Applying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.
Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.
Applying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.
Why not both?Dan of La Mancha wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2023 4:44 pmApplying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.
Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.
ECP for politicians.Dan of La Mancha wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2023 4:44 pmApplying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.
Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.
Ahh yes, on its own the Pending Changes would quickly become overwhelmed. I think that semi-protection could help.Dan of La Mancha wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2023 4:44 pmApplying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.
Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.
The site's Terms of Use includes "Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users". So I think that the problem is actually with the enforcing of this.andre wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2023 1:03 amAs I said I think WMF can end the cruelty regime, if not already on its last legs. Which starts with a community accepted Terms of Service and Standard of Conduct as well as a Code of Ethics that should be compulsory when you click signup. Users should be given a grace period to opt-in or be labelled as wild cowboys with a special user icon.
With BLPs, it's often editors who meet ECP that are the problem.Zoll wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2023 5:25 pmECP for politicians.Dan of La Mancha wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2023 4:44 pmApplying Pending Changes to over a million articles would be a quick way to burn out the 8,000 or so people with reviewer rights.
Make it semi-protection and you're onto something.
So someone I know created an account a few weeks ago and has been doing gnomish stuff to learn how things work. The only human interaction in that time has been having a few edits reverted, by gatekeeper editors for questionable reasons.ltbdl wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:00 pmhmm, let's look at the requirements...Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 3:50 pmThis sounds like a good idea, but in practice it largely falls flat. The "experienced volunteers" often turn out to "vandal fighters" and "new page patrollers" instead of people who actually write new articles or copyedit, Like 64andtim (T-C-L) who has managed to rack up over 12,00 edits since creating their account in May. It's another hat for the hat collectors.that's a damn low barhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Growth_Team_features/Mentor_list wrote: You need have at least 500 edits and have had an account for 90 days to sign up as a mentor. It is also expected that a significant proportion of your 500 minimum edits will have been made in mainspace.
I think this would be a good idea. It shows good faith towards admins, while improving their knowledge about current rules.Ron Lybonly wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:07 pmDevelop a comprehensive exam for admins to take periodically. They’d take them privately as many times as it takes to get a passing score.
The point would be continuing education,not be to weed people out.
The WMF could develop this but it would take 14 years and would corrupt the file system of he computer that runs it.Ron Lybonly wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:07 pmDevelop a comprehensive exam for admins to take periodically. They’d take them privately as many times as it takes to get a passing score.
The point would be continuing education,not be to weed people out.
Some editors (both admins and not) could use an enforced holiday to calm down. But I think this would be also blocking a lot of even-tempered editors in the process. Maybe the core problem here is that it's currently so hard to do anything meaningful about bad admin behaviour.Ron Lybonly wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:03 pmIdea:
If Wikipedia won’t term limit democratically recall admins, consider 6 month sabbaticals combined with a 6 month ban from noticeboards. I think some might come back a bit mellower.
This would be for all admins after 5 years.
Maybe it could be shorter than 6 months - whatever might break some habits
I wasn’t very clear. They’d be desysopped only. They’d be encouraged to keep editing.Mojito wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 7:39 amSome editors (both admins and not) could use an enforced holiday to calm down. But I think this would be also blocking a lot of even-tempered editors in the process. Maybe the core problem here is that it's currently so hard to do anything meaningful about bad admin behaviour.Ron Lybonly wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:03 pmIdea:
If Wikipedia won’t term limit democratically recall admins, consider 6 month sabbaticals combined with a 6 month ban from noticeboards. I think some might come back a bit mellower.
This would be for all admins after 5 years.
Maybe it could be shorter than 6 months - whatever might break some habits
Ahh, thanks for clarifying.Ron Lybonly wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 1:53 pmI wasn’t very clear. They’d be desysopped only. They’d be encouraged to keep editing.
Tbackus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 4:03 amsideshow alert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ailed_hawk
Absolutely. That's an incredibly annoying issue.Mojito wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2024 10:11 pmThis one is more of a minor technical gripe than a serious problem. But why isn't there some form of permalink for topics on talk or discussion pages?
Once the topic gets archived, the original link dies and it becomes hard to find. For example:Tbackus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 4:03 amsideshow alert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ailed_hawk
The issue is that links that do not use the permanent URL get broken by archiving. So you have always to chose between linking to a particular state of an ongoing debate using a permanent URL or to link to the ongoing debate and accept that the link will break in the future.el84 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2024 10:56 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ailed_hawk
On the new skin, there is a link at the top-right of the page named "Tools". Click on that, then click on "permanent URL" and you'll get a URL with a diff in it, giving you a permanent link.
If you're not using the new skin, it used to be located in the left-hand side sidebar.
Thanks, that's really good to know. It sounds like a useful workaround (as long as there aren't multiple sections with the same name)Dan of La Mancha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 6:39 amIf you've got an account, there's a gadget you can enable in your preferences called find-archived-section which, when it detects that you've followed a broken link, automatically searches the archives and gives you a link to the archived discussion. This is incredibly useful and I've long thought it should be turned on by default.
