 different people get the same page. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple watchlists

For organizational purposes, it would be nice to be able to maintain more than one watchlist. I've been cleaning up my watchlist every couple months but I usually end up deleting things I actually want to keep, just to get the list cut down to a more manageable size. I'm tempted to maintain an external text file or something so I can move chunks of listings in and out of the raw watchlist editor depending on what I want to look at, but would it really be so difficult for the wiki have that kind of functionality already built-in? I can't see it being an additional resource hog. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:23, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

See m:Help:Watching pages#Related changes feature for "additional watchlists". Although they do have some drawbacks: such a list is not private, you have to explicitly put links to talk pages, there are less options to filter the changes. —AlexSm 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. However, still, I think multiple watchlists for each user is a good idea. It would offer a lot of convenience and benefit for very little performance cost, if any at all. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:38, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I was going to propose something like this! I suggest that each item on a watchlist have a "flag" or parameter which could be a bit, an integer or a short piece of text which the user associates with the item.

Suppose you're going to be really busy for a few weeks. Then you want only the few articles most important to you to show on your watchlist during that time. But then afterwards, when you have some time and want to see what's happening in the general areas you're interested in, currently you have to start from scratch rebuilding your watchlist. Under my proposal, you'd only have to click one setting, "show all items" or "show all items with priority level of 5 or fewer" etc. If it's a text parameter, you could click "show all items that I've tagged with "medicine" etc. depending on what your interests are at the moment. You could also label things as "watchlisted during RC patrol" or "watchlisted when I posted a message there" so you'd know why the heck things are on your watchlist. It might also be useful if the date the item was placed on your watchlist could be (optionally) displayed. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, similar solution, probably even better since you'd be able to see all "watchlists" at once if you chose to, but also be able to filter based on user-defined tags. I actually like that better. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:28, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I like that, too. However, I think I ought to mention an already existing tool: the ability to monitor changes in all the pages that link to a specific page. John Carter gave me the idea, and applied it on SBS's Templates page; all changes made on pages linked to from that page can be seen in a list accessible from a box in SBS's main page. I can tell you, it helped me clear my watchlist a long way. One can create a subpage in one's userspace with all the pages one is interested in watching; one may categorise its contents as one wishes (with headings and sections) and has the ability to hide links (or, indeed, entire groups of links) whenever one wishes by turning them into HTML comments. This tool, which I have only recently learnt about, has many potentials in my opinion. Waltham, The Duke of 20:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's the related changes feature, see the first response to the original post above. It's a good temporary solution but the watchlist is so much more functional, easier to use and read. I think it should be expanded to include this functionality. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:30, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Making Did You Know archives easier to access

I have been informed that on 31 January 2008, a "Did you know" feature was featured on Frederick Madison Allen,but I have not been able to find it. Do you know where I might find it? Is there way to make back editions of "Did you know" easier to access?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's at [2]. There are archives at Wikipedia:Recent additions, but they only go back to early February, otherwise it would be easy to find using "What links here" on the article.-gadfium 04:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be feasible to modify the template put on the article's Talk page to include a link to the actual DYK diff where the article appeared? Sbowers3 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject namespace

Wikiprojects tend to have specifically defined naming conventions, numerous subpages, and sometimes work outside of normal conventions (like having their own rules of style, own elections, etc). Would it make sense to create a Wikiproject namespace, similar to the Portal namespace to centrally place all projects and help clear up part of the Wikipedia space? MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the utility of this. There are probably lots of areas that could be "seceded", if I may freely use the term, from the Project (or any other) namespace, but as long as there is no conflict between either the scope or names of the pages in a namespace, there is no real gain to be made by subjecting Wikipedia to such a change. After all, there is no real confusion between WikiProject pages and other pages in the Project namespace (which would be resolved by such a measure), and I don't think that a separate WikiProject namespace would change the situation with WikiProjects much. If one wants to find a WikiProject, there is the place to do that. Waltham, The Duke of 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a positive development. With so many major pages already titled [["Wikipedia:WikiProject" Something]], it's a virtual namespace already. I don't see any reason not to create this namespace, with the WikiProjects having evolved into such a mature part of our infrastructure, and one that could potentially in future take advantage of the distinct organization of a separate namespace. Wikipedia could probably take a cue from some of the other Wikimedia projects, which have not been so conservative in keeping only to the "obvious" namespaces.--Pharos (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is funny. I find no reason why this should be done, and Pharos finds no reason why it shouldn't be done. I am not against splintering off the WikiProject section, as long as there are some real arguments about the benefits such an action would produce. "Future benefits" is not enough for me; if we discover later that this is useful, we can move the WikiProjects then. It's not like it will be that much harder then than it is today... There is no actual urgency about the matter. Waltham, The Duke of 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As you indicate there is no urgency to this proposal. But given that wikiprojects have their own naming conventions, internal policies, coordination system, and a project naming that is so standard that 95% of projects could be bot identified. Help spaces could have remained part of Wikipedia and Portal part of Mainspace, but it just seems to make sense to split them off. That and there is the annoying name overlap of Wikipedia policies like SPAM and RFA and the corresponding Wikiprojects. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

An argument against: Searches checkmarking "Wikipedia" would not include a WikiProject space which would have to also be checked. Some people would fail to do that and not find the information they want. And many people from other language Wikipedia's would expect to find such pages in the Wikipedia space which has a common name in many languages. My English Wikipedia work occasionally causes me to visit Wikipedia's in languages I don't know. It's nice that the interface is generally consistent so you know where to click even if you cannot read the text. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The default search currently includes the article, Talk and Wikipedia namespaces. There's no good reason it couldn't include the new WikiProject namespace as well.--Pharos (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I could swear the default search included only Main and that we could customize our own defaults. but I could be wrong. MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what Help:Searching says. And I've had no idea about it up to now, but, to be honest, I've never explored my preferences really thoroughly. I only activated pop-ups and wikEd last week, imagine that.

So, this is a problem solved, I suppose. If one wants to search WikiProjects, one sets it in one's preferences. Waltham, The Duke of 18:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Old proposal to view review version

A while ago there was a proposal to make visitors see the last reviewed version of a page rather than the current, potentially vandalized one. This proposal was supported by most users, and the people who own the website said that they liked it, but it was never implemented. What is the point of this place if people can propose good ideas and they are never acted upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions Adrian M. H. 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In August they said that they would do it in "a few months", and it's now been seven months. The idea has clearly been abandoned by the higher-ups. We need to find someone who knows how to change the site's code and get them to change it for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.67 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The extension is still under development. Its currently being tested on the test wiki and IIRC, the discussion here really didn't result in anything being resolved. Mr.Z-man 17:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

April Fool's main page

See Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page. Are we doing this again this year? Anyone else interested in helping? The "joke" is that everything on the main page is a completely factual (yet unusual or unexpected) collection of information. - Chardish (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches. Corvus cornix_talk 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD R2 and T1, and userbox migration

I propose that, to take the userbox migration solution into account, CSD R2 and T1 be amended to read:

R2. Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article or template space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect.

T1. Templates in "Template:" space that are divisive and inflammatory and have been copied to user subpages.

NeonMerlin 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests to alter the criteria for speedy deletion should go on the talk page of the CSD page Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion Harryboyles 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tightening the screws

I propose that page creation should be done by autoconfirmed (accounts at least 4 days old) rather than new users, as is currently the case. Previously, IP editors could also create pages, but as spam increased and the encyclopedia began to fill up, this was changed to registered users. At this point, I think it's time to take things to the next level. There are three reasons for this. First, it will stop casual spammers and vandals from uploading their "product" here - of course waiting four days is hardly implausible, but it's almost guaranteed that some people's zeal for disruption will fade within four days. Second, it's not a heavy burden on legitimate new users interested in contributing. Such individuals understand the harm caused by spammers and vandals and are sure to be patient enough to wait their turn and then upload their new article. Third, the overall effect will be an improvement on quality and will ease the strain on new page patrollers: less junk uploaded (in an encyclopedia that, at almost 2.3 million articles, should certainly be focusing more on quality than on quantity by now) and better articles. Biruitorul (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, and worthy of support. -- 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullstop (talk • contribs)

Wouldn't it be nice if we knew who supported it?

In any case, it is discussed whether unregistered editors ought to be able to create pages; even if this movement (which actually seeks to have an "experimental" measure abrogated) does not gain support, it is highly unlikely that we should actually move to the opposite direction. Personally, I have no idea what I'd like to see. Waltham, The Duke of 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should know who supports and opposes it - that's why we have this board, to throw out random (well, hopefully not totally random) ideas and see if they gather any traction. IP page creation was banned in December 2005 (apparently) and it seems to have been a pretty successful "experiment", and quite long-lasting too. The question is if we should go on to the next level, at least on an experimental basis. I think I've outlined a good case for it, but I welcome opposing views. Biruitorul (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. In fact, I support letting anons create new articles and upload pics. From wiki: "Wikis are generally designed with the philosophy of making it easy to correct mistakes, rather than making it difficult to make them." Let's keep to that as much as possible. We want to encourage people to create articles on impulse. I agree this change would probably reduce vandalism, but I don't think it's worth the decline we would probably see in production in the long run. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You make a fair point. However, the shift in focus from quantity to quality started long ago, and I see this as a small step in that direction. Let's face it: at 2.3 million articles, the encyclopedia is pretty complete and then some, and making people wait a little while before adding yet another article (no matter how good it is) isn't going to put a substantial dent in quality. As for philosophical concerns: we are indeed "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but just as we are in fact "the free encyclopedia to which any logged-in registered user can upload an article", we'd be "the free encyclopedia to which any logged-in registered user with an account at least 4 days old can upload an article" - not a major ground shift. Biruitorul (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, and it would be good to do some investigation of articles created by non-autoconfirmed users to see how many get deleted and what level of quality they are. Personally I suspect most of them will be deleted one way or another. Right now, increasing the number of articles we have isn't a very high priority compared with other tasks. Hut 8.5 13:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should do some investigation. That's where this proposal should start. I just took a very cursory look at 20 New pages. Eight of them were by non-autoconfirmed users. Of those, four had already been marked for CSD. Three others probably will be speedied. The eighth is a good article that needs cleanup but probably will survive. That's a tiny sample; we really should get much more data. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll be doing mine, you yours, and let's report back in a week, two, what have you. Biruitorul (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm for making the wiki more welcoming to new users, not less. I suspect that many Wikipedians begin by contributing a new article and later stay around to edit other articles and even contribute to the work of deciding which articles to delete. Making people wait 4 days will be equivalent in many cases to encouraging them to give up and take up some other activity instead. People are busy; when they have a few extra minutes and feel like trying something new, that's the time for them to try it. Deleting 7 obviously speediable articles doesn't take much time; it's worth it to get 1 good article and 1 contributor able to write a good article who has not been discouraged from contributing. This encyclopedia is nowhere near complete. It's just starting. There's a lot of work to be done, and we need those people out there to join in and help do it. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A few points. First: I've studied the matter using a sample of 30 new articles, which I checked back on in a few hours. For starters, 22 of 30 were by autoconfirmed users. Two of their were deleted: one was a user who signed up in January and has just 3 mainspace edits; the other's account also dates to January and has 1 (soon to be 0) contributions. Of the 8 new articles by non-autoconfirmed users, 4 were deleted, 1 was redirected and 3 were kept. What were the three that were kept, the ones this policy would prevent from being created? Two fictional ships and a resume that was later scrubbed a little.

Granted, I used a small sample size and maybe the overall picture is different (we shouldn't rush into this), but it doesn't seem we're getting that much out of this non-autoconfirmed group. Perhaps it is more trouble than it's worth.

Second: I suspect people edit as IPs for a while, register, edit some more, and only create a new article after a week or two. Whatever the case may be, the fact is that our quality has gone up, not down, since IPs were banned from page creation and non-autoconfirmeds from editing semi-protected pages. So has our work: as you may know, the George W. Bush article was constantly vandalised until the new system came into place; now vandalism happens at a much more manageable rate.

I like the notion about getting more contributors, etc, but in practice, waiting 4 days (even doing nothing in the meantime) isn't that big a burden. It takes years and years to master various hobbies; 4 days isn't really a big deal.

Finally: hmm, with 2.3 million articles, I don't know if you can say we're "just starting". Sure, we need to improve those, and good new articles are still being submitted, but it's overwhelmingly autoconfirmed users who are submitting the latter, so the fear we'll somehow degenerate if my proposal gets adopted is, I respectfully submit, unwarranted. Biruitorul (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Foundation issue. Anyone can edit. :-)
• Perennial proposal: restrict new users.
• Reason why we won't do it: Everyone was a new user once.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, not anyone can create new pages (and the fact that anons can't create pages shows we don't consider restricting page creation to be in violation of the foundation issues). Note the perennial proposal is to Prohibit anonymous users from editing not Prohibit very new users from creating pages. Hut 8.5 07:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think that preventing new page creation by anons was the stupidest thing ever (totally kneejerk too). I got addicted to wikipedia after creating a new page, and I'm sure I'm not the only one... --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

New Theme

If you check, for example, the Spanish, Portuguese, or French versions of Wikipedia, you'll see that they sport a nicer theme than the English version. I think that theme should be the default for all versions of Wikipedia because it provides a nicer experience. Peteturtle (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert restrictions

Recently, there was an incident reported to WP:AN3. It wasn't a direct violation of 3RR; rather, two editors were at odds, and instead of reaching compromise, they were edit warring across multiple articles. They never violated technical 3RR, but an admin had to end up protecting the pages. So, I notified both editors of my decision to restrict them to two reverts a person should they interact again in the near future. I did this for multiple reasons; first, it kept me unbiased, so that I could still help mediate the dispute. Secondly, they wouldn't be able to get around the technical definition of 3RR. Third, I didn't feel right about blocking two well-established editors for something they really shouldn't have been doing, and wanted to offer a chance to reconcile and compromise. Protecting multiple pages didn't sound fun either. However, this was misinterpreted as an abuse of power, and it was quickly pointed out to me that policy does not cover any of this; the closest would be either getting ARBCOM to do it or getting consensus at ANI.

Now, my idea is; wouldn't it be acceptable for admins to administer actions like this? Instead of blocking established editors and alienating them, or protecting pages and stopping others from contributing, you just temporarily stop the two from interacting with each other negatively. They can still compromise, edit other areas of the encyclopedia, and contribute meaningfully; they just can't edit war under the threat of a block.

I'm bringing this here as a proposal, but also as a means to get some suggestions and commentary from peoples out there. So go on, have a go. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the edit warring would best be halted by blocking, then go ahead and block as normal. The block can be reviewed if inappropriate. I don't like the idea of you creating apparently permanent special restrictions unilaterally. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Temporary restrictions, temporary. Forgot to put that in. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Without a specified ending period (which as I can see hasn't been established), it's as permanent as anything can be on Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that restrictions of that sort are unreasonable, though it's a good idea to post a notice to AN/I if you're going to 'think outside the box'. Remind the involved editors that 3RR is an electric fence and not an entitlement (or whatever the precise wording is) and that edit warring across multiple articles – 3RR or not – is disruptive and eminently blockable.

If you're feeling charitable, offer them a choice—they can take the 2RR, or you can just block them immediately if they start to fight again. There's no reason to make a lot of article uneditable if it's only a pair of editors who can't behave. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is fine because it is a one-time, easily reviewable decision. Creating restrictions that are active for a long period raises many questions: Are other admins bound by the new rule - what happens when another admin sees 3 reverts and decides blocking is inappropriate? Can other admins unilaterally lift the remedy or would that be wheel warring? The specific remedy also has problems, being easy to game in the same way 3RR is. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not long periods; maybe one week at the most. The thing here is that this is essentially already an unspoken policy; if users have been edit warring and are warned, they'll be blocked if they keep doing it. However, I've always been of the opinion that giving them that extra last chance can turn things around; an ultimatum, imposed on both parties, to get them to play fair without passing out blocks. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that admins could impose anything up to a block as an alternative to a block, but without some sort of consensus or arbcom mandate, such a restriction would be really difficult to maintain. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, why not refer them to WP:BRD? That's the standard way of dealing with conflicts on a wiki. There's an essay out there somewhere that says that when someone reverts you, it's better to leave the wrong version up there and discuss it on the talk page. The idea is to persuade them to revert themselves, or get the consensus on your side. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it's an essay, BRD is just "a nice thought" right now. Warring editors won't likely take heed from reading it. I think that if it's apparent that editors are warring across multiple articles, they should be blocked for 3RR. Why punish everyone else for the actions of a couple of poor editors? I've been told many times that 3RR isn't a definite line and that 3 reverts don't need to show up in the same article (or even at all) in order for a revert war to be declared and the participating editors blocked. In other words, you don't get to make 3 reverts in 24 hours anymore. So either move 3RR to a different name and make changes in order to reflect that, or perhaps merge 3RR and BRD somehow. That's already the practice anyway, as far as I've seen. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:29, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not merely a "nice thought," it is advice from experienced Wikipedians as to how to break a logjam. The "warring editors" don't need to have a clue about BRD. There mever was a rule that you "got to make 3RR in 24 hours," that was established as a "bright line." You could be blocked for a single reversion as part of an edit war, particularly if, for example, editors are tag-teaming reverts. BRD is, by definition, not edit warring. It's a single bold edit, and if a revert comes, response with discussion instead of edit warring. Let the other side or sides edit war. That Equazion thinks 3RR and BRD are the same thing, to be merged, is bizarre. 3RR is still the rule, it has not changed. Break 3RR, you can be blocked. It isn't a free pass, never was. BRD is indeed an essay, damn good one, too. Good advice. Not policy, rather how to avoid trouble with policy. Mbstpo has been the target of complaints for following BRD, which says more about those complaining than it does about him. Breaking 3RR, you'll see more than complaints. I did it once, had a good reason, and still I crossed every available finger. I *was* blocked, but unblocked immediately, when the reality of the situation sank in. I'd been reverting a cabal including an IP editor who was as COI as imaginable, I'd figured out who he was (it would have been harder if he had registered an account) plus a sock puppet of a banned user. Don't try this at home.--Abd (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I stated only what the practice was. The practice has been to block or at least threaten a block, under "3RR violation", for edit warring, whether 3 reverts took place or not. This would indicate that admins are treating 3RR and BRD as the same thing. If you want to argue that there's something wrong with that logic, be my guest. But that is what's been happening, as far as I've seen. Since policies are supposed to reflect common practice, and not the other way around, that would indicate that a merge is in order. Again, only telling you what I see, not what should be. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:21, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Reducing barriers to entry

I've been talking to non-Wikipedians about their experiences with the project for a while, and have published some IM interviews in my user space. I intend to do more, and I highly recommend talking to your non-Wikipedian friends in the same way. Another way to observe is to read the questions people are asking about Wikipedia (and the awful answers they receive) in the Yahoo Answers! Wikipedia section.

I think we have some really major issues with outsider perception of the project. I'd guess that the majority of people visiting our site from a Google search have not a clue as to how the site works or that they can contribute to it. This is bad because it fuels the endless criticism we receive, and because it prevents these people from becoming contributors. Fixing these misperceptions and reducing barriers to entry should be one of our first priorities, and I don't think it's really even that difficult. Wikinews seems to be better at all of this than we are. Some ideas:

1. On Article pages, you usually click "edit this page" to edit the entire page, or click the section edit links. But on Talk pages, you rarely edit the entire page at once. You're either adding a new section or editing a pre-existing section. For this reason, the new section link (currently identified with a completely inconspicuous "+" sign) should be made more prominent, by changing the button to "add comment" or "new section" or something along those lines, and the "edit this page" link should be made less prominent, maybe just saying "edit". I have tried to implement this in the past, and others have implemented it on other wikis, but some people are really resistant to any change to the interface. I don't understand why.
2. In the corner of every article should be a short notice to the effect of "See a problem with the article? Fix it yourself or leave a comment". Obviously this could be worded better, but the idea is that clicking "fix it yourself" would be just like clicking "edit", except that there would be a "newcomer box" above the edit box explaining the basics of how the site works and how to edit and find more help. Clicking "leave a comment" would go directly to the "new section" screen for that article's talk page, again with a "newcomer box" above it. You would just be presented with a blank box to fill in with the text of your comment, press save, and go on your way. This way when someone sees an error, we can at least get notified about it, instead of them pressing "edit", being overwhelmed by wikicode, and giving up. I'd say we should even go as far as removing the need to enter four tildes if you're editing from this link. Your signature would just be added automatically after the comment (and would show up in the preview screen).
3. Check out Talk:Elephant, and try to see it from a newcomer's perspective. That's a lot of yellow boxes, no? I think we should greatly reduce the prominence of most of the templates (especially the pointless WikiProject ones). I also wonder why the {{talkheader}} box is not at the top of every talk page. I predict some people will complain about it being annoying when you already know about editing. But this a situation where you make the default behavior cater to newcomers, and let the experienced editors hide it with javascript or css. At the least, we could always display it for unregistered users.
4. I've tried to change the tagline to more clearly spell out the way the project works (linking "free" to free content, since you know everyone visiting thinks it just means "free of charge", and adding "that anyone can edit" at the end, for instance). We even had some support from Jimbo, but it ultimately went nowhere. There is apparently no shortage of Wikipedians willing to resist change. I'd like to renew this campaign again someday, but I haven't found the energy.
5. Always endeavor to reduce complexity of code and interfaces, instead of adding more and more features without thinking about how it complicates the user experience. Ideally, the code would have very little special syntax in it, like the good old days, and all the boxes and categories and tables and interwikis and so on would be added, not withcode, but with real "Web 2.0" interactive tools like Flickr's tagger. This isn't something that can be implemented in a day like the others, but something to always keep in the back of your minds.

Please discuss. — Omegatron 06:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support in principle. Just today, I ran into a newcomer who couldn't figure out how to add a new comment (as opposed to adding to an existing comment) to another user's talk page. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas, all of them!

One little addition: when someone adds a comment via the "leave a comment" box, there could be some little symbol or quirk or "This message was added via leave a comment box" or something added to it so that established users will know that it's been added via that box. Some established users might want to regularly use that box, but it would help if such messages are marked so that people can be aware that it might be from a new user. (Not that new users should be treated any differently than established users, or vice versa ...) --Coppertwig (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Only for the link from the article, though, not from the regular new section link. — Omegatron 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think that a modest learning curve on the mechanics is a nice barrier. If someone is not bright enough to figure out our simple processes or ask for help, I'd question the competence of the contributions. I think that our barriers are too low as it is. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The mechanics of this place are so simple that the editor's index has more than 2500 entries. And I think you're confusing process learning with content learning - there are a lot of people who are very knowledgeable about a topic but don't want to have to spend their (limited) time learning yet another set of processes and procedures. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's worth adding that the editors index largely consists of Wikipedia bureaucracy and policies with much of it being unavoidable on a project of this size. -Halo (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I use just 3 key best practices most of the time, and get by just fine. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it helps that you've been around long enough to know what the real, unwritten, policies are. --Carnildo (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally against adding any more prominent static content on pages, so I think adding anything to the top right is a very bad idea - notices are already chronically misused, ugly and very annoying, and adding a permanent one in the top-right that's only useful to a small niche is just going to clutter the site. Helping new users really shouldn't be at the expense of annoying current users.

The "+" button was previously changed to "Leave a comment", but it was quickly reverted back after several prominent Wikipedians objected to the change at the time - the suggestion comes up repeatedly but no-one wishes to actually make the change. To be honest, I think "Leave a comment" is too long.

I fundamentally disagree with your final point that Wikipedia should be more "Web 2.0" when it comes to things like categories. "Web 2.0 interactive tools" are too often more annoying than useful, complex to develop and I honestly think Mediawiki's relatively simple "all content in one textbox" philosophy is a good idea - it's platform independent, relatively simple to use, extremely simple to implement (both in terms of client-side and server-side - the database schemas could get a lot more complex) and an easy concept to grasp. Separating content and markup is bad idea IMO.

Oh, and do you know about LiquidThreads? Based on your want to improve Wikipedia talk pages and want of 'Web 2.0' technology, it sounds like something you might be interested in. -Halo (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think "Leave a comment" is too long - point well taken, but the better proposal - still not implemented - is to have something like "+comment". That's the way that the tab appears on discussion pages at Wikimedia Commons. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be helpful since no-one else mentioned it. I'm not against the change - as I've previously stated many times (including on the persistent proposals page), I'm completely indifferent about it, especially considering it's not a feature I use (I find it's generally less hassle to start a heading by hand). -Halo (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

adding a permanent one in the top-right that's only useful to a small niche

A small niche? Last I heard, more than 80% of page views are unregistered users. It would be good to get a better statistic on that. But they are by far the bulk of visitors to the site, and the whole point of the site is that they're supposed to be contributing to articles. They, collectively, know a lot more than we do. Wikipedia is not a clique.

"all content in one textbox" philosophy is a good idea - it's platform independent, relatively simple to use, extremely simple to implement

It's simple to implement, but it is not simple to use. Our code is way too complex for the average person to be comfortable with. Our editors are predominantly from technical fields for a reason. This is bad, because it skews the content and bias of the articles.

It would be much better if, for instance, you could type a potential category into a search box, and be shown a dynamic list of matching category names, with local tree structure, and pick one from the list to add by clicking on it. Similar with interwiki links. Then the article wouldn't be as cluttered up with code. Of course these would still show up in the history like any other edit.

And yes, we could definitely use a better talk page system. One that allows subscriptions, forked threads, full mediawiki syntax, localizable dates, never-ending threads that can be "bumped" by additional comments so that we don't have 100 separate conversations about the same subject, threads displayed on multiple talk pages for consolidated discussion (an issue that needs input from people on the village pump, article talk, and admin noticeboard all at the same time), etc. I've thought about this a lot, too, but it requires major software changes. The things I have proposed here can be done without software changes. We just need to convince certain people that they're a good idea.

(Also, in addition to recruiting passers-by to contribute article edits, we should be recruiting developers as much as possible, too, to implement the more complicated things our site needs. I get the impression our code is way too complex for most people to dive into, so we are stuck with a small number of developers who don't have time to do very much, which is why our site's functionality is so dependent on on user-written templates and user-written bots.) — Omegatron 00:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Kevin Murray: I don't want that kind of barrier to entry. Someone may be quite capable of learning to use the syntax, yet it may still be a barrier because they don't have much of an incentive to spend effort learning it until they've discovered how rewarding it is to contribute. John Broughton also has a very good point about different types of knowledge. We need more contributions from people who actually know how to use (and have access to, and desire to spend time using) actual paper books and that sort of thing, not just people who feel comfortable using computer codes.

Reminds me of when I started using Generic Mapping Tools, years ago. I spent a whole day reading the manual and trying to run some of their examples before I got any results at all or enough information to make a decision as to whether it was worth spending any time learning it. I later emailed them and suggested that they make their first example something that you can just type in and it will work (e.g. produce a map of the world), which they could easily have done; instead, their first examples required downloading additional files, which for some reason took hours when I did it. I did learn to use their system and I still use it often, but I could easily have given up and never learned to use it. Whether someone has the ability to learn is not always the same thing as whether there is a barrier.

Reply to Omegatron: yes, that's what I meant: only the "comment on this article" link from the article page would produce messages with a special mark; though I'm actually not sure whether that's a good idea or not even though I suggested it. It might contribute to the whole "us versus them" mentality. Besides, the post would probably be signed with an IP username, so that would clue people in anyway that it's likely a new user.

Another option for the name of the tab at the top of the talk page is "New topic". This may be familiar to users of some other website fora. Just "comment" would be OK, I think. It might be worth asking some non-Wikipedians how they would react to a tab called "+comment". Possibly just "comment" might be less confusing to some less math-oriented users. Not that people don't know what a plus sign is; just that it looks like some unknown computer code.

Here's an idea, for all those Wikipedians resistant to change: the new "comment on this article" link could show up only for unregistered users (assuming that's technically feasible). --Coppertwig (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been working on a "leave a comment" system with Javascript (though something built into the software would be better). Its not really done, mainly due to laziness by me. Mr.Z-man 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if 80% of page views are IP addresses, you're making the assumption that out of that 80% a large proportion are people who want to contribute but don't know how or that they can - which I certainly disagree with - and you're at risk of compromising the reading experience to make that happen. I stand by the fact that unnecessary static content is horrendously ugly and largely pointless, and I'm strongly opposed to it in general.

I disagree that MediaWiki is 'too complex' and even if it is that there are better practical solutions to that problem. Most editing on Wikipedia are already of the type "typing words into a box" which can't really be simplified, and you're always going to be left with some sort of markup language (even if I don't particularly like MediaWikis flavour of it). A web-based

I also don't think trying to proactively "recruit developers" to open source projects ever actually works. As far as I'm aware, the problem isn't MediaWiki's code itself as much as the fact that any project the size of MediaWiki has inherent complexity. I think bots exist simply because the projects lend themselves to bots more than anything else. -Halo (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

you're making the assumption that out of that 80% a large proportion are people who want to contribute but don't know how or that they can

That's absolutely correct. It's probably higher than 80%, in fact.

"typing words into a box" which can't really be simplified

It can be simplified by giving them an empty box to type into instead of requiring them to learn a computer programming language in order to contribute. — Omegatron 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, wikimarkup started out fairly simple. Having full WYSIWYG is not really simple either, and has huge disadvantages. WYSIWYM is more like it, but that requires teaching people new techniques yet again. But... hmmm, less bad that is, plausible too. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC) yoda I now sound like

(WYSIWYM is plausible because: A: New users will still grasp it fairly quickly. B: It needn't interfere with existing wikimarkup, thus making it "easy" to code, in theory. ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a mock-up of what I'm imagining for the notice that unregistered users will see:

User:Omegatron/Sandbox

Click the links to see the "newcomer boxes". — Omegatron 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Article linking proposal

This is a proposal to simplify locating the relevant text in a linked article - and given that's software based i might try to lodge it over at Bugzilla, but alas, I am a noob.

It would be handy when clicking on a link to be able to have the option to go directly to the main (or first) part of the linked article which is directly relevant to the article the reader was just reading.

For example, I was reading about the Double Layer (Stern potential) and there was a link to Milk, which is obviously a large article. It would have been great if I could have selected, perhaps as a right-click option, the whole article, or the point in the article directly relevant to the Double Layer. Of course, I can easily just do a "ctrl-F" and find that, and I realise funding is not easy for wiki.

Apologies if this has already been raised, but I couldn't find any reference to it. And I have no idea how easy/possible this proposal is, but it would certainly make searching easy for the average reader.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countskogg (talk • contribs) 09:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like this: [[Milk#Physical and chemical structure|Milk]], which produces Milk, a link to a particular section within an article. It's not exactly what you requested but it is something editors can do now. What you really want is a form of Artificial Intelligence, which takes you to a place based on the context of where you came from. Sbowers3 (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I just changed the milk link in double layer to [[Milk#Physical and chemical structure|milk]] which displays as milk. Is that what you were looking for, Countskogg, or did you particularly want to be able to right-click and have a choice? I wonder whether a userscript could be written to give that sort of choice. I'm not sure that it's needed. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Process

It would be nice to have a formal system for levelling sanctions on those who are gaming the system, or abusing the processes on WP. People who file fallacious complaints, or charge others with CIVILity violations which are clearly trumped up (like accusing people who want to enforce NPOV or LEAD or even just disagreeing with FRINGE proponents of being unCIVIL). I am observing an increasing amount of this sort of gamesmanship, and it makes the project less and less pleasant. If we could have clear guidelines and examples of Abuse of Process and suggested sanctions, it would make it easier for admins to enforce it. And easier to point to a policy that would hopefully slow some of these abusers down a bit. Otherwise, we are headed for a lot more trouble in the future.--Filll (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of using a formal system. Once you codify something into a rule, the bad actors start to find loopholes to continue their gamesmanship. Best to deal with these things on a case-by-case basis. -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, how would we deal with people abusing the abuse-of-process process? Mr.Z-man 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The same. Abuse of abuse-of-process process is still abuse of process. Next question? They're easy today.--Abd (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, a formal process wouldn't be helpful. That would just add another level of bureaucracy to the mix. Best to deal with these cases using common sense. If a potential disruptor knows someone will need to file a formal report in order to propoerly accuse him of gaming the system, he's more likely not only to do it but to find a way out of the consequences. If he knows an admin just needs to use common sense and can block him simply for being disruptive, he'll be less likely to try it. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:12, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You could Formally Laugh In Their Face? ;-) If folks who try to just yell process names actually try to take people through dispute resolution., they'd quickly get into huge quantities of trouble. Dispute resolution is designed to backfire on people who try to use it in bad faith. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A mechanism should be created whereby non-admins can close AfD debates which are a clear 'delete'

I don't know how it could be done exactly, but this would be very useful, as there's a substantial backlog at Afd. Even articles several days older than the required time for an AfD which are an obvious and almost unanimous, or unanimous, delete, are still waiting. Another idea would be that non-admins, or perhaps only a few who have been okayed to have these powers, could close a debate as delete when the circumstances are similar to those listed at WP:NAC for keeps, but for a delete outcome. Then they could list them on a page "Articles with Consensus for Deletion" and admins need simply delete those on the list. Obviously if anyone concerned closed an AfD questionably, they would risk losing this responsibility and the article would be restored. So- if t is not possible for non-adminns to be given these limited powers on a basis similar to Requests for rollback but more stringent, is there already a page where we can close debates on articles which are an obvious delete, and list them for ease of deletion? The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to close a debate in this way, it would still require an admin to come along and not only push the actual delete button, but presumably to check my work. Now you have two people doing what it took one to do before, a very inefficient outcome. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

you could make it so it were trusted people so the admins needn't review their work- or at any rate it would be easier for them to close as the actual work/writing was done. It would not be inefficient at closing the backlog of deletion debates, there would be less there, and the 'underling' could do half the work for the admin where that AfD's concerned. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm having a groggy day lol of course admins would have to check our work, but the explanation, closing comments etc would be done already.The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Would saving the time on the paperwork side of the job really be worth it? I don't close many AfDs, but it doesn't really take that long once you've assessed the article and the discussion. If the admin didn't need to review the decision, that would save a lot of time, but if someone can be trusted with putting an article on a list to be deleted without being checked, they can be trusted with the delete button itself, since the effect is the same. --Tango (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if an admin still has to check it, the time is only saved in adding the closing templates, and there are scripts to speed that up. It would just shift the backlog from WP:AFDO to some other page where they would have to be listed for admins to check and delete, the listing there would add an extra step to the process. Mr.Z-man 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a basic misunderstanding here. Non-admins can already close deletion debates. I've seen it done. It isn't generally recommended, but there is nothing preventing it beyond the minor specialized knowledge involved in proper closing. The rules remain the same. It's bad form to revert the closing without obtaining the consent of the closer, it could be considered edit warring. If the closing is not a Delete closing, done. (remedy if incorrect is renomination.) If it requires deletion, yes, that requires an admin; however, if a user had a relationship with an administrator where trust was normal, the admin could simply push the final button, does not even have to read everything (slightly risky, but not seriously harmful if not repeated). Given that deletion is, in fact, a reversible process, it is not a true, complete deletion, even if occasionally a mistake was made, the result could be quite efficient. (Remedy if improper delete, Deletion review There is no special power that administrators are presumed to have to properly judge the results of a deletion debate. Any experienced user, familiar with relevant policy, should be able to do it. And just as with administrators, there can be problems with bias. That's why no decision is truly final. Even ArbComm can be reversed, though it gets dicey, for sure. (Any examples? I'm not aware of any, but in theory, Jimbo has the final say, and beyond him, the WMF board, and beyond that, the entire community of users *could* decide to do something different. With each stage, increasing difficulty.... but at the level of an AfD, not a problem at all if a decision is wrong. Well, hardly a problem. Delete decisions can seriously alienate users from Wikipedia, and they might immediately walk.)--Abd (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is another way, which would involve creating another reason for Speedy Deletion: result of AfD was Delete. The AfD would already be flagged on the page to be deleted, so all that the non-admin closer would do is to add that tag, and any admin who patrols for those tags could find it and delete it. After looking at the AfD, I presume. To check that it existed and had been closed.--Abd (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can. Close the debate as delete and add {{db-afd}} (no parameter needed unless the XfD debate is not the default). My experience (back at the end of 2006/start of 2007, so perhaps not representative of what would happen if you did this today) was that it was fifty-fifty whether closing AfDs this way earns you a message about non-admins not being supposed to close XfDs as delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's brill, thanks. What do you all think? Only I don't see why a non-admin can't close something that's an obvious delete, without risking being 'told off'. Would it depend on how clear cut the result was? Only if people can suggest ideas here I or someone could edit WP:NAC to add that info- it doesn't currently include db-afd I don't think. There should be a precedent started that it's ok to do this, as speedies are handled promptly (maybe it's just easier to do), whereas AfD mounts up. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 14:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You can do it, sure, but I really don't see the point. I wouldn't delete an article tagged with db-afd without going through the same process I would go through for closing the afd itself (apart from the paperwork, which as someone said above, can be automated), so it wouldn't save any time. --Tango (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No but the closing comments etc, as well as the paperwork, if an admin agreed with them you wouldn't necessarily have to redo. The same as for a speedy delete- the only admin comment tends to be the edit summary. As I understand it, bots for actually deciding an AfD have never been encouraged, because it is not a counting of votes as such but requires a degree of judgement which would be difficult to automate correctly. My point in doing it would just because as a non-admin, the backlog at AfD is frustrating simply because I personally can't do anything much about it, although there are those which are obvious closes which I feel I could do in line with the consensus in the AfD. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the point I'm making is the the paperwork (I'm including the closing comments in that) isn't the part that takes the time, it's actually reviewing the discussion and article that takes time, and the admin will have to do that whether someone else has done the paperwork already or not, since a non-admin cannot be trusted with deletion decisions - if they could, we wouldn't restrict access to the delete button. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing a basic fact. The only benefit of NAC for Keep is that it frees up admins to do other things. No matter how you do this, if a non-admin closed for Delete, it requires a second person to actually push the Delete button. Such gains by that sort of thing are negligible. Secondly, if you go the route of db-afdyou run the risk of a particularly partisan Deletionist improperly closing a debate as Delete, and having the article speedy-killed before anyone has a chance to react, and increasing the DRV caseload. (This problem doesn't exist in Keep NACs because you can simply revert the closure and continue the AfD.) I am all for leaving the power to delete an article with people who are accountable. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

there's a simple solution. Any non-admin who wants to close AfDs and who is confident that he has a sufficiently established record here to be trusted should get an opinion from someone active at RfA if he's ready to be nominated. A person who couldnt pass there shouldn't be closing AfDs as deletes in the first place. There are lots of qualified people who have never applied because they have no interest in doing things that require the mop. But if anyone is qualified and wants to do them, ask for it. DGG (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That almost sounds like an argument against NAC even for Keep. If a guy could pass that criteria, they might as well become an Admin. Besides, in my case, I know I don't have enough mainspace edits to pass an RfA, but I would assert that I have enough experience to close a SNOWy Keep. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

According to {{db-afd}}, it is only supposed to be used "if an administrator closed an Articles for deletion or other deletion discussion with a consensus of delete, but the page still needs to be deleted" which is why the associated criterion is G6 - non-controversial housekeeping. And still, an admin coming across a page tagged with this would still have to verify that the debate was actually closed properly. Mr.Z-man 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone who knows how deletion works can close a debate. Seriously. The task of an admin is just to confirm that the wiki won't asplode if they push that button. No more, no less.

Now that said, many folks don't have the button (mostly thanks to a horrendously inefficient RFA process... but we can't fix everything at once). Just find a friendly admin, convince them that you're sane, and then they can push the button for you. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Convince them that you're sane"? I'm fucked... :P -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) You know what's depressing? Reloading this page for about an hour, waiting for someone to post with "No, RoninBK, you're not crazy", only to realize that a) said flattery is not forthcoming, and b) that I've wasted an hour of my life attempting to find validation by complete strangrs on the internet. I'm gonna go play a game for a bit... -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, if there was some way for a Bot to remove teh AfD notice from Kept pages and add the OldAFDfull tag to the talk page, I'd close a lot more AfDs. We have that script to add top/bottom box and the reason, but htne having to go to 2 more pages and edit gets annoying. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And no, your not crazy, according to the pink elephant sitting on my printer. MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Start referring to admins as "Servants" instead

Administrators need to be reminded of their place.

Too many of them get big heads--and who can blame them? After all, the term "administrator" implies the role of a master.

But really, this isn't what they're intended to be.

They are servants of the community. The name of their role needs to reflect this. The uppity ones need to be taken down a notch or two.

They're servants, not masters; they should be referred to as such. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Administrators need to be reminded of their place" ... "The uppity ones need to be taken down a notch or two"... Any evidence to back up these sweeping (and actually rather rude) comments? WjBscribe 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes master... is this trolling? admins aren't more 'servants' to the community than everybody else, we are all 'servants' to consensus, admins are only experienced users that are given a few more tools, there is no 'power' in those tools but they aren't forced to serve everybody in the community, sysop work is optional like all editing, thus the term 'servant' is awfully misleading. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Administrator" doesn't necessarily mean a master, it simply means one who keeps things running smoothly - administrates a project. The name makes logical sense, but I can see where you're coming from. Perhaps "janitors" would be better? That's basically what we do—delete the junk, block the vandals, etc Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)Why not just enforce the "no big deal" clause? That way no one's superior to anybody -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how serious you are with this one, but 'administrator' is a neutral word in and of itself. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration it's not like admins are called Wikipedia Masters instead.:) Not in policy etc. anyway.:)The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this? Who cares what it's called? What matters is what people do with the tools they have, not how we call the position. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it affects how people view it. An "administrator" is essentially the one who runs things--in essence, the boss. But Wikipedia "administrators" don't RUN anything--the community as a whole runs Wikipedia; the admins only carry out and enforce the community's decisions. They are, indeed, mere servants of the community. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrator does not imply power - it implies hard work and potential attacks by users like Kurt Weber. Notice how Kurt hasn't bothered to back up his accusation with diffs or evidence? That's because he can't. Now, I highly appreciate Kurt's work on articles, but whenever I see a comment from him that isn't to do with the encyclopedia (be it RfA, here or wherever) I have come to realise it's probably going to not be worth reading. Which is the case with this comment right here. As well as this, the comment itself is a perrennial proposal. The names of admins will not change. You could alternatively call them SysOp, which is probably more accurate, but people are simply not going to stop calling them what they always have. Calling them something else will change nothing. Sincerely, --82.31.3.1 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• What a very silly idea. Who on earth would employ an untrained servant aged 14? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

After all, the term "administrator" implies the role of a master.. —Random832 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, excuse me but I am having a hard time assuming good faith here, particulary because all this noise is coming from a user that was previously blocked for disrupting the RFA process, its hard not to feel like you are trying to prove a point of some kind. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, what was more disruptive--my perfectly legitimate comments on RfA, or the grossly inappropriate block on me that was fanatically opposed by an overwhelming proportion of the community? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly legitimate? you were opposing only because they were self nominations, did you even took some time to review the contributions of those users? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, because the mere fact of self-nomination makes everything else irrelevant--so there'd be no point. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep discussions that are not related to this proposal out of this thread. Use each other's talk pages if you really can't control the urge to have this discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, does this mean I get to pull out my maid costume with pink feather duster from last Halloween again? :) krimpet✽ 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need the outcome of this discussion to do that, (especially if you post pictures...) -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ut Wikipedia "administrators" don't RUN anything--the community as a whole runs Wikipedia; the admins only carry out and enforce the community's decisions. They are, indeed, mere servants of the community.

Well, if that's how you feel Kurt, you'll be removing your opposes from those RfAs you've participated in and you'll be stopping making comments which could damage the community, I presume. Nick (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That does not follow--those who think otherwise need to be stopped, after all. And I submit that your illegitimate war-mongering against me has done more damage to the community than anything I've ever done (which has only served to make Wikipedia better). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In which case, I invite you to provide the community with conclusive proof that all admin candidates who self nominate themselves don't think of themselves as servants, but as people who "need to be brought down a peg or two" once promoted. The sad reality of all this is you were spurned by the community at RfA and you're having the longest hissy little fit in all history. Isn't it. Pip pip. Nick (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to insist that this is all merely sour grapes when it's not. Perhaps you might be close-minded and incapable of changing your mind over the course of a few years, but that's no reason to assume that everyone else is the same way. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, it'll be me that's wrong. It'll be me with the closed mind. That's right. I'm the chap who refuses to open my mind to the possibility that some self nominating admin candidates might be really rather beneficial to the project, aren't I. Blocking you might well have been the wrong thing to do, but I can open my mind to that possibility, you on the other hand... Nick (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As you know quite well, I've never denied that many--perhaps even most--self-noms turn out alright. My concern is that WE CAN'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE BEFOREHAND, and so it becomes a comparison of potential risk to potential benefit--and self-nomming is, in my judgment, the factor that tips the scale irrevocably to the side of "it's not worth the risk." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Becoming an admin is not a promotion to a position of power, but it certainly isn't a demotion to servant level either. Admins are supposed to be regular users with some extra tools. Mr.Z-man 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so admins are meant to serve the community. I also note by glancing at my bank statement that admins don't get paid. There's a name for someone that serves without being paid: a slave. Are you suggesting admins should be slaves to the community? --Tango (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mere absence of compensation is not sufficient for someone to be a slave--hell, slaves generally ARE compensated (they still have to be fed, clothed, and housed, for instance). No, the measure of slavery is not compensation but coercion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

--MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(Tweet!) Personal foul, use of cute picture to prove a point, five-yard penalty... -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the proposal because we would need to call bureaucrats "pirates". -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arr! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing down here, ok so passing a self nomination will undoubtly make the candidate a awful admin? what about "The candidate may respond to the comments of others." how is a candidate supposed to respond to concerns of others if people give blind opposition? how is blindly opposing several nominations a "legitimate concern"? how is it constructive? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean, please keep unrelated and off-topic disagreements out of this thread. If you have an axe to grond with Kurt, you can use each other's talk pages. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume bad faith, I don't "have a axe to grind" with this user, this is relevant, it seems quite obvious that this user opened this based on his past issues with how we select admins. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely related and on-topic. --Tango (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Except I've never had issues with how we select admins--only with certain individuals becoming admins.

Look, everyone assumes that my end goal is to ban self-noms on RfA. It's not. I don't support self-noms, but if other people don't have a problem with it, or like it, more power to them. It's like members of the Communist Party running for public office--I'd never vote for one, categorically, but I sure as hell don't think they should be forbidden from running either. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem that some people are having is that on RFAs you claim that self-noms may be power hungry, implying that being an administrator is a position of power, but now you're here claiming its a position of servitude. So are self noms signing up for power or servitude? Mr.Z-man 03:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never implied that administratorship is a position of power--at least not in the political sense; no one can doubt that it grants additional technical powers--that's the whole point, after all.. I have merely pointed out that some people quite incorrectly view administratorship as a position of political power, and are intent upon abusing the technical power towards those ends--and that self-noms are more likely to fall into this category. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of servants... -- penubag  (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Custodians sounds nice! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Custodians" seems like something out of ancient Rome, it sounds good but it still has the "authority" matter that is being used as basis of this discussion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Librarians

I don't mind "not" making distinctions between users and administrators (I don't make it public my status as admin because it usually "inhibits" new users when discussing in talk pages). But "servants" is not adequate and, in certain situations, it could even be pejorative or insulting. The Spanish Wikipedia calls them "bibliotecarios" (literally "librarians"). In their discussion they mention the German Wikipedia don't call them administrators. I would like the change here too. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish I knew what the translations of some of those words were. The ones I do sort of understand all sound nice. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have always found the term bibliotecario being used in Es. silly to be honest, not all sources here are related to books or written documents wich is what a biblitecario works with. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it because we are the Great Library of the Web ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't any name change a potential 'spin' and actually may achieve the opposite of Kurt's desire? What I mean is, 'administrator' is not a value judgment, whereas 'servant' or 'custodian' implies someone is good. It would then work against exposing any few 'bad eggs'. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I will attract less attention when mailing Flickr users asking for free images if I say "Hi, I am Roberto, a Wikipedia servant". Makes me sound like a zombie or fanatic. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Still I think "custodian" is better than Wikiduende (wich was proposed as a alternative on Es.) that literally means "Wikielf", how would that sound? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Custodian is fine, but it also inspire a sense of "strong user". Note that Wikiduende is Wikignome. Wikielf would be Wikielfo. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No exactly, that varies per region, in Caribbean Spanish gnome = gnomo, duendes and elfos (wich is very rarely used from where I come) = elfs, then again I heard elfo more often in southern Latin American programming. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We aren't serious about this name change are we? -- penubag  (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

how about wikilackey ? Just joking lol:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even here? I'd delete it as trolling. I don't know how any of the substance could be considered good faith, with all due respect to the poster. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 04:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Custodian doesn't work since WP:RFC (which WP:RFA would be changed to) is already taken :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the "Servant" proposal went through, then "Requests for adminship" would be changed to "Requests for servitude" (LOL) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to assume full responsibility for all this mess, Anchoress, but he wouldn't accept it (check the history); he's too noble.

Or simply humourless—after all, "Kurt" does sound German, and we all know how funny these people are. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 04:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, I wasn't the one who removed that. And yes, I am of German ancestry--hell, my full name is "Kurt Maxwell Weber". Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you did. I was watching the page in real-time, and I guess I missed an edit. Wiki-jargon question: what is a strawman? Waltham, The Duke of 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so much WikiJargon, see Straw man -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I've seen the article again, but it's been so long I had forgotten the term's meaning. Now I guess I'll have to start learning the various fallacies' names and argumentum terms as well, or I'm doomed as far as wiki-politics are concerned. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Automatic welcoming

I'm not sure if this has been proposed before, but I think it would be nice if new users automatically got a welcome template on their talk page. That way, we could put them on the right track and hopefully convince them to stay. bibliomaniac15 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is (or was) a welcome page for newly registered accounts. I'll dig around and find it. Nick (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That was quicker than I thought. MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. It did look like this [3] at one point, but the consensus was all that information was too overwhelming for new users. There's no consensus for welcoming bots either, I should add. Nick (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It won't happen -- penubag  (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tabs At The Top

There should be tabs saying, for example, this page:

project page discussion edit project page edit discussion page history project page history dicussion +

Right now, the functionality is a bit lost. I mean the tabs can be moved around and organized, but right now, it's happened and possible and will happen that if the functionality is not there, those few precious seconds can cost a great idea from being exchanged, either on the dicussion page, or written down on the project page, let's say.

I know the developers might not see this, would someone please put this post on BugZilla? Thanks so much in advance.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to force everyone to deal with more tabs than now exist, since individual editors can tailor the tabs to be whatever they want. (But you do have to be a registered user.) See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts as a starting point. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding size to the deletion log

I feel it would be helpful to users (particularly non-admin patrollers) if they could see the size of a deleted page in the deletion log. They could then easily compare it to a current page and tag it if needed without having to view it. Now, since I'm new to the VP if this is in the wrong place or has already been proposed and rejected, please point in the right direction. Thanks. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales should be admonished and officially requested to step down.

To clarify a bit here, in the past I rejected some of these claims as conspiracy theories. And I am neutral because I think that a great deal of posters at Wikipedia Review are trolls (see my edits and comments on the Wikia article).

However, considering all of the recent stories in the news, it is getting a bit ridiculous. It's like nobody's going to say anything unless somebody manages to snap a photo of Jimmy walking out of Wikimedia's offices, with a black ski mask and a bag of money. Even then, people would argue, "But the glove doesn't fit!" (A reference to the O.J. Simpson trial)

Recognizing the facts involved here:

• The frequent appearance of impropriety by Wales and the Foundation (i.e., several controversial employees, including one which embezzle $5k and the Foundation simply fired them, telling no one).
• The financial mismanagement in FY 2007 as evidenced by the F7 2007 financial report
• Danny Wool's allegations of Wales being careless with Wikimedia funds, to the point that his foundation credit card was taken away.
• The allegations of Wales tampering with Rachel Marsden's biography, when she was involved with him in a relationship.
• Jeff Merkey's allegations that Wales offered to accept a bribe to promote a favorable version of Merkey's biography.
• Various inconsistent statements made by Wales and the Foundation.
• Jimmy's failure to appropriately address these concerns, brushing it off as if there is no story to tell.

For the sake of the Wikipedia project, I propose that the community formally admonish Jimbo Wales and demand that he resign as chairman emeritus. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the good thing about caring only about freedom is that you don't have to mess with all this chit-chat mess ;-) I think you should clarify the points for those who haven't heard yet (for example, mismanagement? inconsistent statements? failure to address concerns? etc).

As a side note, I thought the edits happened before the relation started, but as I said, I don't care about all the soap opera. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, Several controversial employees? Who was the second? What evidence from the 2007 financial report? You mean the audit that came up clean? I think Wales declared he had a COI with Marsden and left the editing to the OTRS team, I don't think he ever edited her article. Mr.Z-man 04:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As a non-CPA accountant I looked over the 2007 Financial Report and saw nothing obviously wrong. Sarcasticidealist (talk · contribs) who has experience in non-profit finance looked at them and saw nothing obviously wrong. If your refering to increasing costs for employees as opposed to increasing money spent on technology, I'd say the magnitude of the change is far from financial mismanagement. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations are not necessarily truths. Merkey's claims have been proven to be false. Corvus cornix_talk 04:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's "recognize the 'facts'" involved here. As a public figure, Wales is going to be subjected to scuttlebutt and rumor and not a one of the allegations on your lumped together list of indictments are substantiated facts. Indeed what we have here are a mix of unmitigated gossip, dubious allegations, some believable but not damning issues, and nothing I can see that lead straight to the gibbet where you appear to be now waiting, metaphorically speaking.

The Rachel Marsden matter is a non-issue—pure rumor. Wales admits a relationship. So what. The rumor part of it is that he edited her biography while he had that conflict. The only apparent statement from anyone in the know is from Wales, here, where he details that he first met Ms. Marsden in February of this year, but that he edited her biography two years ago as part of OTRS duties. Until someone shows differently, there's nothing here. If there's anyone who has ethical concerns ("married man"), Wales has publicly stated he was separated from his wife at the time. The details of Wale's personal life are otherwise irrelevant.

Jeff Merkley's allegations of bribes are just that, allegations. Until proven, they remain nothing but. But they certainly appear unbelievable, at least to me; not because I know Wales wouldn't do such a thing, though I've seen nothing that would indicate he would, but because he doesn't strike me as dumb enough to do so. Let's speculate for a moment. First, $5,000 a year is not peanuts for a person but it is to the foundation. If Wales would do this for a measly 5k, we would be seeing twenty other reports from all the other shills he promised the same or other preferential treatment. Second, Wales is...ahem...an experienced editor. He well knows how transparent edit histories are. If there was a quid pro quo here, this would be the height of stupidity because of how exposed he would be upon Merkley simply revealing that the money donated was for these favors, and about which Wales would have to know would be damning if made public. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm operating under the same lack of substantiated facts everyone else is.

Embezzlement by an employee. Pretty damn common, especially for an organization of any size. How exactly does this tar Wales? Maybe if you could show that Wales directly failed to supervise this employee in a manner that he should have and that would have ferreted out the plan, then you'd have something to run with. Do you? As for that they told no one, I'm not sure what duty they would they have to disclose this; they might even have had a duty to not disclose.

Various inconsistent statements made by Wales and the Foundation. Mummery. Where's the "diffs" i.e., this is totally unparticularized. Put up....

2007 financial mismanagement. I'm not saying there wasn't but just saying it without saying what you mean by this as if it's a well know fact is opaque.

Danny Wool's allegations are the most believable, that Wales may have been a bit lax in his bookkeeping on trips and didn't stay at motel 5, but I see no crime being spoken of.

So until something tangible comes out, if ever, all I see is a smear list that is made up mostly of hot air, as are the sensationalist news reports. By the way, if Wales is under indictment a month from now (I'm speaking loosely—some eventuality that puts flesh on these rumors), I will not regret this post. It is then that I'll see a reason to ask him to "step down", and not before.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Merkey's claims have been proven to be false." I have been following this case from the sideline, and while I have seen a lot of allegations, counterallegations and denials, I haven't seen any proof either way. So could you please point me to the proof that Merkey's claims are false? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the way Jimbo does his job, or anything else about Wikipedia in general, click Special:UserLogout and let the rest of us build an encyclopedia. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a false dilemma. I am not firmly in either camp, but to suggest that the only two alternatives are complete acceptance of the status quo or departure is incorrect. Certainly, there are some things that need to change about Wikipedia. --B (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What a load of @#%$, going through your post by line:

1. "The frequent appearance of impropriety . . ."

   vague or lacking specifics. . . whatever.

2. The financial mismanagement in FY 2007 as evidenced by . . ."

   by the report? I have yet to see anything concrete here either, but insinuations are great!

3. "Danny Wool's allegations . . ."

   italics mine, allegations, are you serious? The word can be replace with "unsubstantiated rumor"

4. "The allegations of Wales tampering with Rachel Marsden's biography, when she was involved with him in a relationship."

   Allegation again, but no tale is any good without a little sex thrown in for good measure.

5. "Jeff Merkey's . . ."

   Got to stop you right there, did you ever see any of his edits? I did, and suffice it to say, that I can't describe his issues with regard to (a lack of) credibility, without violating WP:NPA.

6. Various inconsistent statements made by Wales and the Foundation.

   Again no specifics. At this point it just looks like you're padding out the list.

7. Jimmy's failure to appropriately address these concerns, brushing it off as if there is no story to tell.

   To the extent that he addressed some issues, I thought it adequate or overdone or ultimately, not really needed.

Zenwhat, surely you some better way to occupy your time? I know I do. I can't even tell why you're here. And in case you misunderstand me, I am not asking you to "flesh out" the crap above, I'm done here. R. Baley (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is a ludicrous proposal. Danny Wool is a disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind, Brad Patrick has stated that Jimmy is all square financially with the foundation - and the sums involved are in any case tiny. The Marsden case was a bog standard OTRS matter that got out of hand when Jimmy started communicating privately, at which point he sent the OTRS list a mail recusing himself from further editing, something which I believe he has held to. Merkey is simply wrong, and has been told so. He is a great guy, but with a long history of firmly grabbing the wrong end of the stick and then laying about everybody with it. There have also been complaints to the State government and I believe the IRS as well form an editor who was banned for spamming, conflicted edits and sockpuppetry - those complaints which have been lodged have all been dismissed out of hand, as far as I can tell. So we are placing a lot of faith on the words of disgruntled axe-grinders and at the same time failing to extend any kind of good faith in favour of Jimbo. The vultures who are trying to get someone to put the knife in so they can have a go at the resultant corpse, they disgust me. Have you any idea how many operations as small as the Wikimedia Foundation have a profile that high? I would say it's in single figures. Of course a few mistakes will get made along the way and a few feathers ruffled, but it is one hell of an achievement and without ever taking on commercial sponsorship. Andnow you want to censure the man who created the whole thing? Get real. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Which of the two CheckUsers and various admins that contribute to Wikipedia Review do you feel are particularly trollish (i.e. liable to place a block on your account simply for the lulz)? Indeed, which of the other WP editors who also edit WR are trolls (and as you know, trolls just love to banhammerclub together), in your estimation? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Before this motion to declare the chair vacant comes before the assembly, might I ask whether the member plans on electing a new chair, or has some different system in mind altogether? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What motion? this isn't a community matter - in the sense that we can make suggestions to the foundation but they don't have to listen to them. What we decide here has no authority at all at the foundation level. What policy proposal that can actually be carried out by the community is being proposed? We can restrict him as an editor and an admin on wikipedia but that's it. His legal relationship with the foundation is a foundation issue. (and what's with the bullshit "assembly" speak? is that suppose to impress someone) --88.105.110.62 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Chairman, I call the member to order! :) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you wish any action to be taken, please be far more specific in your allegations. A few vague comments about known troublemakers making unsubstantiated allegations are not enough for a proposal like this. Also, who embezzled 5 grand? I seem to have completely missed that... --Tango (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't it just about time that Danny and his crew either put up some hard and fast evidence or shut up completely. Here we are again someone wanting Wales swinging from a lampost with not one scrap of reliable evidence. Do we have photographs of Wales emerging dishevelled from the Russian massage parlour, do we see the receipts? In fact has anyone seen any of these receipts for anything. I have seen no proof for anything, of anything. In most places in the world it is for guilt to be proven, not innocence. Has Wikipedia suddenly become very different from the rest of the world? Giano (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does anybody care what Jimbo Wales does in his private life? Yes he founded the project and is the chairman but he actually has very little to do with how this site has developed in terms of content and how it is developing. The extent of Wikipedia and the encyclopedia we see today is 99.9% the product of the people who have made it what it is not the man who founded it. Why does anybody care about what Jimbo does? Yes he founded this site and had a damn great idea in doing so but there seems to be some misconception that he is or should be some kind of saint. He's just a man like anybody else for franks sake and if you look at the overwhelming good of what he has done for the internet you;d think twice about getting into these petty squabbles about his unfitness for the position. Why don't you just give the poor guy a break. This is just another case of an attention seeker trying to bring down something so strong ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We in wikipedia make a point of operating on the basis of reliable, verifiable information. I have seen neither any reliable or verifiable information of misconduct here, only allegations. I cannot see how it would benefit the project at all if we were to demand that every official step down any time unsubstantiated allegation are made. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I heard an article desperate calling to be cleaned up somewhere out there. If you guys don't mind, I'll be going out now. bibliomaniac15 20:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

where is the proposal in this? --Fredrick day 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I should point out that Jimbo is *not* chairman. He used to be, but User:Anthere is the current chair of the board. Secondly, if Jimbo's private life is interfering with Wikimedia (which the allegations say it is), then it is certainly our concern. If he is successfully keeping his private life separate from Wikimedia (as all the evidence suggests he is), then it shouldn't be our concern at all. --Tango (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Jimbo really has gotten himself into a fine mess this time. Rachel Marsden is a very vocal and visible television personality and will not hesitate to denounce Jimbo from any venue she can find, including the O'Reilly Factor and other cable news shows. Of course the media will be all over this as the latest in Wikipedia's stumbles.

But the clincher is that Marsden has the quasi-pornographic statements of Wales himself...and that is enough to keep the story going for months! Everyone loves a good sex tale, regardless of all the other COI stuff...

Personally, I think Jimbo should consider stepping down. Average White Dork (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think he shouldn't, he should stay on and not even consider stepping down. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

and I still don't see anything here resembling a proposal for a policy (which ya know is what this page is for)? anyone got one or shall we just close this gossip shop down? --Fredrick day 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NO this page is not for policy recommendations. That would be the "Village Pump Policy" page; this is the "Village Pump Proposals" page. And the proposal on the table is that the community censure Mr. Wales and petition the foundation for his removal. Keep your issues straight please. Average White Dork (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a bit more straight forward. Oppose. that's my final word on the matter (because this isn't going to go anywhere, so why waste the bandwidth dealing with sock puppets who make five edits to create a history and then head over here for a bit of wikidrama). --Fredrick day 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to impugn me sir? I might be new to Wikipeodia but I'm no "sock puppet." Is there some kind of edit-count requirement to comment on this page? You should be ashamed of yourself. Average White Dork (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a strong plurality in favour of doing nothing (or rather, in favour of going away from this discussion and editing articles :-) on the grounds of lack of evidence. Is everyone willing to accept that as the consensus here? --Coppertwig (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I contend that Wikipedia will always have a strong plurality of people willing to call every bit of evidence "conjecture" and every fact an "allegation", no matter how concrete and damning it may be. Remember, Jimbo is the guy who, within a 40-day span, hired an employee at Wikia that he knew to be a fraud, then appointed him to the Arbitration Committee, then told the media that he "didn't really have a problem with it", then told the media that Wikipedia would adopt a credentials verification process. The community rolled over and played dead on that one, too. This sex scandal and financial embarrassment (Moscow massage parlor "allegation" that hasn't been refuted by a single person -- namely Jimbo) will likewise be given the 'possum treatment. I don't think I'm ever going to donate another cent to the Wikimedia Foundation if this is how we react to mismanagement of our tax-deductible donations. - Four Thirty-Nine (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My partner is very involved with the open source community in the UK and whenever he's at meetings people are laughing at how ridiculous wikipedia is being made to seem. It was on Hacker Voice Radio. Jimbo's actions were used as a springboard for them to mock wikipedia for vandalisms they found, but it was the gossip caused by Jimbo that was used to get the listener interested in laughing at the project. It was an embarrassment to me as an editor and made what we're doing look even more stupid to outsiders. Those within Wikipedia may not be able to see it, but these stories are being taken seriously by those not involved in wikipedia- it was even on the BBC site. I do think he is a detriment to the project at the moment. But I don't think he will step down because no-one will make him. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 14:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to lay out a detailed explanation for my bulleted points above, because long posts are generally seen as "trolling," even if they are true. As noted, the information is fairly readily available on Google News and other sources. Just put those names in and "Wikipedia," and plenty of articles will pop up.

Aecis Mr.Z-man ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC): When I said "several" controversial employees, I mean:

• Carolyn Doran [4]. Calling $5K embezzlement which was covered up by the Foundation "very common" is false.
• Michael Davis, previously involved in a shady civil case involving stock fraud [5]
• Essjay (Wikia employee but not Wikimedia) who lied about his Ph. D. in Theology, still allowed to stay
• Danny Wool, fired, accuses Wikimedia of financial mismanagement, now referred to as a "disgruntled ex-employee."

MBisanz: I heard claims of financial mismanagement from somebody within Wikimedia before the financial report was released. Hence, any appeals to authority and distortion of the statistics in the report will be unpersuasive. I had considered a while back making charts of spending over the past few years to demonstrate the point. If you're a CPA, I'm sure you've got Quicken or other accounting software. By all means create such charts and upload them to Meta. It would be very helpful. For instance, you could start with a chart of their travel expenses over the past several years.

Corvus cornix: You are right, which is why I admit there isn't any hard evidence. However, Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia are both going to be hurt financially by these allegations. Jimmy hasn't addressed them much, attempting to brush them off and keep quiet about them (probably his lawyer's advice), and he hasn't stated any intention to take them to court. Therefore, the circumstances suggest they are probably true. Jimmy isn't going to endure personal and financial hardship for the sake of lies. If these claims are false, then he ought to take them to court.

Dihydrogen monoxide: I think Wikipedia is extremely horrible as a reference (the claim "it's a good starting point," is true, but it's comparable to Google and definitely not as good as the library) and the Foundation's mismanagement has encouraged this. Nevertheless, editing Wikipedia is enjoyable and it has great potential.

In the spirit of open-source collaboration, telling dissenters, "If you don't like it, go away," isn't appropriate.

R. Baley: Please be polite.

Obuibo Mbstpo: We can't remove Jimmy from the Foundation, because the Foundation owns Wikipedia legally. What I am simply suggesting is a censure of Jimbo and the proposal that he should voluntarily step down. If he did, there would not need to be a replacement because "Chairman Emeritus," was a title which he created for himself, and doesn't actually perform any particular role. It's just his way of having a permanent position on the board and supposedly he doesn't do much nowadays.

Blofeld: This has absolutely nothing to do with Jimbo's personal life. What Rachel Marsden did was immature and people who harass Jimmy over it are despicable, of course, and I suggest removing any such remarks if they show up here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume that your answer was in response to Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs), and not to me? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, corrected. Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Merkinsmum above, this negative publicity is harming the project. Where I don't agree is that Wales is to blame for it, there is no evidence, all we have, so far, is scurrilous unsubstantiated gossip. It may be that Wales is the biggest, most lecherous crook ever - but were is the proof? Time and time again Danny has been asked to provide proof, yet we are still waiting, all we have is rumour and innuendo. If I were going to deliberately wreck someone's career and reputation, I would make bloody sure I had some concrete black and white copies of receipts etc, to back my claims up, are any of you saying you would not do the same? So where is the proof? When it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, then is the time to hang him and flog him. If it was proved, I will be first in the queue. All any of us know for certain is that he had a brief fling with a woman - well sorry, that's enough to warrant this judgement. We are here to write an encyclopedia not be moralists, lets not judge people with a POV we would never put in a page. If you want someone to hang over all this, I'm beginning to think you are looking at the wrong man. Giano (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's a difference between "not making a public announcement" and "covering it up." How many companies or non-profits do you know of that announce their personnel matters on a public mailing list? I'm not familiar with Michael Davis, and the specific entry you linked to doesn't seem to mention him at all. Essjay was hired by Wikia, so that has nothing to do with his job at Wikimedia, and Danny wasn't fired, he resigned and was not controversial when he was hired (he wasn't really all that controversial until a few weeks ago).

You then go to say that the external auditors distorted the statistics (or that the foundation did and the auditors didn't care/notice). This is a pretty big allegation - care to back that up?

This whole thread reminds me a lot of the conspiracy POV-pushers on the 9/11 talk page. Lots of unsubstantiated rumors with exaggeration and twisted facts, no actual proof. Mr.Z-man 17:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Who is alleging that Doran embezzled $5k? I haven't seen that allegation before. I do, however, remember Jimbo saying he would refund any lost money out of his own pocket.
2. If my memory serves, Danny resigned, he was not fired.
3. I don't believe Jimbo has a permanent position of the board any more - he is appointed for one year at a time. "Chairman emeritus" just means "former chairman", it more a description that a position, at most it's an honorary position with no rights or privileges associated with it.

--Tango (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it yet, and there are people here who will dismiss any of these articles, no matter how many, it seems, but there is an article in a 'gossip rag' now about another of Jimbo's alleged possible previous relationships, with Sue Gardner. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 18:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

News to me. Is there an online version you can link to? While it sounds extremely unlikely, I'd like to be fully informed before passing judgement. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realise this is English Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia Meta, if you wish to make proposals regarding the board and/or foundation, please direct your comments to either of those websites. Nick (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo only really has two powers left, a vote in board meetings, and his powers related to the English Wikipedia ArbCom - him being removed from his positions affects the English Wikipedia more than any other project, so this is an appropriate place to hold such a discussion. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man: I'm not saying the external auditors distorted the statistics. I'm saying that the CPA above is, which is why I challenge him to actually chart the data in the reports using accounting software.

Tango: yes, you're right about Danny Wool resigning, I was wrong about that. I assumed he was fired because he's referred to as a "disgruntled ex-employee." Generally, that only refers to people who are fired. About Doran's embezzlement of $5,000 from Wikimedia, Danny Wool supposedly mentioned it (probably on his blog). Jimbo acknowledged it here. [6] His excuse for why the Foundation wasn't upfront was because their attorney told them to not be upfront.

Giano: you are right there's no hard evidence as I've said. If Jimbo doesn't sue, though, it is extremely likely that these allegations are true. Why on earth would Jimbo or the Foundation accept the financial losses associated with a tarnished reputation if these claims were false? Now, I'm sure you'll say, "These statements won't affect Wikipedia at all financially!" Extremely doubtful, because of the nature of the claims and how widely syndicated the stories have been.

Nick: This isn't a Foundation proposal and Meta isn't the place for Wikipedia proposals. I could, of course, e-mail the Foundation. They would then read half of the first sentence, chuckle, and click "Delete," followed by copying and pasting a generic reply.

Merkinsmum: I just saw that story about the affair with Sue Gardner. It's disturbing, but it's just gossip. Not substantiated at all, just anonymous rumors and not really all that relevant unless they produce the photos they claim are circulating. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo didn't acknowledge that the money was embezzled. He acknowledged it was a mistake to hire her, but her criminal record is more than enough to make the case. He didn't deny the embezzlement, but the comment you link to certainly doesn't confirm it. --Tango (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Giano: you are right there's no hard evidence as I've said. If Jimbo doesn't sue, though, it is extremely likely that these allegations are true" - That statement is the most complete and utter bolox I have ever read on Wikipedia. People frequently chose not to sue for all manner of reasons, usually because if they are in the public eye, they realise quite rightly that mud sticks, the opposing council love to air everything from the last time they screwed their wife to the colour of their underwear, all of which is devoured not just by a grubby public but by their children and parents, often people chose to spare their relations that ordeal, realising the slanders and libels die down long before a case reaches court and resurrects the whole dam pile of shite. None of us doubt Wales enjoys the company of women, but on my side of the Atlantic that's not a crime. What I want to see is the evidence of a crime, and so far I'm very disappointed. Giano (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm NOT a CPA, as I made clear in my comment above. I'm an accountant. That said, I could take the financial statements and create pretty charts in excel. But here's the problem. If the fix was in before the auditors reviewed the statements, the numbers will have also been altered, and the statistics will be clean of fraud. On the other hand, if nothing was done to cook the books and hide fraud, the auditors would've picked it up during their lenghty audit and reported accordingly. So really the end numbers are meaningless to proving fraud occured. Your looking for bank balances, original documents, etc, which is what the auditors reviewed. And they would've run ratios similar to charts and investigated things like aberrant travel costs. Now I do admit I won't be donating to Wikimedia both because of limited resources and because I don't approve of all its practices (I think we should be more technically oriented, less movement oriented), but I certainly won't object to Jimob & company continuing the movement through it, especially since they have been so transparent in using a public foundation with a CPA audit. It would've been very easy to incorporate in some island off of florida and never have to publish a single digit. MBisanz ^talk 08:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my solution: Jimbo should take a vow of chastity and hold all Wikimedia business lunches at Denny's. szyslak 09:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone who has made allegations against Jimbo in this thread either strike out their allegations with <s> </s> or else provide details and evidence. In reply to Four Thirty-Nine: I'm sorry, it doesn't convince me at all to try to prop up vague allegations by stating that no matter how much evidence there is it will be rejected. Let's see the actual evidence, if there is any. Zenwhat, I agree with Giano that not suing is definitely not a sign of guilt. Allegations happen probably thousands of times as often as anybody sues anybody. Suing takes time, effort, money and as Giano points out, tends to increase media attention to the pejorative statements.

If the evidence is readily available on Google, then let's see some links to it. If you don't want to take up too much space on this project page with links to evidence, I suggest you set aside a section of your user talk page, or some other part of this bounteous wiki, for laying out the evidence, and provide a link here to there. There's plenty of room on this project page for a link to the evidence, if there is evidence. Let's see diffs, links to images of photocopies of receipts, names, dates, quotes, specific amounts of money, references to specific clauses of specific legislation or policy allegedly violated, etc. Let's see reliable sources up to a standard that would be required in order to make a pejorative statement about someone in an ordinary Wikipedia BLP. Otherwise, I consider that large sections of this thread are in violation of WP:NPA and WP:BLP. No hard evidence? There's always <s> </s>.

Oh, so Jimbo is alleged to have forgiven someone for telling a lie? Gee, that sounds like the sort of thing someone might do who has enough optimism to actually start up a wonderful project like Wikipedia before it's been proven to work. It's been said that pessimists are right more often but that optimists accomplish more. I missed where forgiving someone for telling a lie had been legislated against, though -- could someone post a link to the legislation?

And gee, Jimbo seems to have developed a friendship with someone he had been corresponding with on Wikipedia business. Wow, I guess the man who started up this project for the benefit of all humanity has the capacity to feel love. Possibly, on a regular basis when he's helping remove potentially libellous material from BLP's he's motivated partly by caring for the well-being of those people and not just in order to avoid having the Wikimedia foundation sued. What a coincidence: when I do BLP work (what little I've done) I'm also motivated by caring for the well-being of the people involved. I've also been known to forgive people. Maybe people would like to pass a motion asking me to resign, too.

If the problem is a disagreement about how the Wikimedia funds should be allocated, how about trying to pass a motion asking that the funds be used in some particular different way, rather than a motion asking Jimbo to resign? --Coppertwig (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You calling them "vague allegations" doesn't make them vague. I could just as easily call them "clear statements of unrefuted truth" and stick my fingers in my ears and say "la la la, I can't hear you", and be no worse off than you. You apparently default to "I trust Jimbo". I default to "Isn't Jimbo the guy who re-wrote Larry Sanger's role in the foundation of this project; the guy who modified how Bomis would be described on Wikipedia; the guy who hired a fraud to work at Wikia then appointed him to the Arbitration Committee, then told the press he "didn't have a problem with it"; the guy who voted to install a felon as the Foundation's COO; the guy who hosted private (secret?) agenda-setting mailing lists for Wikipedia on the Wikia servers; the guy who said "nofollow" was Brion Vibber's decision, even though Brion says it was the other way around; the guy who hasn't refuted the claim that he failed to account for the appropriateness of $7,000 worth of expenses; the guy who made sure Wikimedia Foundation would not be a member organization; the guy who had 60% of the Foundation Board consisting of Wikia employees for a couple of years; the guy who did a lot of calling people "trolls" when they asked important questions that were simply uncomfortable to answer?"

You go ahead and see it your way. I prefer to see it my way. - Four Thirty-Nine (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Wales on this: unsourced allegations should be deleted completely as a violation of WP:BLP.

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. . . . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". . . .This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

Perhaps this is better done by somebody with a mop and bucket. --Boson (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You want a source? How's this for a source? Open-Source Troubles In Wiki World The New York Times--your source for good, cheap mops and buckets. Eric Barbour (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• The press can repeat an allegation a thousand times, bit if it's not true it will not become true. I am more than happy to believe the worst of Wales (even he knows that). However, without the evidence even I am forced to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume him innocent of all but a little extra sex outside the teachings of the Church. This has been damaging the Encyclopedia and Wales reputation for long enough. The hard concrete evidence has not appeared. So now my message to Danny, and those to keen to prolong this, is: Give us tangible concrete evidence or shut the fuck up! Giano (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing the way DYK works

I've suggested a way in which we could encourage article improvement here: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Changing DYK process. Please take a look and make any suggestions/comments. Thanks RxS (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Em-dashes

There is a discussion currently going on in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Em dash about whether the Manual of Style should only favour spaced en-dashes and unspaced em-dashes for disjunction (thus disallowing spaced em-dashes), each format to be used consistently in any given article.

You are all welcome to comment. Waltham, The Duke of 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki Userpages

There is one thing about Wikimedia Foundation I do not understand/like. Why not have a single account for all projects? Maybe with activation request controls for some of the projects, but being able to have only one account. Anyway, the thing is that it's sometimes a real hassle even for myself to switch between user pages from Commons to Wikipedia, for example. I have started to make a template that would allow users to add links to their userpages on any or all projects. It is 100% usable right now, looks nice, and works great, but I don't consider it finished since I have only used the English versions of the projects up until now.

To use:
Copy and paste the template code and enter your corresponding usernames in the corresponding fields. You can leave those you don't have blank.

{{User:Mistman123/Templates/Profiles
|Foundation = 
|Wikipedia =
|Wiktionary =
|Wikiquote =
|Wikibooks =
|Wikisource = 
|Wikispecies = 
|Wikinews = 
|Wikiversity = 
|Commons = 
|Incubator = 
|Meta = 
|Mediawiki = 
}}

An example of mine:

Interwiki Userpages Wikipedia User: Mistman123 (talk) Wiktionary User: Mistman123 (talk) Wikimedia Commons User: Mistman123 (talk) Wikimedia Meta-Wiki User: Mistman123 (talk) MediaWiki User: Mistman123 (talk)

I am open to suggestions and requests which you can submit here. Hope you enjoy it! ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)