Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 84

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the talk page for more details. (Bluegoblin7 and Tholly had discussed this on my talkpage.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help in improving this. It's meant to match the new Vector theme, but I'm running out of ideas. With a few changes, I think we can most definitely make this look minimalistic, but nice. So leave messages at my talk page or here if you have ideas. obentomusubi 04:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! It loads quickly. Looks great in Firefox, and all right in IE, but the title is very close to the border in IE. Can that be fixed? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Which version of IE are you using? I'm using IE 8 and it looks okay. obentomusubi 06:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IE6. (I know, I know, but people still use it, so we need to cater for it.) But I also tested it with this within Firefox. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 06:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shucks. I'm going to need help with expert coders on this one because I don't really know how to fix that problem. I don't think IE6 supports "cellspacing", which is what makes the boxes spaced apart the way they are. The only way to fix it would be with margins, but I don't think my code can support margins on the sides. obentomusubi 07:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know how to do it with CSS, but it seems a lot of trouble and excess code to go to, considering it still looks nice, just slightly less so. Do you think it is all right the way it is? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks great :) And displays fine on Chrome 5 and FF 3.6 on ubuntu btw. - tholly --Talk-- 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very neat, and very well done indeed; and yet—I don't know how it is,—but I seem to miss something. Perhaps it is a little too bland. Maybe if there was a little more colour...on the lines of what your old user page used to look like :) But I do like the present suggestion, neat and clear, and it does look better than the simple main page. I have one rather ignorant question, though: do we really need the knowledge groups section? (Yes, it is on the Main Page right now, but I never really liked it.) I don't think anyone really checks it out (besides most of the articles listed there needing much work), and it fills up a lot of space without being either very useful or pleasing, in my opinion. —Clementina talk 08:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think removing the knowledge groups would be a good idea. Maybe cutting down on the interwikis slightly (I mean, there's a link to all the Wikipedias. Do we really need to list all those 500+ article ones as well?), but the knowledge groups are an easy way to browse our main articles (which, by the way, we should have a cleanup drive for.) I think we should perhaps modify the knowledge groups into portals, but either way I don't support removing them. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know...I think most of the articles listed there aren't really high quality, and besides, I think the majority of people would try typing in a subject they're interested in into the search bar rather than browsing through the "knowledge groups" (but this is just my pov). If it's necessary to keep them, I agree with Sonia it would be nice to have a major effort to try to clean them up (and maybe fix the pictures next to them as well). I'd rather have them there than implement portals, though. And I don't see how we can cut down the interwiki links as to favor some languages over others might be see as pov by some. Cordially, —Clementina talk 08:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good in Opera 10.54, though I agree all the interwikis take up a lot of space; they should be in a collapsible box. Also, maybe a complete redesign of what's on it could be interesting. Good work ;) Yottie =talk= 08:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide to switch to vector, which per last discussion, looks like most of you were unwilling, the interwikis automatically go into a collabsible box. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] mean the other ones in the main body...duh... -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reset <--) Definitely needs more colour, way too bland at the moment. If not colour, then at the very least the "jigsaw" we have at the moment. To tackle other comments above, leave the knowledge groups and tackle the articles. Portals will die (Exhibit A, B, C & D and take up man power we don't have for nothing in particularly useful (They're not going to improve articles!). Interwikis, I'd support removal of 500 & 100+ sections, but nothing more than that because by 5k they're going to be quite established. Likewise, we can only remove full sections - removing certain wikis (As was done before...) promotes 'favouritism' - it's not fair to only list some. Goblin 11:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

I like Yottie's idea of collapsible boxes. :) It would shorten the page considerably, and it's quite easy to use. —Clementina talk 11:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there is much point for you to design this at the moment as the community a little while ago rejected switching to vector. Don't know if that has changed or not. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good in Opera here, as well. :) I do think the interwiki's could be shrunk, but I'm not sure how. Collaspible boxes? A link to meta:List of Wikipedias? I've always thought as well that the sister projects could be shrunk as well. I personally like commons take on the sister project links. :) -Avicennasis @ 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "No" to both collapsible boxes and the Commons method. Remember, we have just one sister project, which is SEWT, after SEWQ and SEWB closed down. Linking to the full English versions would likely be inappropriate. With collapsible boxes, remember also that they may not work with every browser or browser settings, plus they wouldn't be a good look on the Main Page. I think the best suggestion would be to ditch all below 5k articles and wrap the rest in <small></small> tags. Indeed, I don't mind doing this separately of the redesign proposal and would like to suggest that it is done. Goblin 16:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]
As far as what I meant by they way commons show it, I only was referring to the layout, not the links. It houses them in a much smaller space than currently. Also, while we are at it, why does Commons not link to commons:Simple English to match all the other language-specific projects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis (talkcontribs)

You guys have such great ideas and feedback! Feel free to make some changes yourselves. I give all of you carte blanche. After all, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. obentomusubi 09:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revs

I was asked to determine what, if any, consensus had been reached with this feature and simplewiki. I have read the arguments for and against and have determined that no consensus exists either for or against the feature being adopted. If the community wishes to continue to discuss it, that's fine, but it is not approved at the moment. It would be wise, however, to leave it until the enwiki trial is over, imo. fr33kman 01:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By whom were you asked? πr2 01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, he was someone who hadn't commented in it and being an admin had the ability to close the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, on en WP, it's caused enough problems, so with our wiki being as small as it is, I think it would just be a major headache. I know I spoke in favor of it earlier, but my mind has changed. Kansan (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What problems? I don't pay much attention to enWP's dramaboards. It seems to work for me. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been majorly slow and lots of subtle vandalism has gotten through (largely because the instructions basically say "if it looks good, approve it"), which could be dangerous if people begin to see it as a replacement for CV activity. Kansan (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current proposal has been closed as failed. Let's give it until August to revisit it. fr33kman 02:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag templates

An issue has come up about the use of the flag templates. There are two questions I would like addressed.

  1. Should the flag templates continue to be widely used?
  2. Why do the flag templates operate so differently than on en:wikipedia?

The basic question about the use of templates is a trade-off between ease of coding and speed of execution. But there is more to it than just that.

  • A number of templates take a country name or code, then call one of the flag templates as just a small part of their output.
  • As countries change their flags, the new flag image is automatically displayed in article pages.
  • There is the ability to define alternate flags, such as military flags or past versions. This makes easier to display these special flags in articles. (However, this feature does not seem to work on simple:wikipedia at this time, but it does on en:wikipedia.)

Some facts to put this issue into perspective:

  • There are 250 pages in category "Country data templates"
    • There are at least that many redirect pages from three-letter country codes to Country data templates.
  • There are 198 pages in category "Flag templates"
    • These templates call flagicon to display the flag.
  • There are over 2500 pages that link to "Template:Country flagicon"
  • There are over 1500 pages that link to "Template:Flag"
  • There are over 150 "Template:Country flag alias 'name of country'"
    • These template simply contain the name of the flag of the country.
  • There are over 150 "Template:Country alias 'name of country or county-code'"
    • These template simply contain the name of the country.
  • There are templates that make indirect calls to the above templates in the form of "{{country data {{{1}}}", such as:
  • Some pages make many calls to the flag templates. For example:

I don't really see what you are getting at, as for why they work so differently, well thats a case of the fact the code split off from each other a long time ago. Technically everything here is different from en after its been here awhile. There is nothing stopping people from reworking the code to be closer to that of en's. But we don't have many wikicoders here as compared to en. As for if we should use them, yes of course we should. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should definitely use them - if we want to use flags in articles, they're the easiest way to do it. Otherwise you have to find the flag image and include at the right size (with border) each time: much more code, and if a country changes it's flag, loads of stuff to update (your figures of usage show this!) And they do make articles easier to read and look at. They may not work quite as well as on en, but that's no real surprise really! And to be honest, it's not worth spending hours getting them better when they do the job fine and we could be actually improving articles :) - tholly --Talk-- 18:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little help. New article.

I know this doesn't go on the AN, but I don't know where, so, for now, I'll ask away on here. Hope that's acceptable.

To the point: I recently started the Constitution of the United Kingdom article, as I noticed its absence due to a link in another page. I used English Wikipedia as a template for the article's content, removed any overly complex ideas, simplified the language, and used any relevant external references I could find. However, I'm not convinced that it's Simple English Wikipedia standard, and I'd just like to draw to it attention from someone who is a little more seasoned than me on this wikipedia. Also, for future reference, tell me where requests like this could be better placed, if there is such a place for them. --Robin Kerrison (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fine to me. It's simple enough. Best, -Barras talk 18:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the peace-of-mind. --Robin Kerrison (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. πr2 18:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lose track of the main points. As you mentions monarchs, you must say they have no direct power. That's fundamental. Parliament, voting, democracy. That's us.
Language in the article is simple, perhaps too much so. It should flow naturally. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Did anybody notice that the readability tool has been shut down? Its creator pulled the plug. Purplebackpack89 15:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is an other tool that can be used. -Barras talk 15:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where? πr2 17:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here. -Barras talk 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put some basic information on readability measures here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country Templates

English Wikipedia has the . I think that Simple English could benefit from a similar project, or even just the main flag templates. Since they're only used as quick reference points, and if they were imported, they'd simply link to the Simple equivalent of each country article, they could be imported from the main Wiki. Just an idea. --Robin Kerrison (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below as it applies for these too. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country Templates

English Wikipedia has the Flag Template WikiProject. I think that Simple English could benefit from a similar project, or even just the main flag templates. Since they're only used as quick reference points, and if they were imported, they'd simply link to the Simple equivalent of each country article, they could be imported from the main Wiki. Just an idea. --Robin Kerrison (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have most of the common templates. Generally we bring templates over as needed. -DJSasso (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, couldn't find them before. I see we have the Template:flag and Template:flagicon, but not the fixed ones for each country like "Template:USA". --Robin Kerrison (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably take out one of these sections. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Moved to User_talk:PiRSquared17/Archive 2#Names — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiRSquared17 (talkcontribs) 18:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Census 3

Hey all, I'm just popping by to canvas the third installment in what was meant to be a biyearly census of the number of users that are active. If you consider yourself an active editor of Simple English Wikipedia, please sign away here in order to get a vaguely-accurate number for our userbase. Thanks, — μ 17:14, Tuesday June 8 2010 (UTC)

Although the graph turns down, quite a few early signatures were self-admittedly not active! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Stats module in this installations functions if you are interested. Jon@talk:~$ 05:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White House

Could someone take a look at the infobox at White House and help fix the coordinates issue? I'm not sure what the problem is. Thanks, Either way (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a conflict between {{Location map}} and {{Coord}} from the recent changes. I can fix the geo coordinates by removing the individual lat and lon paramters and using the coordinates parameter, but that breaks the locator map display. See White House infobox test for an example. That is not the only page broken. It looks like any page using a locator map has the same error. See Toledo, Ohio for another example. --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
White House fixed πr2 (talk • changes) 18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything seems to be fixed now. Somebody must have changed something.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imported a whole whack of templates. Funny, because I thought you had fixed it :) fr33kman 19:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for your help. I knew it was a template issue, but couldn't quite figure out where the issue was coming from. Thanks, Either way (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist notifier

Hi, I'm trying to find the exact name/script for the watchlist notifier which can be added under "my settings" - "gadgets". I'm trying to find out if it's somewhere over on en, but the help desk there wisely suggested that I find out the technical name. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the en link. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! (I have watchlistitis, so I need this!) PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Huggle work here?

↑ ↑. wiooiw (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (Rollback isn't required here) πr2 (talk • changes) 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. wiooiw (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Mario (Nintendo) --> Mario. Title at en, fr, andpl Purplebackpack89 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lauryn Ashby (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Luigi (Nintendo) --> Luigi πr2 (talk • changes) 19:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lauryn Ashby (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deadendpages is dead

Special:DeadendPages hasn't been updated since 19:01, 22 October 2009. Can anyone set it up to update again? Robin Kerrison (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the software allows for it anymore. Best way to do it is to look at "What links here" on the orphan template. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't Deadend pages the opposite of Orphaned pages? -Avicennasis @ 20:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deadend pages do not link to ant other pages. Yes, if that is what you meant. πr2 (talk • changes) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Deadend pages are often orphaned and vice versa. πr2 (talk • changes) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is still in the software, along with a load others, but the WMF turned them all off as they are quite process intensive. They're also not accepting requests to re-enable them locally. To be honest, some NPP could probably find them all (and eradicate them! :)), as would Special:Random... eventually! Goblin 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Special:AllPages will do it. :) If we want to do sections, I'll take MiniDisc to Montross, Virginia. -Avicennasis @ 23:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A challenge...

I know perhaps it sounds like no big deal, and I am almost definitely the wrong person to point it out:

  • Administrators (and Bureaucrats, Checkusers and oversighters) are administrative functions.

Editors here should not be defined in terms that they have this role (of those pointed out above). I simply want to question the attitude of coming here, and ultimately be "rewarded" with one of these flags.

I am therefore looking forward to the point in time when we have 15 regular editors which do not have one of the flags above (Note: I exclude Rollback from this list, as it is a generally useful thing to award). --Eptalon (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An option to display normal English in user interface

I tried to go to Special:RecentChanges to have a look at how active this wiki is, but I failed to find the link for a while, because the text was changed to 'New changes'. Is there a way to allow users to view the user interface (not content) here in 'normal English'. I can have an English interface in wikis in any other languages, but why cannot I have it here? Liangent (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is: Go to "My preferences", then set the Language to en or en-gb :) - tholly --Talk-- 17:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only en-gb will work - en is what has been translated to Simple - someone didn't translate the simple one... Goblin 17:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]
Use a bot to move all MediaWiki: /en to MediaWiki: /simple, and file a bug in bugzilla: to change default / content language to Simple English? Liangent (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth it. As I just said on Tholly's talk, the majority of users now won't change their language and new users may not want/know how to. We're fine as we are; it's been like this for 6(?) years now. Goblin 17:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Actually according to MediaWiki's design, if the site default settings are changed, preferences of users who are using the old values get updated automatically, and this is used in Vector skin switch. Liangent (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  (change conflict)  (change conflict) ...Someone made a big mistake localising en to begin with tbh, but yes, a bit late now. I don't know why the global MediaWiki simple language hasn't been simplified, but that's not our problem. Admittedly when people change their language here atm it is a bit confusing to have "en" being simple, and "simple" being en... I use en-gb, stick out of it ;) - tholly --Talk-- 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about putting correct simple versions in translatewiki:. On this side it's a MediaWiki software issue, not only a simplewiki issue. Liangent (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't want to - "This language code should remain unused." I've posted a message there. - tholly --Talk-- 14:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested go to heading #{{LanguageHeader|simple}}_5242, asking about why they won't have simple as a proper language :) - tholly --Talk-- 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tholly, this is very confusing. I think it is worth it to switch around "en" and "simple", and considering that this wiki isn't so big, it shouldn't be a big problem. MC10 (TCL) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we only have 291 customised messages, so it wouldn't be to hard if we agreed to do this. I think it will make things easier for visitors and make more sense if the default language was simple and our localisations were there. Translatewiki doesn't want to have simple as a language, but if it ever did, this would mean we were already on the right language too. Why is simple wiki the only wiki where the default language is not the language of the wiki...? Thoughts? - tholly --Talk-- 12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make more sense. I do like to change my language to en when I go interwiki browsing, so I suppose people should be able to do the same here. Translatewiki's not being very helpful, so what impact would that have? sonia♫♪ 20:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well as translatewiki are indeed "not being very helpful" - ie. just saying 'no' with no reasons :) then all other wikis still have a simple language that does nothing, but I think it would be nice to get it right here. What would need doing (if we decided to) is to move all current MediaWiki:XXXXX/en to MediaWiki:XXXXX/simple, then get the default language for this wiki changed to simple. There were are about 287 of these that would need to move (a couple already exist), so it would be a bot job I imagine. Although, it would need to happen at exactly the same time the default language changed, so we'd need to copy them to /simple, the delete the /en customisations later, to avoid a transitional period of non-simple language. It would be an improvment at the end though I think - tholly --Talk-- 07:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot warn with Huggle

Hello there, I have a bit of a problem with Huggle. I can revert edits, but I cannot warn users; basically, the "warn" and "revert and warn" buttons are grayed out for every article, but the "revert" button shows up normally; the keyboard shortcuts do not work as well. Does anyone know how to solve this problem? Thank you. MC10 (TCL) 18:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't warn users with it either. I have always used Twinkle to warn (on a different browser) even if I'm using Huggle. --Diego Grez let's talk 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing... Poking around on IRC with other users to investigate this . I have the same trouble. -Avicennasis @ 02:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a change to the project's config page. Please restart Huggle and see if it works. Chenzw  Talk  02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shows the warn thing, gonna log out and edit a random page and then gonna use it, to see if it works. --Diego Grez let's talk 02:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It works! But it doesn't appends the signature, could you fix it Chenzw? :-) Thanks! --Diego Grez let's talk 02:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, it is working perfectly! Acknowledgements to Chenzw! :-) Diego Grez let's talk 02:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:D Chenzw  Talk  02:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not work. Now I cannot even login to Huggle. When I try to log in to simple:, Huggle just returns the message, "Unable to log in." It works fine with en: though. MC10 (TCL) 22:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is yours the latest version of Huggle? Also, is anyone else experiencing the same problem? Chenzw  Talk  08:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Our policy page on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox needs to be either improved substantially or merged. It has way too many big words. On EN, they don't even have a seperate page for SOAP; they folded it back into NOT. Maybe we should too Purplebackpack89 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've merget WP:SOAP with WP:NOT. It's pointless to have it on another page. Cheers, Diego Grez let's talk 22:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted your merge since you didn't even let it get discussed for more than 20 minutes. The way I understand WP:NOT. Is that the WP:NOT page was supposed to be very simple single sentence explanations of the not topics. Whereas, the subpages such as SOAP were supposed to be the more elaborate explanations. It does need to be simplified probably, but it definitely should remain separate. -DJSasso (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, when you boil it down, there's not enough content to justify SOAP having its own page. The point on advertising and promotion already has its own point in NOT. Most to all of the information on SOAP can be summarized in 3-5 sentences at NOT. Can you cite a specific discussion that supports your allegation about WP:NOT? Purplebackpack89 16:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any specific discussion since I don't think its that big a deal to waste time searching. However, I see no harm in having it be a seperate article. If anything I think more of the things on NOT should be split out to their own. I am a big fan of WP:NOTPAPER and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I like things spread out because it makes them easier to read and to track down what you are looking for instead of everything pointing to the same page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the merge - whilst I understand DJ's argument, it doesn't make much sense, especially on a wiki of this size. Goblin 16:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
Re:DJ: Funny, generally I think of stuff being easier to nav if it's all in one place. And aren't policies supposed to be written in a different manner than articles? Purplebackpack89 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on if you are looking in the big picture or not. Yes generally for some things you don't want to be hopping all over the place trying to find it. But on a page, a long page like WP:NOT is (longer if you expand some of the various points) it becomes hard to find something on that specific page. Which is why I generally like the idea of having a main page with very simplified/streamlined wording, and then having seperate more detailed information if someone needs it. Thats when finding info on the specific page becomes easier. Its probably a case of different people search for things differently. Like I said, not a huge deal, and I have no problem if people choose to merge. I just know I prefer to have things seperated. My reversal was due to a question (discussion) being posted and then someone jumping and doing the proposal within 20 minutes of it being posted. Waaay waaay to fast. People need to slow down. If something is posted for discussion enough time should be left for people to come and look. For something minor like this, probably 24 hours. More serious things a week or more (which is why rfd and rfa are that long). -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been against discussion. I started the discussion Purplebackpack89 18:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never said you were. :P -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of Administrative actions

Folks, I need to know what is the guideline regarding reversing another administrator's actions. Reference this thread. I'm not bringing the actions of that admin here, but rather, I want a review of what is acceptable administrator conduct. It has always been my understanding that before you reverse another administrators action, you either attempt to talk to them, or talk to the community. This does not of course matter if there was a clear mistake or the wiki is in trouble. Thanks for checking, Jon@talk:~$ 00:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin can change any other admins actions. It follows the BRD standard of you were Bold to make your move, another admin Reverted you, and now you Discuss. Yes, its often considered good manners to discuss, but it is far from a requirement to talk to another admin if you want to change their action. A wheel war requires 3 actions. You to make an action, then someone to undo it, and then you to undo their undo. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much of one admin undoing another without discussion on this wiki with regards to administrative actions. It is disrespectful to the blocking, deleting, or protecting admin, and to the community. Regardless if it was a technical wheel war, it was unneeded. It needs to stop. BRD was never designed for blocks, deletes, and protects, you should know this. Jon@talk:~$ 00:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BRD applies to every action on the wiki by any type of editor. The very purpose of it is to avoid needless discussion, which is why the discussion comes after the revert. So that if the first person really feels strongly about what they did they can discuss the matter and either redo the admin action if both parties agree or leave it as is, otherwise there is no discussion if they see the person who reverted them was right. Yes I agree there used to be too much wheel warring here. I am a very big proponent of stopping wheel warring, but wheel warring doesn't start until a 3rd action is taken. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-I think a problem exists when an admin makes an action, it is reversed, and then put back in place without discussion. While (IMO) any reversal of an important admin action (I don't want to be notified every single time one of my deleted pages gets re-created as a good article) should be accompanied by a courtesy note on the original admin's talk page along with a reasoning for the reversal, the BRD principle applies. I wouldn't go as far as saying that 3RR is the rule (anything more than 2RR is inappropriate [IMO] for an admin), clearly, reverting of admin's actions (without discussion beforehand) should be allowed as it is for normal users. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common courtesy for an admin to leave a note on the original admin's talk page when they are reversing an administrative action and the action is not an obvious mistake. Everyone should do that, or it is disrespectful. However, we can't possibly put it as policy, that is too ridiculous. Chenzw  Talk  08:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of readability measures

I think we have been damaged by the loss of the automated readability measures. And I don't think the matter should rest on the whims of a single person. What most concerns me, as a science contributor, is that I don't want Simple to rely overmuch on the Basic word list, because that is so unsuitable for modern science. It is a struggle at the best of times to balance accuracy with readability, but impossible if word lists are going to dominate judgements in fields like DYK and PGA. Can we find someone to rework the automated measures? The routines are in the literature, and no doubt available on the web. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying, but only have a basic syllable counter currently. πr2 (talk • changes) 16:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's never been a requirement to stick solely to the BE lists - you can use more words if you have to. The loss of the counters is very much a blessing - it means that people actually have to read the articles to determine if it is simple; not rely on some counter. Goblin 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
I would have to agree, I was never a fan of people leaving the simplifying to automated tools. And there has never been a requirement to stick to those lists. The requirement is to stick to the simplist word you can use to convey the topic. And if the word is too complex, then you link it to the simple.wiktionary page for that word. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I am not into the respective literature, are there any "readability measures" that are both scientifically sound, and easy to automate? - And that ideally don't rely on bean-counting? --Eptalon (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"bean-counting?" πr2 (talk • changes) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By nature, I don't think any could be "scientifically sound" because it is a purely subjective area. Even the "grade levels" we use to determine are purely arbitrary. I wrote about it earlier, but syllable counting is counterproductive. In my work on DYK hooks, I have hated the pressure to water down articles just so people who rely solely on the machine scores can accept my hooks. I agree with Goblin and Djsasso, I think this is a blessing to the site because, as has been said, it may encourage people to rely on common sense. Kansan (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Bean counting" has its place, which is why it is used by Reader's Digest, Voice of America, and text book publishers. It does have problems and common sense should always prevail. Where possible we should stick to the lists - if Simple English does not have a standard then what is it? We need something a little more objective than just a "that looks simple enough to me." There are automated counters available in Microsoft Word. The best tool I use is the add on for Firefox written by Linx which adds Simple English as a "language". Any word not on the lists is underlined as if it was a spelling mistake. (In this entry "objective, available, tool, underlined, spelling, mistake, have been underlined). I can then decide to change the word, add a link to Wikt, make its meaning clear in the sentence, or just leave it.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The spellchecker Peter mentioned is very useful. However, I agree that calculating the syllables to derive some arbitrary grade level should not feature strongly in the way we define "simple English". There should be some kind of definition, but that's not it. sonia♫♪ 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Basic English as opposed to our Simple English? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that the tool is necessary and vital. It provides a good, quick view of the article's readability. While, yes, it is not perfect and should not be taken as an end all and be all, it is useful to be able to see how complex an article might be. Either way (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the tool should be available, regardless of whether or not it is used often or not Purplebackpack89 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) When an article about a "general subject" is written, it can probably be fitted easily in the 2.500-3.000 words "working vocabulary". The problem lies with scientific articles. Scientists use words with very special meanings; two scientists from different sciences may use the same word with different meanings. In a science, certain words have very specific meanings. Tell a doctor to talk about certain diseases, but without at least some of the vocabulary: The result will be an article no one will want to read: for the scientists, the article is worthless because it is "imprecise" and "unscientific", and for SEWP it is also worthless, because using different words, the disease is much more difficult to describe. A very simple example: "Windows" used in buildings are transparent, there is the window, and there is the garden that can be seen through the window. Two concepts, well separated. In computer science, a system (or software layer,...) that is transparent cannot be seen or noticed. So there is the garden, and the window, but since the window is transparent people are not aware of it. I think this illustrates very clearly that a wordlist, at least the very limited ones we have, are the death of scientific writing at SEWP.--Eptalon (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it apply to articles deleted by AfD off the English Wikipedia, and recreated here? sonia♫♪ 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not as far as I'm aware. G4 only applies to pages that had their own RfD here. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it only applies to here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! We decided in January this year to rise the bar for getting adminship here (diff). We are for admins now at 75%, but we missed to rise the bar for bureaucratship in case someone is running the full week as the two crat endorses aren't sometimes enough while people may oppose. Before this change (and still now!) the percentage for becoming a crat is at 75% which is sort of stupid, in my opinion. Djsasso changed the percentage today to 85% and I reverted. The result was that Dj reversed me and put back the 85%. I don't actually object this percentage of 85%, because the 75 (as for adminship) is a bit silly then. I suggest to officially change the criteria to mentioned percentage above. As for now and the current running candidate the old number still applies, since changing of such things need to be discussed. (Please note that this section should not be the place to discus whether the old or new one applies for the current running candidate!)

