Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

« Older discussions, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156

"Datebot" (limited scope)[edit]

This is a proposal to increase date consistency in citations, per MOS:DATEUNIFY. Specifically, a bot would look for templates like

and bring present dates in line with desired usage on that specific article. I would make a WP:BOTREQ for this, but I'd rather go in with a consensus that this is desired, and what scope is OK with the community. Note that the below is just the general idea/goal, there will be odd cases and kinks that need to be ironed out. That's what the bot trial would help with. If nothing reliable can be made, then the bot wouldn't get approved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Option A: extreme conservativeness[edit]

Under this option (if option B is not accepted), the bot would not touch dates elsewhere in the article, quotes, or mess with valid format (21 Jan 2009 → 21 January 2009), it would simply those in |date=/|access-date=/similar parameters of the various {{cite xxx}} templates. For example, if {{Use dmy dates}} is used in an article, then the bot would convert

  • Smith, J. (2006). "Article of things, part 1". Journal of Things. 1 (2): 3–4. Retrieved March 10, 2009.
  • Smith, J. (March 23, 2007). "Article of things, part 2". Journal of Things. 2 (2): 3–4. Retrieved March 10, 2009.
  • Smith, J. (2008). "Article of things, part 3". Journal of Things. 3 (2): 3–4. Retrieved 2009-10-29.
  • Smith, J. (Jan 21, 2009). "Article of things, part 4". Journal of Things. 4 (2): 3–4. Retrieved March 29, 2017.


and if {{Use mdy dates}} is used, then it would convert to

If no {{Use mdy dates}}/{{Use dmy dates}} is found, the bot would do nothing.

Option B: enforce majority use[edit]

In addition to the above, the bot could also determine the majority use and further normalize the article. For instance, if 23 citation used something like |date=21 January 2009 /|access-date=25 February 2011, 2 citation used |date=21 Jan 2009, and 3 citations used |access-date=2013-02-25, then it would bring the minority cases in line with the majority. For example the above would be normalize to

Ties would result in no action since the bot could not determine which variant is preferred.

Option C: Status quo[edit]

Leave the mess to be dealt with by humans.

!Vote (Datebot)[edit]

  • Support both A and B as proposer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support both A and B - good idea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support both A and B – sounds like a good idea, little potential to go horribly wrong, hopefully "Datebot" would not be confused too often with DatBot. SemiHypercube 22:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • C at least until questions below are gone through. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Cautious support for A, oppose B. The bot sounds like it is merely helping editors with A, but in B, it is basically making policy by closing an unannounced RFC by simple majority vote. That goes far beyond what a bot should ever be allowed to do. You might talk me into supporting addition of a hidden category of articles with inconsistent mdy formats or something, but there's also a good chance you wouldn't. To me, Wikipedia articles are crowdsourced entities with a multitude of faces - it doesn't bother me if people go back and forth between "color" and "colour" in the same paragraph or use a big range of date formats. If each individual one is correct, they are all correct. Wnt (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • C fed up of bots gnoming and lighting up my watchlist en masse, then coming back for a second bite when someone introduces the inconsistency again. If it is some important necessary change then I'm ok with them, but this seems to be just to make things conform with MOS, which is only a style guide anyway. I quite content changing dates manually (and do, using a gadget) on an ad hoc and occasional basis. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C. It's bad enough when humans violate WP:CITEVAR and go imposing new date styles on an article, but worse if it's a bot that has an air of just-almost-always doing everything right. Moreover, a bot would make it harder to find abuses by humans: if you impose your own style on an article and a bot comes around rather soon, watchers may not notice that you've decided you know it all, because of the bot edit that's hidden from their watchlists in many cases. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The opposite of A cite dates should not be standardized to match the text in the article: the Date used should be the date used in the publication cited, and Date added should be automatically converted to one format across the entire project. (the easiest way of doing that would be for the template to ask separately for d m and y. ) DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea, and in some ways the smartest solution. The problem I have with it is a philosophical quibble -- it suggests that users would see different versions of the same article. This worries me because it cuts into the idea of Wikipedia being a single reference in a fixed form. It doesn't seem worth departing from that fundamental nature just to have a different date format when English-speaking readers are accustomed to running across all the usual variants and can easily understand them. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Wnt: For what it's worth, the "convert-on-display" option doesn't seem that different to me from how WPs in languages with multiple scripts offer the option to convert the script on display. Could have an option to just show the date as it is stored in the wikitext if you don't like the conversion. Everyone has the WP as single reference in fixed form regardless in the form of its source code, too, arguably. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 16:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Datebot)[edit]

The description seems deficient. For option A, for the first list of changes, there is no indication whether one of the use xxx dates template is present. I oppose option B because the bot could encounter the article at a moment when it does not reflect the long-standing consensus. Also, it would be inappropriate to have different criteria for bot edits than for manual edits; if a bot were allowed to change on the basis of the majority of the dates in citations, it would be OK for manual edits too. But currently it not OK for manual edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Jc3s5h (talk · contribs) I clarified a few things. Some words were missing. Also, it is not only ok, but encouraged for humans to do those sort of changes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The expectations in MOS:DATEUNIFY would indicate an editor should not change an access-date from 2008-11-18 to November 18, 2008 just because the majority of all citation-related dates was mdy, so long as all or nearly all access-dates used the YYYY-MM-DD format. Also, if the article almost exclusively used mdy in the article overall, because most of the citations only gave a year, just counting a handful of citations that did give a month, date, and year could easily give a false result. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
If the citations don't match the body of the article, then the body didn't really make the article worse than it was before, since it was already inconsistent. If it normalized the citations the 'wrong way', just slap either {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use mdy dates}} on it and you'll ensure the long-term stability of the article dates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
We have had a recent discussion which rejected the expectation that the access date be in the same format as any other dates (only that the access dates be unified among themselves was a consensus there). That's this discussion, which, probably should have been closed as "consensus against" the proposal rather than the "no consensus" close by Compassionate. --Izno (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Uggh is this really a mess that needs to be dealt with at all? Citation parameters aren't "prose" they are "data" - they should just be in ISO format. Can you show some good examples of versions of an article that have this "problem"? — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
ISO/YYYY-MM-DD are relatively rare in dates save for accessdates. But for a good example, see Cancer, with several inconsistent dates the bot could fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: OK, so in Cancer we have:
A few examples
Bast RC, Croe CM, Hait WN, Hong WK, Kufe DW, Piccart-Gebhart M, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, Yang H, Holland JF (3 October 2016). Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-93469-2.

Kleinsmith LJ (2006). Principles of cancer biology. Pearson Benjamin Cummings. ISBN 978-0-8053-4003-7.

Mukherjee, Siddhartha (16 November 2010). The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4391-0795-9. Retrieved August 7, 2013.

Pazdur R, Camphausen KA, Wagman LD, Hoskins WJ (May 2009). Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cmp United Business Media. ISBN 978-1-891483-62-2. Cancer at Google Books. Archived from the original on 15 May 2009.

Tannock I (2005). The basic science of oncology. McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 978-0-07-138774-3.

Schwab M (23 September 2008). Encyclopedia of Cancer. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-540-36847-2.
What will be changed there - the access date in #3? — xaosflux Talk 04:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: diff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: thanks for the example, any idea what sort of volume you are trying to address? I'm only seeing this minimally beneficial to readers, with month names already spelled out it isn't fixing any ambiguity. — xaosflux Talk 14:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: honestly it's pretty hard to gauge. I'd guess that in the ballpark of 10% of articles have date inconsistancies, but I don't know how much of that could be fixed by bot before things are trialed.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
10%! ~579085 edits just to tweak some date formatting in the references section seems quite excessive to me, are there good arguments for how this will improve usability for readers? — xaosflux Talk 17:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't be 10% of all articles edits, just ballpark 10% of articles with MOS:DATEUNIFY issues somewhere, only a fraction of which are in citation templates, and only a fraction of which could be addressed by bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
It might be more than 10% if it is fixing mdy/dmy inconsistencies which are common. But if it wasn't a "fast bot" (immediate fix) rather the slow boat to China for a year to process all 5.5m articles, before starting over, changes are saved up and it doesn't thrash watchlists. I think the pro argument is people seem care about fixing date formats so it would save labor - the number of cites being added is exponential compared to number of qualified editors - it keeps getting worse over time. This proposal should be linked from the FA and GA forums as they tend to be most focused and might have concerns we don't know about. -- GreenC 18:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 2 Questions - 1) If option B was used, which states "in addition to the above", what happens if the DMY/MDY statement conflicts with majority usage? Which wins?
2) What do we do about date style squabbles? Some articles, usually those with both British and American topics involved, have some mind-numbing disputes over date styles. Would this bot freely replace each date set, each time the DMY/MDY requirement is edited? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: could be several options, but the way I envision things I'd see {{Use dmy dates}}/{{Use mdy dates}} trumping everything else, since someone placed that on purpose. If there's a squabble, decide which of the two to use, and the bot will follow that decision. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

"remind me" bot[edit]


Former discussion: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Remind_me_bot.

The idea is to create a bot/template pair that sends on request a reminder to go back to a particular page. The case use is typically to check back on a discussion on high-traffic pages where a watchlist is inefficient or (on the contrary) when the discussion has very little participation and you want to make sure to come back one week afterwards to assess consensus.

As the reminder would likely take the form of an in-wp post, such a bot needs consensus per WP:BRFA. I believe VPP to be the best (or least worse) forum for that discussion, but do tell if I missed something obvious.

Envisaged technical implementation[edit]

A template (e.g. {{remind me}}) that takes one argument, either a fixed date or a duration of time, is left by a user on the page they wish to be reminded of. Template transclusions are watched by a Toolforge bot (running every hour or so?). When the time is up, the bot posts a notification to the requesting user's talk page.

Asking for a notification by this process is public (i.e. other editors know that you asked for an update, when you asked for it etc.).

Depending on the technical details, and if that template gets widespread use, it might become necessary to put limits on the use. I would suggest no more than X pending notifications per user (so that you can put hanging notifications for Christmas 2118 but it eats up one of your slots); I think X=10 is a reasonable starting value if it comes to that, but I do not think it is needed outright.

Possible objections[edit]

  1. While the bot postings themselves are fairly innocuous (you get 'em only if you ask for 'em), there could still be some clutter in the reminder request templates: e.g. if 100 posters drop just a "remind me" template in a discussion where 5 people are actually participating. I believe (1) that is quite speculative and (2) if it ever becomes a problem, it might be solved by conduct guidelines (e.g. "avoid using this template outside an overwise meaningful post, as this can be considered disruptive").
  2. As pointed in the previous discussion, that might duplicate a Community Wishlist item that was among the top 10 (and hence will be worked on by WMF staff). I believe the use case is slightly different (that one is targeted at talk pages, as opposed to articles), and even if it is indeed redundant, I do not see the harm. (As I will be the one handling the bot coding, time wasted duplicating a system can be ignored: I think it would be fun to code. The only question is whether having two systems might be harmful, not useless.)


I have a better design.

Make a bot that you place on your own talk page (or on a special page if that makes the bot easier to write) with the same fixed date / duration of time arguments.

If I put

 {{remindme|03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC)|Check [[Talk:Cockcroft–Walton generator]] for replies}}

on the appropriate page It would wait until January of 2038 and then post the following to my talk page:

Remindme bot reminder notice
On 00:00 1 January, 1970 03:14 (UTC), you requested a 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC) reminder. The text of the reminder is:
Check Talk:Cockcroft–Walton generator for replies
-- [Bot signature]

That way you could be reminded of anything. I have a similar reminder set locally that I use to remind me to check the edit history of blocked IP vandals a week after the block expires. That way I can report them if they go right back to vandalizing.

To reduce abuse:

The reminder should happen even if some vandal deletes the request.

There should be a way to cancel a reminder.

Users or admins should be able to cancel reminders for that user.

Reminders should be limited to 255 characters.

Users should be limited to no more than 32 open reminder requests.

A FAQ should explain that this is for Wikipedia-related use only; no "don't forget to buy more Vegemite" reminder requests.

If possible, it should be impossible or at least difficult to set a reminder to be shown on someone else's talk page.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: If this were done on a user "JSON" page (eg User:Example/remindme.json) it would be: simpler for bots to parse requests (I think), restricted to editing by the same user, or administrators (meaning that vandalism is not an issue, and if the reminder is only sent if the request is present at the time specified, allows cancelation), makes it easier to limit requests (only pay attention to the first 32 json objects). Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Can't you just make a bot-less design? Just put a template on your userpage that displays blank until time XXX, and then displays the reminder you wish it to display. You could probably make a user script that automatically adds such a reminder from any page. —Kusma (t·c) 11:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Kusma: I could start working on a user script, which (i think) wouldn't need community approval (like a bot) because its a script, and would just edit in userspace... --DannyS712 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Community Wishlist[edit]

Hi guys, I might be misreading things, but does this not sound like one of the things in the top then of the community wishlist Article Reminders? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It does. IMO people interested should get involved with the creation of that feature than rush to implement a bot to do mostly the same thing. Anomie 03:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I concur with Anomie. I wouldn't spend too much time on a bot/user script right now. The long-term solution might end up being a MediaWiki extension, which would address the possible objection about bot postings (since there'd be no bot involved). I suspect the implementation would allow for reminders about any page. To be clear, this project isn't "owned" by WMF, per se, rather it's now their responsibility. There have been top 10 wishes implemented by volunteers in the past. So, if you are eager to code you most certainly can be a part of it :) We just need to find the right solution first, one that accommodates the necessary workflows and will work for all wikis. MusikAnimal talk 23:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk: Due to the discussion becoming rather long (200,000+ bytes) I have moved the discussion to a subpage. I apologize for any confusion this may cause. Thank you. SemiHypercube 00:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Reduce number of vandalism warning levels[edit]

It has long been my view that four warning levels is rather excessive. People really only should need to be told once to stop. The only caveat is whether they actually read the message, but those who clearly don't are also those for whom extra warnings are useless.

On nearly every other Wikimedia project I edit, usually only one or two warnings are given at the most. I think two levels would be a good compromise, retaining the softly-worded first level (in case of good-faith mistakes) and the third level while eliminating the second and fourth levels. Those who continue vandalizing after they know it's blockable don't need another warning (level 4), and level 2 warnings could easily be merged into level 1. This would decrease patrollers' workload while also decreasing the total amount of vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support too many levels. I don't warn when a level 4 is needed I report. Vandals know they are doing vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jasper Deng: Not sure if I'll end up actually participating in this as far as support/oppose goes, but are you proposing this for only the uw-vandalism series, for selected user talk warnings, or for all user talk warnings?--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    I guess it's {{uw-vandalism}} only since that is only warning template series for vandalism Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 04:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    For now, I'm just proposing it for the vandalism templates, but I do want to bring it up as a general point of discussion. Other templates for which we should be reducing the number of warning levels are those related to spamming (since spam often falls in the same realm as vandalism), introducing deliberate factual errors, creating inappropriate pages, and maybe even BLP violations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable. I personally would probably support defining the other templates besides vandalism whose number of warning levels should be reduced as ones designed for any user whose is very likely to be acting in bad faith; imo, adding original research and expanding plot summaries unnecessarily should be treated very differently than blatant vandalism as far as warnings go.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think tolerating vandalism is a good idea. Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 04:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to gather statistics on the effectiveness of the warnings? How many people get two warnings and then become productive Wikipedians? How many new editors change their ways after three or four warnings? Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support provisionally, although like Jack just above I think it's better to make this sort of decision with more data. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no requirement to go through all four levels. For egregious vandalism, I'll start with level 2, or I'll escalate 1 to 3. I also have no qualms blocking for clear vandalism after a level-3 warning has been given, since it mentions the possibility of a block. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I myself always start with at least level 2 unless I suspect it to be a genuine good-faith mistake. Long ago, I've had AIV requests declined after I did not go through all four levels. In the vast majority of vandalism cases, we really only need a single warning, not even two. So there is virtually no legitimate use case for all four levels.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Two warnings - Mild and Serious - should be enough. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please create a sandbox showing the proposed new warnings (could be fairly rough but enough to see likely wording). Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Johnuniq: I would keep uw-vandalism3 as-is, remove level 4 entirely, and pretty much keep level 1 with the modification that "did not appear to be constructive" is wikilinked to WP:VAND. This way, we can introduce the notion of vandalism without scaring the user by explicitly labelling them as such.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment On the one hand, there are edge cases, where I might have to see several edits from a user before I'm sure they are vandalizing, so a series of warnings (of one type or another) is called for by AGF. On the other hand, I have blocked a user after as few as one warning when the user was rapidly vandalizing many articles. I no longer monitor AIV, because after carefully reviewing each request, I almost never did anything because the case did not require blocking (ie, not vandalism, stale, etc.). The few times I thought blocking was called for, another admin usually blocked while I was reviewing the report. - Donald Albury 14:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Unneeded - Like Jasper Doeng, I start with level 2 for vandalism. There's no need for a lvl 1, since a good faith vandalism mistake doesn't really exist - I tag them as lvl 1 disruptive instead. I wouldn't mind removing the bottom one, but I suspect people would then want to rephrase them and I think that would be counterproductive. I would definitely NOT want a reduction for the others warning templates. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - While it may be unneeded, the extra warnings are also unneeded. While some admins see the 3rd warning as enough warning, I imagine that not all do, and may not block until after the final warning. I also support the single warning idea, however, leave the 1st warning for WP:AGF. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 16:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Unneeded As has already been said, there is no requirement to progress 1, 2, 3, 4 through the existing templates. Just give the appropriate level warning according to the situation, or no warning at all if that is what is warranted. GMGtalk 20:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we block as needed and when appropriate warning has been given or when no warning has been given at all if bad enough. This change would have no impact on admins. The advantage of the 4 stages of warning is mainly that it prevents people playing Huggle the Video Game® from reporting good faith IPs/school children and requesting indefinite blocks for stuff that isn't vandalism/doesn't need a block. Changing the warning levels would dramatically increase the bad reports at AIV and waste admin time in areas where it isn't needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Those suggesting that there is no need use all 4 levels in turn are correct. They are also fundamentally wrong about the lack of need to reduce the number of levels. As usual, they look at things narrowly, through their own myopic lens. The vast majority of non-admin vandal fighters will not come here. They will plod on with the 1-2-3-4 warnings in fear of ANI if an over-vigilant Admin. reports them or refuses to enact a block because 1-2-3-4 has not been followed. There should be an immediate reduction from 4 to 3. In 6 months, 3 to 2. Leaky Caldron 20:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Loving the personal attacks. Do you want 1, 2, 3 or 4 warnings for that ? Nick (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is no requirement to go 1-4. Use common sense. But graduated warnings have a purpose, just not for obvious trolling and blatant vandalism. Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Praxidicae. If you don't feel a certain warning level is appropriate, use the one you feel fits the situation. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Can any opposer give a single case of nonaccidental vandalism where all four levels’ use has been useful? Because if we are always skipping levels, then there’s a redundancy, and it has always been the case in my experience that I am skipping level 1 and giving at most two warnings in total. Also, Huggle and ClueBot NG automatically escalate by just one level at a time in many situations where a quicker one is warranted. If those who use the tool are making frivolous reports after going through all four, then that quite frankly is abuse of the tool and does not address the broader problem. @Nosebagbear: my surname is not “Dong”.—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Jasper Deng, the point is that what Leaky caldron is saying as a negative is actually a benefit: it really cuts down on bad AIV reports from people who are new and decided on their 3rd day on the project that they were going to dive into anti-vandal work without realizing how Wikipedia works. If you're an experienced user, use your judgement as to which warnings to give. Having the graduated warning system is very useful for new users who want to get involved with anti-vandal work, however. Basically the warnings exist equally to train them as much as warn vandals. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I contend that the amount of vandalism eliminated will result in a net decrease in the amount of work. It might result in more work at AIV itself, but result in a net reduction of reverts, making vandalism-fighting less high-speed and less tempting to rush. Also, I seriously doubt it will result in a decrease in the amount of frivolous reports. Those who make them should, if anything, be educated earlier on NOTVAND rather than later, and we get a net reduction of frivolous warnings and consequently less BITE'y behavior overall. --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like others have stated, there is no requirement to go through all of the warning levels. But the warning levels do have their purpose, including for reports at WP:AIV. Some newbies just don't get the point and need at least two warnings. I don't see that four warnings are needed unless the editor missed the talk page messages somehow, but anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose unnecessary. If I only want 2 levels warning for serious people, I will start level 3 directly. If someone is a newcomer, we should remain level 1 per WP:BITE Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Hhkohh: I did not advocate removing level 1. See the second paragraph of my proposal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Seen and known but I sometimes give them level either 1 or 2 depending on their edits Hhkohh (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral per Johnuniq. Without a sandbox version of these new templates, I have no idea what I'm !voting on here. I completely sympathize with the idea; every time someone gives the goatse LTA the obligatory four warnings before reporting to AIV, I want to come out swinging with a clue-bat, but I can't imagine how these would be phrased so as not to be overly WP:BITEy when it comes to kids making test edits, or when the RC patroller made a mistake and flagged a good edit, etc. I'm open to ideas, though. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I've also had a request or two turned down at AIV. But if the editor is clearly vandalizing or clearly otherwise editing disruptively and I have warned the editor at least twice (via template warnings or non-template warnings), that is usually enough to get the editor blocked. Some admins will make a WP:NOTHERE block. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This adds unnecessary bureaucracy to the process and regarding an issue that hasn't shown a need for any kind of change. The number of warning levels exist in order to make the process easy for patrollers, accommodate for all situations that occur, and (most importantly) assume good faith by default with bots, editors, and automated tools. There's currently no requirement that users be warned with all four warning levels and have made a fifth disruptive edit before they're blocked. As stated above multiple times by other users: I warn users very differently depending on the severity of the vandalism or disruption, their past warnings, their block log, how quickly they're attempting to push disruptive edits, what pages they're making bad-faith disruptive edits to, if sock puppetry or abuse of multiple accounts or editing while logged out is suspected, and many other factors. I use this information to either start the user at a level 2 or 3 warning compared to a level 1 warning, start the user at a level 4im warning, block the user only after they've been given a level 3 warning as opposed to waiting until after they've been given a level 4 warning, or use a different method to warn the user alltogether. The warning level system, which warnings are left first, or when action is taken earlier as opposed to waiting until the user has been warned four times and has made a fifth disruptive edit - is widely practiced and used on a judgment-level basis, and administrators who regularly handle this disruption already know to review reports at AIV, ANI, or other places thoroughly, verify and determine if the edits constitute vandalism or bad-faith disruption or not, determine if the user was sufficiently warned given the disruptive edits made, and do this before they consider action. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • On the fence I usually start off at uw-2 and work up through uw-4 before blocking someone (unless it's pretty obvious they know what they're doing). This is not to say that uw-1 messages are useless: I use uw-test1 almost consistently in place of uw-vandalism1 when I feel that uw-vandalism2 might not yet be appropriate. There is no uw-test4 because, well, they're obviously engaging in vandalism -- that suggests uw-test and uw-vandalism need to be merged. That said, I manually post warnings just to be sure I'm using the right one. I've encountered plenty of middle-experience users using Twinkle who issue generic vandalism warnings for any revertable actions (instead of uw-delete, uw-npov, uw-notcensored, uw-agf, uw-npa, uw-fringe, uw-nor, uw-spam...), ignoring WP:NOTVAND to the point of failing WP:AGF. The reported user (who wanted to be productive) then gets it in their head that either:
    - anything that doesn't fit the mold is "vandalism" and sees no reason to try to cooperate
    - any idiot can leave whatever message they want (no matter how wrong) and so there's no point in paying attention to messages
    - because the reporting user was wrong to use the vandalism warning, the reported user's edits were somehow in the right
    Meanwhile, the reporting user gets frustrated because I have to stop and properly explain to someone who sincerely believes they're trying to help how their behavior wasn't helpful. Now, the counter example of LTAs is brought up, and for fuck's sake if it's an LTA just report them on sight. If someone is leaving automated warnings for an LTA to enable a report button, they should have their tools taken away so they can learn how warning and reporting users actually works.
    TL;DR: Three levels (maybe a mistake, warning, final warning) seem good for users who are manually warning and reporting but I feel like any automated warning tools should stick to four levels. Take away tools from people who use them to the exclusion of common sense. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, this is the best description of the issues surrounding AIV I have ever read. Also, yes, if its an LTA, we block on sight. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with Ian.thomson regarding how users tend to default their patrol actions to leaving a vandalism warning template compared to a more in-depth and explanatory warning (or God forbid, a custom warning... lol) for the actual problem - such as NPOV issues, unexplained content removal, adding content without a reference, test edits, or other actions that can be done and entirely in good faith. I consistently see users who patrol recent changes and do this, and it bothers me a lot when I see that. If anything, I think that certain templates shouldn't be automatically grouped into just warning the user for "vandalism" if a level 3 or 4 warning is left. I'll also add that automated tools should separate previous warnings left and know if it was for vandalism and blatant disruption vs the others, and not automatically stack and leave the next warning level template regardless of what the user was previously talked to about - especially if this or a similar proposal in the future should ever pass. Example: A user is warned twice (level 1 and 2) for content removal without an explanation, but a day later an editor leaves a warning for vandalism - in this situation, since the user wasn't warned for vandalism before, they shouldn't receive a level 3 warning for vandalism. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh I tend to think a better idea would be to make it clear that you don't have to work through all four stages or even start at the "general note" stage when it comes to blatant and obvious vandalism like writing "poop" or something similar in an article. I, and I belive many others, choose the template they belive is right for the situation, which sometimes means going straight to level 3 or 4, but in less clear cases starting lower. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Vandals know what they're doing. Having four levels makes editors feel they have to clunk through them in case they're later told they've jumped the gun. SarahSV (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposition This... can already been achieved. Yes, 1-4 are there and are meant to be used, however... there is warning 4im. If 1-4 doesn’t cut it, then you can use a 4im. In the rare event you need to give an instant only one warning to a vandal, just give a 4im. 4im exists, and “one warning only” is EXACTLY what 4im is. Essentially, you’re reinventing the wheel. This system has more flexibility with the ability for 1-4 and also in extreme cases skipping those. This’ll just add less flexibility and versatility to the system, you won’t put a littering person in jail for life, would you? Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 23:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC) 23:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Redactyll: This proposal is emphatically not about my preferences for giving warnings but about setting a project-wide precedent; I propose it because I see others wasting time and resources with giving all four warnings to blatant vandals. I might give that littering person a warning the first time if it were by accident (hence my proposal to keep two levels), but I would not hesitate to fine them if egregious. Also, since blocks are not punitive, this is not a proper analogy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support CLCStudent (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The German Wikipedia, second largest after the English one, has only two warning levels for all cases, and a "-im" version if level 2 is applied directly. See de:Wikipedia:Huggle/Vorlagen. I personally never liked these templates; they instantly confront the editor with a big red stop icon and tell the user that their edits have been "unhelpful". However, it does seem to work there. Just for your consideration.
    Disclosure: I have been invited to this discussion by a notice on my talk page, likely based on my Huggle activity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2, Support 3; I use uw-vandal1 for cases of people trying to do something that they might think is right, clearly isn't, and could be construed as vandalism. I use uw-vandal2 as a first warning for obvious cases of vandalism. I think 3 and 4 could be merged. At play there is an issue that if it is rapid fire a person may commit more vandalism without having seen an incoming warning and then end up being blocked before they've had a chance to read a warning. 2 warnings alone might not allow for this. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've never interpreted the four warning levels as implying that all four need to be used in succession. In fact, I probably never have used all four in that way. I prefer level 1 for newbie edits likely made in good faith, as the text of the warning bears that out. If it appears deliberately-disruptive but is relatively benign, starting out with level 2 is perfectly reasonable and assumes no intent. With severely-damaging edits, there's no reason why one couldn't go straight from 2 to 4, or if continued disruption after level 1 belies bad faith then level 3 can be next.
I feel that the distinction between "probably good faith" and "probably bad faith" should be maintained; the "Hello, I'm Sable232" and direction to the Help Desk are good for the former, but sound laughably patronizing (or even condescending) to the latter and may prompt further disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: no-one is saying you have to use all four in order, as if the vandal is levelling up at each step and once they've surpassed level 4 it's time for the boss battle. The last thing we need is more BITE and merging level 2 and level 1 would do exactly that. Plenty of edits that I revert are unhelpful but done out of ignorance rather than malice, and I need a pre-written message to slap on their talk pages to explain why I undid it, but something kindly written enough to not scare them away. Bilorv(c)(talk) 00:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I am a big fan of the three strikes rule and think a solid argument could be made for dropping the level 4 warning. Once you have been told to STOP a given pattern of behavior three times, a 4th warning should not be needed. However, dropping things down to two warnings is a bridge too far for me. And some of the comments above make good points by noting that multiple warnings helps keep overenthusiastic newbies from reporting people too quickly. Also correctly noted, there is no requirement to go through all 4 levels of warning. If the behavior in question is obviously bad faith start with a level 2 or 3 warning. There is actually no firm requirement to issue warnings at all when dealing with egregious behavior. I have issued more than a few no warning blocks. It all depends on the exigent circumstances. Editors should adjust their response to the nature of the problem. How serious is the disruption? What is the chance that it is good faith mistakes (and so on)? Dealing with disruptive behavior requires a lot of situational judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's easy enough to issue a level 2, 3, or 4 warning "off the rip"; much harder to allow for good faith errors if the 2nd warning automatically triggers an AIV report. If anything, make sure it is abundantly clear in the instructions that it is acceptable to increase the automated level based on the patrolling editor's interpretation of severity and the clarity of a nefarious intent.--John Cline (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A better solution would be for people to stop defaulting to level 1 warnings for malicious vandalism. Choose whatever warning level is appropriate based on the edit. I recommend setting your twinkle default to level 2 if you are lazy like I am. Natureium (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current system is a flexible tool to cater the appropriateness of warnings and levels as one see fits. I am an active vandal fighter and one of the handful counter vandalism program/course graduates. My vote based on my knowledge and experience as below.
  1. New IP editors (most of the vandals) - WP:Assume good faith. Warning level start at 1 and increasing accordingly to 4 before reporting to AIV.
  2. Choose the warning level appropriately to justify the nature of the edit or the behaviors of the vandalized editors. Any level warning can serve as the starting level and the warning level could skipped (such as from level 2 to level 4 for example) for clear malicious vandalized edits.
  3. Level 4 or (im) warning. It could be given to a vandalized editor who performs egregious vandalized edits across multi-pages in a quick succession or inserts shocking inappropriate image(s).
  4. an (im) warning. It could be given to the vandalized editor and report them to AIV at once if any abhorrent personal attack(s) such threat of legal action or threats of violence against an editor on their talk/user page.
  5. If any of the template wording is not suitable or additional details need to be included, one CAN always write a personalized warning messages and give warning level on the vandalized editor talk page without using the warning templates. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you don't think all 4 warnings are necessary, just skip to level 4 or 4im. SemiHypercube 14:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps an alternative is to keep the different warnings for different levels of disruption, but remove the presumption that there must/should be some sort of escalation through them before action must be taken (and ensure that those who act - especially at AIV and the like, understand this.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose In my admittedly limited experience most vandals stop before I have to file an AIV report, but sometimes it takes multiple warnings to get their attention. Level 4im is available for editors who feel that a single report should be enough. Besides {{uw-vandalism}} I often use {{uw-delete}}, {{uw-unsourced}}, etc, which likewise have four levels. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh AFAIK, there's no requirement to escalate in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, report. I tend to use 4im or start on 3 if it's obvious vandalism. Probably best to keep it as it is but definitely support a measure to avoid instruction creep requiring anti-vandals to escalate in the aforementioned order. Leave it to the discretion of users. SITH (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
This thread doesn't seem to have any relationship with Middle Eastern military history task force... Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 08:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm probably one of the guilty ones who go through all the levels when probably not required, but I certainly don't see it as a requirement in the most egregious cases, and I've seen lots of IP edits who stop after the 2nd warning. I have seen plenty of individuals who get reported to AIV before the final warning if they are particularly egregious, and there are also no restrictions in placing a higher level warning, as outlined above. Agent00x (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. If one really does use all current levels, that amounts to five specific, distinct incidences of vandalism before a vandal is blocked, one for each level of warning plus the vandalism-after-final-warning that leads to a report. That's too many. So some say skip levels. Then what's the point of having so many levels? I've long thought we should reduce the number of warning levels, and I'm glad to see I'm not alone. As for how many levels, I'm fine with two. That way the number of incidents of vandalism before a block is three. And maybe it's just the baseball fan in me, but "three strikes you're out" is a fine paradigm. oknazevad (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Question for the supporters: My personal preference is to not use the template at Template:Uw-vandalism1 for obvious vandalism like "H1TLER WUZ R1GHT!" or "qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm!" because I don't think that vandals should be sent to the help desk. I also don't like the redundant "I am X" (I already have a signature at the end) or the insincere "hello" (I am warning them, not greeting them). Instead I use Template:Uw-vandalism2 as the first warning. And no, I have never been criticized for that choice. Other editors clearly like to use Uw-vandalism1 as the first warning. So are you proposing that I cannot use the template that I prefer or are you proposing that those other editors cannot use the template that they prefer? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
    • (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think I've ever used all four levels, but I think flexibility is beneficial. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ’’’Meh’’’. I’m with those above who note that there is no requirement to follow the 1234 increasing level of naughtiness warnings. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. As someone who handles problematic edits by new users, I believe that only two warnings are necessary. For those who are opposing this based upon flexibility reasons, I totally understand your point of view and it wouldn't be that bad if things were to stay as they are. I frequently accelerate the warnings that I give to users who make severe problematic edits so that they receive level 2 warnings to begin with rather than level 1 or even that they receive a level 3 warning, if they make a significantly problematic edit after receiving a level 1 warning. So why do I believe that only two warnings are necessary? Because in the multiple years that I've been handling problematic edits from users, I've never seen anyone redeem themselves on that specific account. I'm guessing if someone matures from making this kind of edit, it is likely to be 5 - 10 years from when they made the account that has problematic edits attached to it. So what happens then? I believe they make a new account and go on to be productive members of the community from their first edit without the stain of the problematic edits made in their youth being associated to that account. Often I've noticed that new users who are here to contribute positively to the Wikipedia make good edits right from the start or as an IP before they make an account. Assuming that most, if not all new accounts will make problematic edits within their first edits is a flawed assumption to make because it just doesn't seem to happen that way. Sure, there are users who make mistakes that aren't vandalism related, like not being aware of NPOV or making formatting errors but on the whole, there are little to none productive users who produce edits that seem like vandalism within their first few edits to Wikipedia. Practically every account that within their first few edits make problematic edits that look like vandalism are here to vandalise. So on that basis, clear vandalism should be given 1 - 2 warnings before that user is blocked from disrupting Wikipedia any further. Thank you. -=Troop=- (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AGF. Four warnings has always been the norm. Skipping levels is occasionally appropriate for particularly egregious vandalism, and then it's up to the discretion of the responding admin whether to block. Reducing the number of warnings required would have no effect other than to increase the number of inappropriate blocks. Bradv🍁 17:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. However, it should be made clear that it is not required for anti-vandalism fighters to start at level 1 and work their way up. We also more test-or-vandalism templates at level 2-4; I can often say either it's a disruptive test or vandalism (especially with the Visual Editor, when the user may not even be aware of the problem), but neither the uw-test nor the uw-vand template series say what I'm trying to say. Also, WP:AIV should not require that a level 4 warning be issued. But that's a different proposal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Eliminate level 3 I don't see a need to warn again after level 3, if someone vandalized after being told clearly that what they are doing is vandalism and may lead to a block, they should not be warned further, as this just gives them more chances to vandalize, so I would like to just get rid of the level 3 warning for vandalism and go straight from 2 to something like 4. I find it annoying when people(or bots) go 1 by 1 thought all 4 warnings for an account with no purpose other than adding racial slurs or profanity. We still must keep level 1 for unclear cases where a mistake could be good faith, I know some will say just leave a custom message, but this takes time and would make me much slower at removing vandalism. I could see merging uw-test1 and uw-vand1. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The levels don’t have to go to 1–4 — you start at a level based on if the edit is good faith or not. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Excessive warnings are just a waste of time for all concerned--simplify, simplify, simplify. I've been a lot less active on anti-vandalism for the past few years, but there used to be some admins patrolling AIV who were very fussy about denying even mild blocks if some newbie IP or SPA wasn't given four full warnings in a very tight timeframe. This proposal seems to be heading towards "reject", but could closer please note that a major reason is that opposers don't think more than 1-2 warnings are necessary to justify a block? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2, Support 3 per Hammersoft. Level 1 for possible good faith edits, specifying why the edit is not appropriate. For intentional violations, start with level 2. Eliminate level 3, level 4 remains the final warning. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The levels are really a check on automated tools and bots, there's no reason to jump through them all manually for blatant vandalism. Notices for good faith edits can be escalated by automated reverts, so fewer levels would result in more false positives in AIV. Qzd (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but change the level 1 warning to wikilink "did not appear to be constructive" to WP:VAND, which should do to give the hint that blocks can come from this activity. bd2412 T 02:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I mean you need these levels of nuance. I have seen editors who have been stepped up the ladder 1-2-3-4 and turned out to be useful editors. It's rare, but it doesn't happen never. I had one guy, like a year ago, who insisted on adding HTML tags. It took a while, stepped up the warning levels (also some actual person talk) and eventually even blocked for a bit, but he got it. And then he made good edits and AFAIK still is. And he wasn't summarily shunned from this human community, which don't we have enough of that in the world. So allow me this tool please. I have gone level 2-level 4 often enough, or even level 4 directly on rare occasions. But leave me the tools so I don't always have to do that. Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Usually while recent-changes patrolling, I utilize all four warning levels whenever necessary, to their full potential. From experience, it appears that the current four-warning system works well; in my opinion, reducing the amount of warnings to two would give the warned too little leeway. Anon. U. 14:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Uneeded Warnings should be given out on a case by case basis. Sometimes 3 warnings are enough and sometimes edit warring noticeboard is the way to go. I guess in certain situations, four is enough. It all depends, I believe that showing specific examples in the help pages on when to report after 3 warnings and when to go straight to a level 2, 3 or only warning would also be helpful. JC7V (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that not all of them are needed, but I think we should only go down to 3 --DannyS712 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As others have pointed out there is no requirement that you go, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4in, then AIV, although personally I would always go up like that (as long as there is a 4in) without missing any out, I would not necessarily wait until after 4in to report/block. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP, in that doing so reinforces a view not supported by policy that an editor must be warned a certain number of times before blocking. Except for things like discretionary sanctions enforcement, warning a user is a courtesy, not a requirement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary. There already is an "only warning" template. And all the others can be used to suit any situation. No requirement to go through the levels sequentially. -- œ 06:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there is no need to go 1, 2, 3, 4 .. and all have their use, sometimes a start of 2 is good; sometimes a start of 3 is good; sometimes 2, 4; sometimes 4im. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. mostly per Jack n Stock. it should be possible to get figures on the effectiveness or otherwise of each warning level and make changes accordingly. most of the blocks I issue are without 4 warnings, but we should look at stats on this, and remember that the current system has flexibility. But also not every newbie gets it right and some people do give vandalism warnings when they are really in an editing dispute. When they do I would rather they gave the current vandalism 1 than something stronger. Also don't forget the Visual Editor fiasco, what happens the next time some foundation mistake means that we have goodfaith newbies making edits that are indistinguishable from sneaky vandalism? ϢereSpielChequers 12:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The number of people here who appear to oppose the idea because "they" do not use all 4 warnings actually make a very good case for supporting the proposal. If people use the existing warnings in a discretionary manner but not all 4, then surely it supports reducing to 3, which can still be used in a discretionary manner? To say "I personally don't use all 4 but I oppose reducing to three" is like saying I drink milk so I must catch the next train Leaky Caldron 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Leaky caldron: I think you misunderstand the 'I personnaly don' t use all 4 but I oppose reducing to three' thought. The way I meant it (and I think that is what most people mean here), is that sometimes I start with a 1, and then go to 3 and/or 4. Sometimes I start with a 2, then go to immediately to 4. The different levels are of different strength. I hardly ever use all 4 on one user (and I don't think that it is really meant to be used like that), but I do use all 4 (better: all of them). I do a lot of work on anti-spam, and my general order is 1-3-4 for not-too-bad-stuff, and 2-4 on bad stuff, and 4im on the really bad stuff. XLinkBot uses (non-warning)-1-2-3-4. With spammers it is very depending on the case: if I do a level 1, and the editor edits after that reverting my removal, then clearly this is a spammer and a next warning is a 4, if they do a next edit and stop, I don't warn further, if they spam on, likely they get a 3 or a 4 next.
    The 4 levels (adding a self-written non-warning AGF remark for the 'sorry, we don't need that stuff here', and the 4im making 6 levels) are needed to have a more fine-grained tuning of the message you want to convey, but I do not advocate that non-bots should ALWAYS do 1-2-3-4-AIV. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. I haven't misunderstood. I also use the available tags in many varying ways. 2. 3. 4. 1.3.4. 1.2.4. 3.4. 2.4, etc. But I see no need for 4 fixed notices. Leaky Caldron 13:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Templating editors" is one of Wikipedia's rudest features. If an editor is a genuine vandal he might as well be blocked. If an editor is making understandable mistakes (starting an article about his high school basketball team) he deserves a sympathetic message written by a genuine human being. But even if professional patrollers feel like they need a canned message to blast at the legions of nobodies they oversee, they should at the very least not sequence these messages according to some kind of escalating-strike system of the authoritarian, but simply use the message that is right for the circumstance. Somebody blanking an article (if not a vandal) on his first edit should be told that he really screwed up, not that his good faith edits have been reverted. Somebody deleting whitespace for the 55th time should still get a mild message if it is unproductive, and if the templater really wants to go further he should write his own message about further measures. Still, if an editor has to get eight such messages from eight different templaters, maybe it'll convey the message better without some admin process being invoked. So no 1,2,3,4, but random access. You might try renaming some of the templates so it is clearer what you're saying at people. Wnt (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've found all 4 levels useful. For egregious cases, 4IM warnings (or straight to AIV with no warning at all) is an option. For simple "students adding stupid shit to articles", several warnings is useful (as they may not notice the first one). For other behavior that can have warnings, there is a need for a pattern of behavior before a block would be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I'd reduce it to 2: "Hey, looks like you're testing things out, please stop" for good-faith screwing around (without malicious intent) and "Cut it out or we'll block you" for stuff with obvious malicious intent. --Jayron32 02:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Power~enwiki above TheMesquitobuzz 02:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support reducing number of warnings to 3, not only for vandalism as such, but for other types of disruption in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – If disruption is often misconstrued as vandalism then that category shouldn't have the quickest route to reporting at a noticeboard. My routine is to start with level1, because that's the most explicit, bland, and unlikely to give a vandal the satisfaction of having provoked anyone. uw-disruption1 is my favorite catch-all message for cluing people in. I usually don't report until the fifth incident, probably because my early reporting was considered premature and I saw such a routine prescribed. That doesn't stop some of my level1 warnings being followed by indef blocks, presumably not because I'm taken seriously but because an admin undertakes their own investigation or is receiving alerts I'm not aware of. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support reducing from 4 to 3 levels. Imho, we only need "AGF", "we really don't like that" and "stop or you will be blocked". As such, most level 3 and level 4 warnings can easily be combined, e.g. {{uw-vandalism3}} (Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.) and {{uw-vandalism4}} (You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.) use some of the same language and could easily be merged into one warning that says Please stop your disruptive editing. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. The question we should consider is not really whether one has to use all levels before going to AIV but whether there is really any point in doing so. Having four warning levels only serves a real purpose if there are frequent cases where editors will stop their behavior after four warnings but not three (I don't really see that this happens that often although I'd like to see some stats on the effectiveness of each warning level). Regards SoWhy 08:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Four is too many, two seems like too few, so it looks like three would be optimal. In any case, for instances of obvious vandalism, in which there is absolutely no doubt that the editor involved knew they vandalizing, I either report them immediately, if the vandalism was major, or skip Level 1 altogether if the vandalism was minor. Even if the number of levels is decreased, we need to make it clearer -- especially to admins working AIV -- that there is no absolute necessity to work through all the levels before any action can be taken. Too often real vandals are free to vandalize again because the admin working AIV sticks too closely to the "letter of the law" and refuses to block because insufficient warnings were given. That's harmful to the project, in my opinion, and the balance needs to be changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    • This is an extremely relevant and important point. Associated Admin. process needs to be looked at. Leaky Caldron 17:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Reduce to 3 at most - Per BMK and others here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there is sometimes reason to use all four levels, and sometimes there is not. Some vandals should be blocked without warning. Others stop after slow escalation of warnings, which is the ideal result (end to disruption without a block, and perhaps with some learning on the side of the vandal). The fact the levels are there does not mean you have to use them. —Kusma (t·c) 12:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In some cases (many?), you really can't tell if someone needs all four levels. How does it hurt to try? If you have good reason to doubt that the person will listen to all four of them, then as noted by many others above, that's when you skip one or two or even three of the levels. If the problem is that AIV reports get declined because unneeded warnings aren't being given, the solution is to remind AIV-monitoring admins of WP:BURO, not to remove options that are sometimes beneficial. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The user might not know that what they did is vandalism. —Eli355 (talkcontribs) 21:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. One warning is enough, in areas where vandalism/trolling is rife. It's a cost-benefit balance between not biting the newbies and letting the trolls shut down a useful part of Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have an "im" series of warning templates that can be used if one wishes, and editors can always chose to skip warning levels. funplussmart (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see how there can be a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Context matters and what was said matters. Is the vandalism at least funny? Or on the other hand does it conceivably create a hostile environment for another editor? I would be tolerant of humor but less tolerant of the attempt to make others feel uncomfortable. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for much the same reasons as many others. There is no requirement that we step through all four warnings, and that should probably be emphasized more strongly. The warnings we have now exist for different purposes. 1 is a polite notice for things that could be mistakes, 2 is neutral, 3 is a warning, and 4 is the final warning. For egregious vandalism, it's not uncommon to go straight to 3 or 4im. For less egregious cases, just a 1 or a 2 is sometimes enough to deter further vandalism. Novusuna talk 21:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - doesn't everybody start at level 2 anyway? Level 1 has, in my experience, been restricted to the newest of new users. On the basis that we're already in effect on a 2-3-4 path rather than a 1-2-3-4 path, further shortening seems over-harsh. Cabayi (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'll often start at level 2, generally what I'm reverting is fairly obviously unhelpful. Level 1 is useful for good faith mistakes, or things like breaking syntax, which, while maybe vandalism, could just as easily be newbie syndrome. If L2 is ignored I'll either do a 2-3-4, or just a 2-4 (if they're just redoing the vandalism without engaging is a good example). Things like inserting racism get a 4im, if any warning at all. But all the templates are useful. Bellezzasolo Discuss 22:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Good practices for graph by default[edit]

We are using a lot of graphs in Wikipedia, and that's a good things. Graph can really help understanding data.

Sadly, a lot of graph on Wikipedia are misleading because they do not follow basic good practices.

To name a few:

  • Use of pie chart (almost never a good idea, bar chart should be preferred)
  • Origin of the graph at some other value than zero
  • No name to axis
  • Use of percentage, but axes do not show the complete range from 0-100%
Example of bad graph.png
Good graph.png

Most of the graph are done using And I believe we can fix a lot of common issue by modifying this template. I opened the discussion on but I think this go beyond the template page.

My propositions:

  1. Use 0 as a default value for xAxisMin and yAxisMin.
  2. If pie type is used for more that two values force the use of bar chart (rect)
  3. if xAxisTitle and yAxisTitle are empty. Display a warning.
  4. Be a bit smart about xAxisMax and yAxisMax. How do you detect their is percentage? We can't be sure, but we can use yAxisMax=100 by default when the sum of the value is equal to 100 for example.

Gagarine (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Gagarine, While supporting the notion that many graphs in Wikipedia may fail to follow good practices, I suggest that mandating good practices is potentially problematic. At a minimum, we ought to start with some suggestions and over time, gradually determine whether some hard rules can be implemented. I suspect that might be impossible. While some of your rules sound plausible, it isn't hard to find exceptions. For example, mandating zero as a minimum value is not necessarily the right answer. I am quite aware of that the use of selective values can be misleading, but mandating zero isn't always the right answer. Temperature graphs are a good example in three ways. If the graph is in Fahrenheit, 0 degrees Fahrenheit is an arbitrary value. Similarly, if you adopt the scientific preference for centigrade or Celsius as some people like to say, zero is not the same as for Fahrenheit and is almost as arbitrary. If you then go on to note that those two values are arbitrary but a nonarbitrary value is absolute zero, I suggest that there are very few temperature graphs for which you would really want to use absolute zero as the zero point.
I'm going to push back on the notion that a pie chart is almost never a good idea. Perhaps there is some rationale I'm missing, but when talking about the makeup of some group where the entire group is viewed as 100%, I think pie charts can be appropriate.
It's hard to disagree that having no name on the access is a bad idea. I don't disagree that good practices are to include a name on the axis, but converting it to a rule could be a problem. Imagine that some artists is reproducing some famous graph which happened not to have a name on the axis. feel free to take pot shots at the originator of the graph, but we certainly shouldn't insist that a faithful reproduction of a (presumably public domain) graph should artificially include a name.
While not coming up with a great example off the top of my head, I'll be surprised if we can't come up with a percentage graph in which forcing the range to be 100% is always the best idea. (Not to mention the fact that percentages can exceed 100%, so forcing a rule would be problematic.
I apologize for only focusing on negatives, but we need to be careful when implementing rules that we don't artificially enforce a format that is not the best format. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick I'm more about good default than imposing things. For example, I do not want to mandating zero as a minimum value, but if no value is provided then we should use zero.
The page about pie chart start with: "Pie charts are very widely used in the business world and the mass media. However, they have been criticized, and many experts recommend avoiding them, pointing out that research has shown it is difficult to compare different sections of a given pie chart, or to compare data across different pie charts. Pie charts can be replaced in most cases by other plots such as the bar chart, box plot or dot plots.". You can find the references on the pages.
I agree we need to be careful, but I think we can be smarter by using better default for the template and perhaps documentation about good practices. Gagarine (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Gagarine, We are on the same page if your goal is to provide good advice as opposed to mandating rules. That seems to be the case in your recent post where you said "I'm more about good default than imposing things". however, your propositions include "If pie type is used for more that two values force the use of bar chart (rect)". that sounds more like a mandate than advice.
I'm a fan of Tufte. It's been quite some time since I read his notable work and I confess I hadn't recalled his distaste for pie charts, but I read him as being opposed to bad pie charts, and possibly carrying out a little too far by suggesting they are never appropriate. (I confess I haven't gone back to read the original but I'm picking up on some summaries.)
our article on the incoming Congress 115th United States Congress has some nice graphics showing the breakdown of the membership. The use of the individual dots is arguably better than a pie chart but I'll emphasize that it's arguable as opposed to unequivocal. Not everyone making a presentation has easy access to such graphics capabilities. As noted at this site, bad pie charts can be very poor tools, but use of a bar chart for values that naturally some to 100% is not necessarily preferable to a pie chart. I know you included an exception for two values, but United States political articles showing party breakdown are classic examples of data with the values add to 100%, typically have two dominant values but often have a third (or more), and the single most important piece of information is which party is largest and whether it's in excess of 50%. A pie chart with two or three or four values conveys that cleanly and immediately. A bar chart doesn't do the job as well. Imposing a rule that pie charts can only be used if there are exactly two values would lead to the absurdity that when there are no third-party candidates pie charts would be used but if there's a small handful of third-party politicians, then we would switch to a bar chart.
The link does show examples where pie charts can be misused, so again, we are on the same page if we want to avoid their misuse, but my concern is your proposition doesn't sound like advice but in imposition of a rule. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the format of various charts and graphs can be, and often has been, massaged to support a particular point of view, and that these shenanigans have no place on WP. The most egregious example of this is placing the origin at an unexpected location to emphasize a difference in numbers. I suspect however that most examples of bad or misleading format choices on WP are the more innocent in nature, being the result of ignorance of what constitutes good design rather than intentionally bad design. My objection to the proposal is that the design of visual information is a large and complex subject and it's probably better to refer editors to an appropriate standard work on the subject. We don't try to include the Chicago Manual of Style or Strunk and White in WP policy and similarly we shouldn't try to summarize Tufte's 'The Visual Display of Quantitative Information' in WP policy either. I'm more concerned that the data from which charts and graphs are clearly and reliably sourced and that other editors are easily able to tweak and improve the design if necessary. --RDBury (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
From what I have seen in this argument, the general consensus appears to be that yes, we should avoid bad graph practice, but no, we should not force certain things being that there are too many exception/flaws. May I suggest writing an essay instead of an official rule change or template change? Or maybe add these guidelines to the template documentation without implementing anything specific in the code? Integral Python click here to argue with me 15:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot to add {{Section sizes}} to talk pages[edit]

There is a bot proposal to add this template to ~6300 article talk pages where the article is longer than 150,000 bytes (per Special:LongPages), like in this edit.. If this is something you would like to have happen, community support for running bots is required. This is the place to voice if you want a bot to do this or not. -- GreenC 15:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

150,000 bytes seems too low of a cut-off. Since the point of the template appears to be for oversized articles, something like 250000 would make much more sense as a cut-off because most pages at around 150000 bytes don't really need to be reduced in size (though of course things vary, and certain bare lists that size may need to be cut down or split). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: -- GreenC 17:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with Galobtter's assessment (most 150000 bytes articles are too long; see WP:AS); but in any case such bike-shedding is irrelevant; this template is to inform editors of the relative size of sections of articles; it does not mandate nor even recommend a split. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:AS mainly talks about readable prose size, and most 150000 byte articles have a readable prose size much less than what necessitates a split per that guideline (indeed, there are numerous FAs which are more than 150000 bytes long). Every template adding to a talk page adds to the clutter, so there has to be some benefit; since that benefit would mainly be when talking about a split, talking about the cutoff seems important here when automatically adding the template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
A 250,000 limit is about 1000 articles. How was 250,000 arrived at? Asking because it seems to make a big difference how many articles would have the template based on where the cut-off number is. Personally I don't think 6000 articles is very much at all in the scheme of 5700000 articles, with that few I doubt most people would ever see the template in their lifetime at Wikipedia. -- GreenC 16:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Large size articles would very disproportionately be popular ones which already have a very large number of templates on their talk page. (pages like Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo and Talk:Barack Obama would be the ones tagged, not obscure articles) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, "such bike-shedding is irrelevant". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Are we talking 150kb bytes of readable text, or of total page size? 150kb of readable prose is almost certainly too long except in exceptional circumstances when there's a valid argument that all the material has to be kept together, but 150kb save size isn't unusual for pages that include lots of complex template markup (Barack Obama, for instance, uses 340kb of code to produce 79kb of readable prose). I'd quite strongly oppose using a bot to tag everything just based on the size of the code, as that will end up flagging large numbers of completely non-problematic articles as being too long, and consequently annoy a lot of people for little or no obvious benefit. ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion. The template being discussed does not suggest an article is too long. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with that. And if we aren't talking about articles that are too long, what are we talking about? The template decumentation is (as usual) unclear, as is the proposal above. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
We're talking total page size (going off Special:LongPages which uses that), thus my comments. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
You mentioned Talk:Barack Obama - why are we tagging that exactly? Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, the bot would be adding the template to the talk page of any article with more 150kb of wikitext, which would include Barack Obama (which has 340kb of code as Iri mentioned) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly! But why? The original tool request By Andy was very much talking about "very long pages". Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
It's useful information for whatever purpose. Such as breaking sections up into sub-sections, breaking sections into separate articles, refactoring sections by deleting content. Large article are targeted for the template because they are most likely to have work of this nature it helps users identify which sections they might want to work on. -- GreenC 17:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
FWIW Barack Obama is 85,394 as plain-text according to the API [1]. -- GreenC 17:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In light of the above replies, strongly oppose; this is clearly not an attempt to address an actual problem, but a pretext to use a bot to mass-spam this template under the guise of fixing a non-existent problem. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't see the point of this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a solution looking for a problem. –Davey2010Talk 22:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this could be useful, but only if it also included other important size information such as readable prose size in bytes and words. Something like the output of this script would be beneficial: User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js. - MrX 🖋 22:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @GreenC: As the example edit added the template to a talk page that was 65 bytes in size, it appears the opening comment is incorrect and misleading. This is not about the size of the talk page. Suggest a strikethrough and correction to prevent confusion like mine. ―Mandruss  22:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    fixed -- GreenC 23:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed without strikethrough (and underscore), but whatever. FTR, the correct form is "article talk pages that are where the article is longer than 150,000 bytes". ―Mandruss  23:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't see the useful purpose. Not saying there isn't one, but it has not been explained. Hard to avoid bike-shedding when asked to comment on something where the intended purpose is not specified. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Nudge theory. Too-long articles are a well known and perennial topic on the various VPs. It has proven to be stubbornly difficult to reduce the size of long articles, so they keep growing; it is easier to grow than to shrink, sort of like the things collecting in ones basement and garage. This template is an unobtrusive small nudge towards condensing material. -- GreenC 04:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This would be useful information about the article. —Eli355 (talkcontribs) 22:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose please avoid piling on talk-header-template cruft. The only apparent purpose for this would be as some sort of aid if someone was working on reducing page size, and even *if* someone were working on that, that must based on examination of the actual text in each section rather than blind numerical section sizes. Alsee (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose more talk page clutter. Renata (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk page health: ranking template enabling editors to rank the health of a talk page.[edit]


In July of 2018, Wikimedia made a call for proposals at their grants idea lab. The request called for ideas to improve Wikipedia community health. My first thought was that although some high-tension areas of Wikipedia are well trafficked and watched, there may be other less visible areas where discussion health may be an issue.

Proposal (Health rating)[edit]

To make a template which can be optionally placed at the top of a talk page, with radio buttons, check boxes or single-select options ranking a talk page's health.

  • Information would then
    • Be used to identify areas requiring feedback
    • Create statistical data about areas requiring attention

Wikimedia proposal page[edit]

Some discussion regarding this proposal has taken place at Wikimedia

  • the discussion includes:
    • A basic description of the proposal
    • Some example screen shots
    • A call for required experts and collaborators on the project
    • Some ideas about how to proceed on en-wiki.
This proposal has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Community_health_initiative_on_English_Wikipedia

Edaham (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Health rating)[edit]

What are the ranking criteria? Personal opinion? If so, what useful purpose would this serve? Would there be any actionable consequences? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point in this, especially since what's a 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' talk page is not something that can be turned into an algorithm. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd go as far as to say that if anyone tried to add this to talk pages, I'd bulk revert and block them for disruption. Someone unilaterally declaring that pages they like the look of are "healthy" and pages they don't like the look of are "unhealthy" is about as uncollegial as one could get. Per the others above, what do you consider "healthy" and "unhealthy", anyway? Is a talkpage full of arguments an unhealthy sign because it's causing people to argue, or a healthy sign because it shows the community is engaged? Is a talkpage that hasn't had a single comment in six years a sign of poor health, or a sign that the attached article is so fantastic nobody can suggest any way to improve it? How do you prevent the usual lunatic fringe from canvassing all their friends to go and mass-downvote Climate Change, Rope worms or Gamergate controversy as "unhealthy"? ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    (adding) Having now read the proposal in full, changing from "no" to "hell, no". The whole thing seems to be based on what, to put it bluntly, is an absolutely batshit crazy notion of how Wikipedia operates, founded on the fundamental misconception that "the more dispute resolution is taking place regarding a topic, the healthier that topic is". ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
"Thank you" for linking to rope worms. I possibly did not need to know that. Oh the humanity! |p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks like a solution in search of a problem. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure what this is meant to do, but it sure strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. Until we see a good definition of what "health of a talk page" means, I'm not seeing the need for this. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Solution in search of a problem. Edaham's interpretation of page health is grossly wild and inaccurate. What Iri says.WBGconverse 16:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • er, calm down? I was trying to help via some discussions I’d read on another wiki project. The idea would be to identify problematic areas of the encyclopedia and allow the community to give feedback without having to register complaints across pages. I’ve never made a proposal of this nature before, so please, try to assume good faith. I haven’t actually offered an “interpretation” of page health and deliberately left it open. The page you referenced was an example of a page one could reach via the template (It did actually say that at the top of the page, but I've since blanked it to avoid confusion), so I’m not sure what part of my suggestion could be termed, “grossly” or “wildly” inaccurate. Winged Blades of Godric. The idea would be that the resultant average would not be displayed, but be logged and available to people who want to know where problematic areas are and give an idea of health over time. “Mass downvotes” therefore, would be desirable from a point of view of being alerted to a a problematic area. It’s a feedback system. Many thanks for the comments though. Hope I didn’t take too much time out of your day. Edaham (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Unlikely. This idea reminds me of two problematic ideas -- one being the "upvoting" and "downvoting" prevalent on American social media, and the other being the "social credit" system being pursued by the Chinese government. Both of these things have the same problem, namely unreliable raters -- either an ignorant partisan rabble in the American case, or a sinister party elite AI in the case of the Chinese. In Wikipedia's case, it is moderately conceivable that some effort could be made to try to enlist "neutral" editors to do rating; I've long favored a jury system for settling disputes. But doing that without making it explicit that you're soliciting jurors and you want a fair decision and making the selection process both random and transparent and then targeting it all toward settling an issue rather than rating a page ... well, there are a lot of details I'd want there before this becomes that. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
just a quick second comment to further clarify, firstly: results of voting needn’t be displayed. This is an opportunity for a user to rate an experience without having to have a discussion. We have lots of areas where people have to grind it out to be heard. We don’t have a system where people can easily and anonymously submit a piece of generic feedback. The data collected would provide a heat map of areas in which people had submitted this info, telling us about both level of interaction and satisfaction on a general scale.
secondly: I’m fully wp:MIAB compliant, so feel free to tell me if this is a hit or a miss. Be blunt. I don’t like being called batshit crazy though. Don’t do that if possible, cheers. Edaham (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, the main problem with a 'heat map' is that the way I understand it, you're going to be looking for talk pages where people are furious at each other. If you find a talk page like that, everyone knows there's a dispute. Some of them have been on lists of "Wikipedia's lamest edit wars" for a decade or more. Probably the editors there want some kind of mediation by genuinely disinterested parties, but Wikipedia makes getting that extremely difficult. Whenever a new editor joins in the fracas to try to impose fair order, they end up sucked into the contention.
Also, I am concerned that developing a tool to provide secret results to an elite of Wikipedians would further increase the inequality between editors and therefore contribute to the decline of the project as a whole. We have an unhealthy dynamic in society that computers -> ownership -> special privileges -> dictatorship and it can be argued that "the medium is the message" and that online distribution of content is simply doomed to fail altogether. I don't know if any counteracting force can be devised, but in the meanwhile I am very wary of drawing new distinctions and privileges.
Finally, there's the aspect that quick ratings will inevitably be superficial. If an article about haplotypes is riddled with errors you might have to sit down for half an hour and review multiple papers to get an inkling of it. If a woman in a painting is naked, a random reader might complain in seconds. So I wouldn't want to take any results coming out of such a system very seriously. Wnt (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Alt suggestion. We have lots of talkpages that few if any editors are looking at, I know this from the number of queries that I have scattered round the project. It would be good to have an AI or something that listed article talkpages with open queries by wikiproject or by time since query raised. Having lists available of such pages would be useful, need not be obtrusive, and if the query has been resolved by editing of the article without updating the talkpage it should be simple for anyone to add {{done}} to the section. ϢereSpielChequers 14:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    This can be done simply by reviewing e.g. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Template:WikiProject Video games. --Izno (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    That's a neat trick, I didn't know that, and I can see it does part of what I suggest. But only part, it risks being swamped by article assessment, tagging for other WikiProjects and other edits. I am sure it would work for the enthusiast who is here more than once a week, but I was thinking more of the person who pops by once a month, or the person exploring a long dormant Wikiproject. Being able to list talkpages with outstanding queries would be useful in such scenarios. Though I suppose you would need to be able to swerve some off your WikiProject and onto more relevant ones. ϢereSpielChequers 21:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No - We're here to improve and build upon our encyclopedia ... not flaff around dictating what talkpages are healthy and what ones aren't, Solution looking for a problem is what this is. –Davey2010Talk 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This doesn't make any sense at all to me, as there is no definition of "health" and no guide to what the 1-5 scores actually mean, as the definition of "health" is apparently up to individuals to decide for themselves. It's trying to quantify something, but without an objective definition of what that something actually is, any score would be utterly meaningless. Also, the idea that rectifying "bad health" should be a job for admins suggests the proposer does not understand the role of admins. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


    • As a proposal for a data gathering system this isn't a direct solution to a problem per se, but if it were framed that way you could consider it thusly:
      • In addition to community feedback being mostly discussion based and therefore difficult to assess and quantify, our current system of assessing feedback doesn't allow for feedback from people who don't want (or no longer want) to contribute to discussions. People can't just engage briefly and then tell us what they thought of that experience. This means we disproportionately hear from people who take the time to repeatedly voice their opinion. Essentially we have one thing. We do not have the other. I think we should have both.
      • Mass down voting, an absence of voting, an abundance of voting are all indicators of community behavior, which would be visible via this system. 100% Accurate voting by genuine editors is neither possible or desirable in such a system.
      • Assessment of the data collected would lead to insights on popularity, areas of conflict and ways of dealing with it, which we have not yet considered. Among these would be a time based approach to rating community health, which could give an indication of health over time - giving us insights on the effectiveness of other initiatives aimed at improving user experiences.
      • Therefore in a nutshell, the problem is that we don't have a means of collecting generic data regarding the health of community experiences, and I am proposing a means of collecting it
I don't want to sell this any more than I have, so I will end my proposal by saying that in the (seemingly likely) event that this proposal is rejected, that we should consider ways in which Wikipedians tell us about their experiences and consider whether or not our current methods unduly exclude those who have an opinion but do not have the inclination to openly share it on our discussion pages. Hopefully the consideration of this point will lead to improvements on the proposal, or yet better ideas. Sorry about all the bold text but I really wanted to make a couple of points stand out.

Edaham (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If people are not willing openly to express their opinions then they have no particular right to a voice here. One of the key points of Wikipedia is collaboration, and secret voting is not the way to achieve that. Hence, just about the only things that are secret here are ArbCom voting and legally protected information (eg: checkuser).
Your proposal seems like an even more extreme version of the oft-derided "friendly space" in its attempt to mollycoddle people. Real life is tough, real life needs interaction (unless you're a hermit), and real life involves disagreements: you have to stand up to be counted. In any event, both the method and the underlying theory of this proposal are fatally flawed, as others have pointed out. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
arriving a bit late to the party aren’t we? Come to help clear away the styrofoam cups? Voting (for something) and collecting survey data aren’t the same thing. Not really connecting is it. Edaham (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Do what? Did you see my comment above of several days ago? Not late to anything. I understand you may be pissed that your proposal is being shot down but there's no need for that. If you can't see the problems with your proposal now, you probably never will. However, I was responding to you clarification: letting people complain anonymously (and, believe me, that is what you are proposing) isn't helpful. If they have a problem and want it fixed then they need to engage: shit or get off the pot. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Just wow. Nice take down! You won Wikipedia! Im not pissed at all. Incredulous is the word. Surveys aren’t unusual in large projects, where it’s easy to gather large amounts of data. Wikipedia doesn’t really have customers, so the concepts typical to customer satisfaction might be a bit alien. I get that. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Although I think the proposal and its ramifications have been misunderstood somewhat I can understand the concerns raised. I’ll have think about it and resubmit an idea when it’s brushed up a bit. Edaham (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
No alternative suggestion because, as I said at the outset, I think you're trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. Just because surveys can be done does not mean that they should be done. And if you hadn't got stroppy with me, I wouldn't have retorted in similar vein. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I assumed that was friendly and cheeky banter. I didn’t feel like you were being stroppy. A very interesting word actually with a murky etymology. To say, in a “strop” further mangles it because it then shares a pronunciation with a word for a piece of sharpening leather, with an unrelated etymology to the original word, which is synonymous with irksome. Probably a discussion for elsewhere. The reason this particular survey ought to be done is because if such data were pouring in, reviewing its change over time could be used to gauge the effects of other initiatives. Working out whether or not something we put effort into had a desired effect is a job, which ought to be done because it will divert us from wasting effort in the future. If we reduce the purpose of the discussion to that salient point and build up from there we might come up with something better. I say we, because I’m an optimist at heart and believe that with a little more warming you’ll come around to the edaham camp eventually. Edaham (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This is getting at a real problem (low-traffic talk pages), but since the beginning, we've been less about voting and more discussion and consensus. Good principle, bad execution. The best way to make inactive talk pages active is to post notices elsewhere about discussions that are active or things editors want to bring attention to. - PrussianOwl (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
probably due to the way I originally framed the idea, my fault, we are having a really really hard time getting past the idea of voting. This isn’t voting. People vote for an outcome, as in will we have custard or ice cream for desert. This isn’t voting. It’s not. It’s not voting. The intention of the idea is that we have other schemes to improve community health. We don’t actually gauge (except by looking and judging) if they are having a positive impact. (Or do we?) If people are able to contribute marketing data at a roughly constant rate, we can measure that rate to see if our initiatives had impact. We’d be looking to find correlation between the data we obtain, and the things we are doing to improve the place. There’s lots of ways of doing this and the thing I’ve suggested is rudimentary and roughly sketched to the point that it has scuppered the idea apparently.
I mean you could probably just find correlation between community health initiatives and the frequency of the use of the “retire” template and the use of obscenities on talk pages, so this certainly isn’t the only way of handling things. People already contribute lots of data which reveals their general satisfaction, via their lexical input and the parsing thereof.
Also, on a side note, I let a friend of mine look at my comments and replies, which I made in a lighthearted and humorous spirit, and they said that given the nature of the conversation I’m probably coming off as grumpy and flippant. Sorry if that’s the case. Believe me I’m very happy to have the opportunity to contribute ideas in this forum! Edaham (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Display a link to WikiProject/topic specific guidelines when editing an article?[edit]

Often first-time editors have trouble knowing the guidelines behind the specific subject they are editing. For example an inexperienced user may not know the general guidelines behind WikiProject Schools (usually don't list administrators below senior level, and don't include the text/lyrics of the school/fight song), and so he or she may do a faux pas. I suggest finding a way to display a convenient link to the topic-specific guidelines for a particular article when any user edits the page. So if Johnny edits an article about anime, he sees a link to the guidelines. Or when Susie edits about her high school, she sees a link to its topic-specific guidelines. It may also help for each sett of guidelines to have an "in a nutshell" before the nitty gritty details. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Editnotice already does that. It can display links and short note as you're suggesting and is active atop editing pane on any page where it's activated. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
If there's a way to automatically append an editnotice for any page tagged with a certain WikiProject tag (so instead of having to manually add an edit-notice to every relevant page, it gets automatically added), that would be great. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This is done for BLPs and disambiguation pages through MediaWiki:Common.js; you'd need a consensus that a particular category of articles should display a notice. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! I went ahead and notified the Schools WikiProject: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Add pagenotice with project guidelines (guidelines on how to make a school or school system/school district article) for all pages in the WikiProject? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Also notified Anime and manga, China, and Japan WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @WhisperToMe: There are few issues here which you may not be aware of, this is not as easy as it looks. To my knowledge only BLPs and Disambiguation pages have such notice injection via Common.js, and they're the exception rather than the norm. First of all, for that to be implemented to set pages, they need to have a master category where all members are directly in irrespective of any other categorization: See how Category:Living people and Category:Disambiguation pages are. This currently does not exist for schools. Category:Schools holds subcategories not the articles themselves. You need to have consensus to change that first.
    Second, editnotice of pages in Category:Living people is showing a core policy while that of Category:Disambiguation pages is showing a disambiguation guideline with wide acceptance, both are not WikiProject notices, you need to make a strong case why a single WikiProject should've this and what if other WikiProjects come forward requesting same. This is assuming you surmounted the first problem about Category:Schools. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for notifying me of the programming issues. I wonder which Wikipedians have the most experience with this sort of thing.
    • I feel WP:Schools needs this because the projects editors have agreed on various content guidelines (such as in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Request_for_comments:_What_administrators_to_list_on_school_articles, which was done because people keep adding long lists of school administrators to articles) that are intended for all articles in the project scope and enforced by project members, but without a notice displaying on the editing screen, drive-by editors and first-time editors won't know about any of these: they only see the common notice displayed at the bottom. Then they might be surprised or upset when their changes are reverted. They may not even be individually notified on their talk pages; while there might be a revert that does state who made the change, they may not be aware of the commenting system (using four tildes), and they may not understand how to approach the other editor. They won't know about the project guidelines as they may not even know what a WikiProject is. Telling the user this information in personalized talk page messages is the only way in which they can be expected to learn about it. It's important to consider the position of a person highly inexperienced with Wikipedia.
    • Project members themselves may dislike making multiple reverts of low-quality content, with low-quality partly due to falling afoul of agreed guidelines. While notices will not stop determined vandals, cutting down on low-quality edits would lessen administrator workload and project user workload. Freeing up administration means there's more time to do content creation; I had proposed to the others checking school attendance boundaries and matching communities (cities/towns/neighborhoods) with schools, but another editor gently reminded me that most of them were focused on administration stuff and that I would likely be alone in this task.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, the proposal can go ahead here on VPR or on that talkpage, since the issues to discuss are now clear.–Ammarpad (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

about non-free files[edit]

Non-free files today will eventually enter public domain. When that day comes, they are supposed to be transferred to Commons. I propose that Wikipedia should set up a standard procedure for such files, and there should be a few tweaks to current procedures to help this process in the future. Here is a list according to my perceived priority:

  1. User:Theo's Little Bot reduces size for non-free files, but currently there is nothing in place to track whether an image is shrinked, other than the file histories. I suggest:
    1. When Bot reduces a file, insert a short note in EXIF, saying something like image shrinked by bot. I think this is the best solution such that reduced images are earmarked. Should they be transferred to Commons, another bot, commonshelper, or a built-in MediaWiki functionality, could be developed to identify or block them based on EXIF. This measure should be adopted by all image-shrinking bots across all wikis.
    2. If 1.1 is not possible, alternatively, include all bot-reduced images in a tracking category.
  2. Before transferring to Commons, the original high-res files should be restored and reverted to. This could be done by a bot with admin rights. Say design a Template:Restore for transfer. A trusted user (autopatrollers?) tagging a file with this will let a bot restore all revisions and revert to the first version, which should be the best for most files. (A non-trusted user's tagging would be ignored, or reverted by the bot.) A note should be put up nonetheless, to remind users of picking the best for transfer.
  3. There could be something to track when and where a file was made. An anonymous photo taken and published in USA in 1930 would probably enter PD in 2026. This something can help the transfer process by then.--Roy17 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that most editors that upload non-free already start with reduced image, there is no "old" version at the original resolution to go back to. Additionally, remember that commons wants works that are PD everywhere, and that requires a bit more knowledge about the origin of a work than our current systems allows. I'm all for some bot to tag potential non-free into a human-reviewed list as "Possibly now PD" and have humans do that work after checking things, but definitely not a bot do all the work. --Masem (t) 01:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Also on your point 1, the file history will show the bot reduction. We don't need to add anything to an EXIF (and not all files will have an EXIF). --Masem (t) 01:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I am aware of that. Still we could do the little thing to foolproof any bot-reduced images ending up on Commons. If a reduced image were transferred and an enwp admin deleted the local page, almost no one from commons could verify whether the file had been reduced. I have seen many cases of users transferring files (early wiki uploads, textlogos etc.) by downloading a scaled down preview from local wikis and uploading on Commons manually, such that local admins have to do the proper transfer again before deletion. This will certainly happen with bot-reduced non-free files. I believe it is best to mark the reduced images themselves, whether in EXIF for jpg and tif, or as some other forms of embedded codes, or a watermark. The marking must be machine readable. This lets Commons reject files straight. A template message could also be added to current local file pages to warn of reduced images. The more precautions taken, the less likely we make mistakes.
Many images would stay on local wikis for a long time until they enter PD. External sources often become 404 not found in the wait. The best version is of course an external original, in case the wiki one had been edited. But if the wiki one were the one to be transferred, the largest is the best.
I did not suggest a fully automated restore and transfer. The bot only does the restore part. A file could well be fair use for 150 years before entering PD. (Say a 20yo photographer takes the only image of a deceased person and lives to 100, and the rule of life+70 applies.) The original year does not really imply the actual PD date, but such extreme cases are not common. Many files should enter PD the latest 120–150 years after creation. Wiki editors in 2020s and 2030s will soon have to handle files from 1920s and 1930s. It will become a regular maintenance task in future. Some sort of preemptive cataloguing should be beneficial.
I believe this is something that should be implemented across all wikis, but I post here because enwp is the most active and attended by most tech-savvy users.--Roy17 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
To determine copyright status of a file, the following parameters are the most essential: authorship/copyright claimant, year created, year published, and countries of origin. Here is my invention on yuewp, tweaking {{information}} and creating two templates, that categorise some uploads into cat:files created in YYYY or before: yue:special:diff/1246619, yue:t:before and yue:t:between.--Roy17 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think a bot should mess with the files themselves other than reducing their size but what harm would there be in having Category:Non-free files that were reduced by a bot or similar? Additionally/alternatively, I think it would be good if the bot that resized the image added a template that says "This file was automatically resized by a bot and previous versions deleted per F5. If you believe the resize was in error, you can request refund..." or something like this. Then you could track these files through the template's transclusions. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Template:Do not move to Commons already includes a field for expiry, which then adds the file to Category:Media now suitable for Commons. Problem is, not that many people seem to use it. Having a bot that undeletes original higher resolution files for transfer seems fine, so long as the bot also immediately PRODS the file, meaning if the file is not transferred in seven days, and the PROD replaced with Template:Now Commons, then the old revision should be automatically re-deleted. It also should merely restore the previous version, not revert to it, so that in the meanwhile we are still using the low-resolution version under fair use in our articles. The reversion should need to be done by a human prior to transfer. Also, the only user group we have that is specifically related to competency with files is file mover. So that's the only group where it would make sense to have an undelete-by-proxy option. GMGtalk 12:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Very few of these non-free files are about to have copyright expiring soon. Also it is not Wikipedia's job to archive these files. Instead we should explore other archives that will have stored the files (legally), and be ready to copy those copies once it is copyright expired. Also the bot will not know why a previous file was not used. There may be errors, or other quality issues. So manual intervention would be needed. For non-free files often there is not eough information to determine copyright expiry either, as original photographer and country are often missing information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I certainly agree with #1 (easy tracking), but not with the rest. Keep in mind that deciding when an image becomes PD can be complicated some times. In stead, allow users who believe that a specific image is already in the PD, or will be there within a month (or perhaps a shorter period), make a request about that individual image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Following the new development of FileImporter, we are now able to transfer all undeleted revisions to commons directly. The part of reverting to the original can be dropped, because this can be done on Commons after successful transfer.--Roy17 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Auto-archive old IP warnings[edit]

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Auto-archive IP warnings

I imagine it's fairly confusing for IP users to have to scroll through lots of old warnings from previous users of their IP before getting to their actual message. We have {{Old IP warnings top}} (or {{wan}} or {{ow}}, but that can be bikeshedded about later), but it's rarely used—thoughts a bot to automatically apply it to everything more than a yearish ago? Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support I don't think IP warnings need to stay up more than a few months. In my experience, vandalism from IPs comes in bursts that rarely last more than two days (probably because of blocking).
  • I think this is a good idea. No opinion of length of time I thought a year was too short but who knows. Technically it would work like an archive bot but instead of archiving to a sub-page, it would archive to within the top/bottom portion of {{Old IP warnings top}}. It would look at the most recent post within a section to find the date, and if that section leads off with a warning. There are ways for things to not go right like if a warning is not within a section and has followup posts etc, so this would not be a perfect solution more of a best-effort, if it can't understand the formatting it leaves alone. -- GreenC 20:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think its a great idea to send a bot around to chase all these. However, I'm assuming most of these warning etc are coming from tools like Huggle/Twinkle/etc - if so, approving a general concept that "archiving old (time to be determined) IP talk warnings to history" is allowed - these tool systems could add that functionality to their warning routines. — xaosflux Talk 20:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Having looked at this for a few examples I'm surprised to see a lot dating back to 2006 ..., I personally would say warnings should be archived after a year and a half from when they were left, 2-3 years seems too excessive and just a year seems too short, –Davey2010Talk 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I imagine most IPs people edit with are dynamic ones that don't last all that long, but I have no idea. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There's some previous discussion here here here and here, and in fact several other places which people should probably look at before anything. There's been more than one bot (and editors like BD2412) already doing this at various times. As with anything there's going to be some complicating factors: if it's anything recent the IP should probably not be actively or recently blocked, range blocked, or globally blocked. The bot probably shouldn't archive or blank sockpuppetry tags, whois tags and shared IP templates, and probably shouldn't blank spam-related backlinks, some custom notices, and intelligible non-warnings, IMO. I don't think the question is whether it should be done, as it's something that's been done for a long time, but the bike-shed details which were avoided in the proposal. And of course who is going to write and run the bot. Personally I think as a general rule a year is probably too short. (should probably also ping Dirk and Petrb). -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I have previously requested a bot for this and the conversation died out with no one taking it up. As with others in this discussion, I would propose very specific limitations, those being that all discussions older than five years be removed from the page so long as the IP has not been the subject of a block within the past two years. Personally, I have been blanking tags if the page is pre-2010s, because IP addresses can be reassigned in that length of time - and even if they are not, Wikipedia is not a permanent directory of IP addresses. bd2412 T 22:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the more complicated the policy, the more time consuming becomes writing and running the bot, the less chance anyone will take up the project, the greater the chance it never happens. -- GreenC 22:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Well then let's start with something easy, that everyone can agree on, like ten-year-old warnings. bd2412 T 04:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Thoughts on this as a starting point?
    • When an IP user makes an edit… (no point in making a ton of spam cleaning up inactive users' talk pages)
    • If the IP has had no activity in the past 3 years… (activity = contributions, receiving talk messages, being blocked, even if the block was issued >5 years ago)
    • If the talk page consists only of templates from a whitelist… (for starters, uw- templates, along with their ClueBot and Huggle variants, and the Shared IP Notice Twinkle uses)
    • Wrap the talk page in {{Old IP warnings top}}.
It's super conservative, but would cover most cases and we could expand it in the future. Gaelan 💬✏️ 05:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support archiving any notice that's more than a year old. That doesn't include "school" notices and similar, or any block notices that are still in effect (e.g., hardblocked IP addresses). Would also recommend removing 100% of sock tags on IP addresses that are more than a year old, even sooner if it's a known dynamic or mobile phone IP. These warnings and tags are quite likely to scare away potential new users, and serve little to no useful purpose for the administration of the project. Risker (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as is I'm with User:Zzuuzz here. @Risker:, I think a year can be too short. I'm not sure we can get one size fits all. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'm sure it can be done with a little preparation, but yes I think just blanking pages after a year is probably a bit too much. If we're to start going after the low hanging fruit I'd probably go with something like Gaelan said above: No activity for 5 years, no talk page history for 5 years, and only automated warnings in the history. Five years is again super conservative, but it's about the longest block you'll see and it's probably a good starting point for a general rule. I know BD2412 has complained about the backlinks before, so I don't know if wrapping the warnings would be as helpful as just blanking them. If it could (or would) be fitted into existing tools for when an IP edits that would be useful, but I don't really see any problem with a bot doing it on a schedule. My main concern really is just blanking what could be useful notes or discussions which can help understand edits made years earlier. Some may dismiss this stuff as some sort of waste of space, but historically I think it can be really useful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, backlinks have been one of my main concerns because sometimes an editor needs to get an accurate sense of what is linking to a title from all namespaces, and a bunch of IP talk page links just muddy that view. We should not keep these in any form longer than is necessary to pass on the message to the IP about them. bd2412 T 17:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As I have stated before, I have no problem with archiving or even blanking of old warnings/remarks. I have a problem with outright deletion of old-IP talkpages, which is something that should NEVER be done.
In my view, there is no issue with archiving (or even blanking) anything (like regular archiving) anything on a shared IP (yes, I know, detection) after even 2-3 months, and anything on a static IP (that has not been used for over 1-2 years). I would prefer just archiving everything as that leaves tracks better visible and avoids having to select what not to blank.
To reiterate my reasoning: plain vandalism on an IP is untraceable to a person. But any form of systematic vandalism (most specifically spam, but also socking, strong COI, string single-purpose editing) is always done by a certain person (/organisation). The IP is changing, the person/organisation is not. Say Mr. X. is spamming to a page using IP and we give them a level 1 warning that they should not do that, and Mr. X. is coming back 1 hour later using IP, he technically deserves a level 2 warning, not another level 1 warning. It is, obviously, the same person. Some spammers rack up 10 level-1 warnings because no-one notices that they are actually spamming. On the spam blacklist that is still enough to say 'they do not listen, we tried to warn but warnings do not arrive'. Regarding age of that: if Mr. X. in 2009 spams a handful of times (on IP, racks up a level-4 warning and stops .. and comes back in 2019 starting (on to rack up a handful of warnings, it is still the same physical entity spamming (unless the domain changed owner, which can be seen). They may expect that rules have changed on Wikipedia, but 4 warnings in 2009 and an unheeded level-1 warning in 2019 could be enough to just blacklist to stop further disruption (on 10 years we will likely be a bit softer ..). If such user talkpage is deleted, the track of is lost. However, we can see far back that has spammed the same site, but without the talkpages it is very hard to detect (you need admin rights, seeing that there are deleted revids on the page). (note, we have cases where companies/entities are spamming for 8-10 years, it appears a long time, but it is not). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why we cannot simply add an existing archive bot with a 1-year or 2-year archive time to every non-blank IP talk page that contains material older than 1 or 2 years? If I do this manually when I add a warning to an IP talk page, is there a preferred bot? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It would need to run from the expiry of the last block, not the time the warning was left—if an IP has been unblocked after a long period (e.g. a year-long block as a believed open proxy) and within minutes of the block being lifted the problems resume, we obviously want to know the background. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to code a bot to do this, but one of the existing bots couldn't be used off-the-peg. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support whatever the details, this is a good idea. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the general idea, assuming "archived" means archived and not just blanked. I also wonder if, as opposed to a bot, it wouldn't be possible to add some sort of function to existing tools such as Twinkle to semi-automate use of {{old ip warnings top}}, which doens't archive but does collapse old warnings. we could leave it up to the best judgement of the warning user, as it is now without any new policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative support. I quite like the idea of modifying Twinkle, Huggle, et al. to automatically collapse old warnings when issuing new ones, since those tools are how a great many warnings are issued in the first place. Novusuna talk 22:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

All user pages are automatically protected to the associated user's access level[edit]

Closing without action as  Request withdrawn/WP:SNOW. — xaosflux Talk 15:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm proposing that all user pages on Wikipedia will be automatically protected to the user acess levels of their associated users. For example, an IP or new user's will be pending changes protected, mine will be extended-confirmed protected, and so on. The reason I think this should be done is because they are very sensitive to vandalism (basically as much as biographies of living people), there is rarely any reason for anyone except for the users themselves to edit their pages (other than maintenance such as updating deprecated templates, which mostly adminstrators and such will do anyway), and no one wants to go their own page to see that all of its content has been replaced with "This user is bad don't listen to them" by an IP-vandal. (Note that this was only an idea I had; not sure if it can actually work with the current software.) Geolodus (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

After reading the replies, I've changed my view and now consider this a bad idea. Feel free to close/archive this discussion as rejected, or whatever. Geolodus (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Why? This is still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and there is no evidence that they are very sensitive to vandalism (basically as much as biographies of living people). Besides, the Recent Changes page for new user Userpage edits mostly consists of OK edits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, you do not WP:OWN your userpage. Also, any vandalism to user pages is not directed at articles. I much prefer having graffiti on my userpage to something really bad like changing numbers in articles. —Kusma (t·c) 11:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. IP editors cannot currently edit user pages, which I think is probably the main concern here (data: filter 803). In fact useful edits can often be made to user pages. Also, allowing only admins to edit admin user pages seems to me like a terrible idea. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Further to that, an admin whose user page gets vandalized frequently has the power to protect their own page, so it does not need to be automatic. bd2412 T 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Userpage vandalism is uncommon and easily dealt with. New and unregistered users can't even edit other people's userpages anyway, and I don't think we need any more restrictions. funplussmart (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose...If I've read this right, wouldn't that mean only admins being able to edit admin pages?! Although it would quiten down the noise from the WP:Founder's page a whole lot :D ——SerialNumber54129 20:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless you can show that there is a current, major problem here. We do have an edit filter to prevent anons or new users from editing other users' user pages; we probably don't need any more than that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it. However, in some particular circumstances ex. vandalism, we can request at WP:RFPP. Please see this WP:PPDRV. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:PREEMPTIVE, Applying page protection in a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied for these reasons. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 05:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rollback feature[edit]

My proposal is, after rolling back a user's edit, automatically open their talkpage. I know there is WP:Twinkle but that is not automatically work/open talk page. There are no features in preferences. If there are any Java scripts or features, then it will be very help for rollbackers. Thanks, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 09:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001:  Done Script made. After rolling back a user's edit, open their talk page. Doesn't work if you have a script installed to require confirmation before rolling back. See User:DannyS712/Rollback talk --DannyS712 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Thanks dude! It's working. I am the first user who used this script. :) Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Should I give you an award? :P Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 15:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Me? or Siddiqsazzad001? idk... --DannyS712 (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Nah just joking with Siddiqsazzad :) Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Absolutely. They deserve an award for having such a great user script idea... --DannyS712 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Divide Village pump tabs to create a separate "history" component[edit]

Divide "Village pump" tabs into "Policy/Policy history", "Technical/Technical history", "Proposals/Proposals history", "Idea lab/Idea lab history", "Miscellaneous/Miscellaneous history". This would save a "click" when reviewing the various subdivisions of the Village pump. There would be no need to repeat the terms as I am doing now for illustration purposes only. And in fact the terms could be stacked vertically to save space, with the name "history" below the name of the tab. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This would save a click for what? What are you trying to access? --Izno (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"What are you trying to access?" I would be trying to access the history of a given subdivision of the Village pump. Let us say I was interested in developments at the Policy subdivision, the Proposals subdivision, and the Miscellaneous subdivision. Rather than click on Policy and then history, I would simply click on "Policy-history", saving a click. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This is silly. Personalize your own view or enable popups so you can hover over the names at the top and access the history without navigating to another page. Killiondude (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Killiondude. I enabled popups. That is cool. I was not aware of that. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Followup. I turned it off. It is annoying. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot to add Template:Unreferenced and Template:No footnotes to pages (single run)[edit]

There's a BRFA to make a single run through all pages, adding {{Unreferenced}} or {{No footnotes}} to pages as appropriate. GreenC kindly did the leg work making the bot. As currently written the bot will not tag stubs, redirects, "List of...", "Index of...", "<year> in...", and some other cases. You can see test results here for where the bot would or would not apply different tags. There is concern at the BRFA that this run may appear disruptive if consensus is not gained at a wider forum first. Hence, this post: would folks support a bot run to tag unreferenced or no footnotes pages? Ajpolino (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • As it's easy to do, I'd like to see this new tag annotated such as |source GreenC bot=, with a link to some relevant explanation. We gain little benefit from tags and a lot of friction, especially where they're seen as "drive-by" tagging with no explanation.
Also, what happens afterwards? Will those articles then be speedied for deletion as "unsourced"? I can see all those itchy trigger fingers just waiting to do such a thing. And of course, a bulk deletion run of massive volume would have so much greater 'success'. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, will this recognise BLPs and treat them differently? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Do "unsourced" tags need an explanation? Natureium (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because there's so much pushback against them (and many wind up mis-applied - an article without inline citations might still have references). If we're going to tag things, make the reasons and their provenance clear – saves argument later. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Now that new pages patrol is fairly organized, most new unreferenced pages are likely getting tagged. So a single run of the bot should be sufficient. Category:Articles_lacking_sources already has 184,000 articles in it. But a group of editors are making steady progress, and have chopped that number down from 202,000 a year ago. Knowing the scale of the task would be nice. Also, I usually search through the category by keywords so I can deal with e.g. all Kyrgyzstanian villages in one go with one good source. Having all the unreffed articles tagged would greatly facilitate that. Lastly, I see no down side to having unreffed articles tagged as such. Who knows, the tag might even cause someone to fix a few of them? Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Easier to find articles with issues if they are tagged. Easier to fix them if you can find them. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This would let us target unsourced articles. I stumble across one every once in a while, and try to find some source, but we should be more systematic. And if we can't find any source to support one of those articles, then we should delete it. - Donald Albury 20:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Would be super helpful for this to be implemented. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support AmericanAir88(talk) 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a straightforward task that would save a lot of editor effort. — Newslinger talk 23:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These tags sit very prominently at the top of an article and so ought to be used judiciously. {{Unreferenced}} should ideally be placed on articles only if the absence of sources isn't otherwise immediately obvious to the reader and there is reason to believe some of the article's content might not be completely reliable: for example, there's no point tagging short articles whose content is easily verifiable in a quick web search. This is a task that requires judgement and so it can't be performed by a bot. I understand that many editors might disagree with this view on the use of the "unreferenced" tags, but the case against adding {{No footnotes}} – which is also the major task of the bot as it's expected to affect over 110,000 articles – is much clearer. In-line citations, though useful in many circumstances, aren't a universal requirement (see for example WP:MINREF). It's perfectly acceptable to have a reasonably developed article with a list of general references at the end but not a single footnote. If it doesn't contain potentially contentious statements (or other material that needs to be supported by in-line citations), then there's really no issue to point to and so the placement of a "No footnotes" tag can be seen as disruptive. Again, the decision on whether to place the tag or not requires evaluation of the content of the article, and that's not something that a bot can do. And of course, if editors find it useful to have a bot flag up articles in such a way, then this can be handled in any of the less obstrusive ways that many similar maintenance task are handled: for example by the creation of a list in projectspace, or by the addtion of invisible categories. – Uanfala (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support very helpful. :) Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 06:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support very useful, saving hours of editors' time. Carefully thought out and ready for a trial. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support On several levels. We owe it to the reader to tell them that we haven't checked the veracity of the article. To be able to counter the slur "Wikipedia is unreliable, people can write any nonsense" with "Not true- all articles require references- and if they don't have them we tag them prominently with "No footnotes- please help to provide them". Then, in talking to newbies at editathons- my line of "each wikipedia edit has three parts 'an interesting fact- a reference saying where you found it, and a note telling other editor what you have done" now has teeth. And, for the nervous new editor. ¨Don't try to start a new article- just go to one with the No footnotes tag and start there- it is unloved and you can only improve it.ClemRutter (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with pretty much everything but your last two sentences. Firstly Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source because people can write any nonsense. Go look at List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and see the 50+ hoaxes that existed on this website for over 8 years. One of 12 years was just deleted not two weeks ago. Second, the information has been checked by the the author of the article and if you doubt that you should challenge it specifically, not have a bot tag things that don't have a little blue number after them. Third, unless an article contains direct quotations, claims that have been challenged, claims likely to be challenged, or contentious material about living persons, policy does not require references: ...the policies require only that it be possible for a motivated, educated person to find published, reliable sources that support the material, e.g., by searching for sources online or at a library. Lastly, if we "owe it to the reader to tell them that we haven't checked the veracity of the article" then we should pending changes protect this whole place and turn it into Citizendium. Not having a template at the top doesn't mean the information is true, reliable, or even verifiable. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with Clem. As for the tag's prominence, they ought be. Most of the time these conditions are easy enough to correct, how long they remain so situated is mostly an editorial choice (even for new users as referencing is usually a task learned early, even by casual contributors).--John Cline (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Uanfala and WP:CITEVAR. Articles don't need to have footnotes, see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing, and I doubt throwing a {{No footnotes}} tag at the top of the FA Actuary will be helpful to anyone. {{No footnotes}} which would be added to Aerin says "its sources remain unclear" except that the source is very clear given it's three paragraphs on a Tolkien character cited to two of Tolkien's books. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the information about this Tolkien character comes from one of Tolkien's books (perhaps even the ones in the references). While {{unreferenced}} definitely applies to Love After Midnight, should it really be added considering the information is clearly available if you just looked at the album cover (a fair use image of which is included in the article, but a bot wouldn't know that). Inline citations are only required if material is challenged, so adding a tag to an article that is already verifiable isn't useful and bloats a maintenance category for pages that actually do have issues with verifiability. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    To say: "Inline citations are only required if material is challenged" is to rest verification on diligence to only a fourth part of expected standards. There are four instances that necessitate inline verification. If you focus on the larger picture, where the other 75% may dwell, I think both you, and Uanfala would find it much more intuitive to support this reasonable measure; for the larger good that it will do.--John Cline (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'm well aware, I mention all four in a comment I made above, but none of the other three apply in the articles I mention (no direct quotes, not BLPs, nothing seems likely to be challenged) so I didn't mention the other three. Determining whether the state of sourcing and verifiability is in line with policy is a task for humans and it should be done by humans. This is not a bot proposing to add {{BLP unsourced}} to unsourced BLPs, it's not a bot that would add {{Quote without source}} to direct quotations without an inline citation, it's not a bot that would add {{Disputed}} to articles which seem to be hoaxes, it is not a bot that would add banners which show actual problems stemming from policy but rather is asserting that a whole article has problems because it doesn't have little blue numbers. If the bot were to add any of those three banners (appropriately) I'd be more inclined to support, but right now this just seems like what will happen is a ton of articles that comply with policy and with style guidelines will get swept up in. Category:Articles lacking sources contains 3% of all articles. Category:Articles lacking in-text citations contains over 1%. It will take 9 years to get through {{unsourced}} at our current rate of 20,000 articles per year. I fail to see a "larger good" in bloating already massive categories with an unknown number that may not even be a valuable use of our time because no human actually triaged it.
    And this isn't even me hypothesizing. I went through all the type 2 {{no footnotes}} articles in the dataset listed at BRFA and many of them I would not tag at NPP. There are even articles like Fossilized affixes in Austronesian languages, Nummer 5 which would have been tagged but do use inline citations (with page numbers!) via parantheticals; the second article, Nummer 5, even uses citation template {{harv}}. If you want to bloat those categories, I'd be fine with the bot adding the category alone, but if we're going to be prominently displaying a message to our readers that there is a problem with an article I want a human to have judged that it is in fact not in line with policy, not a bot failing to find its prefered citation style. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    Your rebuttal is cogent and well reasoned; I respect your entire platform. I think it will not achieve more than its due recognition (as great philosophy) until nirvana hath come. Meanwhile, this reasonable thing (that we can do) should be done; and continuously improved (until nirvana hath come).--John Cline (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    Addendum - I'd like to add that my support of this proposal is in no way meant as a dismissal of your valid concerns. They deserve mitigation,as they did (even before this proposal) and reasonably. perhaps, even more so amid the emerging consensus. I share your disdain for arriving at a page only to see a prominently displayed maintenance tags that inappropriately ascribe the wrong maintenance needs and very often show they have been mistagged this way for years. A bot that can add a tag ought always multitask to remove tags that are misapplied as well (that might do a lot, in itself, to reduce some backlogs. And to alleviate the potential of bloated categorization, it would be technically easy and editorially prudent to modify the categorization for each of the tags the bot will handle so as tags placed by the bot can be categorized as such, and diverted to a sub-cat of the main-cat eliminating any potential effect from bloat while allowing the segregation of bot placements where an editor may want to deal with pages tagged by the bot in particular, and thereby could. I hope they will do such things just because it is an improvement compared with not doing it. Anyway, I did not mean to seem dismissive, and I saw in my comment where it could easily seem like that is what I was attempting when I really was not meaning to. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Every mainspace article should be flagged for such sourcing problems; doing so is de rigueur for patrollers, but because of the decentralized way patolling is done, many article have been missed. Let's find and fix that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support unsourced only some of the concerns about "no footnotes" seem legitimate; on a spot check, while many of those articles have problems, often the lack of footnotes is not the main problem with the article. Stubs like Forstegg Castle or Robert Săceanu don't have enough content to need footnotes, and David Garst is all clearly sourced to the one reference given. I don't see any reason to not support the {{unsourced}} run; the only false positive I found was a crypto-list at Clarinet-cello repertoire. I'm assured through the earlier discussion that templates that generate references are all included, it's not just checking for ref tags). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Convert infobox comedian to wrapper[edit]

See Template talk:Infobox comedian#Convert to wrapper. Comments invited. Thanks Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 02:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot for[edit]

Please see a proposal discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#Proposal:_Bot for creations regarding adding a service account for the outreach dashboard account creation workflow. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Use ReCaptcha 2.0 for Wikipedia[edit]

Recaptcha 2.0 allows a one-click verification that will speed up editing and publishing. Look into it at [[2]]. Thank you. --Whatever Floats your Zel! (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@One Blue Hat: See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use reCAPTCHA for why this has been rejected in the past. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Gotcha, makes sense. --Whatever Floats your Zel! (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd chance script[edit]

Following a request at WP:SCRIPTREQ on the advice of Enterprisey, the awesome DannyS712 and Danski454 have respectively written a script and a module to automate large portions of {{2nd chance}}. I'm particularly interested in using the user script, as it automates away a large portion of the technical/legal steps in {{2nd chance}} for the new users who receive that template. I'll be sending DannyS712 some requested changes to the script, but it's just about at the level I'd like to test it on real unblock requests.

I'm here to ask for consensus to do a limited trial of this script on real blocked users. In particular, when I would've otherwise used {{2nd chance}}, I'd like to add this user script to the user's common.js and notify the user on their talk page how to use the script. The trial will last until three users have used this user script to request unblock for a second time after their unblock request was declined as {{2nd chance}}. Because this requires directly editing another user's common.js, I'd like to get the community's sign-off before doing this test. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@L235: I wanted to test the user script out on myself over at test wiki, and asked for admin and iadmin (there, not here) so I could block User:DannyS712 test and try it from that account, and be able to edit any bugs that come up. I'd prefer to do that before we start editing the common.js of a blocked use. @Xaosflux: declined my request for permissions, directing my to one of the wikis dedicated to messing around with admin powers, but if this is going to become a tool that blocked users have installed then I hope that they will reconsider. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Open an account at the beta cluster and I'll get you the testing permissions. Based on a couple tests I did here, though, it seems like it works well enough to test with a few users here. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@L235: See your talk page --DannyS712 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  •'re looking for permission to forcefully add personal javascript to other users, and citing legal requirements, and this script appears to also include import scripts from other users - if so, I'm really strongly opposed to this for security concerns alone. — xaosflux Talk 21:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: I'd be happy to, once I iron out the kinks, have it moved to the mediawiki space so that I can't edit it. The only thing my code imports is another function of mine, which likewise can be moved. We already add javascript for other users (common.js, skins, etc) under the belief that it is secure if only iadmins can edit it, which would be the case with this script once its moved. I'd don't see how this creates any new security concerns, given that this would be limited to 1) users already told to attempt a "second chance" and 2) makes no edits without being activated by the user and 3) the code itself is (imo) pretty easy to read and see that it has no hidden edits --DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    Common scripts (such as vector.js, common.js) are not just secure because their write access is severely limited, but because they are highly visible (i.e. highly watchlisted). Significant changes to such pages generally undego a propose/review/execute/monitor process for each edit. Forcing changes in to arbitrary User:username/common.js files would also require that everyone who will participate in this process become an interface administrator, contrary to one of the goals of reducing this access. — xaosflux Talk 21:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: Alternatively, every time a blocked user has an unblock request declined as 2nd chance, a note is put somewhere (a dedicated page, iadmin noticeboard?) which user it is, and then a pre-existing iadmin can add the one line of code to that user's common.js (importScript ( 'MediaWiki:Second chance.js' );) or something like that. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    We can also package it as a gadget of some kind if the concern is not having the user's consent, but I'd expect that would take considerable texting testing Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC) beforehand. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    @L235: Testing? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Until I can test this out at the beta cluster, I don't think its ready for even a discussion about inclusion. Thus, this should be put On hold until phab:T212327 is solved, since I need to be able to confirm my accounts there. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Though I think this is a bad idea as referenced above, it should be trivial to have your alt account load this to their own user.js and have someone block your account. — xaosflux Talk 04:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I have added the script to "my" userspace on test wiki, and have the test account import it, so if beta isn't working can you please just block User:DannyS712 test on testwiki for a week? And, can you also give me importer there so I have a variety of pages to test the script with, to ensure that there aren't any bugs? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
We could make this into a gadget and add a line to the template asking them to enable the gadget and proceed from there. << FR (mobileUndo) 06:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)