I agree. Unless the "see also" section is unreasonably long they should aim for usefulness. But then again, Wikipedia isn't for the readers, is it?Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 4:38 pmThis morning I saw someone remove articles from the "see also" section because they were already linked in the body. Not everyone who comes to Wikipedia reads the entire article. Most probably don't, so they may not see those links. I get it - rules must be followed, but maybe that particular rule might be relaxed in favour of actual usefulness?
Absolutely. Maybe go for a series of escalating bans though.
Brilliant!Dan of La Mancha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:14 amAll new accounts are extended-confirmed by default. If you make more than 500 mainspace edits in a year, you're demoted to autoconfirmed. If you make more than 1,000 mainspace edits in a year, you lose all rights. Make more than 5,000 mainspace edits in a year and you'll be blocked for disruption. (Reverts don't count towards the total. Exceptions can be made on request for automated/semi-automated edits, with the content and utility of these edits being subject to rigorous review.)
I just want to see a Wikipedia where people edit carefully rather than quickly. "Careful" in Hawaiian is akahele. Akahelepedia has a ring to it.
Shucks, I'm at 2,350 for 2024.Dan of La Mancha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:14 amAll new accounts are extended-confirmed by default. If you make more than 500 mainspace edits in a year, you're demoted to autoconfirmed. If you make more than 1,000 mainspace edits in a year, you lose all rights. Make more than 5,000 mainspace edits in a year and you'll be blocked for disruption. (Reverts don't count towards the total. Exceptions can be made on request for automated/semi-automated edits, with the content and utility of these edits being subject to rigorous review.)
I just want to see a Wikipedia where people edit carefully rather than quickly. "Careful" in Hawaiian is akahele. Akahelepedia has a ring to it.
Don't get down on yourself, Tim. You probably have other redeeming qualities.
People keep looking for them but............. Nope, I just suck.Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 4:55 pmDon't get down on yourself, Tim. You probably have other redeeming qualities.
Nope, you’re a really good human being. A mensch. Folks here see that.Randy from Boise wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:02 pmPeople keep looking for them but............. Nope, I just suck.Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 4:55 pmDon't get down on yourself, Tim. You probably have other redeeming qualities.
t
Hahaha, great idea.Jip Orlando wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 3:42 pmHow about a supplemental essay on over-categorization called WP:CATCRAP?
Mojito wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 12:13 amWP:AN/I (T-H-L) can be a nasty place. As per the instructions at the top of the page of it being for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems", it should be a last resort. Instead, it is often the immediate response to a conflict and the instructions to first try WP:DRV or a discussion on the user's talk page are frequently ignored.
So, to reduce the tendency to go straight to AN/I, I suggest that a "procedural close" be the response for any issue that has not had sufficient attempts at resolution before it was brought to AN/I.
I find it surprising that there is no template for posting new AN/I threads (unlike the Edit Warring noticeboard, for example). A template that includes "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" would be helpful here, I think.
Help:Cascading Style Sheets (T-H-L)
Maybe try keeping them on your sandbox or a subpage? You have the hassle of needing to find in page the title but it works.Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 7:27 pmIt's quite likely that I've already complained about this, but I would benefit from a "notes" field in my watchlist. I often wonder why something is on there and have to look at the article or the history to figure it out. I would like to be able to just jot down "edited by sockpuppets of x" or "pedophile honeypot" or something like that.
hey three clicks no crash!rnu wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:57 pmHelp:Cascading Style Sheets (T-H-L)
Help:Cascading_Style_Sheets#CSS_in_wikitext (T-H-L) is probably the relevant section. No idea if it supports such things as using different styles for desktop and mobile.
Yep. Preferably out of print and in PolishTheSpacebook wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 2:14 pm
- Phone number verification for accounts and IPs can’t take part in votes for things like deleting and moving (or only phone-verified accounts can vote). There also needs to be a lot of security around these phone numbers and obviously are not published during checkuser investigations. It's harder to create new phone numbers (and usually requires money), very easy to create new email addresses (and is usually free). This could be seen as going against the idea of a "free encyclopedia", but users do have to pay for access to the internet already.
- Contentious and controversial claims being cited with a book are not allowed until the editor can provide a copy of the actual text (backend, so no copyright). I’ve said in another thread that I have a conspiracy theory that when editors want to make up facts, they cite a book, as it’s less likely that people will check and it’s harder to verify.
In one sense I agree. In another, I have been working on 16th century North Africa recently and the stubs are actually enormously helpful when it comes to (for example) sorting out the many names of Dey .Mohammed ben-Othman Pasha (T-H-L)smallchief wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 1:48 amHere's a naive idea: ban stubs.
There was a time and place for stubs -- but that time is long past. If you can't write 250 referenced words or more about a subject, it isn't an encyclopedia article.
smallchief wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 1:48 amHere's a naive idea: ban stubs.
There was a time and place for stubs -- but that time is long past. If you can't write 250 referenced words or more about a subject, it isn't an encyclopedia article.
----
Here's a completely random Colts season stub. Whattaya propose doing about that?smallchief wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 1:48 amHere's a naive idea: ban stubs.
There was a time and place for stubs -- but that time is long past. If you can't write 250 referenced words or more about a subject, it isn't an encyclopedia article.
Damn right. Break out the confetti