Revision as of 16:58, 17 June 2015 editONUnicorn (talk | contribs)Administrators19,805 edits →GEO CONTEXT: yesh; I picked a bad example.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:37, 25 December 2024 edit undoEdin75 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,879 edits →Category:Current sports events | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{redirect|WP:PROPOSE|proposing article deletion|Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion|and|Misplaced Pages:Deletion requests}} | |||
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{Village pump page header|Proposals|alpha=yes|start=100| | |||
<noinclude>{{short description|Discussion page for new proposals}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{Village pump page header|Proposals|alpha=yes| | |||
New ideas and proposals are discussed here. ''Before submitting'': | |||
The '''proposals''' section of the ] is used to offer specific changes for discussion. ''Before submitting'': | |||
* Check to see whether your proposal is already described at ''']'''. You may also wish to search the ]. | * Check to see whether your proposal is already described at ''']'''. You may also wish to search the ]. | ||
* Consider developing |
* This page is for '''concrete, actionable''' proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at ]. | ||
* Proposed ''' |
* Proposed '''policy''' changes belong at ]. | ||
* Proposed ''' |
* Proposed '''speedy deletion criteria''' belong at ]. | ||
* Proposed '''WikiProjects''' or '''task forces''' may be submitted at ]. | * Proposed '''WikiProjects''' or '''task forces''' may be submitted at ]. | ||
* Proposed '''new wikis''' belong at ]. | * Proposed '''new wikis''' belong at ]. | ||
* Proposed '''new articles''' belong at ]. | * Proposed '''new articles''' belong at ]. | ||
* Discussions or proposals which warrant the '''attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation''' belong at ]. | |||
<!-- Villagepumppages intro end -->|WP:VPR|WP:VP/PR|WP:VPPRO|WP:PROPS}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
* '''Software''' changes which have consensus should be filed at ]. | |||
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.<!-- | |||
Villagepumppages intro end | |||
-->|WP:VPR|WP:VP/PR|WP:VPPRO|WP:PROPS}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| algo = old(9d) | |||
|archiveheader = {{Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Archive header}} | |||
| archive = Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive %(counter)d | |||
|maxarchivesize = 300K | |||
|counter = |
| counter = 215 | ||
| maxarchivesize = 300K | |||
|algo = old(7d) | |||
| |
| archiveheader = {{Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Archive header}} | ||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
}}<!-- | |||
| minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
}} | |||
|header={{Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Archive header}} | |||
{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}} | |||
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive | |||
__TOC__ | |||
|format= %%i | |||
{{anchor|below_toc}} | |||
|age=168 | |||
|numberstart=106 | |||
|minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
|maxarchsize= 300000 | |||
}}--> | |||
{| style="width:100%; background: transparent;" | |||
|- | |||
| style="vertical-align: top; style="width:50%;" | __TOC__ | |||
| style="vertical-align: top;" | {{cent|width=auto}} | |||
|} | |||
<span id="below_toc"/> | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
{{clear}} | |||
== RfC: Log the use of the ] at both the merge target and merge source == | |||
== Uniform tables == | |||
{{rfc|style|policy|tech|prop|rfcid=682D180}}]]]1 13:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- ] 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1735142470}} | |||
Presently there is major difference with the layout of wikitables on the desktop site and on the mobile site. Most importantly, the mobile wikitable has no background color for its header cells and its border are brightly colored to the point that they are almost indistinguishable. This creates readability issues for the mobile wikitable. To illustrate this I have made a screenshot of table both in the desktop and the mobile version. | |||
{{Multiple image | |||
| align = center | |||
| direction = horizontal | |||
| image1 = Wikitable desktop.png | |||
| width1 = 450 | |||
| caption1 = A wikitable on the desktop site | |||
| image2 = Wikitable mobile.png | |||
| width2 = 450 | |||
| caption2 = The same table on the mobile site | |||
}} | |||
Therefore, I would like to propose the mobile wikitable's layout to be made the same as the desktop wikitable's, so as to have a uniform table style. ]]]1 19:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Currently, there are open proposing that the use of the HistMerge tool be logged at the target article in addition to the source article. Several proposals have been made: | |||
=== Discussion (Uniform tables) === | |||
*'''Option 1a''': When using ], a null edit should be placed in both the merge target and merge source's page's histories stating that a history merge took place. | |||
* First question: How exactly does this effect our readers and the encyclopedia? Second question: How do you propose to do this? — <code class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></code> 22:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
*: (]: '''Special:MergeHistory should place a null edit in the page's history describing the merge''', authored Jul 13 2023) | |||
*'''Option 1b''': When using ], add a log entry recorded for the articles at the both HistMerge target and source that records the existence of a history merge. | |||
*: (]: '''Merging pages should add a log entry to the destination page''', authored Nov 8 2015) | |||
*'''Option 2''': Do not log the use of the ] tool at the merge target, maintaining the current status quo. | |||
Should the use of the HistMerge tool be explicitly logged? If so, should the use be logged via an entry in the page history or should it instead be held in a dedicated log? — ] <sub>]</sub> 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Survey: Log the use of the ]=== | |||
*'''Option 1a/b'''. I am in principle in support of adding this logging functionality, since people don't typically have access to the source article title (where the histmerge is currently logged) when viewing an article in the wild. There have been several times I can think of when I've been going diff hunting or browsing page history and where some explicit note of a histmerge having occurred would have been useful. As for whether this is logged directly in the page history (as is done currently with page protection) or if this is merely in a separate log file, I don't have particularly strong feelings, but I do think that adding functionality to log histmerges at the target article would improve clarity in page histories. — ] <sub>]</sub> 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Option 1a/b'''. No strong feelings on which way is best (I'll let the experienced histmergers comment on this), but logging a history merge definitely seems like a useful feature. ] (] · ]) 16:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Option 1a/b'''. Choatic Enby has said exactly what I would have said (but more concisely) had they not said it first. ] (]) 16:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''1b''' would be most important to me but but '''1a''' would be nice too. But this is really not the place for this sort of discussion, as noted below. ] (]) 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Option 2''' History merging done right should be seamless, leaving the page indistinguishable from if the copy-paste move being repaired had never happened. Adding extra annotations everywhere runs counter to that goal. Prefer 1b to 1a if we have to do one of them, as the extra null edits could easily interfere with the history merge being done in more complicated situations. ] ] 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Could you expound on why they should be indistinguishable? I don't see how this could harm any utility. A log action at the target page would not show up in the history anyways, and a null edit would have no effect on comparing revisions. ] (]) 17:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:: Why shouldn't it be indistinguishable? Why it it necessary to go out of our way to say even louder that someone did something wrong and it had to be cleaned up? ] ] 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::All cleanup actions are logged to all the pages they affect. ] (]) 18:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''2''' History merges ], so this survey name is somewhat off the mark. As someone who does this work: I do not think these should be displayed at either location. It would cause a lot of noise in history pages that people probably would not fundamentally understand (2 revisions for "please process this" and "remove tag" and a 3rd revision for the suggested log), and it would be "out of order" in that you will have merged a bunch of revisions but none of those revisions would be nearby the entry in the history page itself. I also find protections noisy in this way as well, and when moves end up causing a need for history merging, you end up with doubled move entries in the merged history, which also is confusing. Adding history merges to that case? No thanks. History merges are more like deletions and undeletions, which already do not add displayed content to the history view. ] (]) 16:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:They presently are logged, but only at the source article. Take for example . When I search for the merge target, I get . It's only when I search the that I'm able to get a result, but there isn't a way to ''know'' the merge source. | |||
*:If I don't know when or if the histmerge took place, and I don't know what article the history was merged from, I'd have to look through the entirety of the merge log manually to figure that out—and that's suboptimal. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::... Page moves do the same thing, only log the move source. Yet this is not seen as an issue? :) | |||
*::But ignoring that, why is it valuable to know this information? What do you gain? And is what you gain actually valuable to your end objective? For example, let's take your {{tq|There have been several times I can think of when I've been going diff hunting or browsing page history and where some explicit note of a histmerge having occurred would have been useful.}} Is not the revisions left behind in the page history by both the person requesting and the person performing the histmerge not enough (see {{tl|histmerge}})? There are history merges done that don't have that request format such as the WikiProject history merge format, but those are almost always ancient revisions, so what are you gaining there? And where they are not ancient revisions, they are trivial kinds of the form "draft x -> page y, I hate that I even had to interact with this history merge it was so trivial (but also these are great because I don't have to spend significant time on them)". ] (]) 17:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::{{tqb|... Page moves do the same thing, only log the move source. Yet this is not seen as an issue? :)}}I don't think everyone would necessarily agree (see Toadspike's comment below). ] (] · ]) 17:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::Page moves ''do'' leave a null edit on the page that describes where the page was moved from and was moved to. And it's easy to work backwards from there to figure out the page move history. The same cannot be said of the ] tool, which doesn't make it easy to re-construct what the heck went on unless we start diving naïvely through the logs. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::It can be *possible* to find the original history merge source page without looking through the merge log, but the method for doing so is very brittle and extremeley hacky. Basically, look for redirects to the page using "What links here", and find the redirect whose first edit has an unusual byte difference. This relies on the redirect being stable and not deleted or retargetted. There is also ] that relies on byte difference bugs as described in the above-linked discussion by ]. Both of those are ... particularly awful. ] (]) 03:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::In the given example, the history-merge occurred ]. Your "log" is the edit summaries. "Created page with '..." is the edit summary left by a normal page creation. But wait, there is page history before the edit that created the page. How did it get there? Hmm, the previous edit summary "Declining submission: v - Submission is improperly sourced (AFCH)" tips you off to look for the same title in draft: namespace. Anyone looking for help with understanding a particular merge may ask me and I'll probably be able to figure it out for you. – ] (]) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::Here's another example, of a merge within mainspace. The ] (created by the MediaWiki software) of this ] "Removed redirect to {{no redirect|Jordan B. Acker}}" points you to the page that was merged at that point. . . . – ] (]) 13:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::There are times where those traces aren't left. ] (]) 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::Here's another scenario, this one from ]. The shows an edit adding '''+5,800''' bytes, leaving the page with 5,800 bytes. But the previous edit did not leave a blank page. Some say this is a bug, but it's also a feature. That "bug" is actually your "log" reporting that a hist-merge occurred at that edit. , the log for that page shows a temp delete & undelete setting the page up for a merge. The first item on the log: | |||
*::::::@ 20:14, 16 January 2021 Tbhotch moved page ] to {{no redirect|Flag of the Republic of Yucatán}} (Correct name) | |||
*:::::clues you in to where to look for the source of the merge. , that single edit which removed '''−5,633''' bytes tells you that previous history was merged off of that page. The provides the details. – ] (]) 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::(]: '''Special:MergeHistory causes incorrect byte change values in history''', authored Dec 2 2014) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
*::::::Again, there are times where the clues are much harder to find, and even in those cases, it'd be much better to have a unified and assured way of finding the source. ] (]) 16:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::Indeed. This is a prime example of an unintended ]. ] (]) 08:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::Yeah. I don't think that we can permanently rely on that, given that future versions of MediaWiki are not bound in any real way to support that workaround. — ] <sub>]</sub> 04:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support 1b''' (log only), oppose 1a (null edit). I defer to the experienced histmergers on this, and if they say that adding null edits everywhere would be inconvenient, I believe them. However, I haven't seen any arguments against logging the histmerge at both articles, so I'll support it as a sensible idea. (On a similar note, it bothers me that page moves are only logged at one title, not both.) ] </span>]] 17:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Option 2'''. The merges are ], so there’s no reason to add it to page histories. While it may be useful for habitual editors, it will just confuse readers who are looking for an old revision and occasional editors. ] & ]<sub>(])</sub> 18:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:But only the source page is logged as the "target". IIRC it currently can be a bit hard to find out when and who merged history into a page if you don't know the source page and the mergeperson didn't leave any editing indication that they merged something. ] (]) 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''1B'''. The present situation of the action being only logged at one page is confusing and unhelpful. But so would be injecting null-edits all over the place. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Option 2'''. This exercise is dependent on finding a volunteer MediaWiki developer willing to work on this. Good luck with that. Maybe you'll find one a decade from now. – ] (]) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*: And, more importantly, someone in the to review it. I suspect there are many people, possibly including myself, who would code this if they didn't think they were wasting their time shuffling things from one queue to another. ] ] 06:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::That link requires a Gerrit login/developer account to view. It was a struggle to get in to mine (I only have one because of an old Toolforge account and I'd basically forgotten about it), but for those who don't want to go through all that, that group has only 82 members (several of whose usernames I recognise) and I imagine they have a lot on their collective plate. There's more information about these groups at ]. ] (]) 15:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::: Sorry, I totally forgot Gerrit behaved in that counterintuitive way and hid public information from logged out users for no reason. The things you miss if Gerrit interactions become something you do pretty much every day. If you want to count the members of the group you also have to follow the chain of included groups - it also includes https://ldap.toolforge.org/group/wmf, https://ldap.toolforge.org/group/ops and (another login-only link), as well as a few other permission edge cases (almost all of which are redundant because the user is already in the MediaWiki group) ] ] 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support 1a/b''', and I would encourage the closer to disregard any opposition based solely on the chances of someone ever actually implementing it. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 12:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Fine. This stupid RfC isn't even asking the right questions. Why did I need to delete (an expensive operation) and then restore a page in order to Should we fix the software so that it doesn't require me to do that? Why did the page-mover resort to cut-paste because there was page history blocking their move, rather than ask a administrator for help? Why doesn't the software just let them move over that junk page history themselves, which would negate the need for a later hist-merge? (Actually in this case the offending user only has made 46 edits, so they don't have page-mover privileges. But they were able to move a page. They just couldn't move it back a day later after they changed their mind.) ] (]) 13:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::Yeah, ] would be amazing, for a start. ] (]) 15:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Option 1b'''{{snd}}changes to a page's history should be listed in that page's log. There's no need to make a null edit; pagemove null edits are useful because they meaningfully fit into the page's revision history, which isn't the case here. ] (]) 00:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Option 1b''' sounds best since that's what those in the know seem to agree on, but 1a would probably be OK. ] (]) 03:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Option 1b''' seems like the one with the best transparency to me. Thanks. <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]|])</sup></span> 06:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion: Log the use of the ]=== | |||
:Wikitable CSS is defined: | |||
*I'm noticing some commentary in the above RfC (on widening importer rights) as to whether or not this might be useful going forward. I do think that having the community weigh in one way or another here would be helpful in terms of deciding whether or not this functionality is worth building. — ] <sub>]</sub> 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:* Screen: {{shared.css}} | |||
*:<small>] . — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
:* Print: {{commonprint.css}} | |||
*This is a missing feature, not a config change. ] (]) 15:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:* Mobile: | |||
:- |
*:Indeed; it's about a feature proposal. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
*As many of the above, this is a ] and not something that should be special for the English Misplaced Pages. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* The mobile site uses a different skin, "Minerva", specifically tailored to mobile devices. I suspect this colour scheme was carefully chosen for a good reason, and I haven't seen a good explanation of why the desktop site's table colour scheme is any better (or worse, for that matter) than the mobile scheme. As such I would oppose any changes. — <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:1px 0 0 1px">]</span> and <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:0 1px 1px 0">]</span> 08:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:See ]. I'm not seeing any sort of reason this would need per-project opt-ins requiring a local discussion. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:This ^^^ Also that table uses colored background to communicate information, which is an accessibility problem. And the background of the table won't matter much to readability on my watch. Also why would things have to be visually consistent across multiple skins ? —] (] • ]) 14:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:True, but I agree with Red-tailed hawk that it's good to have the English Misplaced Pages community weigh on whether we want that feature implemented here to begin with. ] (] · ]) 16:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::I can think of many reasons why it's impractical to have multiple layouts for the same tables. I'm not aware of every type of instance tables are used for on Misplaced Pages, so I can only talk about the one I'm involved with. I mainly edit in the ]. The example use above is of a "result's table". This type of table is quite common in sports articles. The background color used in these tables is supplementary to the text. It's '''not''' the sole means of communicating info by any means. The complaints about the tables I have encountered there are that the lack of clearly distinguishable borders on the mobile site's tables makes it difficult to find specific results in these tables. Even more so for colorblind people. You can find some discussion on this ], ] and ]. Furthermore having different desktop and mobile layouts creates unnecessary complications for editing. Quite often a change of content in a table on desktop works fine on desktop, but creates problems on mobile. I can't see any good reason either why header cell can't have a background color on mobile. I can't give an answer to {{U|Technical 13}}'s second question because I'm not adept enough with the site's programming language, so I simply can't point to which part of the CSS has to be changed nor to what it should be changed to. ]]]1 16:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Here is the , and the project's . – ] (]) 18:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Oppose any change, that is just the way the mobile site is supposed to look, and it doesn't look any worse (I honestly prefer it). I also think you forget that tables look unique in each different skin, (Similar colourful table in , , and ) that is just the way skins work. ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 00:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
* I agree that this is an odd thing to RFC. This is about a feature in MediaWiki core, and there are a lot more users of MediaWiki core than just English Misplaced Pages. However, please do post the results of this RFC to both of the phab tickets. It will be a useful data point with regards to what editors would find useful. –] <small>(])</small> 23:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Also (for those people who don't have it as default), and . --] (]) 08:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:{{U|EoRdE6}}, I'm not talking about aesthetics here. I'm talking about accessibility and editing issues caused by the mobile version. The skins you link to only have some minor aesthetic differences which cause no problems with accessibility. Only the mobile version has some fundamental differences to the basic layout which cause these issues. Cell borders are almost indistinguishable, the wikitables have no basic background-color and neither do header cells (<code>!</code>). Also, is not a good example to look at, because those articles' tables have been coded differently by an other editor to make them universal on mobile and desktop. will give you a far better view on just how different those tables are. ]]]1 13:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
* So here are the facts that we've determined so far: | |||
** Every skin looks different. | |||
** Mobile's headers use bold and centered text, whereas Vector's use bold, centered text and with a gray background. One standard way of describing this difference is that Mobile has a higher contrast/easier readability, especially on very small/lower resolution screens (i.e., old smartphones). | |||
** Individual tables can be coded to different from the default. (Indeed, most of them are different from the default, because most of them are set to <code>class="wikitable"</code>.) | |||
* I'm not really sure that making every skin match every other skin is a good idea. ] (]) 03:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* I don't see the need for this. They are parts of two different skins, which are different for good reasons although not being part of the design process I do not know the reasons in detail. But changing just one element to make one skin look like another makes no sense, without considering the overall design and how it relates to other skins. Besides the above is a bad example: there are far more problems with the actual table than the underlying CSS/HTML. It looks more like something from a glossy magazine than an encyclopaedia, with all the colours, flags, repetition and bold text.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*Although all skins have their variations, the mobile version is the '''ONLY''' one, as I have pointed out earlier, to have fundamental differences to the base style (e.g. header cells, borders) for reasons I don't know. The others just have a different "finish touch" but the '''BASE''' style is the same. Not so for the mobile one. So this is a case of making the mobile base style match the numerous other ones, and making them all the 100% exact same. I really can't understand how one can genuinely claim that the mobile one has a '''higher''' contrast? It's exactly the opposite. Because of the lack of header cell colors and clearly distinguishable borders it has much '''LESS''' contrast and as a result much reduced readability. That's why I made this proposal in the first place. If it's not clear, the mobile table is the one on the '''right''' in the picture above. ]]]1 16:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, that's a "higher" contrast. Black text on white background is "higher" contrast than black text on a gray background. ] (]) 21:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::You're both right. Mobile has higher contrast for the text, but mobile gridding is pale-gray to the point of almost invisible. ] (]) 08:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::And that's what I have trying to point out. Is there any objection to darkening the gridding? ]]]1 21:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}}Allow me to give another, non-F1, example why I think the mobile setting is '''worse''', because the one I gave so far was maybe not clear enough: | |||
== CheckUser for all new users == | |||
{{Multiple image | |||
| align = center | |||
| direction = horizontal | |||
| image1 = Rally wikitables desktop.png | |||
| width1 = 450 | |||
| caption1 = A a group of wikitables in a rally article on the desktop site | |||
| image2 = Rally wikitables mobile.png | |||
| width2 = 450 | |||
| caption2 = The same tables on the mobile site | |||
}} | |||
All new users (IPs and accounts) should be subject to CheckUser against known socks. This would prevent recidivist socks from returning and save the time and energy of users who have to prove a likely case at SPI. Recidivist socks often get better at covering their "tells" each time making detection increasingly difficult. Users should not have to make the huge effort of establishing an SPI when editing from an IP or creating a new account is so easy. We should not have to endure ], ] or ] if CheckUser can prevent them. ] (]) 04:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Again, the mobile tables' outlines are barely visible through the mobile skins border, background-color and header cells' settings. ]]]1 19:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I'm pretty sure that even if we had enough checkuser capacity to routinely run checks on every new user that doing so would be contrary to global policy. ] (]) 04:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== It's time to abolish the "Ignore the Diacritics" rule everywhere == | |||