Also I'd like to note that our percentage for becoming CU/OS is at 70%, which is also a bit low for my taste. Per m:CU#Access_to_CheckUser and m:OS#Access the percentage needs to be between 70 and 80 percent. I'd like to see it at 80 rather than 70%.

Hopefully I'm not the only one who has this opinion. -Barras talk 16:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the criteria was already changed when we bumped the percentage for admins to 75%, though it was never written on that page which was why I added it. Even if it wasn't and I am positive it was, this is a case of "spirit of the law" rather than the "letter of the law". Which was that 'crats have a higher threshold to meet than admins do. And it very much definitely applies to the current candidate. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read the discussion from back in January. It was only about the percentage of adminship not about the one for bureaucrats. -Barras talk 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thats because we changed how crats run. There was no need to discuss it. This is a case of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Our precentages are based on cratship being harder to get than adminship, so when we bumped the adminship the cratship went with it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with DJSasso here. With upping the percentage for admins to 75%, it seems only natural to up the criteria for bureaucratship (if the candidate has to run a full RfB) as well since bureaucrats should only be the best candidates out of the current admin pool. Further to the above, I think that 70% for checkuser and oversight is low, since you can't pass an RfA with 70% now and would support upping the requirement to 80%. -- Lauryn Ashby (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-Crat at 85 and CU/OS at 80 sounds reasonable. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. sonia♫♪ 22:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't understand why 'crat should be a higher % than OS/CU, given the latter require far, far more trust Soup Dish (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to give some more input, especially on the CU/OS numbers? -Barras talk 08:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish to speak. I hold every position on this wiki that a person can hold, so I hope it qualifies me to speak here. The most dangerous position an editor can hold is that of checkuser, because we can find out information that can be used to actually identify an editor in real life. If I choose to release such information on a site other than a WMF site, what can anyone here do about it?? Oversighters come next most risky, because we can both hide and view personal information given by both a user and their enemies. Again, if I choose to release this information on another website other than a WMF site, what can you do about it?? A bureaucrat is very risky because they are an admin who can desysop everyone else, except other crats, and also go on a spree of vandalism, and only a steward can stop them. A crat can also make an admin or a crat out of someone they know to be a vandal or a global sockpuppet: a truly horrific situation!! An admin, is a position that can pose only a small risk to the project. Yes, they can delete the main page, but another admin can restore it. Yes, they can block another admin, but if it is done to harm the wiki, the other admin can unblock himself and fight back. Given all this, and the meta criteria for CU/OS, I think that the two highest percentages should be for CU and OS and they should be no more and no less than 80% (approx), the next should be crat at 75%, and then admin at 70%-65%. However, the criteria should not be what the majority think, but what the significant minority think. If more than 20-35% of the community think that a person should not be given a flag, than the closing crat should give serious consideration to that fact. It depends on the role, and the risk that role poses. fr33kman 10:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about 85 for CU/OS, 80 for crat, and 75 for admin? I actually think that CU/OS should be closer to 90, but don't think many would agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with this numbers, but wouldn't mind if CU/OS would be 90%. -Barras talk 12:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think we need to focus on the word "consensus" and abandon the silly percentage requirements altogether. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fr33kman for your clear and to-the-point summarization. Personally, though, I agree with Juliancolton that percentage requirements aren't really as important as consensus...but if there must be requirements, I'd prefer it to be around 85 rather than 80 for CU and OSes, and then a crat percentage of 75%, and then admin at 70%-65% seems fine (remembering whynot, which doesn't apply to checkusers and oversighters). —Clementina talk 12:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 (change conflict)  Not possible for CU and OS, because there is a foundation wide policy on it which says at least 70 to 80% support. The problem I see with dropping the percentages is that we will have with every single RfA/B a hughe discussion since any crat has an other opinion about what consensus is. Just look at the huge discussion about Clementina's RfA. -Barras talk 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to be the pattern, but we don't need to put up with it. At enwiki, the community has learned to (mostly) trust their bureaucrats to make the right decision, and not question everything they do. True, everybody does have a different opinion, but if we don't trust someone to excercise proper judgment, we shouldn't elect them to the position of bureaucrat. Of course, we shouldn't allow the 'crats to run wild and flip the bit as they wish, but at least a little bit of deviation from the 75% support limit is good. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be higher than the admin number is all I am saying. I think 75% is good for admin and 85% for crat. That is still easier than what en trends at for crat which is around 90% for crat. For CU/OS just make it the same as crat that way we don't have a million numbers floating around. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with 60-65 for admins, 70-75 for bureaucrats, and 80-85 for higher positions. If they aren't any good, we can always axe them. If the nightmare scenario Fr33k was fearing of a CU giving massive amounts of information to an outside entity ever occurs, whoever does that should obviously lose all his tools and probably be indef blocked, but I consider it unlikely enough (and assuming bad faith enough) to base our CU criteria on Purplebackpack89 16:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Fr33k on this one. I support any measures taken against such a doomsday scenario, despite how miniscule the chances of such occurring. Decreasing such chances should be a top priority. Also, indef blocking a checkuser isn't going to remove whatever information he/she may have posted out there (he/she may as well be tempted to spread even more information). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)I have a feeling this discussion might extend to the 'crats on ENW as well.[reply]
I agree. Clearly this discussion is about moving the numbers up for the more potentially dangerous positions up. I don't think anyone wants to lower the current numbers which have proved to be good numbers (as in not being too high). -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DJ, at the risk of being fallicious, I want to push back against these generally upward trends...if we don't draw the line, we could end up with 85-90 for admin, which is outrageous. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I think the numbers are too high already; they should go down, not up", especially in an already existing thread. Tele, do you have any sort of numbers that would prove that fear of a nightmare scenario would be justified on this Wikipedia? Purplebackpack89 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship doesn't come with privacy issues, according to Fr33k above, as opposed to checkuser. So I have less care about high or low numbers on an admin case. But checkuser should have higher standards. About defining the nightmare scenario in numbers: I think mere common sense, consensus, and simple concern for an amount of privacy on a Wikipedia that is already quite public will justify higher standards for checkuser. I don't think there are any numbers for things that won't happen, only for things that do, and once it happens it's too late. It may seem paranoid, but I would want to prevent someone from potential damage--whether it be hacking my computer, taking my email address, spreading viruses, doing harm all the while, and so forth--before it happens. Indef block only comes after the event and prevents only subsequently similar events; it is necessary for the first event to not occur at all. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I couldn't disagree more. I think we have been far too low in the past. Which is why the community recently bumped the admin percent by 10%. Admins are supposed to be the top quality editors we have. When you have the numbers way down low like 60% then pretty much anyone can be an admin. And this has been shown in the past to cause problems. There is certainly not anything wrong with having an opinon, but to be realistic to think they should drop is not very likely since a very large percent of the editing population have at some point or another said becoming an admin has been too easy and that we have too many. Which leads to numerous issues such as wheel warring. Clearly when we were electing people at the 65% level, people didn't trust them. For example, the community has recently decided they don't trust admins to be able to make the call if someone should have rollback or not. If people trusted the admins, such measures wouldn't be necessary. Which clearly means the percent to become an admin has to go higher until it reaches the point where people clearly trust our admins to do their job. The percent hasn't been at 75% long enough to see if that is a good point or not (although it seems to work on en). -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment, I see nothing outrageous with 85-90 for an admin, or higher for checkuser for that matter. We are a small wiki, after all, and the less people we have should mean the less admins we have. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) That's ridiculous. It should be noted the original 75% thread was decided on a loose consensus, essentially nothing better than BOLD; Goblin called it before many people had even known the discussion was going on. I'm fine with as low as 60%; there's no reason for 85-90; I feel that even 70-75% is too high. 90% is just excessive, overly bureaucratic, and pointless. You're essentially arguing that a few more of any one of our permissions categories will lead to catastrophe (nothing of which has ever occurred on this Wikipedia); many editors at this Wikipedia, including me, believe that adminship is something an editor can earn after making enough edits and contributing enough to the community, regardless of the number of admins already on the Wikipedia. The reason why we can't have it at unanimous is that some editors will vote against, but they have made enough edits for their votes to count anyway Purplebackpack89 20:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me the percentage isn't, and that's where our views differ. I prefer that high standard. But let's take a step back and forget about numbers; like Juliancolton had said "I think we need to focus on the word "consensus" and abandon the silly percentage requirements altogether" and I had said "About defining the nightmare scenario in numbers: I think mere common sense, consensus, and simple concern for an amount of privacy on a Wikipedia that is already quite public will justify higher standards for checkuser". (BTW, I copied and pasted this response over from my talkpage--hope you don't mind.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid "Common sense" isn't a good enough reason for me. If "common sense" alone can't get a page protected (and I've tried, it can't), I'm not sure it should change the permission requirements. If you can point to an incident on this or another Wikimedia site, or even coverage in a realiable source that would indicate that a checkuser selling information about other users is likely to occur, I would be much more inclining to support your viewpoint. Habeaus factus Purplebackpack89 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to word this, but I'm arguing for the potential for an event to happen, not whether such events have happened. As I said before, "I don't think there are any numbers for things that won't happen, only for things that do, and once it happens it's too late. It may seem paranoid, but I would want to prevent someone from potential damage--whether it be hacking my computer, taking my email address, spreading viruses, doing harm all the while, and so forth--before it happens. Indef block only comes after the event and prevents only subsequently similar events; it is necessary for the first event to not occur at all." I'm not sure where one could get data on checkuser abuse/misuse/violation (personal information about one user coming from a checkuser to the rest of the internet is probably only related to the user in question, and thus difficult to detect unless we know either user or checkuser). I don't know about how common sense works on this wiki, but I know that we have en:WP:IAR. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, since we seem to have adequate staffing in the admin/'crat/functionary department, we could implement an election system every six months or something where the two or three users in each class with the most support get promoted. This would avoid the needless arguing over standards for individual RfAs. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're arguing keep the lower ones the same, and make checkuser like steward on meta? That might work, but I've heard that there are major problems with stewardship on EN Purplebackpack89 20:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Let's perhaps get back to earth:

  • CfA is a guideline, and not policy; this has a reason.
  • If we are talking the "current" status, we get perhaps 20 people voting for a crat. 10% would boil down to a difference of 2 votes, which is largely within the "limits" of a crat decision.
  • We currently have enough of everything. If anything, we need more "normal users"
  • No admin, or crat, or CU, or OS should be promoted based on a "numbers game".
  • As to CU and OS, meta largely limits what we can do--Eptalon (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to pop in here. I am fine with leaving the admin numbers the same, but I think the crat number needs to be raised, and that CU/OS need to be higher than that of the crat.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, this is what I meant to say. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From above, "many editors at this Wikipedia, including me, believe that adminship is something an editor can earn after making enough edits and contributing enough to the community" It's exactly this sort of reasoning that we need to stamp out. Not everyone is fit to be an admin or higher. Some people are better left to just editing. This is an attitude that has crept into this wiki and has caused issues. Adminship is not about putting in your time and making a certain amount of edits or how much you contribute to the community. Its about things like how level headed you are, can you mediate issues, can you use common sense. Not all of which can be gained just by being here long enough. Unfortunately we are a small wiki so people have gotten it in their mind that adminship is a trophy or award (which is exactly what the quote implies). It is none of those things, those that think of it as such are not worthy candidates to receive it in my opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we need to stop fretting numbers and trust the crats to do what they were elected to do, determine if a consensus exists. Right now, you distill us all down to bean counters. Jon@talk:~$ 21:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


DJSasso and I engaged in a long comment war here with no apparent conclusion. The questions are: One. how far should admin discretion go in granting the rollback rights? two. What are the requirements, 4 days or 4 days & 10 edits? and three. can IAR be used to ignore community consensus? Replies are welcome here (more public than a tp). Griffinofwales (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think there was even consensus for the change to begin with and the closing of consensus to change was incorrect. That being said, assuming the closing was correct. I clearly think the discussion was about users being autoconfirmed. Once we start adding arbitrary numbers to it, what are we really trying to do? How is an editor different at 10 edits from a user at 9? If they are an admin/rollbacker at en does that 1 edit really make a difference? You are just adding red tape that will serve to frustrate good faith edits, and will do nothing to stop hat collectors who will just do that 10 edits to get the flag anyways. You are solving no problem with this and are causing possible issues. So the negatives outweigh the benefits. As for IAR, IAR specifically exists to help good faith editors step around bureaucratic red tape that may have been created in good faith but are preventing beneficial actions to the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, autoconfirmed for new users is 4 days and 10 edits, which isn't hard to get, and the numbers already existed. Remember, we aren't re-opening the discussion, just discussion some of the details, so please stop talking about how wrong the community was, because it doesn't matter what you think about that. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No consider this reopening the discussion. I am propossing to strike down the other decision and revert back to giving it to admins and rollbackers from other wikis. I also don't think the community was wrong. I think the closing of the discussion was wrong. I think it shouldhave been a no-consensus close because there were as many people saying it wasn't necessary as there were saying they liked it. The people who said it wasn't necessary had arguments behind them, the people who said they wanted it just said they thought it was a good idea but had no reasoning. Clearly it was a no-consensus close. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like it, doesn't meaning we're going to re-open discussion, especially only a week afterwards. This might be a good candidate though for re-opening. Questioning a 'crats judgment? I have other 'crats who can check the discussion. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes because anyone can make a proposal at anytime. And especially a week afterwards since I question the judgement. And questioning my adminship, how nice of a threat. That is a personal attack. Please cease. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing compared to this. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was stating a fact. Please stick to commenting on the topic and not on the editor. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a user a noob is not commenting on an editor? noob is not a fact, but an opinion. I never even commented about you above, simply pointing out an appropriate change, compared to an inappropriate one. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion again. I didn't bring up the noob discussion. He did. I also never called him one, I said that being somewhere a year doesn't mean someone can't still be a noob. You are talking about everything except the topic. Back up your desire to make sure we keep 10 edits the requirement. Have reasons, show how it harms the wiki if someone with less than 10 edits gets rollback. Proove your case. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they are a rollbacker or admin at en, then no the 10 changes aren't going to prove them trustworthy for the tool, I think they've already proved they can handle it. What it does prove is that they have some dedication and commitment to this project. Giving rollback out to every rollbacker that asks when they won't ever use it again and won't ever edit again doesn't hurt the wiki, but it doesn't help it either. I for one would like to see the requirements be 10 edits and 4 days. If you want to help out with the tool, show us some commitment by actually helping out first.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a user want show commitment if you are telling them, I don't care if you have 40k edits at en and are clearly trusted, we need you to make 10 edits just appease us. 10 edits does not show any commitment, and only serves to drive away good faith editors when we are in need of as many as we can get. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how RBK drives users away (except for the improper use of it). If someone cares about a tool like that that much, I don't want them. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  Personally, I don't like the fact that some editors from EN will come here to make a few edits, request rollback, get it granted, and disappearing for some time after that. It looks like hat collecting to me. Chenzw  Talk  17:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forcing them to make 10 edits won't change that. People that are truely hat collecting will make the 10 edits. Those who aren't hat collecting might just leave. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. Its not the tool they will care about. Its the fact that we have so much ridiculous red tape, which serves no purpose. If you are going to make it harder to edit here, they will just edit at the english version instead. Why try to jump hoops to edit here. That is the point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forcing them to make ten edits sounds good to me. Yes, if somebody wants to flag collect, they can easily make ten edits, but that is ten edits they would otherwise not make. Seems positive to me, the more edits the better.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't see gaining 10 edits worth the possible loss of hundreds of potential edits. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody is going to ragequit because they have to wait four days and make ten edits before getting a tool, they probably aren't stable enough to make hundreds of changes anyway.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about people rage quiting over this one thing. I am talking about a cumulative effect. I have numerous people from en tell me all the time they would edit here, except that the community at simple acts like kids making rules and decisions on the whim and treating as their own personal clubhouse (for example it wasn't that long ago the community decided that anyone trustworthy from another wiki should have it immediately, and now we are changing it, without any basis for how its hurting our wiki). This is just one thing that adds to that problem. The more and more red tape you add that does not solve any actual issue that the wiki is having, the less likely people will come here. Why would they when english wikipedia can serve most peoples needs far better than we can with less hassle. -DJSasso (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's those people I disagree with. I would encourage them to spend a month here and then say that, you need to spend time and become a part of something before you can make a good judgment on it. I came to simple because I thought en was to much of a hassle. The only way it hurts the wiki is it takes admins time to grant people rollback when they are never going to use it. If somebody can do the minimum, 10 edits and 4 days, (it isn't much to ask!) then I won't feel so bad granting rollback as I know there is a good chance it will actually be put to use. I know the admins aren't all that busy, but if we are going to do something, it should be for the benefit of the wiki. A person who never uses there tools doesn't benefit the wiki.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there is the potential to help the wiki. Whether they use it or not, that is already better than the lack of potential. -DJSasso (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for rollback as my second edit. Admittedly, it was flag-collecting at the time. But after testing huggle and trying out the links in my welcome, I decided I liked it here. Those ten edits that an ardent flag-collector makes may make the difference between one who leaves after getting rollback and one who has a better understanding of this community's dynamics and joins us. Ten edits seems reasonable to me, four days might be a little bit long for one who is keen to get started- but not having rollback should not hinder them if that is what they want. I would propose the criteria be ten edits, with at least half to the mainspace. sonia♫♪ 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your mainspace requirement, but I think we're pushing it as it is. This isn't so much about changing what was said, as clarifying what was said. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've tried not to comment so far, but ... I think the community can decide any position on when an admin should or should not grant rollback as it sees fit. BUT, this community elected me to the post of admin because they trusted me to do my very best to protect the project. As such, if I feel a particular user should be granted rollback I am going to grant it. Period! The community should not elect admins and then tell them how to wield the mop. Elect us and trust us, or don't elect us at all. At the most, this should be a guideline, not a policy. But, even if it is a policy, I will do as I see fit. fr33kman 07:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As always much nicer way of stating my position. Perhaps I should just hire you for my speech guy. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction: We trust you to enforce the community's will, and if this is the community's will, you're expected to carry it out. While IAR is a good rule, it is used to make the community a better place, and creating drama by going against policies, isn't doing that. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't elected to enforce anything, we aren't police. We are elected to do whatever we can to protect the wiki. Freakman is correct, you can't elect an admin and say you trust them, and then turn around and make a policy that limits their actions, which is essentially telling them you don't trust them to use common sense. You either trust the admins or you don't. If you are going to tell them how to act in every situation we might as well make every new user an admin. People are elected admins because they have shown the good judgment to make decisions without having rely on a manual in every situation. -DJSasso (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enforce is the wrong word, follow may be better. I don't trust new users with the tools, because I don't think they know the policies well enough to correctly follow the will of the community. We are made admins by the community to follow what the community says. Also, you said yourself that one who doesn't follow the community's will should resign. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the communities will isn't preventing the admins ability to improve or maintain the wiki. The community can't make rules contrary to that. That is why IAR exists, to stop the community from over extending its reach. -DJSasso (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're restricting it? Several admins don't seem to agree. If we're all trusted, there are more trusted users saying it's ok than not. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there is a really good trusted editor that wants rollback but doesn't have the number of requested edits you are deciding on. You are preventing me from giving a tool someone that will help maintain the wiki free from vandalism. -DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One, 10 edits is a lot? Let's see, 1 for the request, 1 for the user page, maybe 1 for the talk page, 2 or 3 commenting on ST/AN and 4 in main space? It's not hard, less than 10 minutes. If someone is unwilling to spend that amount of time on the wiki, they don't need RBK. Last time, I checked, we don't have a problem with vandalism. On top of that, many admins disagree with you. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To quote "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." Its not the number of edits that is the problem, its the mere existence of such a rule that is the problem. Creating such rules harms the wiki more than helps. Its the rule itself that is the problem, not the number of edits. -DJSasso (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, like crats (wink, wink), have discretion as to when, or if, they should use their tools, and fort what reasons. IAR allows me to do what I think is best for the project, even if that is against guideline, policy or community consensus. It also makes me accountable for my decision, but then I'm accountable already for every edit I make. If I want to give rollback to a person that I might, or might not, be familiar with and that I feel is trusted and can make immediate use of it, I will. Another admin is free to remove it and then we can discuss. Having rollback (on such an active wiki as ours) hurts no one and nothing. If a user decides to go off on a rollback spree (and I ask "when has anyone ever done that") an admin will certainly be along within seconds or minutes to remove it and block the person. As it stands, Jimbo and the whole WMF board and most of the staff would be refused rollback on this wiki: and that's just plain daft. As I said, this should be a guideline, not a policy, and if I feel a particular user will make good and immediate usage of it, I will be granting it. If I don't know the person, don't think they'll stick around, or feel they are just here to collect a hat, I'll be refusing! Now, can we please drop this, move on and, as our old friend TRM likes to say, "get on with building the wiki"?? fr33kman 04:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that if capable editors for en want rollback, and if it'll keep them around just a bit longer to contribute some useful content, by all means just give it to them. If they disappear, no big deal: we have an unlimited supply of rollback checkmarks. If push comes to shove, we can always remove the rollback flag after a certain period of time (ie. six months). –Juliancolton | Talk 12:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Juliancolton on this matter. Rollback is rarely abused, and where it is, it's not difficult to remove the rights and undo any damage, which is hardly lasting. Kansan (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Remind me again why our search only searches the title and not the text? I personally support an expanded search. For any user, simple or otherwise, they can never be sure of the exact title; searching for the text is paramount. Purplebackpack89 23:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] does. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you press search instead of go, it searches text.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but on EN and most other places, when you go and there is no such page, it reverts to "Search". Here it doesn't do that. See what I mean? Purplebackpack89 00:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to work the same to me. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You running Beta? 'Cuz isn't Alpha still the default (I run Alpha) Purplebackpack89 00:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm running the monobook skin on both enWP and simple. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Search runs here on alpha just as it does for me on en. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be working for me now; but I had had problems until recently Purplebackpack89 05:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search function is fine. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]