Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Strategic Planning

The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area as possible for these discussions, the Strategy Wiki has been launched. This wiki will provide an overview of the strategic planning process and ways to get involved, including just a few questions that everyone can answer. All ideas are welcome, and everyone is invited to participate.

Please take a few moments to check out the strategy wiki. It is being translated into as many languages as possible now; feel free to leave your messages in your native language and we will have them translated (but, in case of any doubt, let us know what language it is, if not english!).

All proposals for the Wikimedia Foundation may be left in any language as well.

Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated.

--Philippe

(please cross-post widely and forgive those who do)

Numbers.

Hey,

I am just here to bring up the issue of how many editors are being given the bureaucrats, oversighters and checkuser tools. I don't want to bring this up on the RFA page as it is not a discussion for there. I am going to support the users at RFA currently because I can trust them, but I am not sure if we need that many people in the posts that these editors wish to occupy. What are your thoughts here?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been shot down a number of times that "too many" is not a valid argument for most positions. I personally think we have too many admins but most proposals for restricting numbers have been shot down. In fact we just had one a couple weeks ago if you look in the latest archive. -Djsasso (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I never use that as an argument as it is not a reflection of the editors ability to do the job well, and am about to !vote support in a few minutes. Can you please find a link for me, as I am not sure how far back to go. I am just worried that if we start making every user who has been here a while an admin, and then every old admin a crat and so forth, soon enough everybody will have the tools and we will just have a huge amount of wheel warring. I am really concerned about this. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk
Actually upon looking I was wrong, the most recent request was actually about making every admin a crat after a set amount of time. -Djsasso (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we have stewards :) Griffinofwales (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) This Wikipedia currently has about forty regular (high-volume) contributors. Of these, roughly thirty have the "admin" flag, and are active among these "high-volume contributors" (forty admins total, some inactive). We currently have seven people with the "bureaucrat" flag, and three with the "CheckUser" flag. Six people are currently running for "Oversight" privileges. I am not concerned about these numbers, but I think what we would need most is more editors:

  • Editors do not need a username to edit here, most have one though.
  • Editors do not need "admin" or other flags to edit
  • Editors are the people who make this Wikipedia better. Admins (Bureaucrats, CheckUsers, Oversighters,..) are just there to make it run smoothly. But what is the use of a smoothly-running car, if no one drives it? - Editors are the drivers, Admins (etc) the mechanics.

I will go a step further, and ask: Look at what the admins did in the last half year. How many admins could simply do with the status of "regular user", and a "rollback" privilege? - Look at other wikipedias, and compare the number of regular, high-volume users they have to the number of "administrators" (including crats, cu's, ..oversighters,..).

When a bureaucrat and checkuser left at the beginning of this year, this brought weeks of re-electing new checkusers; with the drama that followed. It was my decision to make more people into bureaucrats (and checkusers), so that this situation would not repeat. That said, I would look forward to us getting at least three overighters. That way, we are not pressed to re-elect one, because we are below the number of people in a certain position. These are of course just my thoughts.

Technically, given the current numbers, we could do with about four admins, two bureaucrats, two checkusers, and two oversighters. Note also that we require our crats, checkusers and oversighers to be admins, other Wikipedias do not have this requirement.

I hope this answers the question. --Eptalon (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Opinion - Last year there was a brief effort to attract editors from enWP and other wikipedias to start editing here, at least being semi-active. However it is soon forgotten as several banned or blocked users started causing distruption here. There were several users who I kind of remember that gave the admins a hard time over disputes on what to do with the troublemaker. All simple english projects have not turned out to be popular, many who edit here leave after a week or so. The ones who do stay usually end up becoming admins, except for about 10 users. (But most if not all of those 10 users then have rollback.)
Truth to say, this wikipedia is small compared to others. However several small wikipedias like us who have regular editors are also mostly admins. IMO, restricting the number of admins has its pros and cons side of the issue. Discussions to keep the admin level to a ratio between the number of active users or desysoping admins after a certain time period of inactivity have all resulted in fail or with no consensus. Gordonrox24 came up with the idea that having all active users as admins would lead to wheel warring. In that case, leave that up to the stewards. Also a few users have been opposing RFAs, with the only reason: "We have too many admins". Is that a reasonable statement to oppose someone's RFA? The candidate would have worked hard to earn his or her adminship and the community's trust.
Some people view sysophood as a trophy. I disagree. I don't think someone should get a promotion just for writing a lot of GAs/VGAs or having reverted the most vandalism. Some people even think users should be promoted after barely reaching 2k edits or being a long-time user. Adminship was founded based on the idea of community trust. But define "trust". Is it whether quick thinking like saying "I trust him" or "I don't trust him" after a 10-second thought? Or is trust meaning to review a person's contribs to the wiki and whether he is fit enough to handle the tools wisely and understands the policies.
Rollback is seen by some as a stepping stone or as an alternative to adminship. The rollback feature is one admin tool that is used to revert vandalism quickly with only one click. All active or long time non-admins have the rollback flag I assume. People have a variety of opinions on this one so I just going to drop it. Another thought is, would a small dedicated admin team do the job better at maintaining this wiki, or does a diversity of admins sound like a better option. Eptalon mentioned that about 4 admins who also have extra privileges could handle the job. Then I guess those admins would form its special junta on ruling wikipedia. But sysophood can last forever in most wikis including this one. Some admins can voluntarily put themselves up for readminship, but restricting the number of admins may need to require "re-election" or term limits, as some admins have been sysops for years. (Gosh that sounds very political.)
I guess I have said too much. But the debate about adminship won't likely go away, at least until we get more active editors here. Forming new admin policies or raising the requirements and expectation levels on admins won't do much to solve this debate. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 11:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey guys

i havent been here in a while so i want to know what has happendned. FRSign Here 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OS elections have started. Please vote. Fr33kman and Djsasso are now 'crats. BG7 resigned as admin and failed a RFA. Razorflame and Kennedy came back. Exert left. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FastReverter! Good to hear from you. You've missed so much. I hope you're back for a while and will be editing regularly. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number pages

Pages like 4 (number), 5 (number), 66 (number), 72 (number), 24 (number), 12 (number), 54 (number), 56 (number) seem useless to me. Wouldn't it be better to redirect most of them (except 1 (number) and others like that) to Number and expand that article? It would eliminate quite a few stubs. Same for years. Couldn't we merge years of the same century into articles and redirect each year? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 13:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had a dream last night where I proposed that stubs should be discontinued on Simple, and instead, we concentrated on the real vital articles that people might actually come and read. So I'll make the dream come true and propose it: no more stubs, only substantial articles allowed. We are different to other Wikipedias; our mission is different, our purpose is different, and our readers are different. Majorly talk 14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously need to take a wikibreak if you are dreaming about this place!! :P fr33kman talk 14:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that's a good idea (what majorly is proposing). Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, that we need sometimes stubs for (V)GAs. For Romania, I restored some romain rivers... the redlink rule. Barras || talk 14:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would note, the standard is not that there can't be any red links, but that red links should be kept to a minimum. -Djsasso (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rule for VGAs is no redlinks. Barras || talk 16:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I forgot this is where we differ from en. Either way the normal way to handle this situations is to just unlink the word. -Djsasso (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the word is important, it must be linked, because major words must be linked. Depends, important or not. Barras || talk 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A stub would be unimportant. -Djsasso (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is linked and contains two sentences more then the article provide. Otherwise would links be useless. Barras || talk 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am just saying what is standard practice at en. If its a relatively minor subject in relation to the subject of the article. ie a minor river to the Romania article as compared to a major city. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

There's a few ways we could go about getting rid of stubs. I understand that this is a perrenial proposal, but something needs to be done.

The extreme way
  • We think seriously about deleting every stub that is on Simple English Wikipedia.
  • We concentrate our editing on the articles that every wiki should have. This list has been compiled already, covers a wide range of topics -- we have a wide range of editors. Picking this list caters for most. It is a relatively small list, of 1000. In essence, this proposal cuts Wikipedia down by fify or so times.
  • Quite simply, we reboot the entire wiki, as if we were a new wiki.
The not-as-extreme way
  • We still concentrate fire on WP:HAVE.
  • We (this is the important bit) change our deletion focus from "Is this notable?" to "Is this useful?". We change WP:QD#A4 from The page does not show notability. to The page is not useful to Wikipedia in its current state. A stub of something notable is next to useless. Conversely, a featured article of something no-one has ever heard of is also next to useless.
  • This page is a stub.
    Please expand this article with more information or it will be deleted.
    18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    We create a template (right) that is added to all new stubs. We become ruthless. We delete all articles about anything that does not have the "parent" article created to a reasonable standard (DWDM-FM being created before National Broadcasting Network, for example).
  • We change the colour of redlinks to grey. This will help switch focus from creating articles to editing them, in a subtle way. We could even do away with redlinks all together, using something along the lines of Template:Autolink.
  • We develop a quicker delete-finger: if it is created, it can be deleted. If it is deleted, it can be created. We dismiss all arguments that 'it is a building block for expansion' -- we delete anything that is not useful. It can be recreated later. We are a work in progress: let us work on a smaller amount of pages.
  • Wikipedia is a wiki for a reason. It is for collaboration. If we are all working on different articles, we are not collaborating. Shrink the article base, increase the need for working together.
  • It may be said that Wikipedia is not paper, but put it into perspective: You buy a book. Would you prefer it with reams and reams of pages, with a small scribble at the top of each, or as a more slender book, with close-set type covering every page?
  • We encourage merging. Stubs that people, for some reason, do not wish to delete, should be merged with other pages. Shipping Forecast, for example, could easily be merged into Forecasting, or possibly Meteorology.
  • This plan can't easily be forced onto people: if they want to edit something, they'll edit it, regardless of whether it is on a list or not. We can only strongly discourage it -- so tweaking welcome messages may be on the cards.
  • A gameplan: we get everything on WP:HAVE off the stub list. We get the 250-odd "core" articles (right) to at least GA.
  • We, as per usual, recruit more editors. We can only do so much. It was suggested way back that we could have a prominent link to the ENWP article, and that they should have one back. We need to look into this. Prehaps we could look into off-wiki promotion (facebook, twitter? Need to liase with WMF on that, most probably).
Thoughts?
MC8 (b · t) 18:10, Wednesday August 12 2009 (UTC)

Let's create a mission and a vision for this project (just like corporations), and focus the project to meet them. Deleting most of the stubs is a huge task, and I'm not sure that we have consensus for it (at least 80%, it's a big change). From what I have heard, we cannot agree to whom this project is marketed to, and that is a big part of this argument. The question is (IMO): 1. Can these stubs be expanded? and 2. Do our readers want to know about these topics? If the answer is yes to both questions they should be kept. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read his entire post or just the first subsection? →javért stargaze 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vision, Mission. MC8 (b · t) 18:38, Wednesday August 12 2009 (UTC)
Not WMF's mission and vision. That's because they contradict with what this project does. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they do that, this project shouldn't be hosted by Wikimedia. MC8 (b · t) 19:02, Wednesday August 12 2009 (UTC)
The mission and vision are better handled by the reader's home language wikipedia, not here. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are doing the WMF's mission & vision, but at a much slower rate. This allows us to do things that on en would never be allowed. As long as we "get there in the end", i.e. at infinity, all is well.
Not really, because the mission and the vision are already being accomplished by the home language wikipedia. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we follow the WMF's vision loosely. Our aim is, that in the next 20, 50, 100 years, every article will eventually be an FA, about everything. We are following the WMF's mission, but loosely. We are still a Wikipedia. We are still run by the Wikimedia foundation. MC8 (b · t) 09:38, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)

I agree with:

  • A gameplan: we get everything on WP:HAVE off the stub list. We get the 250-odd "core" articles (right) to at least GA.
  • We create a template
  • We, as per usual, recruit more editors.
  • We encourage merging.

To me the last point is a very good idea, and can solve a lot of the stub problems. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with the notable/useful thing? It seems to me like we have to agree on that, and then everything else will fall into place. MC8 (b · t) 19:11, Wednesday August 12 2009 (UTC)
Why not just copy-and-paste article from enWP? That would solve most of our stub issues, alone. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are kidding. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is "Simple English" Wikipedia, not "English Wikipedia Part 2". →javért stargaze 19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-----What about making a template that says that the person who creates a stub has a week to get it expanded into a non-stub before it gets deleted? That way, people are forced to write on only a single article and expand it into non-stub territory or face it getting deleted. Good idea? Razorflame 19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See point 6. MC8 (b · t) 19:43, Wednesday August 12 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Razorflame 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason how stubs hinder the very existence of simple wiki. If you thought why this wiki has a lot of stubs, that's because we're small compared to other projects. That's why some people at meta wanted to shut us down. Also I'm not kiding about copying-and-pasting. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are small, prehaps we should think of quality over quantity. MC8 (b · t) 09:38, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)

(<--) There are multiple problems here I'm afraid. Firstly, stubs are always going to be created and in many cases they are helpful even if they are single lines (they do tend to give the reader an indication of what a linked item is about, even if only very little). Secondly, to allow for the quick deletion of stubs based on an altered QD criterion is placing a lot of power into the hands of a single individual: what one person may think fits the QD reason another may complain about. Thirdly, you can't really go about telling people how they can and can not contribute here. Many editors here don't have much experience in researching topics, finding reliable sources for citations, and properly formatting articles to start class or beyond. What do we do to enforce a no stubs policy? Block people, this will not help us in the long run. Personally I've no problem with stubs as long as they are not about non-notable or barely notable subjects. My best idea is to do what I proposed along time ago, work on WP:HAVE and expand the subject area articles on the main page to GA/VGA standard. I'd be very much against the mass deletion of, or limiting the creation of stubs per se. Comments? fr33kman talk 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have to agree with fr33kman here. I don't support the deletion of stubs because they are stubs. Stubs are the starting point of good articles. They need to be developed. What I will entertain is the deletion of non notable stubs, and that is an entirely different discussion. I don't agree with the mass deletion of restrictions of stubs. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the key is to get people expanding stubs, not deleting them. fr33kman talk 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we should redefine "notable" to cover less things. At the moment, the ratio of stub-creation versus quality-article-creation is the wrong way around. MC8 (b · t) 09:38, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict...
An example... Dig Dug started out a stub and proved potential. See the edit history. Also, new contributers may only be able to contribute stubs, don't discourage them by deleting right away. Instead evaluate them for notability and encourage development. I don't want to lose content here. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  (at fr33kman's first comment) - At the first, stubs will always be created. But we can set up something like ENWP's prod template. Uncyclopedia's ICU template works well. I understand the second point, I din't think of that. Third point, no, we can't. But we can actively encourage, or actively discourage people from doing things. "You may be interested in editing xxx, have you had a go?", for example. MC8 (b · t) 20:45, Wednesday August 12 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I know I've officially left, but I'd like to weigh in on this one having worked on this wiki for 2/3 years. I agree with every point of this, this entire wiki needs rebooting, but there is a wider problem here. We're all hobbyist editors here looking to do what we enjoy - to make this work, people need to do what they hate. The main problem is that simplifying English is not at all an easy process, and no-one has actually looked at developing our method. Our current approach is using old help material from when this wiki was just built, which was no doubt intended to be expanded upon as we did further research into simplifying language. Right now, we're using a lot of guesswork to find simpler language rather than paying attention to the audience and the language structures that need to be used to meet their needs. From what I've seen, feel free to correct me, I do not believe there is one single simplification standard that we can use to meet our audience's needs. We've come to the conclusion that we are serving multiple audiences (mainly ESL, but also translators, children, and native English speakers with learning difficulties). For example, I've seen plenty of people (while I was working here) correcting language that sounds patronising to a native English speaker, but from what I can see, it's often removing simple sentence structure that aids ESL learners. Also, those that need simple English text will be at varying ability levels - we will need to publish at varying levels of complexity for each audience. My advice would be to speak to some experts, do some research into how to actually simplify language, and build several new standards from there, publishing our core articles in different versions according to multiple standards. Hopefully this can be partially automated, just requiring an editor with knowledge of the rules to quickly read over computer corrections - unfortunately computers aren't particularly good at manipulating natural language. Archer7 - talk 21:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found that what works for me is to copy and paste an enwiki article and then go through it line by line to change words and phrases into simpler English. On average it takes me about 1-2 hours per decent sized article, but in the end we are left with as good an article as enwiki had and in simpler English. My biggest bug-bear here (as well as enwiki) is the lack of citations. An encyclopedia can't allow that. It makes the project unreliable. fr33kman talk 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the "going through it", it's that we're not actually simplifying to any properly-defined standard, and also that we'd need to publish according to multiple standards to be any use. Simplifying English is a very hard thing to do. I do also agree on the lack of citations though. Archer7 - talk 21:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-Agree with Fr33kman. We should get some great article writers from enWP to come here for a week and improve the core articles. I don't think they would object. As TRM pointed out at WP:AN, we (the community) do not spend enough time in the article space. Perhaps 80% of community edits are not in article space. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ENWP is different to simple, and many people at en think of simple as a fork, and treat it as such. MC8 (b · t) 22:22, Wednesday August 12 2009 (UTC)
Not just enWP, meta also thinks the same. Some people back at meta headquarters want to close all simple english projects. Also several wikipedia proposals in other simple languages at been quickly struck down. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a legitimate reason for that. MC8 (b · t) 09:29, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)
Bringing the discussion back to Griffin's ENWP proposal, it wouldn't solve the "simplification" problem. ENWP editors do not know how to simplify well, and they certainly would not follow the defined standard Archer7 is pushing for. MC8 (b · t) 09:38, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)

I simply do not understand the problem with stubs - sure they are frustrating, but a simple stub is better than nothing. There is far too much emphasis on deleting - let us simply expand. I think some editors find writing too hard so they want to delete things instead. Let see a stub instead as a "seed" - an article that has been started and needs to grow. Join the stub eradication team if you are serious about improving quality. But enough, I'm going back to writing in the mainspace! Peterdownunder (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crat chat

I would propose that all "crat chats" regarding any on hold RFA occur on wiki, on the RFA talk page:

  • Transparency
  • Collective memory

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better for it to take place on a sub-page of the talk page (with a link there) to allow for an editnotice restricting the talk page to crats and people whose input they solicit. (As I understand it, the purpose for a crat chat is to allow the crats to talk among themselves.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are they going to be conducted for every single RfA or just for specific cases? Please specify. Chenzw  Talk  14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive sysop guideline

Guideline?

Hello there,

I think we need to agree on what to do with admins (cats, checkusers,...) who are inactive over a longer time. I would propose the following:

  • Inactivity counts from the last edit made in this Wikipedia.
  • After 6 months of inactivity, a Request for deadminship can be filed for inactivity; Our criteria apply (those for becoming admin). The admin bits will be removed, if this request is successful; the default should be to remove the flag, not to keep it.
  • Between 6 months and a year after the last edit, the admin can re-request his/her flag, if they become active again. It will be given without going through an RFA process.
  • After a year of inactivity, the demoted admin must go through a new RfA to get the flags back.
  • Admins that know they will be away for that long ask for their status to be removed at meta, by themselves; within a year they can request their flag back, as outlined above. After the year they go through a normal process.

Things to discuss:

  • The two barrier dates 6 months, 12 months.
  • Should this also apply to CUs, crats (and oversighters), or should they go through the re-election process all the time?

Please comment.--Eptalon (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think 12 months for de-sysop without de-adminship request: that means automatical. The user get a not one month before the deadline ends (see the current de-sysopship). For crats, cus, os: removal after four months of inactivity. Barras || talk 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the process simple - same procedures for all, admins, crats, CU's, and OS. The barrier dates at 6 and 12 months seem quite reasonable. Eptalon's proposal makes sense to me. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support policy. I will create a list of inactive admins that meet this criteria. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Griffinofwales (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err... we have an inactivity "policy" already - go look in the RfA logs... Thus, Oppose. Goblin 13:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Discussion

Please see the new proposal for an actual community approved guideline for the desysoping of inactive sysops at WP:Inactive administrators. Don't worry if the page title or location is not right at the moment, it can be moved if needed. fr33kman talk 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one thing: I would prefer 1 year of inactivity. I agree with the rest. We should mention, that the same will be for crat/cus/oses. Barras || talk 09:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 year is a better time, after all, Wikipedians have lives ;). Also, you might want to allow for "explained absences" (aka long-term wikibreak). In this case, then maybe they are not eligible to be desysopped. Chenzw  Talk  11:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah 6 months is way to short. Needs to be atleast a year. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree in keeping a quite ample time frame... (1 year is ok) --M7 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ChenzW: Eptalon agrees with six months and so do some other admins (check the current RfDA). So consensus isn't against me (not yet). Griffinofwales (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify this: I think it is irrelevant whether it is shorter or longer; each has its benefits and drawbacks. What we simply need is a "guideline", so that admins who have gone inactive can be stripped of their flags easily. (In this respect, shorter is probably better than longer). And yes, we definitely need to provide for "excused absences" (To a certain extent though: "Hey guys, I am leaving, I will be back in three years" should probably mean a desysopping, and a RFA when the editors's back). --Eptalon (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additions of user rights (-sysop)

I propose to enable the ability for our local crats to be able to remove the sysop flag. They close discussions for deRFA, so we should enable them to act on the closure as well. Should this proposal pass, I will make the bug request linking to this discussion. Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this! The MediaWiki software allows for this, and WMF policy also allows for it. It is up to the local project to decide, but I think it lessens our exposure to meta: and out reliance on the Stewards. As people may know, we don't have the best reputation within WMF and this would allow us to become more professional. The ability would only be used with community consensus of course. fr33kman talk 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I would support this would be for sysop inactivity. Normally we don't have a reason to have crats desysop admins, except for the part I just mentioned. I think the stewards do a good job at desysopping stewards sysops. My only concern would be abusing the crats powers (although that does sounds really far-fetched). —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The crat abuses; you de-crat the crat! Plain and simple. NVS knows that I was going to suggest this myself soon; but NVS beat me to it. If we are ever going to convince WMF that we are a serious project, then we need to bring this sort of stuff locally. fr33kman talk 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree :) It does sound a bit far, I don't think it would occur. However, if it did, the stewards can directly desysop the abuser in an emergency and reinstate the real sysops. I don't think this will ever happen. Also, I don't see where a crat would remove rights except for inactivity... unless there were a very specific discussion and consensus to do so otherwise. So, I can count you onboard? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I just noticed that I misspelled one of my words. I literally burst out laffing (dammit laughing) when I found out. lmao! —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent idea, NVS. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do support the idea. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Communities should keep matters local whenever possible. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this addition to the responsibilities of bureaucrats, because as Juliancolton said, it is best to keep things as locally as possible so that we do not have to depend upon the stewards all the time. Cheers, Razorflame 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I've to disagree. Removal of accesses should be done on meta. If we get troubles and a crat runs amuk (even if I guees no-one will do this), s/he could remove the accesses of the other admins. Its not a big deal to request the removal on meta. No other wiki has this imo enabled. The removal of such "important" flags is the work of the stewards, not of the crats. And there aren't so many de-sysops (3 each year?). So far no need. Barras || talk 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. I think it is always best to keep things local, I fear it might be giving bureaucrats excess power which might be harmful if they take rash decisions. Pmlineditor  Talk 09:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we should keep the most things local, but I don't see any need for this. For two or three de-sysop request, we don't need this right. I have to problem to spend this one edit on meta, to request the removal, if no one else want to edit there. It's not a big deal to ask for an easy removal of an flag. Therefore, we have the stewards. Crat should only be allowed to add the sysop, but the removal (like on all other wikis) should be done by an steward on meta. Barras || talk 09:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Agree with the proposal. I agree with Chenzw actually on this one. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel right about this. On this wiki, we have had not one, not two, but three major cases of abuse, to the best of my knowledge. There could even be more. In the case of real abuse by a bureaucrat, the most logical thing for him to do is to de-crat all other bureaucrats first, causing them unable to resolve the situation. Thus, allowing bureaucrats to de-crat (or even desysop, for that matter) others is simply too dangerous. Chenzw  Talk  10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this really flows logically. Stewards can be alerted to the situation by any editor. They would then de-crat, de-sysop and block the offending party. After which all their abusive actions could also be undone and those that were de-sysoped can be resysoped. The point here is to avoid the need for meta intervention on a regular basis, not in emergencies. We have enough well known editors here and many of them are always on #wikimedia-stewards on IRC. They would alert the stewards within seconds or minutes. Frankly, however, I don't think this would ever occur. fr33kman talk 18:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chenzw makes a really nice point. However the proposed idea is only to allow crats desysop admins, not de-crat other crats. De-cratting rights should only be allowed to stewards or Jimbo. Also in case a crat goes rogue, de-sysopping should only be permitted to admins w/o crat status. Other crats should be immune to the desysopping action. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Desysop is steward-restricted for a reason. MC8 (b · t) 10:08, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea. It works well on Meta, and will here too. There is no danger whatsoever, and this paranoia is ridiculous. Stewards are still able to intervene if there is an unlikely emergency. All I see from those opposing this is "It's the stewards' job" without explaining why. The fact stewards desysop is a historical accident. Other Mediawiki projects allow bureaucrats to desysop as default. Why is it they are not allowed to reverse their own actions? We should not keep having to run to the stewards when we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves. Majorly talk 12:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Majorly said. We are actually a rarity in that we don't allow them to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a fan of this proposal on enwiki, and I'm a fan of it here. The separation is silly, and the concern about a rogue 'crat is mild paranoia in my opinion (though much more of a silly prospect on enwiki than here). EVula // talk // // 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a rogue crat was to cause major disruptions and abuse his powers, the penalities for desysopping admins should be severe (i.e., removal of all admin functions for the abuser, blocking or possibly banning the abuser, and reinstate the admin victims). Also we should form policies for crats on when and only to desysop users. Desysopping should be limited to inactive admins and through clear community consensus. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<poll was here> To whomever created this section. Don't vote on everything. Consensus doesn't just come from polls. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but this isn't a vote, it's a poll. We need to create the suggested policy first, this is the idea. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First I quote "This is a straight vote to be used in determining consensus" (bolding mine) and secondly read m:Voting_is_evil#Polling_discourages_consensus -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read it. We have the section above. This is for simplifying things. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We shuold not create problems where there aren't any... --Eptalon (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was that to me or Djsasso? I fixed my problem (or I think I did, did I miss something?). Griffinofwales (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support allowing 'crats to do so. Let's keep things local. hmwithτ 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Julian and hmwith. →javért stargaze 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles..

Hell, I think writing articles is a fun thing to do. If that's too boring, making existing articles better is also a fun thing to do. What do you others think? --Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See TRM's comments at WP:AN (located near the end of the thread about me). The community doesn't spend enough time writing articles (nowhere close). Griffinofwales (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Mentorship. hmwithτ 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice thing to do when several people actually collaborate on a certain article. If they don't, it's less fun. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember when me and several other editors made Romania a VGA. That was fun and it was several editors collaborating on a single article. I agree that there is not enough active article building going on here. I was the main person who was introducing new articles onto this Wikipedia, but now because so many of my articles have been deleted, I've waned off from creating articles because of the very real possibility that they would not be enough to sustain an article on here. I think that we need to get less strict on what kinds of articles we can write so that we can just get more and more people interested in writing articles. There are several administrators on here that don't really do much article building or writing on this site, and this worries me that we just need to stop all the drama everywhere and just get to writing articles, which happens to be The Rambling Man's motto here ;). Razorflame 21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Neither Crich Tramway Village nor Victoria line would be where they are now without significant help from various other member's of the community - and I think the same goes for many of our Good and Very Good articles. Now then, if anyone wants to help with the final step on Victoria line, we've got a large to do list :). Goblin 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

Huggle

Note that I'll be working on importing Huggle over the next couple days. Simplifying user warnings and such is still to come. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

javért stargaze 09:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:DD I'd heard of it earlier though. ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 09:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need Huggle? Majorly talk 13:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple users asked for it. I personally see no need, but it doesn't hurt to have it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's not as much vandalism here as they do on en, but I won't mind having it. :) иιƒкч? 13:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a good idea. Thanks, JC. hmwithτ 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this wiki, the undo button works faster than twinkle sometimes. Well, good luck anyway!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would probably not be very much used here, but there is no harm in getting it set up here for when we get big enough that we do need to use it. Cheers, Razorflame 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take it from me. You will be bored out of your mind if you try using Huggle on this project. For the most part, at least to me, Huggle is extreme overkill even for the Spanish Wikipedia, much less here. J.delanoy talkchanges 22:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage creator bot

I've noticed that most articles here on Simple don't have talk pages. Earlier this morning I created Template:Talkpage to put at the top of every article talk (much like on en). I went ahead and put the template on the talk of the articles I have created but it's not feasible for one person to template every talk page. Plus it would wreak havoc on my edit count. I was talking with Chris G on IRC tonight and he said that he could code a bot to do this if there's consensus for it here. So, my question to you all is: what do you think, do you think that this is a good idea? Cheers, →javért stargaze 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know if the wording on the template is fine as it is, or if you would prefer me to change/reword it and if so, to what. →javért stargaze 08:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming my calculations are correct the bot will edit about 23125 pages. At an edit rate of about 9-12 edits per min the bot should be done in about a day and a half. --Chris 10:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely uneeded imo. I'm sure we stopped someone in the past when they started doing this? A red linked talk is better than a pointless header imo. Goblin 10:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
Agree with BG7. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about just adding the template to already existing talkpages that don't have it? (about 2527 pages) --Chris 11:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  (change conflict) Not really "stopped someone who started...". I proposed it and it was rejected. Anyway, I said on IRC that this would be rejected. Anyway. /me goes to edit other pages And I am in agreement with Chris' idea. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Chris. While I believe that it would be best to put the template on all talk pages, Chris's idea would be a nice compromise. →javért stargaze 11:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a TP /editnotice extension floating around? MC8 (b · t) 11:33, Saturday August 15 2009 (UTC)
Chris' idea of just putting it on existing pages is better. No need to create a load more. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) What was opposed in the past was the proposal to create every single talk page with the header. Replacing the header on existing talk pages is fine though. Just don't do it again, if possible. Think of the server kitties. ;) Chenzw  Talk  13:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This serves just about as much purpose as an automated bot making cosmetic changes, which change nothing about the page but changes the underlying text to make it easier to read. Completely unneeeded and a waste of server bandwith. Razorflame 18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate RfO closures

All,

I bring to your attention the closures of Majorly's and Barras' RfOs by NonvocalScream.

These elections have, in my opinion, been closed inappropriately for three reasons. Firstly, the closure of RfXs should not be undertaken by anyone but an elected Bureaucrat - this is, after all, what we appointed them to do - regardless of whether it is vote counting or not. Secondly, NVS has a clear COI with the elections, being involved with them, and so should not have closed them. Finally, the votes should be left to run for the specified time period and not closed early - there is no "SNOW pass".

I request that until this is resolved neither Majorly nor Barras use their Oversight tools and instead continue to request actions from the Stewards.

Regards,

Goblin 11:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Let's not dramatize this too much; as outlined by Barras and others, there is a pressing need for this Wikipedia to get local oversighters. Both Barras and Majorly had no oppose votes, and both of them had the 25 support votes, as required by meta. In order to get a more robust system, our intent here should be to get a third oversighter, so that if one of the two current ones quits or becomes inactive, we are not in a hurry to re-elect a candidate. Can I therefore invite all those regulars who have not voted yet, to express their opinion on the remaining candidates? - Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make another point that I have thought about, there were still about two weeks to run - in that time there could very easily have been a mass of Opposes made, which could have changed the outcome. All Oversighters should be elected at once, not in drips and drabs. Goblin 11:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
You do not have to be a crat to close anything except RFA. This is because only a crat can grant the sysop flag. Anyone else can close other discussions. Yes I participated in the vote, and there were no opposes. This means that opposition was unlikely and the discussion could close. There was no conflict of interest as it was just a vote count. But I will wait for other's to comment. I have however, no issue with the tools being used in the interim. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two incorrect points: "there were still about two weeks to run" - no, RFO don't have an ending date, they only end once consensus, or otherwise is reached. "the closure of RfXs should not be undertaken by anyone but an elected Bureaucrat" - no, bureaucrats close RFAs and RFBs. Checkuser and oversight are a totally different set of tools. Additionally, if I see something that needs oversighting, I will be oversighting it myself. Enough of this dramamongering nonsense. Majorly talk 12:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And assuming we go with adminship length of time, a week, it was closed about 14 hours earlier than that. But conditions for oversight were met. So why drag out for another two weeks? I never saw in the entire time one good reason for postponing these elections, and dragging them out for a ridiculous length of time. Majorly talk 12:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We now have two oversighters, can we perhaps focus on getting a third one, for the reasons cited above, rather than talking this to death? --Eptalon (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already supported everyone running, there isn't much I can do. Majorly talk 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: per Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 70#Current consensus, only the best 3 candidates will be promoted (which means there is only 1 free spot now for the next candidate to reach 25 support votes). This also means that the remainder will have their RfOs closed as "unsuccessful" even if they have the required number of votes. Chenzw  Talk  14:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus there, only mixed views. If more than one more gets 25 votes, then they shouldn't be prevented from being promoted. If they are, I will resign so at least one can take my place. Majorly talk 15:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And only Eptalon and me commented there, so it is clearly not a consensus. Barras || talk 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Chenzw: I know the last consensus was to have no more than 3 oversighters. But is there a meta policy that prevents a wiki from having more than 3 oversighters? —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 14:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Majorly talk 15:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know/recall if the consensus was to elect exactly three, or at least two. If we agree on exactly three, it is probably a bad idea to give the spot to the next person who reaches 25 support. Rather we should look who the best candidate for the spot is. At the moment we have two, which is workable. Can we postpone the closing until either time's up, or there is visibly no more movemement in the process? - This also gives us time to agree on what we want. --Eptalon (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to do any changing of rules/what we want etc then the two currently closed RfOs should be re-opened and the rights revoked - especially if we are going to be choosing the candidates... Like I said, these haven't been thought out enough, were rushed again and we're paying the consequences now. Goblin 15:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
Can we nominate this incident as drama of the week, please? - We all agreed we need two oversighters. The two people currently holding the position were elected with no oppose votes. All the other candidates do have oppose votes. - Put yourself in the position of the closing steward/crat at the end of this month? - Which one of the candidates is probably best for the n positions? - Probably those who have the most support, while fulfilling the requirements? - The two we have now, have 25 and 26 support votes, and no oppose votes, respectively. The remaining four still running all have a number of oppose votes (and not 25 support votes yet), so they are necessarily the worse choices than what we have now. Since we seem to have a need for oversighters, why not go with what we have? - Is there any use in demoting the two now, to re-promote them in two weeks' time? --Eptalon (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: yes. Goblin 15:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Eptalon, the patronising tone is not required. Have you forgotten that "there is no rush" here. We've managed forever without a local OS, there was no need to prematurely promote anyone. We are all very clearly aware that on this Wiki, things/editors tend to appear at the last minute - closing any RFx too early is questionable, particularly when it involves something as important as this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur. hmwithτ 18:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I agree that they should still be open. There's no need to be in such a hurry. This all happened so quickly. Someone a vacation or busy at the moment could have missed everything. They could have been left open for a longer period of time. hmwithτ 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does it. I will be resigning as soon as another is elected. I'm sick and tired of this bloody dramamongering about nothing. Majorly talk 18:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, we don't need to freak out and push stuff through when there's no use for doing it. Why is everyone here in such a rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You all know, that simple Wikipedia's status in the WMF is very bad. We are not really respected by lots of other. We have every week at least one ne drama. I'm really surprised, that we still have editers here on simple and that not all have left this project. We discuss and discuss and discuss. There is no more what we do. We should be ashamed to have so many drama on such a small project with only a handful editors. I fully understand that no one wants to edit this wiki. All what is done will be questioned (and yes, I know this post will be questioned as well). I fully understand that users like Exert and Juliancolton resigned their adminship. We all help voluntarily. Many of us spend a lot of time on the WMF projects. This wiki is a shame for the WMF, I'm ashamed to be here. I'm tired of reading discussions like this one. "User:xyz has done this, and because I have no better things to do I disagree. Now lets discuss this until we all die." This wiki is atm more a forum for dicussions and not an encyclopaedia. To be here and try to help voluntarily is getting more and more annoying. All users here act in good faith and no one respect this. The two closed requests had a very clear consensus. No opposes. 25 and 26 supports. Majorly is one of the most trusted users here on simple and this discussion brings him to say, that he want to resigned his oversightship when there is another oversighter. I'm very sad to see this. I think, or better I know and be sure, that in the next two weeks of the vote will nothing change. Two other candidates have atm 4 opooses. They don't have any chance to get the missing support votes, because on this wiki aren't that much users, for the reason mentioned above. We (Eptalon and me) tried to make a clear rule for the oversight elections. And what was the result??? No one, yes no one else said anything to an useful discussion. But here (when the things happend like it was), here discuss user and say the discussion between me and Eptalon is the current consensus. No, it's definitifly not. Eptalon nor I make consensus. It happened now this way. The closure was correctly done. We have NO rules for oversight elections locally, so no one should disagree. It is too late to discuss rules for the elections, now. We have no consensus, that only the best three will get the tools. If all other four will reach the needed 25 votes in the next two weeks, so all four will be elected. It's pretty late, now. @Majorly: I hope you will not resign your oversightship. You were correctly elected. I will not resigned oversight ship. If we go now and let remove the oversight tool, it would only damage the image of this image more (if this is possible). And in two weeks, we request perhabs the tools back. This is pretty useless. Other will say: "Simple wiki, the joke of the WMF". And btw, the elections don't need to be closed at the same time. E.g. the checkusers weren't elected all at the same time. Were is the problem when two have the tools earlier? There isn't a problem. And per one of the sections above, Simple should keep things local. The would help to keep things local. Thant's all from me now. Good evening all and I hope it is understandable, what I've just writen now.) Barras || talk 19:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, as this is clearly aimed at me, you'll find that I write quite a lot of articles and do have better things to do than sit around discussing discussing discussing. You'll find that I participate in a lot less discussions than I used too. We're already a joke wiki because we don't discuss things such as the OS elections - ever thought that perhaps people were on holiday, and thus didn't have a chance to comment? I remember that was the main reason as cited for waiting... but no no no, because we are a playground for users to be able to what they want and get whatever rights they want we're just going to go and get Oversight straight away, as well as make silly proposals like the one below. What we need to make our image better is to get rid of troublesome users and toughen up on what exactly is acceptable. We need to stop using this page as a forum and start following some basic policies. We need to all focus on things that matter and stop complaining at every little thing that goes on. However, we need to accept that some things do need discussion and shouldn't be rushed - no matter how long it takes. Who really cares if it takes an extra 30 seconds to get something removed because we have to poke a Steward? That's what they are there do to btw. Yes, i'm guilty of some of this myself, but at least i'm not one of these users who I see doing minimal article work, yet have some of the highest positions. Note there are many more people I could have used. I would write more but I think I am about to throw up. Goblin 20:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
@Snake: For once, I agree with you.
@TRM: Precisely.
@barras: Yes, we need them, but not if it's of sub-standard quality. It was an incorrect close, end of.
@eptalon: Please, stop skirting around the issue. I think this has highlighted some pretty major points. Goblin 20:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
  • Concur with Barras & Eptalon, I was hoping my incident was drama of the week, but I lost to BG7's complaint :(. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bluegoblin7: You seem to be talking a lot of smack on who to get rid of. FYI, I was here at this wiki far longer than you have. I also had some respect in this wiki before I left this project temporarily and the people who respected me also left soon after. The reason why I decided to leave for months was because I was fed up with all the drama, especially in this wikipedia. I hoped clearing my head would make things better, but it seems to have gotten worse. Face it, this wikipedia no longer has a point. Users play games over here and vandals get another chance to be obnoxious. Even if we tried to concentrate on writing articles there is still too many distractions, like how come my/your/his/her article is not simple english. Until another school year starts again for me, I'm just waste time here. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 20:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damage control

  • The discussion above has turned into needless drama(mongering). Damage has been done, and is done with every new post. The big question is not who did what, and if they did so correctly, but rather: What can we do to control/manage the damage done? - The race is running, changing the rules now is pointless. Therefore, what can we do to control the damage done. Please also be reminded that this is on-wiki; this is no place to let the frustrations out by dramamongering. We want to build an encyclopedia. An Oversighter, CheckUser, Bureaucrat or Admin does not directly help with reaching that goal. For lack of a better idea, I'll re-state what has resulted from countless discussions:
  • We have not agreed otherwise, any candidate reaching 25 support votes, with at least 80% support will be made Oversighter.
  • NonvocalScream acted correctly; whether he should have waited another two weeks is debatable. Undoing/redoing will make us look silly though.
  • we do not need a weekly drama; we should be writing articles or improving them.

Open for flames. ;) --Eptalon (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A consensus has already emerged above. It is already there. You can see there is an agreement that we did the right thing. Even tho I dislike the archival templates on active discussion... I don't think I would complain if an uninvolved editor could nicely summarise the consensus in the above discussion, and place the templates. Please. I can't focus. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing the main points brought up by BG7: firstly, we had unanimous support, so the result was obvious. Secondly, we had unanimous support, so it didn't matter if NVS closed it as successful. Thirdly, there was unanimous support. Seeing that we didn't have a policy on oversight elections, we followed meta, which only stated vote requirements. In addition, the original intention was to allow editors on summer vacation to have a chance to vote. Looking at the number of us here, most have already voted. Those that did not vote were either informed on IRC or their user talk (and didn't vote, but still edited other pages). The points therefore do not stand. Please move along. Chenzw  Talk  01:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion user rights

Resolved. Snake withdrew his original comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add a new user rights that would enable non-admins to delete articles labeled {{QD}}, which is an administrative function granted to trusted users. Trusted users with the deletion rights would be allowed to delete vandalism or test articles from anon IPs. Essentially, the user right would be similiar to rollbackers. The tool would be used solely to fight vandalism. Admins should be allowed to grant and revoke the deleting rights. Abuse of the tool can be quickly solved by having an admin remove the abuser from his rights, and a possible block. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 18:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unneeded - furthermore it's very easily abusable - you can't control what can be deleted. Goblin 18:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Agreed. If you're trusted enough to delete articles, run for adminship. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(E/C)Sorry, but I oppose the idea. That's why we have admins. Most users here are already admins and there's usually at least one around at any time. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict x 50000) No need. The bar for adminship is not as high here as it is on en-wp. hmwithτ 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal removed. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 18:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rollbackers and admins can also abuse their rights as well. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 18:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admins we trust not to abuse their rights. Also a user abusing rollback doesn't do as much damage as one abusing delete - if I was to abuse rollback all my changes could be reverted easily (I have a script that can do this) - however if I was to abuse delete (I know I can't delete but lets assume I can :) I could do a lot of damage; consider this:
  • article a has 3000 revisions, article b has 1000 and article c has 1000
  • delete article a and move article b to a
  • delete b and move c to a
  • restore article a

article a now has the history of both b and c AND it is over 5000 revisions, this means that the article cannot be delete (well, it can be delete by a steward or dev...) to clean up the history. That case would require developer intervention to fix. --Chris 01:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a great deal of time to correct the histmerge. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]