:Setting aside privacy issues, the fact that the WMF wouldn't let us do it, and a few other things: Checking a single account, without any idea of who you're comparing them to, is not very effective, and the worst LTAs are the ones it would be least effective against. This has been floated several times in the much narrower context of adminship candidates, and rejected each time. It probably belongs on ] by now. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 04:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Why can't it be automated? What are the privacy issues and what would WMF concerns be? There has to be a better system than SPI which imposes a huge burden on the filer (and often fails to catch socks) while we just leave the door open for LTAs. ] (]) 04:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::How would it be automated? We can't just block everyone who even sometimes shares an IP with someone, which is most editors once you factor in mobile editing and institutional WiFi. Even if we had a system that told checkusers about all shared-IP situations and asked them to investigate, what are they investigating for? The vast majority of IP overlaps will be entirely innocent, often people who don't even know each other. There's no way for a checkuser to find any signal in all that noise. So the only way a system like this would work is if checkusers manually identified IP ranges that are being used by LTAs, and then placed blocks on those ranges to restrict them from account creation... Which is what already happens. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 04:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I would assume that IT experts can work out a way to automate CheckUser. If someone edits on a shared IP used by a previous sock that should be flagged and human CheckUsers notified so they can look at the edits and the previous sock edits and warn or block as necessary. ] (]) 05:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::We already have ]. For cases it doesn't catch, there's an additional manual layer of blocking, where if a sock is caught on an IP that's been used before but wasn't caught by autoblock, a checkuser will block the IP if it's technically feasible, sometimes for months or years at a time. Beyond that, I don't think you can imagine just how often "someone edits on a shared IP used by a previous sock". I'm doing that right now, probably, because I'm editing through T-Mobile. Basically anyone who's ever edited in India or Nigeria has been on an IP used by a previous sock. Basically anyone who's used a large institution's WiFi. There is not any way to weed through all that noise with automation. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Addendum: An actually potentially workable innovation would be something like a system that notifies CUs if an IP is autoblocked more than once in a certain time period. That would be a software proposal for Phabricator, though, not an enwiki policy proposal, and would still have privacy implications that would need to be squared with the WMF. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I believe Tamzin has it about right, but I want to clarify a thing. If you're hypothetically using T-Mobile (and this also applies to many other ISPs and many LTAs) then the odds are very high that you're using an IP address which has never been used before. With T-Mobile, which is not unusually large by any means, you belong to at least one /32 range which contains a number of IP addresses so big that it has 30 digits. These ranges contain a huge number of users. At the other extreme you have some countries with only a handful of IPs, which everyone uses. These IPs also typically contain a huge number of users. TLDR; is someone is using a single IP on their own then we'll probably just block it, otherwise you're talking about matching a huge number of users. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 03:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::As I understand it, if you're hypothetically using T-Mobile, then you're not editing, because someone range-blocked the whole network in pursuit of a vandal(s). See ]. ] (]) 03:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::T-Mobile USA is a perennial favourite of many of the most despicable LTAs, but that's besides the point. New users with an account can actually edit from T-Mobile. They can also edit from Jio, or Deutsche Telecom, Vodafone, or many other huge networks. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 03:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Would violate the policy ]. –] <small>(])</small> 04:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It would apply to '''every new User''' as a protective measure against sockpuppetry, like a credit check before you get a card/overdraft. ] is archaic like the whole burdensome SPI system that forces honest users to do all the hard work of proving sockpuppetry while socks and vandals just keep being welcomed in under ]. ] (]) 05:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::What you're suggesting is to just inundate checkusers with thousands of cases. The suggestion (as I understand it) removes burden from SPI filers by adding a disproportional burden on checkusers, who are already an overworked group. If you're suggesting an automated solution, then I believe IP blocks/IP range blocks and autoblock (discussed by Tamzin, above) already cover enough. It's quite hard to weigh up what you're really suggesting because it feels very vague without much detail - it sounds like you're just saying "a new SPI should be opened for every new user and IP, forever" which is not really a workable solution (for instance, ], which is about one every 18 seconds) ]] 18:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::And most of those accounts will make zero, one, or two edits, and then never be used again. Even if we liked this idea, doing it for every single account creation would be a waste of resources. ] (]) 23:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:No, they should not. ] (]/]) 17:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This, very bluntly, ], and as noted by Tamzin this would result in frankly ''obscene'' amounts of collateral damage. You have absolutely no idea how frequently IP addresses get passed around (especially in the developing world or on ]), such that it could feasibly have three different, unrelated, people on it over the course of a day or so. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{Question|label=Just out of curiosity}} If a certain ] is any indication, would a CU be able to stop that in its track? <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]|]) <span style="font-size:80%"><span style="color:grey;">Isn't a IP anon</span></span> 14:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::CU's use their tools to identify socks when technical proof is necessary. The problem you're linking to is caused by one particular ] account who is extremely obvious and doesn't really require technical proof to identify - check users would just be able to provide evidence for something that is already easy to spot. There's an essay on the distinction over at ] ]] 14:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|2601AC47}} No, and that is because the user in question's MO is to abuse VPNs. Checkuser is worthless in this case because of that (but the IPs ''can and should'' be blocked for 1yr as ]). —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 19:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::] is using a peer-to-peer VPN service which is similar to ]. Blocking peer-to-peer VPN service endpoint IP addresses carries a higher risk of collateral damage because those aren't assigned to the VPN provider but rather a third party ISP who is likely to dynamically reassign the blocked address to a completely innocent party. ] (]) 00:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I slightly oppose this idea. This is not ] where socks are immediately banned or shadowbanned outright. Reddit doesn't have ] as any wiki does. ] (]) 00:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::How do you know this is how Reddit deals with ban and suspension evasion? They use advanced techniques such as device and IP fingerprinting to ban and suspend users in under an hour. ] (]) 23:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I can see where this is coming from, but we must realise that checkuser is not ] nor is it meant for ]. - ] (]) 04:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The question I ask myself is why must we realize that it is not meant for fishing? To catch fish, you need to fish. The no-fishing rule is not fit for purpose, nor is it a rule that other organizations that actively search for ban evasion use. Machines can do the fishing. They only need to show us the fish they caught. ] (]) 05:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I think for the same reason we don't want governments to be reading our mail and emails. If we checkuser everybody, then nobody has any privacy. ] 20:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
I sympathize with Mztourist. The current system is less effective than it needs to be. Ban evading actors , they are dedicated hard-working folk in contentious topic areas. They can make up nearly 10% of new extendedconfirmed actors some years and the quicker an actor becomes EC the more likely they are to be blocked later for ban evasion. Their presence splits the community into two classes, the sanctionable and the unsanctionable with completely different payoff matrices. This has many consequences in contentious topic areas and significantly impacts the dynamics. The current rules are probably not good rules. Other systems have things like a 'commitment to authenticity' and actively search for ban evasion. It's tempting to burn it all down and start again, but with what? Having said that, the SPI folks do a great job. The average time from being granted extendedconfirmed to being blocked for ban evasion seems to be going down. ] (]) 18:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Reasons: | |||
#Botching diacritics can be seen as very disrespectful by native speakers; | |||
#Botching diacritics can be a strong indication that the editor has little or no knowledge/acknoledgement of their functions and/or linguistic/cultural significance; | |||
#With new generations of computers and tablets becoming more and more available, the "I don't know how to type it" excuse is becoming no longer valid. | |||
:I confess that I am doubtful about that 10% claim. ] (]) 23:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Based on the above reasons, I strongly propose that it's time for Misplaced Pages to completely abolish the "ignore the diacritics" rule (or convention or whatever). ] 19:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|WhatamIdoing}}, me too. I'm doubtful about everything I say because I've noticed that the chance it is slightly to hugely wrong is quite high. The EC numbers are work in progress, but I got distracted. The description "nearly 10% of new extendedconfirmed actors" is a bit misleading, because 'new' doesn't really mean new actors. It means actors that acquired EC for a given year, so newly acquired privileges. They might have registered in previous years. Also, I don't have 100% confidence in the way count EC grants because there are some edge cases, and I'm ignoring sysops. But anyway, the statement was based on . And the statement about a potential relationship between speed of EC acquisition and probability of being blocked is based on . And of course, currently undetected socks are not included, and there will be many. ] (]) 03:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:What rule is that? Where have you seen it being applied? --] (]) 19:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not interested in clicking through to a Google file. Here's my back-of-the-envelope calculation: We have something like 120K accounts that would qualify for EXTCONF. Most of these are no longer active, and many stopped editing so long ago that they don't actually have the user right. | |||
::Presumably the guideline at ]. Whic does not call to "ignore the Diacritics". --<span style="color:#800000">''' ]'''<sup>]</sup></span> 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Misplaced Pages is almost 24 years old. That makes convenient math: On average, since inception, 5K editors have achieved EXTCONF levels each year. | |||
::: It might as well. Though the use of diacritics is "neither encouraged nor discouraged", the fact remains that we're instructed to make that decision off the back of English sources, which have - by and large and for the most part - omitted diacritics, for a variety of reasons. ] (]) 20:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::If the 10% estimate is true, then 500 accounts per year – about 10 per week – are being created by banned editors and going undetected long enough for the accounts to make 500 edits and to work in CTOP areas. Do we even have enough ] editors to make it plausible to expect banned editors to bring 500 accounts a year up to EXTCONF levels (plus however many accounts get started but are detected before then)? ] (]) 03:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::"we're instructed to make that decision" Where? --<span style="color:#800000">''' ]'''<sup>]</sup></span> 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Suit yourself. I'm not interested in what interests other people or back of the envelope calculations. I'm interested in understanding the state of a system over time using evidence-based approaches by extracting data from the system itself. Let the data speak for itself. It has a lot to tell us. Then it is possible to test hypotheses and make evidence-based decisions. ] (]) 04:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: It's the first sentence of ]. See also ], which contradicts it. ] (]) 21:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::@], there's a sockmaster in the IPA CTOP who has made more than 100 socks. 500 new XC socks every year doesn't seem that much of a stretch in comparison. -- ] (]) 19:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: ] (which, by the way, only applies to article titles), says "{{tq|when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language.}}" That is pretty easily derived from ] (and, by extension, ]). If the common usage in English includes diacritics, that is what's used in the ''English'' Misplaced Pages. If the native language uses diacritics but English doesn't, then neither does the ''English'' Misplaced Pages. | |||
:::::More than 100 XC socks? Or more than 100 detected socks, including socks with zero edits? | |||
::::: However, the original poster seems to be referring to , in which ] said that "{{tq|Misplaced Pages convention is that diacritics aren't used on NHL-related pages}}". That is referring to ], which states "{{tq|All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).}}" That wording was put in by ] in 2003 — previously the guideline stated that they should use "{{tq|most common spelling in English as described by reputable reference books and media outlets. In most cases this means the omission of diacritics and other characters not commonly found in English.}}", which is in line with ] and ]. --] (]) 21:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Making a lot of accounts isn't super unusual, but it's a lot of work to get 100 accounts up to 500+ edits. Making 50,000 edits is a lot, even if it's your full-time job. ] (]) 01:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::: ] Thank you. This is the very first convention that I seek to repeal. As for references, I would argue that if we are willing to look at sources in other languages (which, according to my experiences, are equally valid in English Misplaced Pages), there're plenty of sources indicating the correct use of diacritics. For example, in this by the ], more than one NHL players, including ], ] and ], are mentioned and the diacritics in theirs names. Also, the Czech were nice enough to keep all diacritics in players' names, regardless of the languages they're in. All these are making ], which tries to justify botching diacritics, invalid. Also, if TSN and ESPN are seen as valid sources, the Czech Ice Hockey Association just can't be any less valid. ] 22:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::: |
::::::Lots of users get it done in a couple of days, often through vandal fighting tools. It really is not that many when the edits are mostly mindless. ''']''' - 00:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::::::But that's kind of my point: "A couple of days", times 100 accounts, means 200–300 days per year. If you work five days per week and 52 weeks per year, that's 260 work days. This might be possible, but it's a full-time job. | |||
::::::: I wouldn't say that non-english sources are "equally valid in English Misplaced Pages". ] says "{{tq|However, because this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.}}" --] (]) 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Since the 30-day limit is something that can't be achieved through effort, I wonder if a sudden change to, say, 6 months would produce a five-month reprieve. ] (]) 02:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: The key words here are {{tq|whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are '''available'''}}". In terms of diacritics, I would argue that there are <font color="darkred">'''little or no'''</font> English sources "of equal quality and relevance" available, due to my observation that many English sources, other than English Misplaced Pages, would already botch the diacritics before making their way into English Misplaced Pages and, therefore, cannot match the quality and relevance of certain non-English sources. Henceforth, my argument that certain non-English sources, like the news release I posted above, should be deemed equally valid in the case of diacritics. | |||
::::::::Who says it’s only one at a time? Icewhiz for example has had 4 plus accounts active at a time. ''']''' - 02:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: Also, since my main focus is on Cantonese Misplaced Pages, I don't edit English Misplaced Pages as much and that's why I wasn't aware of the existence of ]. But now that I know there's this convention, I'll start working on getting the "ignore the diacritics" part amended or abolished.] 00:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: |
::::::::: about ban evasion timelines for some sockmasters in PIA that show how accounts are operated in parallel. Operating multiple accounts concurrently seems to be the norm. ] (]) 04:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
::::::::::Imagine that it takes an average of one minute to make a (convincing) edit. That means that 500 edits = 8.33 hours, i.e., more than one full work day. | |||
:::::::::: I'm not "leading". I'm just cherry-picking the best sources to follow. In the case of diacritics, many non-English sources had proven themselves more trust-worthy than their English counterparts. — ] 17:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Imagine, too, that having reached this point, you actually need to spend some time using your newly EXTCONF account. This, too, takes time. | |||
::::::::::If you operate several accounts at once, that means: | |||
::::::::::You spend an hour editing from Account1. You spend the next hour editing from Account2. You spend another hour editing from Account3. You spend your fourth hour editing from Account4. Then you take a break for lunch, and come back to edit from Accounts 5 through 8. | |||
::::::::::At the end of the day, you have brought 8 accounts up to 60 edits (12% of the minimum goal). And maybe one of them got blocked, too, which is lost effort. At this rate, it would take you an entire year of full-time work to get 100 EXTCONF accounts, even though you are operating multiple accounts concurrently. Doing 50 edits per day in 10 accounts is not faster than doing 500 edits in 1 account. It's the same amount of work. ] (]) 05:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Sure it’s an effort, though it doesn’t take a minute an edit. But I’m not sure why I need to imagine something that has happened multiple times already. Icewhiz most recently had like 4-5 EC accounts active, and there are probably several more. Yes, there is an effort there. But also yes, it keeps happening. ''']''' - 15:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::My point is that "4-5 EC accounts" is not "100". ] (]) 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::It’s 4-5 at a time for a single sock master. Check the Icewhiz SPI for how many that adds up to over time. ''']''' - 20:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Many of our frequent fliers are already adept at warehousing accounts for months or even years, so a bump in the time period probably won't make much off a difference. Additionally, and without going into detail publicly, there are several methods whereby semi- or even fully-automated editing can be used to get to 500 edits with a minimum of effort, or at least well within script-kid territory. Because so many of those are obvious on inspection some will assume that all of them are, but there are a number of rather subtle cases that have come up over the years and it would be foolish to assume that it isn't ongoing. ] (]) 17:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Also, if we divide the space into contentious vs not-contentious, maybe a one size fits all CU policy doesn't make sense. ] (]) 18:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Terrible idea. Let's AGF that most new users are here to improve Misplaced Pages instead of damage it. ] (]) 18:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Ban evading actors who employ deception via sockpuppetry in the ] topic area are here to improve Misplaced Pages, from their perspective, rather than damage it. There is no need to use faith. There are statistics. There is a probability that a 'new user' is employing ban evasion. ] (]) 18:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::My initial comment wasn't a direct response to yours, but ] and IPs won't be able to edit in the WP:PIA topic area anyway since they need to be extended confirmed. ] (]) 20:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Let's not hold up the way PIA handles new users and IPs, in which they are allowed to post to talk pages but then have their talk page post removed if it doesn't fall within very specific parameters, as some sort of model. ] (]) 02:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Strongly support automatically checkusering all active users (new and existing) at regular intervals. If it were automated -- e.g., a script runs that compares IPs, user agent, other typical subscriber info -- there would be no privacy violation, because that information doesn't have to be disclosed to any human beings. Only the "hits" can be forwarded to the CU team for follow-up. I'd run that script daily. If the policy forbids it, we should change the policy to allow it. It's mind-boggling that Misplaced Pages doesn't do this already. It's a basic security precaution. (Also, email-required registration and get rid of IP editing.) ] (]) 02:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* As one of the parties of the compromise over on the hockey WikiProject, I've got two cents to throw in. The compromise was the truce in a long and contentious edit war involving many editors (myself included) and many articles. No one was really happy with it, and there've been a couple attempts over the years since to overturn it, but it's kept the edit warring down to a dull roar.<p>My strong preference was then, and remains, to recognize that this is the English Misplaced Pages; not the Czech, not the French, not the Swedish or Finnish or Viet or any other national Misplaced Pages that commonly uses diacritics. The English language does not, for the most part, use diacritical marks. I would be thrilled to see ] extended project-wide, the hockey articles included. That being said, it's obvious from the guideline itself that private compromises have been enacted -- this MOS section dealing with Ireland-related articles, for one -- and I don't see any horde of editors coming in to force a change to go over any better than it would have on what I see from archives was a long and bitter dispute on those articles. ] 01:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)</p> | |||
:*I have the same but opposite opinion as Ravenswing. I think they should be used everywhere because they are proper names and as such don't change between languages so if they have diacritics on one they have diacritics in the other. That being said, what Ravenswing says about it being a compromise is true. Diacritics have been an all out war at times on the wiki and the battle over them has left many people on both sides of the issue blocked and/or banned. As such the hockey project for hockey articles in the absence of a true wiki-wide consensus came to a consensus to damper down the edit warring that was constantly on going. It is a topic I generally recommend editors staying away from and usually counsel people to leave it like you found it in the same vein as ENGVAR. I would note the edit of mine being referenced above goes back farther than 2013, it was just added to that particular page at that point, however, it had been listed elsewhere for years before that. -] (]) 13:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::* I would be shocked to see ] extended project-wide since that would be a major sign of collective ignorance. I'm considering adding reference(s) whenever I'm writing diacritics. This is kind of a last-resort measure but now that I know there's such strong opposition towards diacritics, I've got little choice. — ] 17:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::*I think many people would view something like that as being disruptive to make a ]. ]] 20:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* I see no reason to change anything here. I'd say 99.3% of the time diacritics aren't appropriate on the English Misplaced Pages because they are not in the English alphabet. I'll counter ] claim that {{Tq|they are proper names and as such don't change between languages so if they have diacritics on one they have diacritics in the other}} with Hillary Clinton - Hilarė Klėntuon - Hillary Clintonová or maybe even Гілары Клінтан from the collapsed section in support #53 of ]. We're not using Hilarė Klėntuon because this is English, in the same light, diacritics don't belong on other names in English. Now, as for the claim that "{{Tq|the "I don't know how to type it" excuse is becoming no longer valid}}, I'm not buying that either, my English qwerty keyboard still doesn't support those characters without knowing the unicode values for each, and to expect anyone to have a huge chart on the wall or know which character means what is unreasonable. — <code class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></code> 04:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
**And that is a strawman, Hilarė Klėntuon or Hillary Clintonová are not her name. If they were, and if they were what she used for her name, then yes they would be completely appropriate. You don't need a huge chart on the wall to know what the characters mean, if you don't know what they mean you ignore them just like you are seeking to do in print. As for typing it, its great that the edit box actually has them included so you don't have to know the unicode values, you just click a link. They aren't in the English Alphabet but they ''are'' in the English Orthography. -] (]) 13:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
** Have you ever visited any Vietnamese article? You might be nonplussed. ] (]) 13:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
** With all due respect, saying that {{Tq|they}} (diacritics) {{Tq|are not in the English alphabet}} only shows that you have nearly zero knowledge of English history. Back in the old days, "one, two, three, four" used to be written as "{{Tq|ān, twā, þrēo, fēowor}}" — and, still, I don't think anyone can argue that "these are not English words". As for typing, I use a QWERTY keyboard, too, but typing alphabets like {{Tq|áàêęçţčạẇėīōåøœæłțůžĉĝñẽã#€ëýȳÿ}} are almost as easy as one-two-three (and I don't even need to bring up the special character panel below the edit box). Of course, this took me quite a bit of practise, <font color="green">'''ḃůţ ħéÿ, ṗřæċťïşẽ ṁąḱęś ṕèřƒēçť!'''</font> —] 16:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*** Using that argument suggests that ''you'' have a poor knowledge of English history. You do understand, don't you, that however much the English alphabet was different half a thousand years ago, we're editing here on the English Misplaced Pages, not the Middle English Misplaced Pages? Your argument is the moral equivalent of claiming that Americans are still subjects of the British Crown, just because they happened to be a few centuries ago. Yogh, thorn, eth, and wynn haven't been in the English language in several centuries, and neither are diacritical marks. ] 11:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
**** ] know what? I'm pretty sure that English had already adopted Latin alphabets by the time '']'' became codified. And yes, I'm totally aware that '''{{Red|ð}}''', '''{{Red|þ}}''', '''{{Red|ƿ}}''', etc., used to be alphabets of Old English, and I would totally advocate re-adopting at least '''{{Red|ð}}''' and '''{{Red|þ}}'''. And no, that does not equal me arguing that US citizens are still British subjects because the US had already declared their independence while you never specified which period of English we're talking about. OTOH, arguing that diacritical marks haven't been in the English language is simply ignorant. As far as I know, '']'', for example, is sticking to rather than '''{{Blue|cafe}}''', and I don't think you can argue that "café" is not an English word now, can you? ] 16:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Do I get this right, ], ], ] are wrongly named lemma because there is no ] in the poor english language? European top footballers like ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and so forth (I just looked up Čech and German) should be dumbed down as well? That would be a great loss. The article should be proper named, the dumbed-down diacritic-less version should be a redirect imho. Grüße vom ] <sup> (])</sup> 14:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
**Well, I would say the ] is less a problem of language, and more one of trademark. ]] 20:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I don't think you've been reading the comments from people who know what they are talking about. There would be hundreds, at least, of hits per day that would require human checking. The policy that prohibits this sort of massive breach of privacy is the Foundation's and so not one that en.wp could change even if it were a good idea (which it isn't). ] (]) 03:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*This debate is ultimately a rehash of one that has long plagued the project. And, as with Ravenswing and DJSasso above, I am one of the editors that helped draft the compromise that brought about a truce in ]'s diacritics war. (The short version of the compromise is that NHL and NA team/league articles hide them, while European articles and all player articles show them.) At the time, I was one of the people with the "English Alphabet" mentality, but have subsequently 'switched sides' and favour their use. But from either perspective, and recognizing the overall lack of consensus, I think our compromise does a good job of maintaining order at this point in time. Though it should be noted that times are changing, as diacritical marks are slowly making appearances on NA team hockey jerseys, publications, etc. But that is in its infancy, and I don't see a need to revisit this now. ]] 20:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::A computer can be programmed to check for similarities or patterns in subscriber info (IP, etc), and in editing activity (time cards, etc), and content of edits and talk page posts (like the existing language similarity tool), with various degrees of certainty in the same way the Cluebot does with ORES when it's reverting vandalism. And the threshold can be set so it only forwards matches of a certain certainty to human CUs for review, so as not to overwhelm the humans. The WMF can make this happen with just $1 million of its $180 million per year (and it wouldn't be violating its own policies if it did so). Enwiki could ask for it, other projects might join too. ] (]) 05:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
** I beg to differ, ]. As the means of inputting diacritics became more and more easily accessible, I would argue that now is the time for the pro-diacritic side to at least make a push to popularise diacritics (provided that they're used correctly, of course). And by "making a push", I mean that the pro-diacritic side should initiate conversations in order to make diacritics more and more widely accepted. Also, I think now is the time to amend the rules so when pro-diacritic users open up new articles with diacritics, anti-diacritic users won't be able to mess things around in these new articles and push them back into the Old Régime. ] 18:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::"Oh now I see what you mean, Levivich, good point, I guess you know what you're talking about, after all." | |||
***It is not Misplaced Pages's place to ]. Nor is it our place to popularize diacritics. I sympathize with your viewpoint, but it will be some time yet before the movement of technology reaches the point where a consensus will form in your favour on Misplaced Pages. ]] 18:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::"Thanks, Thryduulf!" ] (]) 17:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
**** In that case, I'll just keep telling others to "stop f*cking around on the pages that I opened", even though it wouldn't be likely for me to open up that many articles on English Misplaced Pages since Cantonese Wiki Projects remain my priority. — ] 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I seem to have missed this comment, sorry. However I am ''very'' sceptical that sockpuppet detection is meaningfully automatable. From what CUs say it is as much art as science (which is why SPI cases can result in determinations like "possilikely"). This is the sort of thing that is difficult (at best) to automate. Additionally the only way to reliably develop such automation would be for humans analyse and process a massive amount of data from accounts that both are and are not sockpuppets and classify results as one or the other, and that anaylsis would be a massive privacy violation on its own. Assuming you have developed this magic computer that can assign a likelihood of any editor being a sock of someone who has edited in the last three months (data older than that is deleted) on a percentage scale, you then have to decide what level is appropriate to send to humans to check. Say for the sake of argument it is 75%, that means roughly one in four people being accused are innocent and are having their privacy impinged unnecessarily - and how many CUs are needed to deal with this caseload? Do we have enough? SPI isn't exactly backlog free and there aren't hoards of people volunteering for the role (although unbreaking RFA ''might'' help with this in the medium to long term). The more you reduce the number sent to CUs to investigate, the less benefit there is over the status quo. | |||
*The issue boils down to ] and the US/UK news media's inability to deal with diacritics in a sensible fashion. Most 'foreigners' new topics are introduced via the news media so their known-as names are those used by the media. The media refuses to deal with diacritics. Therefore ] is typically the topics true name minus the diacritics. Personally I prefer to use ] for preferred ASCII renderings of non-ASCII names where possible. ] (]) 22:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::In addition to all the above, how similar is "similar" in terms of articles edited, writing style, timecard, etc? How are you avoiding legitimate sockpuppets? ] (]) 18:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*: With all due respect, ], I prefer ]. :P — ] <font color="darkred">'''SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS!'''</font> 17:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::You know this already but for anyone reading this who doesn't: when a CU "checks" somebody, it's not like they send a signal out to that person's computer to go sniffing around. In fact, all the subscriber info (IP address, etc.) is already logged on the WMF's server logs (as with any website). A CU "check" just means a volunteer CU gets to look at a portion of those logs (to look up a particular account's subscriber info). That's the privacy concern: we have rules, rightfully so, about when volunteer CUs (not WMF staff) can read the server logs (or portions of them). Those rules do not apply to WMF staff, like devs and maintenance personnel, nor do they apply to the WMF's own software reading its own logs. Privacy is only an issue when those logs are revealed to volunteer CUs. | |||
* It feels weird to have this discussion without ] involved. Also, why isn't this discussion about a general rule over at ]? ] (]) 05:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::So... feeding the logs into software in order to train the software doesn't violate anyone's policy. It's just letting a computer read its own files. Human verification of the training outcomes also doesn't have to violate anyone's privacy -- just don't use volunteer CUs to do it, use WMF staff. Or, anonymize the training data (changing usernames to "Example1", "Example2", etc.). Or use historical data -- which would certainly be part of the training, since the most effective way would be to put ''known'' socks into the training data to see if the computer catches them. | |||
:::::Anyway, training the system won't violate anyone's privacy. | |||
:::::As for the hit rate -- 75% would be way, way too low. We'd be looking for definitely over 90% or 95%, and probably more like 99.something percent. Cluebot doesn't get vandalism wrong 1 out of 4 times, neither should CluebotCU. Heck, if CluebotCU can't do better than 75%, it's not worth doing. A more interesting question is whether the 99.something% hit rate would be helpful to CUs, or whether that would only catch the socks that are so obvious you don't even need CU to recognize them. Only testing in the field would tell. | |||
:::::But overall, AI looking for patterns, and checking subscriber info, edit patterns, and the content of edits, would be very helpful in tamping down on socking, because the computer can make far more checks than a human (a computer can look at 1,000 accounts and a 100,000 edits no problem, which no human can do), it'll be less biased than humans, and it can do it all without violating anyone's privacy -- in fact, lowering the privacy violations by lowering the false positives, sending only high-probability (90%+, not 75%+) to humans for review. And it can all be done with existing technology, and the WMF has the money to do it. ] (]) 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::The more you write the clearer you make it that you don't understand checkuser or the WMF's policies regarding privacy. It's also clear that I'm not going to convince you that this is unworkable so I'll stop trying. ] (]) 20:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Yeah it's weird how repeatedly insulting me hasn't convinced me yet. ] (]) 20:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::If you are are unable to distinguish between reasoned disagreement and insults, then it's not at all weird that reasoned disagreement fails to convince you. ] (]) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{ping|Levivich}} Whatever existing data set we have has too many biases to be useful for this, and this is going to be prone to false positives. AI needs ''lots'' of data to be meaningfully trained. Also, AI here would be learning a '']''; when the output is not in fact a function of the input, there's nothing for an AI model to target, and this is very much the case here. On ], where I am a CheckUser, almost all edit summaries are automated even for human edits (just like clicking the rollback button is, or undoing an edit is by default), and it is ''very'' hard to meaningfully tell whether someone is a sock or not without highly case-specific analysis. No AI model is better than the data it's trained on. | |||
::::::Also, about the privacy policy: you are completely incorrect when you {{tq|"Those rules do not apply to WMF staff, like devs and maintenance personnel, nor do they apply to the WMF's own software reading its own logs"}}. Staff can only access that information on a ] basis, just like CheckUsers, and data privacy laws like the EU's and California's means you cannot just do whatever random thing you want with the information you collect from users about them.--] ] 21:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::So which part of the ] would prohibit the WMF from developing an AI that looks at server logs to find socks? Do you want me to quote to you the portions that explicitly disclose that the WMF uses personal information to develop tools and improve security? ] (]) 22:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I mean yeah that would probably be more productive than snarky bickering ]] 22:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{ping|Levivich}} Did you read the part where I mentioned privacy ''laws''? Also, in this industry ''no one'' is allowed unfettered usage of private data even internally; there are ''internal'' policies that govern this that are broadly similar to the privacy policy. It's one thing to ''test'' a proposed tool on an IP address like ], but it's another to train an AI model on it. Arguably an equally big privacy concern is the usage of ''new'' data from new users after the model is trained and brought online. The foundation is already hiding IP addresses by default even for anonymous users soon, and they will not undermine that mission through a tool like this. Ultimately, the ] has to assume legal responsibility and liability for such a thing; put yourself in their position and think of whether they'd like the liability of something like this.--] ] 22:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::So can you quote a part of the privacy policy, or a part of privacy laws, or anything, that would prohibit feeding server logs into a "Cluebot-CU" to find socking? | |||
:::::::::Because I can quote the part of the ] that allows it, and it's a lot: | |||
:::::::::{{tq2|We may use your public contributions, either aggregated with the public contributions of others or individually, '''to create new features or data-related products''' for you or to '''learn more about how the Wikimedia Sites are used''' ... <p>Because of how browsers work, we receive some information automatically when you visit the Wikimedia Sites ... This information includes the type of device you are using (possibly including unique device identification numbers, for some beta versions of our mobile applications), the type and version of your browser, your browser's language preference, the type and version of your device's operating system, in some cases the name of your internet service provider or mobile carrier, the website that referred you to the Wikimedia Sites, which pages you request and visit, and the date and time of each request you make to the Wikimedia Sites. <p>Put simply, we use this information to enhance your experience with Wikimedia Sites. For example, '''we use this information to administer the sites, provide greater security, and fight vandalism'''; optimize mobile applications, customize content and set language preferences, '''test features to see what works, and improve performance; understand how users interact with the Wikimedia Sites, track and study use of various features, gain understanding about the demographics of the different Wikimedia Sites, and analyze trends'''. ... <p>We actively collect some types of information with a variety of commonly-used technologies. These generally include tracking pixels, JavaScript, and a variety of "locally stored data" technologies, such as cookies and local storage. ... Depending on which technology we use, locally stored data may include text, Personal Information (like your IP address), and information about your use of the Wikimedia Sites (like your username or the time of your visit). ... '''We use this information to make your experience with the Wikimedia Sites safer and better, to gain a greater understanding of user preferences and their interaction with the Wikimedia Sites, and to generally improve our services.''' ... <p>We and our service providers use your information ... to create new features or data-related products for you or to learn more about how the Wikimedia Sites are used ... '''To fight spam, identity theft, malware and other kinds of abuse.''' ... '''To test features to see what works, understand how users interact with the Wikimedia Sites, track and study use of various features, gain understanding about the demographics of the different Wikimedia Sites and analyze trends.''' ... <p>When you visit any Wikimedia Site, we automatically receive the IP address of the device (or your proxy server) you are using to access the Internet, which could be used to infer your geographical location. ... '''We use this location information to make your experience with the Wikimedia Sites safer and better, to gain a greater understanding of user preferences and their interaction with the Wikimedia Sites, and to generally improve our services'''. For example, we use this information '''to provide greater security''', optimize mobile applications, and '''learn how to expand and better support Wikimedia communities'''. ... <p>'''We, or particular users with certain administrative rights as described below, need to use and share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use''', this Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies. ... '''We may also disclose your Personal Information if we reasonably believe it necessary to detect, prevent, or otherwise assess and address potential spam, malware, fraud, abuse, unlawful activity, and security or technical concerns'''. ... '''To facilitate their work, we give some developers limited access to systems that contain your Personal Information, but only as reasonably necessary for them to develop and contribute to the Wikimedia Sites.''' ...}} Yeah that's a lot. Then there's that says {{tq2|It is important for us to be able to make sure everyone plays by the same rules, and sometimes that means we need to investigate and share specific users' information to ensure that they are. <p>For example, user information may be shared when a CheckUser is investigating abuse on a Project, such as suspected use of malicious '''"sockpuppets"''' (duplicate accounts), vandalism, harassment of other users, or disruptive behavior. If a user is found to be violating our Terms of Use or other relevant policy, the user's Personal Information may be released to a service provider, carrier, or other third-party entity, for example, to assist in the targeting of IP blocks or to launch a complaint to the relevant Internet Service Provider.}} | |||
:::::::::So using IP addresses, etc., to develop new tools, to test features, to fight violations of the Terms of Use, and disclosing that info to Checkusers... all explicitly permitted by the Privacy Policy. ] (]) 22:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::{{ping|Levivich}} {{Tq|"We, or particular users with certain administrative rights as described below, need to use and share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use"}} – "reasonably believed to be necessary" is not going to hold up in court when it's sweepingly applied to everyone. This doesn't even take into consideration the laws I mentioned, like ]. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm guessing neither are you. If you want to be the one assuming the legal liability for this, contact the board today and sign the contract. Even then they would probably not agree to such an arrangement. So you're ]: only the foundation could even consider assuming this risk. Also, it's clear that you do not have a single idea of how developing something like this works if you think it can be done for $1 million. Something this complex has to be done ''right'' and tech salaries and computing resources are expensive.--] ] 22:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::What I am suggesting does not involve sharing everyone's data with Checkusers. It's pretty obvious that looking at their own server logs is "necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use". Five people is how big the WMF's ] team is, @ $200k each, $1m/year covers it. Five people is enough for that team to improve ORES, so another five-person team dedicated to "ORES-CU" seems a reasonable place to start. They could double that, and still have like $180M left over. ] (]) 22:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::{{ping|Levivich}} Yeah no, lol. $200k each is not a very competitive total compensation, considering that that needs to include benefits, health insurance, etc. This doesn't include their manager or the hefty hardware required to run ML workflows. It doesn't include the legal support required given the data privacy law compliance needed. Capriciously looking at the logs does not count; accessing data of users the foundation cannot reasonably have said to be likely to cause abuse is not permissible. This all aside from the bias and other data quality issues at hand here. You can delude yourself all you want, but ]. I'm finished arguing with you anyways, because this proposal is either way dead on arrival.--] ] 23:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::@], haggling over the math here isn't really important. You could quintuple the figures @] gave and the Foundation would still have millions upon millions of dollars left over. -- ] (]) 23:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::{{ping|asilvering}} The point I'm making is Levivich does not understand the complexity behind this kind of thing and thus his arguments are not to be given weight by the closer. ] ] 23:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::As a statistician/data scientist, @] is correct about the technical side of this—building an ML algorithm to detect sockpuppets would be pretty easy. Duplicate user algorithms like these are common across many websites. For a basic classification task like this (basically an ML 101 homework problem), I think $1 million is about right. As a bonus, the same tools could be used to identify and correct for possible canvasing or brigading, which behaves a lot like sockpuppetry from a statistical perspective. A similar algorithm is already used by Twitter's ] feature. | |||
:::::::::::::IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal side of this, and I can't comment on whether that money would be better-spent elsewhere since I don't know what the WMF budget looks like. Overall though, the technical implementation wouldn't be a major hurdle. ] (]) 20:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Third-party services provide this kind of algorithm-based account fraud protection as an alternative to building and maintaining internally. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; color:inherit; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 23:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Building such a model is only a small part of a real production system. If this system is to operate on all account creations, it needs to be at least as reliable as the existing systems that handle account creations. As you probably know, data scientists developing such a model need to be supported by software engineers and site reliability engineers supporting the actual system. Then you have the problem of ''new'' sockers who are not on the list of sockmasters to check against. Non-English-language speakers often would be put at a disadvantage too. It's not as trivial as you make it out to be, thus I stand by my estimate.--] ] 06:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::None of you have accounted for ]. | |||
:::::::::::::::I don't think we need to spend more time speculating about a system that WMF Legal is extremely unlikely to accept. Even if they did, it wouldn't exist until several years from now. Instead, let's try to think of things that we can do ourselves, or with only a very little assistance. Small, lightweight projects with full community control can help us now, and if we prove that ____ works, the WMF might be willing to adopt and expand it later. ] (]) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::That's a mistake -- doing the same thing Misplaced Pages has been doing for 20+ years. The mistake is in leaving it to volunteers to catch sockpuppetry, rather than insisting that the WMF devote significant resources to it. And it's a mistake because the one thing we volunteers ''can't'' do, that the WMF ''can'' do, is comb through the server logs looking for patterns. ] (]) 23:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::Not sure about the "building an ML algorithm to detect sockpuppets would be pretty easy" part, but I admire the optimism. It is certainly the case that it is possible, and people have done it with a surprising level of success a very long time ago in ML terms e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.002. These projects tend to rely on the category graph to distinguish sock and non-sock sets for training, the categorization of accounts as confirmed or suspected socks. However, the category graph is woefully incomplete i.e. there is information in the logs that is not reflected in the graph, so ensuring that all ban evasion accounts are properly categorized as such might help a bit. ] (]) 03:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::Thankfully, we wouldn't have to build an ML algorithm, we can just use one of the existing ones. Some are even open source. Or WMF could use a third party service like the aforementioned sift.com. ] (]) 16:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::Let me guess: Essentially, you would like their machine-learning team to use Sift's {{tq|AI-Powered Fraud Protection}}, which from what I can glance, handles {{tq|safeguarding subscriptions to defending digital content and in-app purchases}} and {{tq|helps businesses reduce friction and stop sophisticated fraud attacks that gut growth}}, to provide the ability for us to {{tq|automatically checkuser all active users}}? <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::The WMF already has the ability to "automatically checkuser all users" (the verb "checkuser" just means "look at the server logs"), I'm suggesting they use it. And that they use it in a sophisticated way, employing (existing, open source or commercially available) AI/ML technologies, like the same kind we already use to automatically revert vandalism. Contrary to claims here, doing so would not be illegal or even expensive (comparatively, for the WMF). ] (]) 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::So, in my attempt to get things set right and steer towards a consensus that is satisfactory, I sincerely follow-up: ] that in this vast, uncharted sea? And could this mean any more in the next 5 years? <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::::What lies beyond is ]. ] (]) 17:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::::So, @], I think the answer to your question is "tell the WMF we really, really, really would like more attention to sockpuppetry and IP abuse from the ML team". -- ] (]) 17:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::::::Which I don't suppose someone can at the next board meeting on December 11? <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 18:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::I may also point to ], where they mention {{tq|development in other areas, such as social media features and '''machine learning expertise'''}}. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 16:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::e.g. ] ] (]) 17:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::And that mentions , still in beta it seems. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::'''3 days!''' When I first posted my comment and some editors responded that I didn't know what I was talking about, it can't be done, it'd violate the privacy policy and privacy laws, WMF Legal would never allow it... I was wondering how long it would take before somebody pointed out that this thing that can't be done has already been done and has been under development for ]. | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::''Of course'' it's already under development, it's pretty obvious that the same Misplaced Pages that developed ], one of the world's earlier and more successful examples of ML applications, would try to employ ML to fight multiple-account abuse. I mean, I'm obviously not gonna be the first person to think of this "innovation"! | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::Anyway, it took 3 days. Thanks, Sean! ] (]) 17:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::{{outdent|4}} Unlike what is being proposed, SimilarEditors only works based on publicly available data (e.g. similarities in editing patterns), and not IP data. To quote the page Sean linked, {{tq|in the model's current form, we are only considering public data, but most saliently private data such as IP addresses or user-agent information are features currently used by checkusers that could be later (carefully) incorporated into the models}}.{{pb}}So, not only the current model doesn't look at IP data, the research project also acknowledges that actually using such data should only be done in a "careful" way, because of those very same privacy policy issues quoted above.{{pb}}On the ML side, however, this does proves that it's being worked on, and I'm honestly not surprised at all that the WMF is working on machine learning-based tools to detect sockpuppets. ] (] · ]) 17:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::Right. We should ask WMF to do the {{tqq|later (carefully) incorporated into the models}} part (especially since it's now later). BTW, the already pulls IP and other metadata. SimilarExtensions (a tool that uses the API) doesn't release that information to CheckUsers, by design. And that's a good thing, we can't just release all IPs to CheckUsers, it does indeed have to be done carefully. But user metadata ''can'' be used. What I'm suggesting is that the WMF ''should'' proceed to develop these types of tools (including the careful use of user metadata). ] (]) 17:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::{{outdent|1}} Not really clear that they're pulling IP data from logged-in users. The relevant sections reads:{{pb}}{{tqb|<code>USER_METADATA</code> (203MB): for every user in <code>COEDIT_DATA</code>, this contains basic metadata about them (total number of edits in data, total number of pages edited, user or IP, timestamp range of edits).}}{{pb}}This reads like they're collecting the username ''or'' IP depending on whether they're a logged-in user or an IP user. ] (] · ]) 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::In a few years people might look back on these days when we only had to deal with simple devious primates employing deception as the halcyon days. ] (]) 18:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::I assumed 1 million USD/year ''was'' accounting for Hofstadter's law several times over. Otherwise it feels wildly pessimistic. ] (]) 15:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{hat|IP range ] blocked by a CU}} | |||
:::Why do you guys hate the WMF so much? If it weren’t for them, you wouldn’t have this website at all. ] (]) 23:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::We don’t. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 01:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Then why do you guys always whine and complain about how incompetent they are and how much money they make and are actively against their donation drives? ] (]) 01:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::We don't. ] (]) 02:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Don’t “we don’t” me again. ] (]) 03:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::This may be surprising, but it turns out there's more than one person on Misplaced Pages, and many of us have different opinions on things. You're probably thinking of @]'s essay. | |||
::::::I disagree with his argument that the WMF is incompetent, but at the same time, ]. Just because the WMF spent their first $20 million ''extremely'' well (on creating Misplaced Pages) doesn't mean giving them $200 million would make them 10× as good. Nobody here thinks the WMF budget should be cut to $0; there's just some of us who think it needs a haircut. | |||
::::::For me it comes down to, "if you don't donate to the WMF, ]"? I'd rather you give that money to ]—feeding African children is more important than reskinning Misplaced Pages—but if you won't, I'd doubt giving it to the WMF is worse than whatever else you were going to spend it on. Whether we should cut back on ads depends on whether this money is coming out of donors' charity budgets or their regular budgets. ] (]) 03:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I already struggle enough with prioritizing charities and whether which ones are ethical or not and how I should be spending every single penny I get on charities dealing with PIA and trans issues because those are the most oppressed groups in the world right now. The WMF is not helping people who are actively getting killed and having their rights taken away therefore they are not important. ] (]) 03:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::In that case, I'd suggest checking out ], which has some very good recommendations. That said, this subthread feels wildly off-topic. ] (]) 03:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::So goes this whole discussion; but to give a slightly longer answer to the IP: We’re not telling them to ], we’re trying (despite everything) to establish relations, consensus and mutual trust. And hopefully long-term progress on key areas of contention. We ''don’t'' hate them, or else they’ll dismiss us completely. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 03:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
:Any such system would be subject to numerous biases or be easily defeatable. Such an automated anti-abuse system would have to be exclusively a foundation initiative as only they have the resources for such a monumental undertaking. It would need its own team of developers.--] ] 18:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Absolutely no chance that this would pass. ], even though there isn't a flood of opposes. There are two problems: | |||
#The existing CheckUser team barely has the bandwidth for the existing SPI load. Doing this on every single new user would be impractical and would enable ]'s by diverting valuable CheckUser bandwidth. | |||
#Even if we had enough CheckUser's, this would be a severe privacy violation absolutely prohibited under the Foundation privacy policy. | |||
The ''vast majority'' of vandals and other disruptive users don't need CU involvement to deal with. There's very little to be gained from this.--] ] 18:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It is perhaps an interesting conversation to have but I have to agree that it is unworkable, and directly contrary to foundation-level policy which we cannot make a local exemption to. En.wp, I believe, already has the largest CU team of any WMF project, but we would need ''hundreds'' more people on that team to handle something like this. In the last round of appointments, the committee approved exactly '''one''' checkuser, and that one was a returning former mamber of the team. And there is the very real risk that if we appointed a whole bunch of new CUs, some of them would abuse the tool. ] ] 18:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::And its worth pointing out that the Committee approving too few volunteers for Checkuser (regardless of whether you think they are or aren't) is not a significant part of this issue. There simply are not tens of people who are putting themselves forward for consideration as CUs. Since 2016 54 applications (an average of per year) have been put forward for consideration by Functionaries (the highest was 9, the lowest was 2). Note this is total applications not applicants (more than one person has applied multiple times), and is not limited to candidates who had a realistic chance of being appointed. ] (]) 20:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The dearth of candidates has for sure been an ongoing thing, it's worth reminding admins that they don't have to wait for the committee to call for candidates, you can put your name forward at any time by emailing the committee. ] ] 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Generally, I tend to get the impression from those who have checkuser rights that CU should be done as a last resort, and other, less invasive methods are preferred, and it would seem that indiscriminate use of it would be a bad idea, so I would have some major misgivings about this proposal. And given the ANI case, the less user information that we retain, the better (which is also probably why temporary accounts are a necessary and prudent idea despite other potential drawbacks). ] (]) 03:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Oppose. A lot has already been written on the unsustainable workload for the CU team this would create and the amount of collateral damage; I'll add in the fact that our most notorious sockmasters in areas like PIA already use highly sophisticated methods to evade CU detection, and based on what I've seen at the relevant SPIs most of the blocks in these cases are made with more weight given to the behaviour, and even then only after lengthy deliberations on the matter. These sort of sockmasters seem to have been in the OP's mind when the request was made, and I do not see automated CU being of any more use than current techniques against such dedicated sockmasters. And, has been mentioned before, most cases of sockpuppetry (such as run-of-the-mill vandals and trolls using throwaway accounts for abuse) don't need CU anyways. '']]'' 08:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::These are, unfortunately, fair points about the limits of CU and the many experienced and dedicated ban evading actors in PIA. CU information retention policy is also a complicating factor. ] (]) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::As I said in my original post, recidivist socks often get better at covering their "tells" each time making behavioural detection increasingly difficult and meaning the entire burden falls on the honest user to convince an Admin to take an SPI case seriously with scarce evidence. After many years I'm tired of defending various pages from sock POV edits and if WMF won't make life easier then increasingly I just won't bother, I'm sure plenty of other users feel the same way. ] (]) 05:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== SimilarEditors === | |||
Thanks for the heads up ]. The title of this section says {{green|It's time to abolish the "Ignore the Diacritics" rule everywhere}}. There is not such rule what rules there are say follow usage in reliable English language sources. | |||
The development of ] -- the type of tool that could be used to do what Mztourist suggests -- has been "stalled" since 2023 and downgraded to low-priority in 2024, according to its documentation page and related phab tasks (see e.g. ], ], ]). Anybody know why? ] (]) 17:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Honestly, the main function of that sort of thing seems to be compiling data that is already available on XTools and various editor interaction analyzers, and then presenting it nicely and neatly. I think that such a page could be useful as a sanity check, and it might even be worth having that sort of thing as a standalone toolforge app, but I don't really see why the WMF would make that particular extension a high priority. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
The arguments based on ]—for which I think the link ] (Use commonly recognizable names) is preferable—which is an important part of the ] is limited in scope to article <u>titles</u>. As is the guidance given in the policy section called "Foreign names and anglicization" (link ]) and the explanatory guidelines called ] as section of which called "Modified letters" (link ]) | |||
::Well, it doesn't have to be ''that particular extension'', but it seems to me that the entire "idea" has been stalled, unless they're working on another tool that I'm unaware of (very possible). (Or, it could be because of recent changes in domestic and int'l privacy laws that derailed their previous development advances, or it could be because of advancements in ML elsewhere making in-house development no longer practical.) <p>As to why the WMF would make this sort of problem a high priority, I'd say because the spread of misinformation on Misplaced Pages by sockpuppets is a big problem. Even without getting into the use of user metadata, just look at recent SPIs I filed, like ] and ]. That involved no private data at all, but a computer could have done automatically, in seconds, what took me hours to do manually, and those socks could have been uncovered ''before'' they made thousands and thousands of edits spreading misinformation. If the computer looked at private data as well as public data, it would be even more effective (and would save CUs time as well). Seems to me to be a worthy expenditure of 0.5% or 1% of the WMF's annual budget. ] (]) 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This looks really interesting. I don't really know how extensions are rolled out to individual wikis - can anyone with knowledge about that summarise if having this tool turned on (for check users/relevant admins) for en.wp is feasible? Do we need a RFC, or is this a "maybe wait several years for a phab ticket" situation? ]] 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I find it amusing that ~4 separate users above are arguing that automatic identification of sockpuppets is impossible, impractical, and the WMF would never do it—and meanwhile, the WMF is already doing it. ] (]) 19:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::So, discussion is over? <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I think what's happening is that people are having two simultaneous discussions – automatic identification of sockpuppets is already being done, but what people say "the WMF would never do" is using private data (e.g. IP addresses) to identify them. Which adds another level of (ethical, if not legal) complications compared to what SimilarEditors is doing (only processing data everyone can access, but in an automated way). ] (] · ]) 07:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::"automatic identification of sockpuppets is already being done" is probably an overstatement, but I agree that there may be a potential legal and ethical minefield between the Similarusers service that uses public information available to anyone from the databases after redaction of private information (i.e. course-grained sampling of revision timestamps combined with an attempt to quantify page intersection data), and a service that has access to the private information associated with a registered account name. ] (]) 11:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The WMF said they're planning on incorporating IP addresses and device info as well! ] (]) 21:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, automatic identification of (these) sockpuppets is impossible. There are many reasons for this, but the simplest one is this: These types of tools require hundreds of edits – at minimum – to return any viable data, and the sort of sockmasters who get accounts up to that volume of edits know how to evade detection by tools that analyse public information. The markers would likely indicate people from similar countries – naturally, two Cypriots would be interested in ] and over time similar hour and day overlaps will emerge, but what's to let you know whether these are actual socks when they're evading technical analysis? You're back to square one. There are other tools such as ] which I consider equally circumstantial; an analysis of myself returns a high likelihood of me being other administrators and arbitrators, while analysing an alleged sock currently at SPI returns the filer as the third most likely sockmaster. This is not commentary on the tools themselves, but rather simply the way things are. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh, fun! Too bad it's CU-restricted, I'm quite curious to know what user I'm most stylometrically similar to. -- ] (]) 17:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::That would be {{noping|LittlePuppers}} and {{noping|LEvalyn}}. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 03:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Fascinating! One I've worked with, one I haven't, both AfC reviewers. Not bad. -- ] (]) 06:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Idk, the half dozen ARBPIA socks I recently reported at SPI were obvious af to me, as are several others I haven't reported yet. That may be because that particular sockfarm is easy to spot by its POV pushing and a few other habits; though I bet in other topic areas it's the same. ] helps because it forces the socks to make 500 edits minimum before they can start POV pushing, but still we have to let them edit for a while post-XC just to generate enough diffs to support an SPI filing. Software that combines tools like Masz and SimilarEditor, and does other kinds of similar analysis, could significantly reduce the amount of editor time required to identify and report them. ] (]) 18:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I think it is possible, studies have demonstrated that it is possible, but it is true that having a sufficient number of samples is critical. Samples can be aggregated in some cases. There are several other important factors too. I have tried some techniques, and sometimes they work, or let's say they can sometimes produce results consistent with SPI results, better than random, but with plenty of false positives. It is also true that there are a number of detection countermeasures (that I won't describe) that are already employed by some bad actors that make detection harder. But I think the objective should be modest, to just move a bit in the right direction by detecting more ban evading accounts than are currently detected, or at least to find ways to reduce the size of the search space by providing ban evasion candidates. Taking the human out of the detection loop might take a while. ] (]) 18:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::If you mean it's never going to be possible to catch ''some'' sockpuppets—the best-hidden, cleverest, etc. ones—you're completely correct. But I'm guessing we could cut the amount of time SPI has to spend dramatically with just some basic checks. ] (]) 02:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I disagree. Empirically, the vast majority of time spent at SPI is not on finding possible socks, nor is it using the CheckUser tool on them, but rather it's the CU completed cases (of which there are currently 14 and I should probably stop slacking and get onto some) with non-definitive technical results waiting on an administrator to make the final determination on whether they're socks or not. Extension:SimilarUsers would concentrate various information that already exists (], RoySmith's ) in one place, but I wouldn't say the accessibility of these tools is a cause of SPI backlog. An AI analysis tool to give an accurate magic number for likelihood? I'm anything but a Luddite, but still believe that's wishful thinking. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 03:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Something seems better than nothing in this context doesn't it? EIA and the Similarusers service don't provide an estimate of the significance of page intersections. An intersection on a page with few revisions or few unique actors or few pageviews etc. is very different from a page intersection on the Donald Trump page. That kind of information is probably something that could sometimes help, even just to evaluate the importance of intersection evidence presented at SPIs. It seems to me that any kind of assistance could help. And another thing about the number of edits is that too many samples can also present challenges related to noise, with signals getting smeared out, although the type of noise in a user's data can itself be a characteristic signal in some cases it seems. And if there are too few samples, you can generate synthetic samples based on the actual samples and inject them into spaces. Search strategy matters a lot. The space of everyone vs everyone is vast, so good luck finding potential matches in that space without a lot of compute, especially for diffs. But many socks inhabit relatively small subspaces of Misplaced Pages, at least in the they edit(war)/POV-push etc. in their topic of interest. So, choosing the candidate search space and search strategy wisely can make the problem much more tractable for a given topic area/subspace. Targeted fishing by picking a potential sock and looking for potential matches (the strategy used by the Similarusers service and CU I guess) is obviously a very different challenge than large-scale industrial fishing for socks in general. ] (]) 04:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::And to continue the whining about existing tools, EIA and the Similarusers service use a suboptimal strategy in my view. If the objective is page intersection information for a potential sock against a sockmaster, and a ban evasion source has employed n identified actors so far e.g. almost 50 accounts for Icewhiz, the source's revision data should be aggregated for the intersection. This is not difficult to do using the category graph and the logs. ] (]) 04:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::There is so much more that could be done with the software. EIA gives you page overlaps (and isn't 100% accurate at it), but it doesn't tell you: | |||
::::::*how many times the accounts made the same edits (tag team edit warring) | |||
::::::*how many times they voted in the same formal discussions (RfC, AfD, RM, etc) and whether they voted the same way or different (vote stacking) | |||
::::::*how many times they use the same language and whether they use unique phraseology | |||
::::::*whether they edit at the same times of day | |||
::::::*whether they edit on the same days | |||
::::::*whether account creation dates (or start-of-regular-editing dates) line up with when other socks were blocked | |||
::::::*whether they changed focus after reaching XC and to what extent (useful in any ARBECR area) | |||
::::::*whether they "gamed" or "rushed" to XC (same) | |||
::::::All of this (and more) would be useful to see in a combined way, like a dashboard. It might make sense to restrict access to such compilations of data to CUs, and the software could also throw in metadata or subscriber info in there, too (or not), and it doesn't have to reduce it all into a single score like ORES, but just having this info compiled in one place would save editors the time of having to compile it manually. If the software auto-swept logs for this info and alerted humans to any "high scores" (however defined, eg "matches across multiple criteria"), it would probably not only reduce editor time but also increase sock discovery. ] (]) 04:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::This is like one of my favorite strategies for meetings. Propose multiple things, many of which are technically challenging, then just walk out of the meeting. | |||
:::::::The 'how many times the accounts made the same edits' is probably do-able because you can connect reverted revisions to the revisions that reverted them using json data in the database populated as part of the tagging system, look at the target state reverted to and whether the revision was an exact revert. ...or maybe not without computing diffs, having just looked at an article with a history of edit warring. ] (]) 07:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I agree with Levivich that automated, privacy-protecting sock-detection is not a pipe dream. I proposed a system something like this in ], see also ], and more recently ]. However, it definitely requires a bit of software development and testing. It also requires the community and the foundation devs or product folks to prioritize the idea. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment'''. For some time I have vehemnently suspected that this site is crawling with massive numbers of sockpuppets, that the community seems to be unable or unwilling to recognise probable sockpuppets for what they are, and it is not feasible to send them to SPI one at a time. I see a large number of accounts that are sleepers, or that have low edit counts, trying to do things that are controversial or otherwise suspicious. I see them showing up at discussions in large numbers and in quick succession, and offering !votes consist of interpretations of our policies and guidelines that may not reflect consensus, or other statements that may not be factually accurate. | |||
:I think the solution is simple: when closing community discussions, admins should look at the edit count of each !voter when determining how much weight to give his !vote. The lower the edit count, the greater the level of sleeper behaviour, and the more controversial the subject of the discussion is amongst the community, the less weight should be given to !vote. | |||
:For example, if an account with less than one thousand edits !votes in a discussion about 16th century Tibetan manuscripts, we may well be able to trust that !vote, because the community does not care about such manuscripts. But if the same account !votes on anything connected with "databases" or "lugstubs", we should probably give that !vote very little weight, because that was the subject of a massive dispute amongst the community, and any discussion on that subject is not particulary unlikely to be crawling with socks on both sides. The feeling is that, if you want to be taken seriously in such a controversial discussion, you need to make enough edits to prove that you are a real person, and not a sock. ] (]) 15:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The site presumably has a large number of unidentified sockpuppets. As for the identified ban evading accounts, accounts categorized or logged as socks, if you look at 2 million randomly selected articles for the 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06 year, just under 2% of the revisions are by ban evading actors blocked for sockpuppetry (211,546 revisions out of 10,732,361). A problem with making weight dependent on edit count is that the edit count number does not tell you anything about the probability that an account is a sock. Some people use hundreds of disposable accounts, making just a few edits with each account. Others stick around and make thousands of edits before they are detected. Also, Misplaced Pages provides plenty of tools that people can use to rapidly increase their edit count. ] (]) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*I strongly oppose any idea of mass-CUing any group of users, and I'm pretty sure the WMF does too. This isn't the right way to fight sockpuppets. ] (]) 14:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
The sections of the MOS that covers usage <u>within</u> articles (other than the subject of an article) is ] and also {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Proper names|Diacritics}}. | |||
::Can I ask why? Is it a privacy-based concern? IPs are automatically collected and stored for 90 days, and maybe for years in the backups, regardless of CUs. That's a 90 day window that a machine could use to do something with them without anyone running a CU and without anyone having to see what the machine sees. ] (]) 15:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Primarily privacy concerns, as well as concerns about false positives. A lot of people here probably share an IP with other editors without even knowing it. I also would like to maintain my personal privacy, and I know many other editors would too. There are other methods of fighting sockpuppets that don't have as much collateral damage, and we should pursue those instead. ] (]) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Also, it wouldn't even work on some sockpuppets, because IP info is only retained for 90 days, so a blocked editor could just wait out the 90 days and then return with a new account. ] (]) 15:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@]—one situation where I think we could pull a ''lot'' of data, and probably detect tons of sockpuppets, is !votes like RfAs and RfCs. Those have a ''lot'' of data, in addition to a very strong incentive for socking—you'd expect to see a bimodal distribution where most accounts have moderately-correlated views, but a handful have extremely strong-correlations (always !voting the same way), more than could plausibly happen by chance or by overlapping views. For accounts in the latter group, we'd have strong grounds to suspect collusion/canvassing or socking. | |||
:RfAs are already in a very nice machine-readable format. RfCs aren't, but most could easily be made machine-readable (by adopting a few standardized templates). We could also build a tool for semi-automated recoding of old RfCs to get more data. ] (]) 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Would that data help with the general problem? If there are a lot of socks on an RfA, I'd expect that to be picked up by editors. Those are very well-attended. The same may apply to many RfCs. Perhaps the less well-attended ones might be affected, but the main challenge is article edits, which will not be similarly structured. ] (]) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{tqb|Would that data help with the general problem? If there are a lot of socks on an RfA, I'd expect that to be picked up by editors.}} | |||
:::Given we've had situations of , I'm not too sure of this myself. If someone ''did'' create a bunch of socks, as some people have alleged in this thread, it'd be weird of them not to use those socks to influence policy decisions. I'm pretty skeptical, but I do think investigating would be a good idea (if nothing else because of how important it is—even the ''possibility'' of substantial RfA/RfC manipulation is quite bad, because it undermines the whole idea of consensus). ] (]) 21:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::RFAs, RfCs, RMs, AfDs, and arbcom elections. ] (]) 23:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===What do we do with this information?=== | |||
The fundamental problem here is exactly the same as spelling in general. If one reads a paragraph that contains an unusual spelling such as color/colour and it is not in ones own dialect it tends to look odd, and editors will wish to change it. This was the driving force behind the creation of the rule about ]—and it is something that some third party style guides also describe (see ). The use of accent marks on names tends to spark the same annoyance as "incorrect" spellings. This tends to split the community by native monoglot English speakers/reader and those familiar with the presentation of the word in another language. For example I would imagine that most French people reading English Misplaced Pages see nothing odd in the use of ] but if the name used is "]" then it will bother them because they will be used to seeing it as "] and like the color/colour spelling may wish to "correct" it. | |||
I think we've put the cart before the horse here a bit. While we've established it's possible to detect most sockpuppets automatically—and the WMF is already working on it—it's not clear what this would actually achieve, because having multiple accounts isn't against the rules. I think we'd need to establish a set of easy-to-enforce boundaries for people using multiple accounts. My proposal is to keep it simple—two accounts controlled by the same person can't edit the same page (or participate in the same discussion) without disclosing they're the same editor.] (]) 04:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This is already covered by ] I think. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
On the alphabet. When one is at school in the English speaking world the alphabet is the 26 letter of the alphabet song, it does not include "&" or any other character. Accent marks are not introduced to children until they learn a "Foreign" language (this includes words such as cafe/café which if the child notices will be explained ways as a foreign word not yet fully Anglicised), so consequently accent marks are seen by most English speakers as a foreign things (blame it on teachers). Now I know that some English speakers are passionate about using the "correct" accent marks on words but they (both the users and the letters) are often seen as eccentric or pretentious by monglot English speakers, (an example of this comes across on pronunciation as well for words like ] those who pronounce it the German way are assumed either to own one or want to own one). | |||
::And as there are multiple legitimate ways to disclose, not all of which are machine readable, any automatically generated list is going to need human review. ] (]) 10:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, that's definitely the case, an automatic sock detection should probably never be an autoblock, or at least not unless there is a good reason in that specific circumstance, like a well-trained filter for a specific LTA. Having the output of automatic sock detection should still be restricted to CU/OS or another limited user group who can be trusted to treat possible user-privacy-related issues with discretion, and have gone through the appropriate legal rigmarole. There could also be some false positives or unusual situations when piloting a program like this. For example, I've seen dynamic IPs get assigned to someone else after a while, which is unlikely but not impossible depending on how an ISP implements DHCP, though I guess collisions become less common with IPV6. Or if the fingerprinting is implemented with a lot of datapoints to reduce the likelihood of false positives. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 10:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I think we are probably years away from being able to rely on autonomous agents to detect and block socks without a human in the loop. For now, people need as much help as they can get to identify ban evasion candidates. ] (]) 10:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::{{tqb|or at least not unless there is a good reason in that specific circumstance,}} | |||
::::Yep, basically I'm saying we need to define "good reason". The obvious situation is automatically blocking socks of blocked accounts. I also think we should just automatically prevent detected socks from editing the same page (ideally make it impossible, to keep it from being done accidentally). ] (]) 17:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Requiring registration for editing == | |||
Faced with the instability this problem of "it does not look right", the Misplaced Pages community has several options. | |||
:''{{small|{{a note}} This section was split off from ] and the "parenthetical comment" referred to below is: {{tqq|(Also, email-required registration and get rid of IP editing.)}}—03:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)}}'' | |||
*No guidance at all and a local consensus for each article. This was ruled out for the same reason that ] exists. Article content becomes unstable as people care passionately about this issue and some will edit war over it, so the community needed to issues guidance that reflects a wider community view. | |||
@], about your parenthetical comment on requiring registration: | |||
*Guidance that accent marks will never be used. | |||
{{pb}}Part of the eternally unsolvable problem is that new editors are frankly bad at it. I can give examples from my own editing: Create an article citing a personal blog post as the main source? Check. Merge two articles that were actually different subjects? Been there, done that, got the revert. Misunderstand and mangle wikitext? More times than I can count. And that's after I created my account. Like about half of experienced editors, I edited as an IP first, fixing a typo here or reverting some vandalism there. | |||
*Guidance that accent marks will always be used. | |||
{{pb}}But if we don't persist through these early problems, we don't get experienced editors. And if we don't get experienced editors, Misplaced Pages will die. | |||
*Guidance based on a rule similar to the that those languages which a generally educated person in an English language country ought to know, eg French for the British, Spanish for Americans, (the Economist also includes German and Portuguese). | |||
{{pb}}Requiring registration ("get rid of IP editing") shrinks the number of people who edit. The Portuguese Misplaced Pages banned IPs only from the mainspace three years ago. . After the ban went into effect, they had 10K or 11K registered editors each month. It's since dropped to 8K. The number of contributions has dropped, too. They went from 160K to 210K edits per month down to 140K most months. | |||
*Guidance based on English usage. The first advantage of this one is simple to implement and it is less arbitrary than the Economist rule eg why German and not Italian? The second advantage is it produces spellings with "least surprise" for the majority of readers and therefore probably causes the least annoyance. Third it is simple to understand and ties in with the concepts behind "Use commonly recognizable names" (]) which in turn is based on the policy ]. | |||
{{pb}}Some of the experienced editors have said that they like this. No IPs means less impulsive vandalism, and the talk pages are stable if you want to talk to the editor. Fewer newbies means I don't "have to" clean up after so many mistake-makers! Fewer editors, and especially fewer inexperienced editors, is more convenient – in the short term. But I wonder whether they're going to feel the same way a decade from now, when their community keeps shrinking, and they start wondering when they will lose critical mass. | |||
{{pb}}The same thing happens in the real world, by the way. Businesses want to hire someone with experience. They don't want to train the helpless newbie. And then after years of everybody deciding that training entry-level workers is ], they all look around and say: Where are all the workers that I need? Why didn't someone else train the next generation while I was busy taking the easy path? | |||
{{pb}}In case you're curious, there is a Misplaced Pages that puts all of the IP and newbie edits under "PC" type restrictions. Nobody can see the edits until they've been approved by an experienced editor. The rate of vandalism visible to ordinary readers is low. Experienced editors love the level of control they have. Have a look at during the last decade. Is that what you want to see here? If so, we know how to make that happen. The path to that destination even looks broad, easy, and paved with all kinds of good intentions. ] (]) 04:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Size isn't everything... what happened to their output--the quality of their encyclopedias--after they made those changes? ] (]) 05:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Well, I can tell you objectively that the number of edits declined, but "quality" is in the eye of the beholder. I understand that the latter community has the lowest use of inline citations of any mid-size or larger Misplaced Pages. What's now yesterday's TFA there wouldn't even be rated B-class here due to whole sections not having any ref tags. In terms of citation density, their FA standard is currently where ours was >15 years ago. | |||
::But I think you have missed the point. Even if the quality has gone up according to the measure of your choice, if the number of contributors is steadily trending in the direction of zero, what will the quality be when something close to zero is reached? That community has almost halved in the last decade. How many articles are out of date, or missing, because there simply aren't enough people to write them? A decade from now, with half as many editors again, how much worse will the articles be? We're none of us idiots here. We can see the trend. We know that people die. You have doubtless seen this famous line: | |||
::<blockquote>All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.</blockquote> | |||
::I say: | |||
::<blockquote>All Misplaced Pages editors are mortal. Dead editors do not maintain or improve Misplaced Pages articles. Therefore, maintaining and improving Misplaced Pages requires editors who are not dead.</blockquote> | |||
::– and, ], we are going to die, my friend. ]. If we want Misplaced Pages to outlive us, we cannot be so shortsighted as to care only about the quality today, and never the quality the day after we die. ] (]) 06:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Trends don't last forever. Enwiki's active user count decreased from its peak over a few years, then flattened out for over a decade. The quality increased over that period of time (by any measure). Just because these other projects have shed users doesn't mean they're doomed to have zero users at some point in the future. And I think there's too many variables to know how much any particular change made on a project affects its overall user count, nevermind the quality of its output. ] (]) 06:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::] If the graph to the right accurately reflects the age distribution of Misplaced Pages users, then a large chunk of the user base will die off within the next decade or two. Not to be dramatic, but I agree that requiring registration to edit, which will discourage readers from editing in the first place, will hasten the project's decline.... ] (]) 14:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::😂 Seriously? What do you suppose that chart looked like 20 years ago, and then what happened? ] (]) 14:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::There are significantly more barriers to entry than there were 20 years ago, and over that time the age profile has increased (quite significantly iirc). Adding more barriers to entry is not the way to solve the issued caused by barriers to entry. ] (]) 15:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{clear}}"" - maybe the demographics of the community will change. ] (]) 16:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::That talks about LLMs usage in artcles, not the users. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]|]) <span style="font-size:80%"><span style="color:grey;">Isn't a IP anon</span></span> 16:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Or you could say it's about a user called PaperQA2 that writes Misplaced Pages articles significantly more accurate than articles written by other users. ] (]) 16:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::No, it is very clearly about a language model. As far as I know, PaperQA2, or WikiCrow (the generative model using PaperQA2 for question answering), has not actually been making any edits on Misplaced Pages itself. ] (] · ]) 16:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::That is true. It is not making any edits on Misplaced Pages itself. There is a barrier. But my point is that in the future that barrier may not be there. There may be users like PaperQA2 writing articles better than other users and the demographics will have changed to include new kinds of users, much younger than us. ] (]) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::And who will never die off! ] (]) 17:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::But which will not be ''Misplaced Pages''. ] (]) 06:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::In re "What do you suppose that chart looked like 20 years ago": I believe that the numbers, very roughly, are that the community has gotten about 10 years older, on average, than it was 20 years ago. That is, we are bringing in some younger people, but not at a rate that would allow us to maintain the original age distribution. (Whether the original age distribution was a good thing is a separate consideration.) ] (]) 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I like looking at the graph hosted on Toolforge (for anyone who might go looking for it later, there's a link to it at {{section link|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention|Resources}}). It shows histograms of how many editors have edited in each month, grouped by all the editors who started editing in the same month. The data is noisy, but it does seem to show an increase in editing tenure since 2020 (when the pursuit of a lot of solo hobbies picked up, of course). Prior to that, there does seem to be a bit of slow growth in tenure length since the lowest point around 2013. ] (]) 17:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::The trend is a bit clearer when looking at the . (To see the trend when looking at the , the default colour range needs to be shifted to accommodate the smaller numbers.) ] (]) 17:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'd say that the story there is: Something amazing happened in 2006. Ours (since both of us registered our accounts that year) was the year from which people stuck around. I think that would be just about the time that the wall o' automated rejection really got going. There was some UPE-type commercial pressure, but it didn't feel unmanageable. It looks like an inflection point in retention. ] (]) 06:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I don't think something particularly amazing happened in 2006. I think the ] starting in 2004 attracted a large land rush of editors as Misplaced Pages became established as a top search result. The cohort of editors at that time had the opportunity to cover a lot of topics for the first time on Misplaced Pages, requiring a lot of co-ordination, which created bonds between editors. As topic coverage grew, there were fewer articles that could be more readily created by generalists, the land rush subsided, and there was less motivation for new editors to persist in editing. Boom-bust cycles are common for a lot of popular things, particularly in tech where newer, shinier things launch all the time. ] (]) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Ah yes, that glorious time when we gained an article on every Pokemon character and, it seems, every actor who was ever credited in a porn movie. Unfortunately, many of the editors I bonded with then are no longer active. Some are dead, some finished school, some presumably burned out, at least one went into the ministry. ] 23:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{tq|Have a look at what happened to the size of their community.}}—I'm gonna be honest: eyeballing it, I don't actually see much (if any) difference with enwiki's activity. only convinces people when the dataset passes the interocular trauma test (e.g. ]). | |||
:On the other hand, if there's a dataset of "when did $LANGUAGEwiki adopt universal pending changes protections", we could settle this argument once and for all using a real statistical model that can deliver precise effect sizes on activity. Maybe ''then'' we can all finally ]. ] (]) 18:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This is requested once or twice a year, and the answer will always be no. You would know this if you read ], as is requested at the top of this page ] (]) 08:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
This particular idea will not pass, but the binary developing in the discussion is depressing. A bargain where we allow IPs to edit (or unregistered users generally when IPs are masked), and therefore will sit on our hands when dealing with abuse and even harassment is a grim one. Any steps taken to curtail the second half of that bargain would make the first half stronger, and I am generally glad to see thoughts about it, even if they end up being impractical. ] (]) 02:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I don't want us to sit on our hands when we see abuse and harassment. I think our toolset is about 20 years out of date, and I believe there are things we could do that will help (e.g., ], cross-wiki checkuser tools for Stewards, detecting and responding to a little bit more information about devices/settings ). ] (]) 06:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Temporary accounts will help with the casual vandalism, but they’re not going to help with abuse and harassment. If it limits the ability to see ranges, it will make issues slightly worse. ] (]) 07:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not sure what the current story is there, but when I talked to the team last (i.e., in mid-2023), we were talking about the value of a tool that would do range-related work. For various reasons, this would probably be Toolforge instead of MediaWiki, and it would probably be restricted (e.g., to admins, or to a suitable group chosen by each community), but the goal was to make it require less manual work, particularly for cross-wiki abuse, and to be able to aggregate some information without requiring direct disclosure of some PII. ] (]) 23:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Oh look, misleading statistics! "The Portuguese Misplaced Pages banned IPs only from the mainspace three years ago. . After the ban went into effect, they had 10K or 11K registered editors each month. It's since dropped to 8K. " ''Of course'' you have a spike in new registrations soon after you stop allowing IP edits, and you can't sustain that spike. That is not evidence of anything. It would have been more honest and illustrative to show the graph before and after the policy change, not only afterwards, e.g. . Oh look, banning IP editing has resulted in on average some 50% ''more'' registered editors than before the ban. Number of active editors is up 50% as well. The number of new pages has stayed the same. Number of edits is down, yes, but how much of this is due to less vandalism / vandalism reverts? A lot apparently, as the count of user edits has stayed about the same. Basically, from those statistics, used properly, it is impossible to detect any issues with the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to the banning of IP editing. ] (]) 08:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
So while following usage in reliable English language sources does not always produce the "best" results, it has proved a reasonable and sustainable method for settling disputes over the "best" spelling to use for many years, because using sources to prove a point is widely used when trying to reach a consensus in many areas of disagreement in on Wikiepdia talk pages. For example the initiator of this section uses a source to make a point: | |||
::"As far as I know, '']'', for example, is sticking to rather than '''{{Blue|cafe}}''', and I don't think you can argue that "café" is not an English word now, can you? Cedric tsan cantonais" | |||
This is how the policy is meant to work and it come naturally into play among experienced Wikipedians because it is so frequently used in debates about titles and content. And ] when you wished to show that "café" is an English spelling you turned to an authoritative English language source; you did not use a French source such as (the first page of who's survey seems to contradict your findings). But your point still stands, as does mine that when we as editors discuss the "correct" usage of "Cafe" and "Café" we turn to reliable English language sources to decide on English language usage, and that is what the policies and guidelines reflect. We may or may not disagree on which spelling we think looks better (is more correct), or whatever, but providing we are editing in good faith, even if we do not agree on those issues, we may well be able to agree on what is most frequently used in English reliable sources (even if we we are surprised by the finding and do not like the result). The guidance only breaks down when someone ignores usage (or plays the system by arguing that only sources that reflect their bias are reliable), because as editors editing in good faith, we can always go back to whatever the original usage was if reliable sources do not give a definitive answer. -- ] (]) 11:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:My two cents: Most of you are looking at this issue too narrowly. You're thinking of words or names in languages you're familiar with (like French in many of the examples), and think the only problem is diacritics on one or two letters. It isn't! Many other languages have have alphabets that have diverged more from the English (i.e, Latin) one than French did. These other languages have not only diacritics, but also additional or bizarrely modified letters, and worse, letters that look like English but are pronounced differently from their English cousin. The end of this spectrum are languages with completely different character shapes from English (e.g., Hebrew, Greek, Russian) or no alphabet at all (e.g., Chinese). At which point do we stop copying the topic's original native name, and start '''transliterating''' it into English? This is why we have an article called "Beijing", not "北京市", and "Pasha" not "paşa", because English speakers cannot read, and do not use, these foreign characters, so those are not useful as article names (but can appear in parantheses in the opening paragraph, of course). And if we do transliterate, it should be into some sort of commonly used English - not some phonetic alphabet. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nazareth_Illit, where while everyone agreed that Hebrew names (in Hebrew letters) '''cannot''' be the name of English wikipedia articles, there was an argument whether the names of the articles should be some sort of theoretic transliteration nobody is familiar with, or the more commonly accepted simple transliteration into English. | |||
] (]) 11:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:"how much of this is due to less vandalism / vandalism reverts?" That's a good question. Do we have some data on this? ] (]) 09:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
For those who claim that English uses its own "English alphabet", I have a simple message. There is no such thing as the ”English alphabet". English, like many other European languages, uses the '''Latin''' alphabet. It just doesn't use every possible letter available in that alphabet. Because of this convenience I myself, whose native language is Dutch, can read English without having to learn a different alphabet beforehand. And this example counts for any combination of languages which use the Latin alphabet. Russian, just like English, doesn't have its exclusive alphabet either. It uses the Cyrillic alphabet. Using or not using diacritics is not just a question of aesthetics, but actually one of spelling and, more importantly, pronunciation. Writing Petr Cech instead of Petr Čech provokes an entirely different and wrong pronunciation. Therefore we simply cannot ignore these characters. Transliterating should '''only''' between languages that use different alphabets or syllabaries (e.g. Kanji to Latin, Cyrillic to Latin,...). This is not the England (or even United States) wikipedia. This is an '''international''' encyclopedia, and this one is uses by many users, just like me, '''don't''' have English as a native language as well. Just claiming that all English speakers cannot read these "foreign" characters is blatantly ridiculous. We should really accept that millions of none native English speakers read this wikipedia as well. Therefore I '''support''' ]'s proposal to ditch this censoring of these characters which are even part of our alphabet. ]]]1 17:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{Ping|Jo-Jo Eumerus}}, the dashboard is although it looks like they stopped reporting the data in late 2021. If you take "Number of reverts" as a proxy for vandalism, you can see that the block shifted the number of reverts from a higher equilibrium to a lower one, while overall non-reverted edits does not seem to have changed significantly during that period. ] (]) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Upon thinking, it would be useful to know how many ''good'' edits are done by IP. Or as is, unreverted edits. ] (]) 14:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I agree that one should expect a spike in registration. (In fact, I have suggested a strictly temporary requirement to register – a few hours, even – to push some of our regular IPs into creating accounts.) But once you look past that initial spike, the trend is downward. ] (]) 05:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{tqb|But once you look past that initial spike, the trend is downward.}} | |||
::I still don't see any evidence that this downward trend is unusual. Apparently the WMF ] and didn't find evidence of a drop in activity. Net edits (non-revert edits standing for at least 48 hours) increased by 5.7%, although edits across other wikis increased slightly more. The impression I get is any effects are small either way—the gains from freeing up anti-vandalism resources basically offset the cost of some IP editors not signing up. | |||
::TBH this lines up with what I'd expect. Very few people I talk to cite issues like "creating an account" as a major barrier to editing Misplaced Pages. The most common barrier I've heard from people who tried editing and gave it up is "Oh, I tried, but then some random admin reverted me, linked me to ], and told me to go fuck myself but with less expletives." ] (]) 07:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{tqb|But once you look past that initial spike, the trend is downward.}} Not really obvious, and not more or even less so in Portuguese wikipedia than in e.g. Enwiki, FRwiki, NLwiki, ESwiki, Svwiki... So, once again, these statistics show ''no issue at all'' with disabling IP editing on Portuguese Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Aside from the obvious loss of good 'IP' editors, I think there's a risk of unintended consequences from 'stopping vandalism' at all; 'vandalism' and 'disruptive editing' from IP editors (or others) isn't ''necessarily'' a bad thing, long term. | |||
Even the worst disruptive editors 'stir the pot' of articles, bringing attention to articles that need it, and otherwise would have gone unnoticed. As someone who mostly just trawls through recent changes, I can remember dozens of times when where an IP, or brand new, user comes along and breaks an article entirely, but their edit leads inexorably to the article being improved. Sometimes there is a glimmer of a good point in their edit, that I was able to express better than they were, maybe in a more balanced or neutral way. Sometimes they make an entirely inappropriate edit, but it brings the article to the top of the list, and upon reading it I notice a number of other, previously missed, problems in the article. Sometimes, having reverted a disruptive change, I just go and add some sources or fix a few typos in the article before I go on my merry way. | |||
You might think 'Ah, but 'Random article' would let you find those problems too. BUT random article' is, well, random. IP editors are more targeted, and that someone felt the need to disparage a certain person's mother in fact brings attention to an article about someone who is, unbeknownst to us editors, particularly contentious in the world of Czech Jazz Flautists so there is a lot there to fix. By stopping people making these edits, we risk a larger proportion of articles becoming an entirely stagnant. ] 15:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I feel that ] has been too clever by half here. "Ahh, but vandalism of articles stimulates improvements to those articles." If the analysis ends there, I have no objections. But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion that it is a good thing to vandalize articles, that it causes information to circulate, and that the encouragement of editing in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Halt! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen." If I were to pay a thousand people to vandalize Misplaced Pages articles full-time, bringing more attention to them, would I be a hero or villain? If vandalism is good, why do we ban vandals instead of thanking them? Because vandalism is bad—every hour spent cleaning up after a vandal is one not spent writing a new article or improving an existing one. | |||
:<small>I agree with ]'s point. But I cannot let the claim 'There is no such thing as the ”English alphabet"' stand. Here is the ]: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. Here is the ]: AĄBCĆDEĘFGHIJKLŁMNŃOÓPRSŚTUWYZŹŻ. Both are derived from the classical Latin alphabet ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTVXYZ. ] (]) 06:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
:On targeting: vandals are more targeted than a "random article", but are far more destructive than basic tools for prioritizing content, and less effective than even very basic prioritization tools like sorting articles by total views. ] (]) 19:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I mean, I only said Vandalism "isn't necessarily a bad thing, long term", I don't think it's completely good, but maybe I should have added 'in small doses', fixing vandalism takes one or two clicks of the mouse in most cases and it seems, based entirely on my anecdotal experience, to sometimes have surprisingly good consequences; intuitively, you wouldn't prescribe vandalism, but these things have a way of finding a natural balance, and what's intuitive isn't necessarily what's right. One wouldn't prescribe dropping asteroids on the planet you're trying to foster life upon after you finally got it going, but we can be pretty happy that it happened! - And 'vandalism' is the very worst of what unregistered (and registered!) users get up to, there are many, many more unambiguously positive contributors than unambiguously malicious. ] 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{tqb|intuitively, you wouldn't prescribe vandalism}} | |||
:::Right, and I think this is mainly the intuition I wanted to invoke here—"more vandalism would be good" a bit too galaxy-brained of a take for me to find it compelling without some strong empirical evidence to back it up. | |||
:::Although TBH, I don't see this as a big deal either way. We already have to review and check IP edits for vandalism; the only difference is whether that content is displayed while we wait for review (with pending changes, the edit is hidden until it's reviewed; without it, the edit is visible until someone reviews and reverts it). This is unlikely to substantially affect contributions (the only difference on the IP's end is they have to wait a bit for their edit to show up) or vandalism (since we already ''de facto'' review IP edits). ] (]) 04:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Revise ] == | |||
:FWIW, no "support" or "oppose" !vote will have much weight here unless a proper ] is created. And I wish anyone who attempts it good fortune as I can tell you right now it will end as no consensus. ]] 17:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::@] you write "{{green|There is no such thing as the ”English alphabet”}}". As I said above disputes are often resolved by looking at sources. What is your reliable source for that statement? Because a search of Google Books of "English-alphabet" states "about 89,600 results" and it returns 960 books, the same search but limited to the 21st century states "about 13,900 results" and about 670 books. which refutes your statement. There is a Classical ] (which was derived from an earlier alphabet) from which the ] is derived, but contains its own extensions such as "W", other languages have their own alphabets derived from the Classical Latin Alphabet their own additions or subtractions. Those that are derived from the Classical Latin Alphabet can be amalgamated into what is today called the "Extended Latin Alphabet" (or "Latin Alphabet" for brevity), but whether that concept existed and was commonly used before 1960 and the need for a term in computer science I know not, however a search of Google books for "Extended Latin Alphabet" (About 1,740 results) tellingly returns "Extended Latin Alphabet Character Set for Bibliographic Use" ISO (1975) as the second oldest use of the term with one mention the year before.. -- ] (]) 10:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Boy do I differ with Tvx1 on this one. This is an English based Misplaced Pages. That's why we have so many different language encyclopedias to choose from. We use English sourcing whenever possible and we use the English alphabet when English sources lead us in that direction. We don't complain when the Serbian Misplaced Pages does strange things to US spellings nor should they when we do the same. We simply follow the English sources and use what the sources show us. ] (]) 09:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: <small>''(Totally OT, why not '''Fyunc{{uu|h}}(click)'''?)'' --] (]) 03:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
{{outdent}}'''Oppose further use of diacritics''' - Fyunck hits the nail squarely on the head. Let's review some basic realities and first principles: | |||
# This is the English language Misplaced Pages; | |||
# The English language Misplaced Pages is written in English to serve readers who read English; | |||
# English is the native tongue of the overwhelming majority of English language readers of Misplaced Pages; | |||
# The overwhelming majority of native English speakers are completely unfamiliar with the diacritics added to the Latin alphabet in the Croatian, Czech, Danish, Estonian, German, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, Turkish, Vietnamese. | |||
# Only a small percentage of English-speaking specialists learn these languages in American, British or Commonwealth secondary schools and universities. To the extent Americans learn a foreign language in high school or university, the overwhelming majority study Spanish or French. In short, the overwhelming majority of native English speakers cannot read or write a foreign language that makes widespread use of diacritical marks. | |||
# The standard QWERTY keyboard in use throughout the English-speaking world does not include diacritics, and cannot produce diacritical marks without resort to the alternative ASCII alternative character sets -- which requires not only some understanding of spelling in the particular foreign language, but also knowledge of the ASCII character maps and ASCII character codes. | |||
# To the extent the spelling and/or use of diacritical marks differ for an article title or subject, including proper names, we can and we should identify those differences in the first sentence of the lead of the article. | |||
# To the extent the spelling and/or use of diacritical marks differ for an article title or subject, including proper names, we can and we should create redirects from spellings with diacritical marks to standard English article titles without diacritics. | |||
# None of this intended as a slight to our international readers whose first language is not English; we love y'all and we appreciate your readership and editorial contributions, but demanding that native English speakers adopt foreign orthography for the English language Misplaced Pages is a bit over-the-top. One can only imagine the reaction of editors of the German, Hungarian or Serbian Wikipedias if native English writers demanded that those Wikis adopt English spelling and a diacritics-free orthography for articles about American, Australian, British, Canadian, Irish, and New Zealand subjects. | |||
# Bottom line: Misplaced Pages should follow the standard majority practices of mainstream publications in the English language when comes to the use of foreign diacritics and orthography. That means omitting the diacritics in the vast majority of cases. | |||
] (]) 11:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
: I'm not convinced that diacritics posit any major problem to English speakers. Firstly, technical issues are pretty much non-existent: search engines have got no trouble finding these pages, and we've set up redirects from diacritic-less titles, etc. Secondly, if a speaker of English cannot parse the diacritics, would they not read the text as they normally would? What good does stripping Latin-alphabet names of their diacritics do? ] (]) 12:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: Correction, the standard QUERTY keyboard can produce diacritics simply if the correct operating system is used. It has been simple to include many diacritics on the Macintosh since its inceptions and mobile keyboards make it even easier. Not to detract from the argument though, Windows and Linux do not, allow the easy addition of diacritics. | |||
:: With that said, the remainder of the arguments are sound and one is missing but alluded to in the conclusion: how do the majority of English-language sources present the name? ] (]) 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::: Unfortunately, {{u|208.81.212.222}}/Anonymous, getting "the correct operating system" is not a very convenient operation for a user who needs it. If you ain't got it, you ain't gonna get it with a "'''command-control-shift-alt-OS'''"! --] (]) 03:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::It's not a question of creating problems, although I give up on many tennis player names once too many diacritics start pouring in. It's a question on what is used in English sources and what the title should be. I'm not saying we shouldn't also mention the foreign spelling, of course we should. But for normal everyday usage we should use standard English as sourced from English sources. If that tells us to use résumé instead of resume then that's what we use. If it tells us to use Zurich instead of Zürich then ditto. We let everyone know alternate spellings exist and move on. It even causes problems when trying to copy and paste a tennis player name from wikipedia into huge databases like the International Tennis Federation. Unless you use standard English it comes back as "not found." So I use a "follow the English sources" viewpoint. If there really aren't any English sources then we move out and use other sources at our disposal. But today we are forced, yes forced, to use diacritics in tennis player names, even if 99% of sources do not. Often even if a player has dropped the use of them herself. And we are not allowed to even mention that a standard English version exists in 99% of sources, lest the diacritic police come down on us like thunder. English versions of player names are banished forever per tennis RfC. I don't fight it anymore unless I can prove that a player uses the non-diacritic version on their own websites, facebook and twitter accounts. It just isn't worth it. I don't know what is taught in Canadian or Australian schools, but US schools don't teach them. They only let us know they exist because a few words still use them on occasion. ] (]) 19:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Point 1 of Procedural removal for inactive administrators which currently reads "Has made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period" should be replaced with "Has made no administrative actions for at least a 12-month period". The current wording of 1. means that an Admin who takes no admin actions keeps the tools provided they make at least a few edits every year, which really isn't the point. The whole purpose of adminship is to protect and advance the project. If an admin isn't using the tools then they don't need to have them. ] (]) 07:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I just happened upon this because I was on the page for a different query. I do agree with the OP for the reasons given, and because ''that's what redirects are for''. The article title (and text), whether for a person or a place name, etc., should always be spelled with whatever diacritics are used by the person or place, with however many redirects as may be useful to help people find the article. I honestly don't understand why this should be controversial. ] (]) 04:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Should we also put our Sevastopol article at Севасто́поль? Should we put our Tokyo article at 東京? That's what your logic proposes, using the original language spelling. The ''other'' argument is that we follow the sources. If Reliable Sources say the moon is made out of cheese, then we say the moon is made out of cheese. If the sources are wrong, Misplaced Pages is not a place to ]. If Reliable Sources say the English spelling for "Севасто́поль" is "Sevastopol", then we put the article at the English-language title "Sevastopol". If the sources are wrong, Misplaced Pages is not a place to ]. If Reliable Sources say the English spelling for "Tomáš Berdych" is "Tomas Berdych", the article should be at "Tomas Berdych". If the sources are wrong, Misplaced Pages is not a place to ]. ] (]) 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Expanding my comment, Google Search finds zero hits at the New York Times for "Tomáš Berdych", but 1330 hits for "Tomas Berdych". An argument that the New York Times misspelled something 1330 times isn't an argument that belongs on Misplaced Pages. A global Google Search for "Tomáš Berdych" -"Tomas Berdych" gives 1.1 million hits, and eight of the top ten hits are English Misplaced Pages, Croatian Misplaced Pages, four Czech language hits, and a pair of twitter hits. A global Google Search for "Tomas Berdych" -"Tomáš Berdych" gives 3.2 million hits, and the only one that isn't an English Reliable Source is an instagram hit. Why the heck do we have this article at ]?? New York Times, Google, and almost all English Language Reliable Sources say that Севасто́поль is spelled Sevastopol in English, and Tomáš Berdych is spelled Tomas Berdych in English. ] (]) 19:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Re: "{{tq|Should we also put our Sevastopol article at Севасто́поль? Should we put our Tokyo article at 東京?}}" That's an obvious ] fallacy. Different ] (scripts) are not comparable to adding diacritics to Latin script. If I paint some stripes on my cat that doesn't make it comparable to a tiger. As for Tomáš Berdych/Tomas Berdych, the fact that you can find an isolated example of an article that may not be reliably sourced for the diacritics it uses is meaningless to the questions at issue here. I can probably find a rock star article that doesn't cite a source for its discography, but that doesn't mean rock star articles should categorically have their discographies deleted. You're certainly correct that WP:GREATWRONGS applies here, but it would be particularly directed at the kind of sustained ] that's been going on for years by a handful of editors to rid Misplaced Pages and the rest of the English speaking world of the sinister menace of diacritics. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 13:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
===Endorsement/Opposition (Admin inactivity removal) === | |||
* '''Comment''' (on original post and some responses to it): We're already mostly using diacritics where appropriate, and moving more toward doing so, despite years of tendentious ] against them by a handful of editors. So I don't see the point of the vague proposal. If there's an actual conflict between ] and ], then normalize to what the MOS page says. MOS governs style, and the naming conventions (even ] policy itself) defers to MOS on style matters, naturally. Conflicts between MOS and NC guidelines are uncommon, but as far as I can recall are always resolved in favor of what MOS says. E.g. the whole species common name capitalization mess we had for several years, with ], ], ], and I think some other page, too, all saying conflicting things, has long been normalized to what MOS:LIFE says. What was probably the single most ] RfC campaign in Misplaced Pages history, ], failed to gain consensus to change MOS:LIFE to follow what proponents of the now-rejected changes at NCFAUNA were advocating. That's a really strong precedent for cases like this.<p>As for diacritics in particular, the problem with "most tennis sources don't use the diacritics" as some kind of WP style and titles rationale is that the reason they don't is expediency/laziness/disregard, not accuracy. Such sources are not reliable for what the proper form of a name is. Where we have reliable sources that demonstrate that someone's/something's name has a diacritic, then that fact about the styling of the name {{em|is}} reliably established. No amount of sources that just can't be bothered with it (including piles of random websites pulled up in Google searches, or publications of sports governing bodies who jingoistically refuse to respect diacritics) can undo this fact of verifiability. Journalistic (especially tabloid, news daily, television, and sportswriting) sources are utterly unreliable on this, because they are under intense deadline pressure, have editorial control almost entirely focused on getting reported main-story facts like dates and places and statistics and quotations fact-checked, are written for the lowest-common-denominator audience, and are mostly written by people who historically probably didn't know how to generate diacritics without looking it up in a manual. Yet even these kinds of sources are increasingly respecting diacritics, as it gets easier to do so and more expected in anglophone countries. People who live in less ethnically diverse places like Idaho or whatever are probably somewhat less aware of this than those who live in more culturally mixed places like Montreal, California, and Ireland, where names of everyday people, from local politicians to the very newscasters they're watching, often have diacritics. It's an obvious ] matter. Furthermore, it's downright absurd to suppose that we'd disrespect the proper styling of the names of thousands of subjects, many of them BLPs, simply because they're tennis players (or whatever) instead of physicists or painters. It's just not a rational result.</p><p>We've all been over, again and again and again, at ], ], ], ], and many other places, how a ] analysis tells us what the common (or only real) name {{em|is}} (Sinéad O'Connor vs. Shinaid O. Conner), but does not govern how we {{em|style}} the name (Sinéad O'Connor vs Sinead O'Connor), which is a ] matter, determined in each case by the same kind of normal ] analysis used to establish any other article fact. Re-re-re-raising a pretense of confusion or doubt about this at VP doesn't magically actually establish any confusion or doubt. It's just another stop in a long tour of ]. This is a perennial waste of editorial time and energy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 13:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)</p> | |||
*'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 07:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I agree with your points about a ] by a handful of editors, about ], about a perennial waste of editorial time and energy. However you accuse the the New York Times of being "lazy" and "utterly unreliable". You accuse essentially the entire English Speaking World of ]. Even if New York Times is "lazy" and "utterly unreliable", even if English Speaking World has ], Misplaced Pages is not a place to try to ]. Common usage by the English speaking world defines what is or is not English. The fact is that most English Sources consider the "English Language" to consist exclusively of A-Z and a-z. Exceptions to that practice are rare and extremely notable-as-exceptions. Most English sources translate the name "Пу́тин" into the English language as "Putin". Most English sources translate the name "Tomáš" into the English language as "Tomas". Translation is not "laziness". Our articles should have Пу́тин and Tomáš in the lead sentence, just as our Tokyo article has 東京 in the lead sentence. But our English article titles and English article prose normally shouldn't use the characters и š or 東 when the New York Times and other common English usage don't consider them a normal part of English prose. | |||
*'''Oppose''' - this would create an unnecessary barrier to admins who, for real life reasons, have limited engagement for a bit. Asking the tools back at BN can feel like a faff. Plus, logged admin activity is a poor guide to actual admin activity. In some areas, maybe half of actions aren't logged? ] (]) 19:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. First, not all admin actions are logged as such. One example which immediately comes to mind is declining an unblock request. In the logs, that's just a normal edit, but it's one only admins are permitted to make. That aside, if someone has remained at least somewhat engaged with the project, they're showing they're still interested in returning to more activity one day, even if real-life commitments prevent them from it right now. We all have things come up that take away our available time for Misplaced Pages from time to time, and that's just part of life. Say, for example, someone is currently engaged in a PhD program, which is a tremendously time-consuming activity, but they still make an edit here or there when they can snatch a spare moment. Do we really want to discourage that person from coming back around once they've completed it? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:We could declare specific types of edits which count as admin actions despite being mere edits. It should be fairly simple to write a bot which checks if an admin has added or removed specific texts in any edit, or made any of specific modifications to pages. Checking for protected edits can be a little harder (we need to check for protection at the time of edit, not for the time of the check), but even this can be managed. Edits to pages which match specific regular expression patterns should be trivial to detect. ] ] 11:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' There's no indication that this is a problem needs fixing. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 00:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' Admins who don't use the tools should not have the tools. ] ] 03:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' While I have never accepted "not all admin actions are logged" as a realistic reason for no logged actions in an entre year, I just don't see what problematic group of admins this is in response to. Previous tweaks to the rules were in response to admins that seemed to be gaming the system, that were basically inactive and when they did use the tools they did it badly, etc. We don't need a rule that ins't pointed a provable, ongoing problem. ] ] 19:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' If an admin is still editing, it's not unreasonable to assume that they are still up to date with policies, community norms etc. I see no particular risk in allowing them to keep their tools. ] (]) 19:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''': It feels like some people are trying to accelerate admin attrition and I don't know why. This is a solution in search of a problem. ] (]) 07:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' Sure there is a problem, but the real problem I think is that it is puzzling why they are still admins. Perhaps we could get them all to make a periodic 'declaration of intent' or some such every five years that explains why they want to remain an admin. ] (]) 19:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' largely per scribolt. We want to take away mops from inactive accounts where there is a risk of them being compromised, or having got out of touch with community norms, this proposal rather targets the admins who are active members of the community. Also declining incorrect deletion tags and AIV reports doesn't require the use of the tools, doesn't get logged but is also an important thing for admins to do. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 07:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. What is the motivation for this frenzy to make more hoops for admins to jump through and use not jumping through hoops as an excuse to de-admin them? What problem does it solve? It seems counterproductive and de-inspiring when the bigger issue is that we don't have enough new admins. —] (]) 07:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' Some admin actions aren't logged, and I also don't see why this is necessary. Worst case scenario, we have ]. ] (]) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' I quite agree with David Eppstein's sentiment. What's with the rush to add more hoops? Is there some problem with the admin corps that we're not adequately dealing with? Our issue is that we have too few admins, not that we have too many. ] <sup>]</sup>] 23:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion (Admin inactivity removal)=== | |||
::Your argument is that the New York Times ''should'' stop translating Tomáš. Arguments about what the outside world ''should'' do, do not belong here. ] (]) 01:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Making administrative actions can be helpful to show that the admin is still up-to-date with community norms. We could argue that if someone is active but doesn't use the tools, it isn't a big issue whether they have them or not. Still, the tools can be requested back following an inactivity desysop, if the formerly inactive admin changes their mind and wants to make admin actions again. For now, I don't see any immediate issues with this proposal. ] (] · ]) 08:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|Alsee}} I'll reply to this just so you know where the holes in your arguments are, but I'm collapsing it because they're obvious enough, no one else needs to wade through it. | |||
* Looking back at previous RFCs, in ] the reasoning was to reduce the attack surface for inactive account takeover, and in ] it was about admins who haven't been around enough to keep up with changing community norms. What's the justification for this besides "use it or lose it"? Further, we already have a mechanism (from the 2022 RFC) to account for admins who make a few edits every year. ]] 12:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse top}} | |||
* I also note that not all admin actions are logged. Logging editing through full protection requires ]. Reviewing of deleted content isn't logged at all. Who will decide whether an admin's XFD "keep" closures are really ]s or not? Do adminbot actions count for the operator? There are probably more examples. Currently we ignore these edge cases since the edits will probably also be there, but now if we can desysop someone who made 100,000 edits in the year we may need to consider them. ]] 12:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, many mainstream publishers are lazy when it comes to things they don't want to be bothered with for expediency/disregard reasons. Looking at the ''NYT''<nowiki />'s own style guide, they have an explicit editorial policy to always properly use "accent marks" (a misnomer) for names and words in French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and German, but to omit them from "other languages ... which are less familiar to most American". However, they make an exception for American subjects themselves, and always use or don't use the diacritics as the subject prefers when this is known (as WP does for everyone, not just Americans), dropping them "if in doubt", and if they don't qualify under the . So, your belief that the ''NYT'' doesn't use diacritics is false, they just do it in a biased and expedient way. It's interesting that their only two rationales for this policy are that trying to use them is error-prone (which might actually be true regarding journalists under deadline pressure but has not proven to be an issue on WP), and that many fonts don't have the right characters, which was probably true when the book was published in 1999, but is not true since the widespread adoption of Unicode. I'd be very interested to see what the current, 2015-05, internal version says.<p><p>Yes, mainstream newspapers are utterly unreliable on nuances like whether someone's name properly has diacritics in it; they are not linguistic and human nomenclature experts, they're newspapers. You're wandering into a common logic fault covered in detail at ], the proposition that a source that is reliable for one kind of thing (e.g. news journalism) must somehow be reliable across the board. ] explicitly warns against this idea. It's ] to suggest that I must be wrong because nothing the ''NYT'' does could possibly be lazy/expedient and they could never be unreliable about anything.</p><p>Next, the idea that an enormous class of people may have biased ideas about the rest of the world is the {{em|very definition}} of systemic bias! Your '']'' assertion that "the entire English Speaking World"{{sic}} does not use diacritics is false on its face anyway. Moving on, it's impossible for ], ], or anything else on WP that okays the use of diacritics, to "fix the outside world"; all we're doing is writing articles the best ways we can for WP's purposes and audience. You're turning GREATWRONGS on its head; the purpose of it is to prevent people bringing their external, activistic concerns (like, say, ''diacritics are polluting the English language'') and try to impose them on Misplaced Pages and its content.</p><p>'{{tq|The fact is that most English Sources consider the "English Language" to consist exclusively of A-Z and a-z.}}' Prove it. (Hint: You can't, because it's absurd.) '{{tq|Exceptions to that practice are rare and extremely notable-as-exceptions.}}' Prove it. (Hint: You can't, because it's absurd.)</p><p>I've already covered in detail why different writing systems, vs. using diacritics in the same writing system, are not comparable; simply ] doesn't magically un-refute it. Using or not using diacritics is not a matter of '']''; that word has a specific linguistic meaning ({{lang|es|mi casa es su casa}} -> "my house is your house" is translation). Dropping diacritics (in English, that's '']'') is not encompassed by the word ''translation'' (nor even is conversion between different writing systems; that's '']''. You're confusing an array of unrelated linguistic ideas and processes. ] is required; your evidenced difficulties even with hyphenation and capitalization suggest that you understand little about these matters. It's very difficult to take your objections to diacritics seriously, when you keep getting the facts wrong, make unsupportable assumptions, and your reasoning ultimately boils down to ].</p><p>How the ''NYT'' or whoever decides to write has no bearing on how Misplaced Pages decides to do so. ] the ''NYT'', or anyone else but Misplaced Pages, and we do not write in ], for a specific demographic (other than "everyone in the world who can at least partially understand English", if you want to call that a demographic).</p><p>Finally, you're making up your own imaginary fantasy about what I think others "should" be doing. I don't actually believe ''NYT'' should be using diacritics more than they do; I think that's up to them and their market research. They have a single goal, which is selling as many newspapers as possible, primarily to an American ] market. That's utterly unrelated to any WP goals.</p> | |||
*:I had completely forgotten that many admin actions weren't logged (and thus didn't "count" for activity levels), that's actually a good point (and stops the "community norms" arguments as healthy levels of community interaction can definitely be good evidence of that). And, since admins desysopped for inactivity can request the tools back, an admin needing the bit but not making any logged actions can just ask for it back. At this point, I'm not sure if there's a reason to go through the automated process of desysopping/asking for resysop at all, rather than just politely ask the admin if they still need the tools.{{pb}}I'm still very neutral on this by virtue of it being a pretty pointless and harmless process either way (as, again, there's nothing preventing an active admin desysopped for "inactivity" from requesting the tools back), but I might lean oppose just so we don't add a pointless process for the sake of it. ] (] · ]) 15:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
* To me this comes down to whether the community considers it problematic for an admin to have tools they aren't using. Since it's been noted that not all admin actions are logged, and an admin who isn't using their tools also isn't causing any problems, I'm not sure I see a need to actively remove the tools from an inactive admin; in a worst-case scenario, isn't this encouraging an admin to (potentially mis-)use the tools solely in the interest of keeping their bit? There also seems to be somewhat of a bad-faith assumption to the argument that an admin who isn't using their tools may also be falling behind on community norms. I'd certainly like to hope that if I was an admin who had been inactive that I would review P&G relevant to any admin action I intended to undertake before I executed. ] (]) 15:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* As I have understood it, the original rationale for desysopping after no activity for a year was the perception that an inactive account was at higher danger of being hijacked. It had nothing to do with how often the tools were being used, and presumably, if the admin was still editing, even if not using the tools, the account was less likely to be hijacked. - ] 22:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Tomas is not a "translation" of Tomáš, that would be Tomash, but a lazy simplification and disregard for proper pronunciation. Simply ditching important pronunciation marks is just lazy. The 2 dots above my nick change the pronounciation of the "a" from to . These are definitely not the same letters. Grüße vom ] <sup> (])</sup> 17:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:And also, if the account of an active admin ''was'' hijacked, both the account owner and those they interact with regularly would be more likely to notice the hijacking. The sooner a hijacked account is identified as hijacked, the sooner it is blocked/locked which obviously minimises the damage that can be done. ] (]) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Actually in US English those two dots mean absolutely nothing (same with the ü and ß. We pronounce things the way teachers or others pronounce things. It's not like we are taught about diacritics.... unless perhaps we take an advanced linguistics course at a university, or maybe we see them when taking a foreign language course. The few English words with them are taught as anomalies or perhaps a fancy way of doing things like when we occasionally see café on signs instead of the normal cafe. We are taught they eventually fade away as they become a hindrance to writing and reading. I don't know what is taught in Canadian, UK or Australian schools so perhaps it's different there? ] (]) 18:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I was not aware that not all admin actions are logged, obviously they should all be correctly logged as admin actions. If you're an Admin you should be doing Admin stuff, if not then you obviously don't need the tools. If an Admin is busy IRL then they can either give up the tools voluntarily or get desysopped for inactivity. The "Asking the tools back at BN can feel like a faff." isn't a valid argument, if an Admin has been desysopped for inactivity then getting the tools back '''should''' be "a faff". Regarding the comment that "There's no indication that this is a problem needs fixing." the problem is Admins who don't undertake admin activity, don't stay up to date with policies and norms, but don't voluntarily give up the tools. The ] change was about total edits over 5 years, not specifically admin actions and so didn't adequately address the issue. ] (]) 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::My sig in proper diacritic-free version should be "Gruesse vom Saenger", as ä=ae, ö=oe and ß=ss (or sometimes sz, but not with the czech pronunciation ;). | |||
*:{{tpq|obviously they should all be correctly logged as admin actions}} - how ''would'' you log actions that are administrative actions due to context/requiring passive use of tools (viewing deleted content, etc.) rather than active use (deleting/undeleting, blocking, and so on)/declining requests where accepting them would require tool use? (e.g. closing various discussions that really shouldn't be NAC'd, reviewing deleted content, declining page restoration) Maybe there are good ways of doing that, but I haven't seen any proposed the various times this subject came up. Unless and until "soft" admin actions are actually logged somehow, "editor has admin tools and continues to engage with the project by editing" is the closest, if very imperfect, approximation to it we have, with criterion 2 sort-of functioning to catch cases of "but these specific folks edit so little over a prolonged time that it's unlikely they're up-to-date and actively engaging in soft admin actions". (I definitely do feel '''criterion 2''' could be significantly stricter, fwiw) ]] 05:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::There is only one way to proper pronounce a persons names, and that is in the native language of the named person, only with geographic objects there are sometimes real translations that deviate from the "real" one, like München/Munich or Moskow/Moskwa. So you either have to use diacritics, or transscribe it to plain letters with the same english pronunciation, that's or Tomash, not Tomas, or what other solutions do you know to get the proper pronunciation across? --Grüße vom ] <sup> (])</sup> 05:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*::Not being an Admin I have no idea how their actions are or aren't logged, but is it a big ask that Admins perform at least a few logged Admin actions in a year? The "imperfect, approximation" that "editor has admin tools and continues to engage with the project by editing" is completely inadequate to capture Admin inactivity. ] (]) 07:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::That's your own viewpoint and not backed up by 99% of sourcing. Your name spelling in English is usually what English sources tell us it is, not what you tell us it is. My family name in Polish is Kołodziej, in English it's Kolodziej. We don't spell it with a "w" here. And when older relatives travel back to Poland they may or may not switch back to Kołodziej. English is very versatile in that its letters take on all kinds of sounds without needing diacritics. If someone wants to make a Z sound like a K in English we simply tell people that's how we pronounce it. We don't re-spell it phonetically. However to avoid confusion we would drop the B looking letter and make it ss as with "Johann Strauss." Now of course, Misplaced Pages can do what it likes by consensus. If enough editors agree it can certainly follow non-English sources rather than English sources. It does that often. But that won't change the English language or how it's taught outside of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:::Why is it "completely inadequate"? ] (]) 10:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::If you move to a foreign country and want to use your name there in the native writing in that land you have to decide for yourself how to do this: Rewrite your name that the pronunciation of the new spelling fits to the right pronunciation or ditch the right pronunciation and keep the spelling. Or even translate if possible to something completely different sounding with the same meaning. I know of an example where two brothers did so in different ways in my home village: The dutch "u" ist pronounced like the german "ü", and their name derived from Holland and includen an "u". One decided to be pronounced with an "u", the other changed his name to an "ü". (I would have a problem with the same letter if I moved to Holland, I had to choose whether tu change the letter to "oe" to keep the proper pronunciation or keep the letter and thus change it. | |||
*::::I've been a "hawk" regarding admin activity standards for a very long time, but this proposal comes off as half-baked. The rules we have now are the result of careful consideration and incremental changes aimed at specific, ''provable'' issues with previous standards. While I am not a proponent of "not all actions are logged" as a blanket excuse for no logged actions in several years, it is feasible that an admin could be otherwise fully engaged with the community while not having any logged actions. We haven't been having trouble with admins who would be removed by this, so where's the problem? ] ] 19:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::But that has only tangential relation with this topic here, as here it's about peoples names that still live in that country and thus have only one proper pronunciation and no need to decide anything. It's up to enWP to decide whether to respect their names and proper pronunciations or not. Grüße vom ] <sup> (])</sup> 09:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{xt|"There is only one way to proper pronounce a persons names, and that is in the native language of the named person"}} Which is going to be awfully inconvenient for English speakers who are addressing someone whose native language is tonal or click. Contrary to the assertion above, people's names do get translated: consider ], known as Václav in Czech. The ] isn't wrong for using the English instead of the Czech. People also change the pronunciation of their names. I know two people who have permanently changed the pronunciation of their names (one for the sole purpose of helping people figure out how to spell it), several that use translations of their names (e.g., ''Diego'' if you speak Spanish, but ''James'' if you speak English), and two that choose a different pronunciation depending upon the language. It's impossible to say that "there is only one proper way to pronounce a person's name" when the person is using three different pronunciations himself. ] (]) 09:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::So what if some people translate their names in foreign languages? Many many more don't. And for those who don't we can only use the native spelling, unless their native writing system is different to our Latin writing (e.g. Cyrillic, Katakana, ...). In such a case we cannot avoid using a '''transliteration'''. And for people who did translate their names, we could use such a translation if it is backed by a reliable source. ]]]1 18:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
== "Blur all images" switch == | |||
* '''Oppose further use of diacritics''' as per ] and ]. I've responded to people above, but this is my base-level response to the original question. The original question and other commenters asserting that the majority of English Language Reliable Sources are "botching" the English Language is not a valid argument to make on Misplaced Pages. We should follow general English language practice of English language Reliable Sources. Diacritics (usually) do not belong in English language article titles and prose. ] (]) 05:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Although i know that ], i propose that the Vector 2022 and Minerva Neue skins (+the Misplaced Pages mobile apps) have a "blur all images" toggle that blurs all the images on all pages (requiring clicking on them to view them), which simplifies the process of doing ] as that means: | |||
* {{anchor|REDIRECTs}} '''REDIRECTs !!''' I have a strong preference for keeping diacritics per the original language ''in proper names'', but I recognize that not everyone shares it. I propose that for pages whose titles include names in the Latin alphabet | |||
#You don't need to create an account to hide all images. | |||
*# Ideally, the title of an article should use the proper diacritization of the name, per the original language. | |||
#You don't need any complex JavaScript or CSS installation procedures. Not even browser extensions. | |||
*# But if it doesn't— and there may be good reasons, e.g., ], properly diacritized as "Hồ Chí Minh"— there should ''always'' be a redirect from the proper diacritization (as there is from ]). | |||
#You can blur all images in the mobile apps, too. | |||
*# Partial diacritizations should also work, though not necessarily via a full redirect. This seems to be already covered, at least in part: typing '''Antonin Dvořák''' (with a plain "i") in the search box brings up three possibilities: ] , ], and ], all properly diacritized with "í". | |||
#It's all done with one push of a button. No extra steps needed. | |||
:--] (]) 03:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#Blurring all images > hiding all images. The content of a blurred image could be easily memorized, while a completely hidden image is difficult to compare to the others. | |||
And it shouldn't be limited to just Misplaced Pages. This toggle should be available on all other WMF projects and MediaWiki-powered wikis, too. | |||
] (]) 15:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Sounds good. ] will be thrilled. ] (]) 15:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Sounds like something I can try to make a demo of as a userscript! ] (] · ]) 15:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::] should do the job, although I'm not sure how to deal with the Page Previews extension's images. ] (] · ]) 16:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Wow, @], is that usable on all skins/browsers/devices? If so, we should be referring people to it from everywhere instead of the not-very-helpful ], which I didn't even bother to try to figure out. ] (]) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I haven't tested it beyond my own setup, although I can't see reasons why it wouldn't work elsewhere. However, there are two small bugs I'm not sure how to fix: when loading a new page, the images briefly show up for a fraction of a second before being blurred; and the images in Page Previews aren't blurred (the latter, mostly because I couldn't get the html code for the popups). ] (] · ]) 16:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Ah, yes, I see both of those. Probably best to get at least the briefly-showing bug fixed before recommending it generally. The page previews would be good to fix but may be less of an issue for recommending generally, since people using that can be assumed to know how to turn it off. ] (]) 18:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I don't think there's a way to get around when the Javascript file is loaded and executed. I think users will have to modify their personal CSS file to blur images on initial load, much like the solution described at {{section link|Help:Options to hide an image|Hide all images until they are clicked on}}. ] (]) 18:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::@] -- the issue with a script would be as follows: | |||
::::# Even for logged-in users, user scripts are a moderate barrier to install (digging through settings, or worse still, having to copy-paste to the JS/CSS user pages). | |||
::::# The majority of readers do not have an account, and the overwhelming majority of all readers make zero edits. For many people, it's too much of a hassle to sign up (or they can't remember their password, or a number of other reasons etc, etc) | |||
::::What all readers and users have, though, is this menu: ] | |||
::::I say instead of telling the occasional IP or user who complains to install a script (there are probably many more people who object to NOTCENSORED, but don't want to or don't know how to voice objections), we could add the option to replace all images with a placeholder (or blur) and perhaps also an option to increase thumbnail size. | |||
::::On the image blacklist aspect, doesn't ] have a script that hides potentially offensive images? I've not a clue how it works, but perhaps it could be added to the appearance menu (I don't support this myself, for a number of reasons) | |||
::::''']]''' 18:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: That's ], which is already listed on ]. I wrote it a long time ago as a joke for one of these kinds of discussions: it does very well at hiding all "potentially offensive" images because it hides all images. But people who want to have to click to see any images found it useful enough to list it on ]. ]] 22:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Out of curiosity, how does it filter for potentially offensive images? The code at user:Anomie/hide-images.js seems rather minimal (as I write this, I realize it may work by hiding ''all'' images, so I may have answered my own question). ''']]''' 22:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{tq|because it hides all images}} ] (]) 23:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Will be a problem for non registered users, as the default would clearly to leave images in blurred for them.<span id="Masem:1733413219582:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(proposals)" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 15:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
::Better show all images by default for all users. If you clear your cookies often you can simply change the toggle every time. ] (]) 00:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::That's my point: if you are unregistered, you will see whatever the default setting is (which I assume will be unblurred, which might lead to more complaints). We had similar problems dealing with image thumbnail sizes, a setting that unregistered users can't adjust. ] (]) 01:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm confused about how this would lead to more complaints. Right now, logged-out users see every image without obfuscation. After this toggle rolls out, logged-out users would still see every image without obfuscation. What fresh circumstance is leading to new complaints? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 07:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Well, we'd be putting in an option to censor, but not actively doing it. People will have issues with that. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 10:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Isn't the page ] "an option to censor" we've put in? ] (]) 11:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not opposed to this, if it can be made to work, fine. ] (]) 19:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:What would be the goal of a blur all images option? It seems too tailored. But a "hide all images" could be suitable. ] (]) 06:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Simply removing them might break page layout, so images could be replaced with an equally sized placeholder. ''']]''' 13:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Could there be an option to simply not load images for people with a low-bandwidth connection or who don't want them? ] (]) 16:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*<s>'''Comment'''. We should follow the kind of references a professional copy editor might consult. '']'' recommends , , and . British style guides recommend . ] is an incoherent mess. To see how this issue should be handled, take a look at ]. This guideline looks like it was modeled on the recommendations given in the CMOS. ] (]) 23:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)</s> ] | |||
*'''Comment'''. Excuse me for butting in on a subject I know nothing about (and care even less) but this page is now on my watchlist and I have a question. ] claimed that diacritics were used in English in "the old days", presumably meaning Old English judging by the examples he gives. So how is it that I can see the diacritics in Wikisource's ], but they are entirely absent from ]? Perhaps the diacritics are just a modern affectation to aid pronunciation and were never really part of the language. ]] 19:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*::See ]. Accoring to that, some 'runic' letters and a few diacritics were used in OE manuscripts, but modern transcriptions have added diacritics to preserve distinctions in sound that would have been clear to a reader of the day, but not to a modern reader. ] ] 20:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:::So the short answer is no, "one, two, three, four" were not written as "ān, twā, þrēo, fēowor" in the old days, at least not usually. ]] 00:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*::::This is a fair query. From what I understand, Latin didn't really have them, or old Germanic. The better question would be why did many other languages decide to add them while English didn't? Specifically the romance languages. I don't think anyone knows why English or Anglo-Saxon didn't jump on the bandwagon when other languages started added them. ] (]) 05:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' - the editors inputting on the ] guideline historically have been tilted to the anti-diacritics or "English names for foreigners" lobby. As such the ] wording reflects an anachronism in conflict with consensus across 100,000s of articles which consistently use diacritics - except for one blonde tennis player who was moved in a RM including a previous incarnation of community-banned sockmaster ] above - and it is that consistent MOS across 100,000s of articles, confirmed in RFC after RFC, which represents the editor reality of the encyclopedia not a guideline with (still amazingly) local consensus defenders some of whom just don't like the way modern hardback English full font books, and/or en.wp article corpus are. ] (]) 22:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* '''Comment''', bordering on '''Support''': I know this isn't the place to debate this, but since the same goofy things keep being said, I can't help making a few points: | |||
** To the people who keep saying "English has 26 letters and no diacritics": you're wrong. I'm a native speaker of English, and the language I use includes diacritics. I write "Susie Hawkins, née Butler". I write "à la peanut butter sandwiches". I'm not saying you're wrong for not using the diacritics, but by the same token, you can't say I'm wrong for using them. | |||
** The ] writes "naïve". The ] writes "coöperate". You may find these to be affected usages typical of liberal northeast media that you may not care to read, but they're mainstream American media, so you really can't argue with them, either. | |||
** ], which is about as mainstream American as you can get, writes McCafé. (And you can get a Frappé there, whatever that is.) | |||
** <small></small> ]. | |||
** Support for diacriticful typography is incredibly widespread. ] is everywhere. ] is long gone. | |||
** People who don't know how to type diacritics when editing Misplaced Pages articles don't have to. Someone else will come along and fix them later. | |||
** People who don't like diacritics don't have to enter them, either. Someone else will come along and fix them later. | |||
** When reading, people who don't like diacritics can just ignore them. (If we can survive color/colour -- and we have to -- we should be able to survive this.) | |||
** The hockey article compromise (or the tennis article compromise, or whatever you want to call it) is a terrible crock. | |||
** The WP:MOS language on the matter is fine. The only problem is some number of strangely parochial (or downright xenophobic) editors who see red when they see diacritics and go around looking for excuses to remove them. (But the existence of the hockey/tennis compromise shows that, whether I like it or not, the number and/or vociferousness of those editors is evidently not small.) —] (]) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC), updated 18:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**:The hockey compromise is really just a victim of the changing times on the wiki. It was very progressive when it was created. All over the wiki diacritics were being removed right left and centre. And notedly were also added in some. But it was the only place where there was anything in place to push for using them. It was then used by many other topics to argue for using them elsewhere on the wiki. So it seems antiquated now because it calls for not using them in one area, but really it was created with a progressive mindset in 2007 when there was a real war going on between the two sides on whether or not to use them on the wiki. The hockey compromise would be removed in a heartbeat if we had a new RfC that indicated that the wiki consensus had shifted to support using them since the last wiki-wide RfC finished 50-50 almost to the person a couple years ago on using them or banning them. -] (]) 18:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**:: Thanks for that perspective. —] (]) 18:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:'''I agree'''. This way, the options would go as | |||
*] has persistent issues with macrons (which are common the the indigenous ] and making their way via loan words into ]). We systematically defer to ]. When evaluating usage for ], we discount media sites which are technically unable to deal with macrons (several of the mainstream newspapers) but not those that don't use macrons as a policy choice. ] (]) 21:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*Show all images | |||
:*Blur all images | |||
:*Hide all images | |||
:It would honestly be better with your suggestion. ] (]) 00:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Of course, it will do nothing to appease the "These pics shouldn't be on WP at all" people. ] (]) 06:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::“Commons be thataway” is what we should tell them ] (]) 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I suggest that the "hide all images" display file name if possible. Between file name and caption (which admittedly are often similar, but not always), there should be sufficient clue whether an image will be useful (and some suggestion, but not reliably so, if it may offend a sensibility.) -- ] (]) 17:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:For low-bandwidth ''or expensive bandwidth'' -- many folks are on mobile plans which charge for bandwidth. -- ] (]) 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Regarding not limiting image management choices to Misplaced Pages: that's why it's better to manage this on the client side. Anyone needing to limit their bandwidth usage, or to otherwise decide individually on whether or not to load each photo, will likely want to do this generally in their web browsing. ] (]) 18:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== WikiWidgets == | |||
:Definitely a browser issue. You can get plug-ins for Chrome right now that will do exactly this, and there's no need for Misplaced Pages/Mediawiki to implent anything. — ] (]) 18:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I propose something a bit different: all images on the bad images list can only be viewed with a user account that has been verified to be over 18 with government issued ID. I say this because in my view there is absolutely no reason for a minor to view it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Well, that means readers will be forced to not only create an account, but also disclose sensitive personal information, just to see encyclopedic images. That is pretty much the opposite of a 💕. ] (] · ]) 23:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I can support allowing users to opt to blu4 or hide some types of images, but this needs to be an opt-in only. By default, show all images. And I'm also opposed to any technical restriction which requires self-identification to overcome, except for cases where the Foundation deems it necessary to protect private information (checkuser, oversight-level hiding, or emails involving private information). Please also keep in mind that even if a user sends a copy of an ID which indicates the individual person's age, there is no way to verify that it was the user's own ID whuch had been sent. ] ] 11:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Also, the ] is a really terrible standard. ] is completely harmless content that ''happened'' to be abused. And even some of the “NSFW” images are perfectly fine for children to view, for example ]. Are we becoming Texas or Florida now? ] (]) 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::You could've chosen a much better example like dirty toilet or the flag of Hezbollah... ] (]) 19:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Well, yes, but I rank that as “harmless”. I don’t know why anyone would consider a woman with her newborn baby so inappropriate for children it needs to be censored like hardcore porn. ] (]) 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::The Hezbollah flag might be blacklisted because it's copyrighted, but placed in articles by uninformed editors (though one of JJMC89's bots automatically removes NFC files from pages). We have ] for those uses. ''']]''' 16:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I '''support''' this proposal. It’s a very clean compromise between the “think of the children” camp and the “freeze peach camp”. ] (]) 17:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Let me dox myself so I can view this image. Even Google image search doesn't require something this stringent. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 19:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:'''oppose''' should not be providing toggles to censor. ] (]) 15:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:What about an option to disable images entirely? It might use significantly less data. ''']]''' 02:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::This is an even better idea as an opt-in toggle than the blur one. Load no images by default, and let users click a button to load individual images. That has a use beyond sensitivity. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 02:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes I like that idea even better. I think in any case we should use alt text to describe the image so people don’t have to play Russian roulette based on potentially vague or nonexistent descriptions, i.e. without alt text an ignorant reader would have no idea the album cover for ] depicts a nude child in a… ''questionable'' pose. ] (]) 11:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::An option to replace images with alt text seems both much more useful and much more neutral as an option. There are technical reasons why a user might want to not load images (or only selectively load them based on the description), so that feels more like a neutral interface setting. An option to blur images by default sends a stronger message that images are dangerous.--] (]) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Also it'd negate the bandwidth savings somewhat (assuming an image is displayed as a low pixel-count version). I'm of the belief that Misplaced Pages should have more features tailored to the reader. ''']]''' 16:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::At the very least, add a filter that allows you to block all images on the bad image list, specifically that list and those images. To the people who say you shouldnt have to give up personal info, I say that we should go the way Roblox does. Seems a bit random, hear me out: To play 17+ games, you need to verify with gov id, those games have blood alcohol, unplayable gambling and "romance". I say that we do the same. Giving up personal info to view bad things doesn't seem so bad to me. ] (]) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Building up a database of people who have applied to view bad things on a service that's available in restrictive regimes sounds like a way of putting our users in danger. -- ] (]) 07:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Roblox =/= Misplaced Pages. I don’t know why I have to say this, nor did I ever think I would. And did you read what I already said about the “bad list”? Do you want people to have to submit their ID to look at poop, a woman with her baby, the Hezbollah flag, or ]? How about we age-lock articles about adult topics next? ] (]) 15:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Ridiculous. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::So removing a significant thing that makes Misplaced Pages free is worth preventing underaged users from viewing certain images? I wouldn't say that would be a good idea if we want to make Misplaced Pages stay successful. If a reader wants to read an article, they should expect to see images relevant to the topic. This includes topics that are usually considered NSFW like ], ], et cetera. If a person willingly reads an article about an NSFW topic, they should acknowledge that they would see topic-related NSFW images. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 16:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::What "bad things"? You haven't listed any. --] (]) (]) 15:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::This is moot. Requiring personal information to use Misplaced Pages isn't something this community even has the authority to do. ] (]) 16:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, if this happens it should be through a disable all images toggle, not an additional blur. There have been times that would have been very helpful for me. ] (]) 03:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:'''Support''' the proposal as written. I'd imagine WMF can add a button below the already-existing accessibility options. People have different cultural, safety, age, and mental needs to block certain images. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I'd support an option to replace images with the alt text, as long as all you had to do to see a hidden image was a single click/tap (we'd need some fallback for when an image has no alt text, but that's a minor issue). Blurring images doesn't provide any significant bandwidth benefits and could in some circumstances cause problems (some blurred innocent images look very similar to some blurred blurred images that some people regard as problematic, e.g. human flesh and cooked chicken). I strongly oppose anything that requires submitting personal information of any sort in order to see images per NatGertler. ] (]) 14:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Fallback for alt text could be filename, which is generally at least slightly descriptive. -- ] (]) 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* These ideas (particularly the toggle button to blur/hide all images) can be suggested at ''']'''. ] (]) 15:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Class icons in categories == | |||
Some time ago I thought that many readers would benefit if we could embed simple interactive programs (widgets) into articles to help illustrate and explain the concepts within them. So I thought of a crude way to implement it and made a proposal ]. However, maybe due to technical and conceptual immaturity, it didn't garner much support. So I took it to my home project, the Spanish Misplaced Pages. There it sparked some interest, and slowly we refined it and eventually implemented it. Today we have two wikiwidgets already deployed, you can check them out ] and ]. | |||
This is something that has frequently occurred to me as a potentially useful feature when browsing categories, but I have never quite gotten around to actually proposing it until now. | |||
Today I'd like to share with you the way we implemented it, and ask for your support to get it working here in the English Misplaced Pages. Basically, to get the wikiwidgets working we need three things. | |||
Basically, I'm thinking it could be very helpful to have ] class icons appear next to article entries in categories. This should be helpful not only to readers, to guide them to the more complete entries, but also to editors, to alert them to articles in the category that are in need of work. Thoughts? ] (]) 03:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
First we need to create the ]. That's easy, I just did it. Second, we need to add the following lines to ]: | |||
:If we go with this, I think there should be only 4 levels - Stub, Average (i.e. Start, C, or B), GA, & FA. | |||
<source lang=javascript> | |||
:There are significant differences between Start, C, and B, but there's no consistent effort to grade these articles correctly and consistently, so it might be better to lump them into one group. Especially if an article goes down in quality, almost nobody will bother to demote it from B to C. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 04:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
/** | |||
:: Isn't that more of an argument for consolidation of the existing levels rather than reducing their number for one particular application? | |||
* Inserts WikiWidgets in the articles with the Template:WikiWidget | |||
:: Other than that, I think I would have to agree that there are too many levels - the difference between Start and C class, for example, seems quite arbitrary, and I'm not sure of the usefulness of A class - but the lack of consistency within levels is certainly not confined to these lower levels, as GAs can vary enormously in quality and even FAs. But the project nonetheless finds the content assessment model to be useful, and I still think their usefulness would be enhanced by addition to categories (with, perhaps, an ability to opt in or out of the feature). | |||
* WikiWidgets serve to illustrate and explain interactively the concepts treated within articles | |||
:: I might also add that including content assessment class icons to categories would be a good way to draw more attention to them and encourage users to update them when appropriate. ] (]) 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*/ | |||
:::I believe anything visible in reader-facing namespaces needs to be more definitively accurate than in editor-facing namespaces. So I'm fine having all these levels on talk pages, but not on category pages, unless they're applied more rigorously. | |||
$( '.WikiWidget' ).each( function () { | |||
:::On the other hand, with FAs and GAs, although standards vary within a range, they do undergo a comprehensive, well-documented, and consistent process for promotion and demotion. So just like we have an icon at the top of those articles (and in the past, next to interwiki links), I could hear putting them in categories. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 18:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
var wikiwidget = $( this ).attr( 'data-wikiwidget' ); | |||
:Isn't the display of links Category pages entirely dependent on the Mediawiki software? We don't even have ]s displayed, which would probably be considerably more useful.{{pb}}Any function that has to retrieve content from member articles (much less their talkpages) is likely to be somewhat computationally expensive. Someone with more technical knowledge may have better information. ] (]) 18:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
importScript( 'MediaWiki:WikiWidget-' + wikiwidget + '.js' ); | |||
::Yes, this will definitely require MediaWiki development, but probably not so complex. And I wonder why this will be more computationally expensive than scanning articles for ] tags in the first place. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 18:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
importStylesheet( 'MediaWiki:WikiWidget-' + wikiwidget + '.css' ); | |||
:::{{tpq| And I wonder why this will be more computationally expensive than scanning articles for ] tags in the first place}} my understanding is that this is not what happens. When a category is added to or removed from an article, the software adds or removes that page as a record from a database, and that database is what is read when viewing the category page. ] (]) 20:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
}); | |||
:I think that in the short term, this could likely be implemented using a user script (displaying short descriptions would also be nice). Longer-term, if done via an extension, I suggest limiting the icons to GAs and FAs for readers without accounts, as other labels aren't currently accessible to them. (Whether this should change is a separate but useful discussion).<span id="Frostly:1733699202975:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(proposals)" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 23:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
</source> | |||
:: I'd settle for a user script. Who wants to write it? :) ] (]) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
This code checks for the presence of the WikiWidget template in every page. When found, it loads the code of the wikiwidget named in the first parameter of the template. If the wikiwidget is called X, the loaded code will be MediaWiki:WikiWidget-X.js and MediaWiki:WikiWidget-X.css. So the third step is to add the code of one or both existing wikiwidgets to their proper pages in the MediaWiki namespace, that is: | |||
::: As an FYI for whoever decides to write it, ] may be useful to you. ]] 01:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* ] | |||
::::@], the ] already exists. Go to ] and scroll about two-thirds of the way through that section. | |||
* ] | |||
::::I strongly believe that ordinary readers <ins>don't</ins> care about this kind of ], but if you want it for yourself, then use the gadget or fork its script. Changing this old gadget from "adding text and color" to "displaying an icon" should be relatively simple. ] (]) 23:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* ] | |||
*I strongly oppose loading any default javascript solution that would cause hundreds of client-side queries every time a category page is opened. As far as making an upstream software request, there are multiple competing page quality metrics and schemes that would need to be reviewed. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* ] | |||
You can find the code in the homonymous pages in the Spanish Misplaced Pages, or at the GitHub project . | |||
== Cleaning up NA-class categories == | |||
Besides the implementation, a bit of documentation will be needed for the template, at ] and maybe even a WikiProject, but I can take care of that. What I cannot do by myself is the stuff in the MediaWiki namespace, but even if I could, I think that the project is novel enough to require some support of the community before asking an admin to implement it. So I hope you like it and support it, and even help me develop it, cheers! --] (]) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
We have a long-standing system of double classification of pages, by quality (stub, start, C, ...) and importance (top, high, ...). And then there are thousands of pages that don't need either of these; portals, redirects, categories, ... As a result most of these pages have a double or even triple categorization, e.g. ] is in ], ], and ]. | |||
:While this would be interesting in theory, I have to oppose this on the principle that we shouldn't require JavaScript for page content. JavaScript can and should ''enhance'' site functionality, but shouldn't be strictly ''required'' whenever possible. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{{]|]|]}}</span> 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
My suggestion would be to put those pages only in the "Class" category (in this case ]), and only give that category a NA-rating. Doing this for all these subcats (File, Template, ...) would bring the at the moment 276,534 (!) pages in ] back to near-zero, only leaving the anomalies which probably need a different importance rating (and thus making it a useful cleanup category). | |||
:I also think this is a bad idea, for a number of reasons. Embedded JS raises serious performance, accessibility and security concerns. Performance in that running JS uses CPU cycles. Accessibility as many people disable JS; many more have browsers unable which don't support HTML5/JS which this needs. And security as having complex and arbitrary JS run on pages opens them up to all sorts of exploits. We can already do animations with animated GIF or movies, so there’s little need for it.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
It is unclear why we have two systems (3 cat vs. 2 cat), the tags on ] (without class or NA indication) have a different effect than the tags on e.g. ], but my proposal is to make the behaviour the same, and in both cases to reduce it to the class category only (and make the classes themselve categorize as "NA importance"). This would only require an update in the templates/modules behind this, not on the pages directly, I think. ] (]) 15:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Hi, thanks for your constructive criticism. '''The wikiwidgets don't make JavaScript necessary in any way.''' I forgot to mention this (sorry) but the second parameter of the WikiWidget template is the file to be shown when the wikiwidget isn't loaded. In fact, the file is always shown, it's just that it's replaced by the wikiwidget when the JavaScript code loads. If the code doesn't load for whatever reason, then the file will just stay there. This means that the JavaScript code isn't required at all, pages will render fine without it. Having JavaScript just enhances the user experience. | |||
:As to '''security''', the development process of wikiwidgets is very similar to that of gadgets, yet we don't reject gadgets for security concerns. We just need code review, like with gadgets or any other piece of code, and this will be accomplished through the GitHub project. | |||
:Regarding '''performance''', I can edit the existing wikiwidgets so that they don't start automatically, and we can establish this as a rule for further wikiwidgets. This would make them much less of a bother for those with weak CPUs. | |||
:I think that a wikiwidget isn't nearly the same as an image or a movie: it incorporates a key element to the learning process: interactivity. The existing wikiwidgets already show some of the potential (did you play with them for a while?), but there is a lot more to be discovered. Imagine other wikiwidgets for explaining the movements of the planets or other physical phenomena, and all those that we cannot imagine yet. The field is vast. But even if we never get beyond a few wikiwidgets, then a few is better than none, don't you think? We already have two available, all we need are a few lines of code to get them working. Cheers! --] (]) 01:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Your two demo links were impressive. They are very valuable additions to the articles. Unfortunately I don't think we can allow editors to inject arbitrary code into pages. It's a security issue. ] (]) 02:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Hi ], I'm glad that you find them valuable! As mentioned above, the security risk is no greater than with gadgets. Do you think gadgets are a security issue? --] (]) 03:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I do, and I suspect that anyone who knows anything about what ] be done by an admin who is careless (or whose account was hacked by someone malicious) will agree with me. We ought to require ] for popular gadgets—including every single change, not just when it's first enabled. Code review isn't fun, but it does prevent problems. ] (]) 08:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::]: so some gadgets are not reviewed? That sucks, I agree that every gadget should be reviewed! The one gadget I contribute to () does have code review. In any case, unlike gadgets, WikiWidgets will be developed in a centralised way through . In GitHub, only approved users can contribute code, and if a non-approved user wants to contribute, s/he has to do a "pull request" and the code will necessarily go through review. GitHub is a tried and tested platform for code collaboration. If the project gets implemented, people will not rush in to create wikiwidgets, more likely there will be one submission per year, so I will definitely review it properly. And if somehow the project starts getting too many submissions for me to review (extremely unlikely) then surely other developers will help me, especially given the fact that this project aims to be inter-wiki, so the same code will be used in all Wikipedias. --] (]) 13:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Are there any pages that don't have the default? e.g. are there any portals or Category talk: pages rated something other than N/A importance? If not then I can't see any downsides to the proposal as written. If there are exceptions, then as long as the revised behaviour allows for the default to be overwritten when desired again it would seem beneficial. ] (]) 16:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Gadgets have been mentioned but they have two key differences. First they are opt-in. They may start off as some editors personal tool, which they advertise and gets adopted. Eventually they may be added to preferences, but that's not a requirement, and many still exist as snippets of JS and CSS you add to your own common.js and .css or similar. This means they cannot affect editors who haven't enabled them and aren't aware of them. Second because of they way they work they are typically visible to editors using them across all pages. This means that problems with gadgets are almost always spotted and reported very quickly. | |||
::As far as I know, there are no exceptions. And I believe that one can always override the default behaviour with a local parameter. {{ping|Tom.Reding}} I guess you know these things better and/or knows who to contact for this. ] (]) 16:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:On the other hand problems in articles can go unnoticed and unreported for a very long time, weeks, months even years. At the moment these only damage the encyclopaedia, by lowering its average quality. But if JS widgets were allowed in page the potential for direct harm to readers is much much greater, which also increases the incentive to do harm, and to hide the nature of the damaging JS. Mandating a thorough code review would catch many if not most of these but that would be an immense amount of work, which we don't do for any other sort of content. <small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Looking a bit further, there do seem to be exceptions, but I wonder why we would e.g. have redirects which are of high importance to a project (]). Certainly when one considers that in some cases, the targets have a lower importance than the redirects? E.g. ]. ] (]) 16:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::], I take it that your previous concerns about performance and accessibility were answered. It seems that the security issue is the main concern for everyone involved in this discussion, so hopefully if we dismiss it the project may get some support. WikiWidgets will be developed through GitHub, the largest platform for code collaboration in the world. GitHub has a system by which only approved users may submit code directly, and non-approved users have to submit a "pull request" which forces approved users to review the code before merging it. This is the way most software is developed today. The existing wikiwidgets are composed of a single JavaScript file of less than 1000 lines of code, and future wikiwidgets are unlikely to grow much bigger, which means that they are really easy to review, compared to gigantic softwares like MediaWiki. You mention that the workload may be too great, but don't worry, most likely there won't be a single submission in the rest of the year, and if there is I will be '''glad''' to review it, rather than burdened. (Plus you won't be doing the work, I will!) As with ''any'' piece of software, the risk of malicious code slipping by will never be absolute zero, but I hope you will not let that dim chance put a stop to a project that could be a step forward for Misplaced Pages and has much more potential to do good than harm. --] (]) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I was imagining high importance United States redirects to be things like ] but that isn't there and what is is a very motley collection. I only took a look at one, ]. As far as I can make out the article was originally at this title but later moved to ] over a redirect. Both titles had independent talk pages that were neither swapped nor combined, each being rated high importance when they were the talk page of the article. It seems like a worthwhile exercise for the project to determine whether any of those redirects are actually (still?) high priority but that's independent of this proposal. ] (]) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::No, the performance and accessibility issues are still issues: pages on WP currently load fine with no JS at all (though it's needed for many optional and editing features). But security is the main concern. We certainly don't want to require editors to sign up to and become familiar with GitHub to contribute. It has its uses but largely replicates what we have here already. E.g. instead of a commit history we have a page history. Instead of being able to fork here you can use a sandbox or sandboxes. And as far as we are concerned WP's mechanisms are stronger: we have e.g. user rights so not everyone can edit code. Anyone can sign up to GitHub. Users contributions here are tied to their accounts, useful for awarding rights and reviewing them. That would not be possible with GitHub contributions. And so on.<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 19:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::{{clc|Custom importance masks of WikiProject banners}} is where to look for projects that might use an importance other than NA for cats, or other deviations. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Ok ], let me know what concerns you about performance and accessibility, maybe there is a solution. Regarding the use of GitHub, please remember that software designed for code collaboration is much more efficient at code collaboration than software designed for building an encyclopedia. The MediaWiki software is developed using Git, though not GitHub. We use another code review software called Gerrit, plus Phabricator for tracking bugs. Many MediaWiki gadgets are developed using GitHub, as well as some extensions and dependencies of the software. Nevertheless, if this project gets some support, I can almost certainly move the development of wikiwidgets to Gerrit and Phabricator, where it would be more in line with the way the majority of the software for Misplaced Pages is developed. --] (]) 02:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Most projects don't use this double intersection (as can be seen by the amount of categories in ], compared to ]). I personally feel that the bot updated page like ] is enough here and requires less category maintenance (creating, moving, updating, etc.) for a system that is underused. ] (]) 17:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Again the performance and accessibility issues are that it uses JavaScript. I am typing this on a relatively old (2006) laptop. Hardly ancient and it still works fine. Except many web sites are unusable due to JavaScript; they slow to a crawl, and/or start using 20% of CPU. Open two or three tabs and it can bring my whole machine to a halt. So I sometimes have to turn off JavaScript to browse them. Not WP though which works fine without JavaScript (though I loose some gadgets such as popups). Right now any WP page wastes no CPU cycles on JS whether reading or editing. If it did I would have to consider disabling JavaScript to view such pages, or not visiting them at all. Other people may not have that choice, or may not be aware of it, so may just find WP suddenly slow and stop visiting. Still others will disable JavaScript for other reasons: to disable adverts, or paywalls, or for general security reasons. And many will have older browsers which do not support the particular HTML/JS capabilities this depends on. | |||
:Support this, even if there might be a few exceptions, it will make them easier to spot and deal with rather than having large unsorted NA-importance categories. ] (] · ]) 18:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::The point about Github is these are content, not parts of the WP software. And content is hosted on WP, or on Commons. This even includes source code, such as Lua, and a limited amount of JS such as ]. Hosting it on GitHub would just exclude many editors from contributing, whether that's contributing code, checking and verifying code, or making suggestions for improvements. Given that GitHub largely duplicates what we have here it would seem perverse to host it there when it can be done very easily on WP with far better integration into WP systems and accessibility for WP editors.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 19:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Strongly agree with this. It's bizarre having two different systems, as well as a pain in the ass sometimes. Ideally we should adopt a single consistent categorization system for importance/quality. ] (]) 22:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} | |||
I'm adding a few quick comments here, to make sure that we're all using the same language: | |||
* "Gadget" means "thing listed at ]". These are the scripts that you'll find in ]. If you create the same kind of thing, but it isn't listed there, then it is called a "user script". | |||
* Gadgets can be, and sometimes are, enabled by default. At the moment, I count nine gadgets enabled by default in the list at ] at the English Misplaced Pages (this is the page you change to add, remove, or re-configure all gadgets). The list of on-by-default gadgets include mostly Javascript (e.g., charinsert, RefToolbar, Reference Tooltips) and a couple of things with both Javascript and CSS (e.g., