Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Who edits the most on Simple Wikipedia?[change source]

How (Where) do I find a list of the most active editors on this Wikipedia? Kdammers (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kdammers: This might not be exactly what you want, but Special:ActiveUsers shows the number of edits by all users who "had some kind of activity within the last 30 days". It's sorted by user name, and there doesn't seem to be a way to sort by number of edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@BlackcurrantTea:, Thanks for this excellent link for Wikimedia Statistics. Not sure how accurate it is for measuring editor activity on Simple, but if you click All Metrics then Legacy page views you will see that Simple is definitely being vied by more people. Between 2008-2011 it was viewed by 5 million people every month, but now it is viewed by 3-7 times more people. Way to go Simple! Ottawahitech (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @BlackcurrantTea: or anyone else, is there a way to measure how many edits are the addition of new material to wp: mainspace compared to reverts, posting of various notices, and edits to non-mainspace? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • [1] This is the link you need. Scroll down and you get a proper analysis. The section is called "50 recently active wikipedians, excl. bots, ordered by number of contributions". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross, the numbers on that page are old. The recently active list says that someone's first edit was 27 December 2017, and that it was 368 days ago. It also says 16 June 2018 was 197 days ago. At the top of the page, it says 'Jan 31, 2019: This is the final release of Wikistats-1 dump-based reports', which I understand to mean that 31 January 2019 was the last time the page was (or will be) updated. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Constitutional crisis at Wikipedia[change source]

Not sure how many readers here are aware of this crisis that started on June 10, 2019. I myself only found out about it sometime in July. The English Wikipedia community has been discussing this since June 11, so a discussion forum on Simple for our contributors has finally been created here.

This is where Simple contributors can also have their say:

Please keep discussions civil, but also allow everyone to express their honest views. Try to refrain from blanking comments by others. It is best to wp:hat such comments instead of blanking. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Ottawahitech (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. Seems unnecessary to me at best and I'm thinking the best course of action is to delete the page. Hiàn (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hian, I respect your opinions, but I don't believe they belongs on the page in question. Putting comments on the page itself drives away people who want to participate on the talkpage in serious discussion with no drama. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You say it replicates the enwiki one, and I made a very similar section over there in the same manner that Hiàn made this one. Vermont (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You yourself said it replicated the enwiki page, where discussion takes place on the main page, not the discussion page. It was fair to assume discussion was to take place on the main page, wasn't it? Hiàn (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hiàn: and Vermont: I owe you an apology. I thought I made it clear that talk should go on the talkpage, but I failed to do so. We are all volunteers here and we do not all have access to the latest technology, not everyone can afford it. I was thinking of that when I tried to fix this by making the text BOLD, but I could not. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks the steam has gone out of the SANFRANFRAMDRAMABAN, think again:w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2 Ottawahitech (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Partial Blocks are now available on five different language wikipedias[change source]

The NY Times knows more than I do about what the The Wikimedia Foundation is doing. An article that appeared on April 8, 2019, titled Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly says that Partial Blocks are now available on five different language wikipedias, including Italian and Arabic. These software tools allow Admins to Block Users from editing particular pages. I am not an Admin, but it is my understanding that Admins here can decide how long to Block Users from editing all pages on Simple, but cannot technically Block Users from editing a subset of the pages. This is the reason Bans are Used in cases where the community only wants to Block a User from certain pages, but let them continue editing other pages. Bans are a sort of good faith agreement on the part of the Blocked User not to edit certain areas. Am I correct?

BTW, I wanted to thank User:Hiàn without whose generous help I would have been able to see this paywallled article.

And before anyone asks, yes, this is directly related to the Fram incident on English Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: A ban is usually an indefinite block issued after a community discussion when a user has been causing general disruption, vandalizing, or something similar. This kind of ban prevents the user from editing any pages. To have a ban lifted requires another community discussion.
You might be thinking of topic bans, which are at the discretion of admins. Those don't involve a software block, because we don't currently have a way to do selective blocks. With a topic ban, the affected user is told that they are not allowed to edit certain pages, or do any edits related to certain topics, or something similar. If a user violates a topic ban, there is a penalty, which is often an indefinite block. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Partial block software could be useful in enforcing interaction bans, but individually adding possibly tens of thousands of pages to a Special:Block page to enforce a topic ban is simply a waste of time and might break something. Per WP:BB, it seems topic bans require community consensus to implement, just like full community site-bans. How is it directly related to Fram?  Vermont (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You're right, that page does say that topic bans require a community decision to implement. I just seem to remember us having some that were decided by an admin, but I could be wrong. As to the Fram issue, I don't know if/how it's related. I was just responding to your question about how bans work, since it isn't quite as you described. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I know on enwiki admins can enforce topic bans pursuant to ArbCom cases, but we have no ArbCom here. Also, I was asking Ottawahitech about it's relation as they were the one who said it's related. Vermont (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Partial foundation ban (which is what happened to FRAM case) is that one is prohibited from editing a particular project as compared to a full ban which means no WMF projects can be edited, no phab, no offline outreach activities etc. On the other hand, partial blocks (as part of mediawiki) is on a particular wiki, a user cannot edit a set of pages or namespaces. Hence, partial blocks (the tool available to admins) have no relationship whatsoever with FRAM unless harrassment is the link. If A is harassing B constantly, an interaction ban can be done so that A cannot edit B talk page (which can be enforced with a partial block regarding User Talk:B for user A). I hope this clarifies. Personal Note:I dislike partial blocks personally. --Cohaf (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cohaf: I think this is mostly intended for page bans as topic bans could involve more than just the page. Also you can interact with people without using their talk page, for example how i am interacting with you right now. Laptop Fizz (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for topic bans?[change source]

I'm seeking community input on whether administrators should first seek community consensus at WP:ST prior to enacting a topic ban. Personally, I'm in favor of using administrator discretion on this matter, as otherwise due to the time it may take for a full discussion most administratros would likely just block the user if they are editing an area of articles disruptively rather than topic ban, prohibiting that user from editing in areas where they may be beneficial. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with administrator discretion. Desertborn (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I will say let us have it admin discretion with option for review on ST. However, topic ban shouldn't be indefinite, if there is a need, let's have some discussion first. If someone need topic bans on something here for indefinite, they either are not here to contribute / needs competency is why I am thinking of discussion of indefinite bans. --Cohaf (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t know what the practice here is in regards to indef-blocks (blocked forever unless unblocked), but I have been indef-blocked, twice, on enwiki; once in 2012 and once in 2017, so I have developed some personal views on this practice. However, I don’t think this is what we are discussing here?
I have very little knowledge of wp:topic bans, not even sure we have our terminology right. However, from what I understand some if not all of the so-called topic bans on enwiki were very controversial and were done through ARBCOM. Some of those bans were even discussed by main stream media. So having admins make discretionary decisions about them here seems like asking for trouble? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the decision of an administrator or administrators is ok for this. As Vermont said, a discussion would probably take a long time, and the person could make many unhelpful changes in that time. Some people have trouble in a subject area (maybe they like some music so much that they can't write about it with a neutral point of view), or they may have trouble with a kind of change (maybe they always want to use their own pictures, even if they're not good pictures for the page). These people might still help the encyclopedia as long as they don't try to do the things they have problems with. I agree with Cohaf about having the choice to review topic bans on this page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Would this replace community consensus? Or just allow admins to make topic bans if they want to. Laptop Fizz (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I think of it as permitting admins to place blocks on a user over specific areas similar to the way they place blocks on a user over the entire project. It would not replace community consensus, of course, and like any admin action is appealable to community consensus. In the event there is consensus here to implement some form of this, I or someone else will write up something to add to the blocking policy about this. Vermont (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I imagine that community bans came about when someone said something like "well, if wikipedia is based on consensus, does that mean we can have a consensus to block someone?" and then stuff just extended from there. meaning that if administrators are also able to block users on their own will, they should probably also be able to do the other stuff associated with it. but on the other hand, that's really only to stop immediate vandalism. other longer term stuff should usually be left up to bans although i do understand the problem of the rather small community here.
TLDR: I think Weak oppose and that it should be reserved for the community because really topic bans are not something super urgent. Laptop Fizz (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I was prompted to make this discussion after I considered asking for a topic ban of Drug Equality from articles related to illegal drugs. I know on enwiki admins can place topic bans on editors who have problematic contributions in a set topic area as defined by their arbitration committee. We don't have that, but perhaps we could come up with a list of topics administrators can apply/enforce topic bans on; a list of contentious subjects. Vermont (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Let's settle their issue, shall we, I have drafted next section to handle their situation. I am very disinclined to have an AC/DS kind of thing. It's too complex for here. --Cohaf (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
"a list of topics" would be easier said than done keep in mind, and it also looks like the topic ban is going pretty well so far. and yes it appears that you were correct because mac blocked him :) but for now i think maybe administrators should be allowed to place them unless it appears there are problem. i change my vote to Support. Laptop Fizz (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Vermont mentioned this to me to get feedback, and speaking as an admin, I find these are pretty effective at combatting abuse, but sysops have to be willing to be unpopular to use them. They're fairly effective, and given how this community is relatively small compared to others, I think this would probably be the most practical way for you all to go about it. Feel free to ignore me since I don't actively contribute here but that's an xwiki perspective. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't say that I have ever seen an admin here unilaterally enact a topic ban. Topic bans have been used but they are usually the result of community action and usually the result of a long term issue, the Drug Equality situation below for example would not really be a good one as its a short term issue that a couple blocks would be best tried first. Topic bans are for when blocks haven't worked before resorting to full out bans. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Topic Ban for Drug Equality for articles related to illegal drugs[change source]

Given Drug Equality constant edit warring which resulted in a 31hour block by Macdonald-ross on adding what he thinks is a legal fact. He seems to be persistentlythinking that his views are correct despite being told by variousadministrators that it is not so. I will henceforth propose a topic ban to the topic of illegal drugs and related pages, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions for a period of 3 months. At any moment, he may fill an appeal to have this ban to be lifted on here.

  • Support as proposer. --Cohaf (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. He has given clear indications that he will not stop, and his is a one-issue account. Clarity of wording is something difficult to achieve in controversy, and in these cases it is better for the community to stop the disruptive behaviour. Three months is a reasonable period. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Cohaf and Macdonald-ross. Vermont (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support account is run by and is commercial. Laptop Fizz (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • That being the case, I have indeffed the account for having a bad username. We may or may not need to be on the lookout for a different account (or an IP) picking up where this account left off. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Another administrator, Macdonald-ross, already declined a username block, and I concur with them on it. Vermont (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Why was it declined? If the name is an organization, that's grounds for a username block. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
          • If it is an organization, which it now seems likely, then yes of course. Vermont (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
            • Just commenting to say that my initial response was before the editor's behaviour pattern was fully established. I agree that if account is a group affair, then it should be indeffed. It is a bad username indeed, and we now know it is connected to unreasonable behaviour. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It is. See en:Drug Equality Alliance. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

proposed change to Template:tl[change source]

to anyone here who's interested in templates i propose a change to template:tl which shows that, whenever trying to supply more than one parameter, it will be added to a category to use {{tlwp}} instead. you can see the proposed template here. is everyone okay with this? Computer Fizz (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. The only concern I have is that this would make our copy of the template different from the enwiki one. I'm not sure how much difference that would make with this particular template, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:Uw-vandalism2 is also different from enwiki, specifically the icon. i don't think making the templates different is a huge concern because of this although it would be neat to have them look similar. Computer Fizz (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
As far as keeping templates in sync with enwiki, each template should be considered on its own merits. A vandalism template isn't comparable to this one. To me, the issue concerning synchronizing is not how it looks, but what happens if/when the template is "refreshed" from enwiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
what do you mean by "refreshed"? Computer Fizz (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean when the current enwiki version is brought over to replace the version here. We don't have an official process to do that regularly, but it happens sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
so i guess NOTENWIKI can go right next to DEAL . would probably be a good idea to stop doing that IMO, or at least add a note that we made this change. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(Psst: it would help if you would use actual links when you mention shortcuts: not all of us can immediately remember what they all are.) Do you mean it would be a good idea not to overwrite our templates with the enwiki versions? I think we could have a better process for that, but it's necessary sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

well to be perfectly honest the reason i didn't link them is because i couldn't remember what they were called either :P. and yeah i do think it would be best to do that, especially when templates need to be simple. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have a good point, but there comes a point where we have to update templates to keep up with underlying technology changes, to take advantage of new functionality, or to allow templates to work when people transwiki articles. Most of what needs to be updated in the templates isn't in the visible part where language needs to be simplified. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it would be best to put those notes in a comment then instead of documentation? Computer Fizz (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm having trouble braining today. :) What notes are you talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The note that says, "If you update this template, remember to add the category placer". Computer Fizz (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the need to change this template. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso: late reply but the change to the template is because i frequently see people trying to use like {{tl|template|parameter}} even though you have to use {{tlwp}} for that. this category will help to fix it and won't really remove any functionality. the only downside is yet another category but that's an issue for another day imo. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
So what exactly is the consensus here? Laptop Fizz (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is a consensus the change is needed. I don't know that I have ever seen an issue with this even once. The easy solution is just to link the other template in the other templates section of the documentation (which it already is). -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
That wouldn't identify the pages that are trying to display parameters in addition to a template name. Even if the change were made only temporarily, we could grab the list of pages trying to do that, undo the change, then check them and decide whether to remove the parameters or use the other template. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

LTA page creations?[change source]

Is there perhaps a QD criteria we can make for page creations of LTA's? For example, the many creations by JRS and recent ones by Special:Contribs/Indian Kolkatan. We could RfD the pages, which would waste community time and thus benefit the LTA by permitting them to make non-notable pages that aren't exactly explicit promotion or vandalism but still waste our time, or we could create a method by which we could delete them quickly. Perhaps there could be a QD criteria like enwiki's G5, however restrict it to being used on specific banned/blocked users who are designated as such by community consensus. Thoughts? Best regards, Vermont (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the G5 criteria has existed before, but it got removed (not sure when) as there were some disagreements about it and is now a "placeholder". Zaxxon0 (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It is a placeholder so that our numbers match It has never existed here as far as I am aware. -DJSasso (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Then why does WP:QD say that 5 and 9 were "removed" Computer Fizz (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I oppose this. Quick deletion should be for very clear cases. LTA user contributions are not always clear, because sometimes they mix good contributions in with their bad ones. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Most LTA articles can fall under other QD criteria so I don't think we need to extend the criteria to deal with the few that need to go to Rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support rfd's should only be used for ambigious good faith cases, qd was intended to stop obvious stuff like this. Computer Fizz (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
That is not so. RFDs are used for anything that doesn't fit one of the specific, narrowly-defined QD options, whether or not it's ambiguous or good faith. QD is not meant to have an option for every circumstance we can think of, so RFDs will be used for many different things including some that seem obvious to some but not to others. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: no offense but i don't see the similarity between "every circumstance we can think of" and "obvious stuff like this", what are you trying to say here because i feel like you don't think i'm saying, what i'm saying. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • While I agree that G5 should be used for very clear obvious cases of sockpuppetry / LTA like JRS etc, I don't agree for all, some articles have some value that cannot be underminded by a summary deletion. In addition, our AFD works like a PROD in enwp, so it's fine just to RFD it. --Cohaf (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again an issue we have discussed many times...[change source]

We are getting once again pages of the type "Anywhere Americans", which are so dotty because there is almost no American alive who does not originate somewhere else in the world. It is the way entries are not defined and controlled, and the sheer senselessness of the lists which follow. People move all over the world, and the place to put their individual movements would be on their biog page. Even then it might well not be notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to pages such as those made by 2601:81:4300:99F2:C99C:D97A:7AF6:3BE5? Desertborn (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I assume he was, they were nuked as disruptive editing which have been to rfd previously. That being said, the topics if the pages were filled out with more detail, would almost definitely be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and added more detail to the Karl Glusman page, so it should be okay now. ~Junedude433talk 15:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:QD[change source]

Can someone possibly figure out what seems to be malfunctioning, or at least is different in contrast to the corresponding template on enwiki e.g. which does prefill reasons and doesn't open a new page, whereas this one does.

[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|{{#if:{{{reasonlink|}}}|wpReason={{{reasonlink}}}&|}}action=delete}} deletion]

...seems to indicate that a reason is filled, but that doesn't happen for me, and I'm not sure what's making it want to open a new tab. -- Lofty abyss 12:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lofty abyss: according to your contributions you are using twinkle to nominate qd's right? that is what is causing the new tabs to open, not the actual QD template. if you don't like that you can edit your preferences here, or nominate pages for QD "by hand". And fullurl is for internal links, not external.
Sorry i may be misinterpreting what you are saying so if I have it all wrong could you try to rephrease? Computer Fizz (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation[change source]

I think this subject is worth exploring (so I am putting it here), I know some other wikis have been notified by WMF and they are engaging more wikis (i.e. A message here which I will copy below). I think this wiki will be one of the hardest hit as our IP editor to registered editor ratio is one of the highest amongst all Wikimedia Content Wiki. Do read the message below which is done by Johan (WMF)

Hey everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation wants to work on two things that affect how we patrol changes and handle vandalism and harassment. We want to make the tools that are used to handle bad edits better. We also want to get better privacy for unregistered users so their IP addresses are no longer shown to everyone in the world. We would not hide IP addresses until we have better tools for patrolling.

We have an idea of what tools could be working better and how a more limited access to IP addresses would change things, but we need to hear from more wikis. You can read more about the project on Meta and post comments and feedback. Now is when we need to hear from you to be able to give you better tools to handle vandalism, spam and harassment.

You can post in your language if you can't write in English.

--Cohaf (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

New button and boxes on history page[change source]

In the last month, I've seen a new button on the history pages here which says 'edit tags of selected revisions'. There's also a box to tick by each change listed on the page, if you want to change the tags for that one. Do people often want to change these tags?

Maybe I'll want to do this sometime, but I don't need the button or the boxes right now. I would like to turn it off and remove the boxes, but it's not in my settings. I tried a different skin, but that didn't change it. Is there a way to turn this off? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Those have been there for as long as I can remember. Maybe you are just noticing them now. No there is no way to remove them. I believe they are baked into the underlying software so you wouldn't be able to remove them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That's strange. Maybe I only noticed it now because I've looked at history pages more in the last month. I've clicked the box when I wanted to click the radio button next to it often enough that it was annoying me, so I posted here.

There are only two other Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites I've noticed that use it, Wikisource and Spanish Wikipedia. The others I've recently visited (English, French, and German Wikipedia; Wikidata, Commons, Meta, Wikibooks) don't use it. This makes me think it's a choice that someone made, and makes me wonder again if, or how often, people change the tags. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It is on English as well. Chances are its just an extra right we give with our auto-confirmed that some of the others do not, which would explain why you may not have seen it at first when you first came here and then did after awhile, but if that is the case it still wouldn't be changeable by individual users. -DJSasso (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Template MMA[change source]

Please ask any of your experienced editors to make an infobox template for Mixed martial artists so that i can create articles related to them. Your help will be appreciated. Editor ClumsyMind (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@ClumsyMind: what do you want on the template? (i.e. what inputs) Computer Fizz (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@ClumsyMind: Enwiki uses Template:Infobox martial artist, so I imported it for you. Let me know if there are any issues. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Auntof6: and @Computer Fizz:. Editor ClumsyMind (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Deploy Internet Archive Bot?[change source]

I was just wondering if there is any progress? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You can follow the progress on this phabricator ticket. As there are a large number of tickets for that bot, I assume it may take a bit. Desertborn (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Update on the consultation about office actions[change source]

Hello all,

Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.

This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September. Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.

For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.

Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.

Thank you for your input! -- The Trust & Safety team 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • See above under "Constitutional crisis". I did tell you-all that this was a VIP issue about the boundaries between the wikis and the Foundation, but you decided to delete our discussion page on the grounds that "it didn't concern us". Well, it does concern us: it's not just about English wiki. Please spend a bit of time reading the full story of what happened. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It still doesn't concern us. Since we didn't have an Arbcom we have always fallen under their purview. Nothing has changed except they have written some stuff out. I think that is what you didn't grasp. While obviously it affects us in that what they do affects us, the difference is that on this wiki it always has, the big change in all of this is for wiki's with Arbcoms. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: Just wanted to thank @Cohaf: for bringing us, simpletons, to the attention of the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team . Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: No problem, I had always advocated for more communication between the foundation and us. And to be clear, @Djsasso: I am very busy with multiple stuffs so I may not have time to elaborate but it does matter to us. The foundation is introducing something (or rather will like to engage with us) with something called partial foundation ban / temporary foundation ban. Our wiki isn't one with arbcom but that doesn't affect how we can handle such situations, are there ways to have private stuff to be discussed without T&S seems to be overstepping on our toes, those are something we can think about and raise up. I am active in multiple communities and hence, I will just give my opinion on meta after reading through again what the entire consultation is about. Best --Cohaf (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said it of course affects us in that we live under whatever they decide. But in the end we are a small wiki with under 30 active users. The whole reason we don't have an Arbcom is so that they can deal with all that crap. We very specifically leave all of this to T&S already, there is no stepping on our toes because we want them to take care of that stuff. That is why the whole "the sky is falling" rhetotic that Macdonald-ross had above is not really warranted. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso:. To clarify, you meant that we will accept if T&S does something like FRAM case here. Like we take office actions as a policy page not like per enwp an information page. It will be good to get local consensus to give full authority to give like say a 1 year ban on Simple for something. I am not opposing this but is there any instance this is discussed locally? I don't oppose full global bans but these I think we still have some room to discuss. --Cohaf (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to Simple Wiki[change source]

Hi. Just wanted to let everyone know (not sure if you remember me) that after a very long break (about five years with very rare edits to Simple Wiki) I have decided to return here, mainly to help with anti-vandalism efforts since it seems to me that there is still a need for that around here. I don't think I'll be doing any article work though, at least for now. Just wanted to mention this in case (for the people who were here before) are surprised to see me back. Reception123 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) Hiàn (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)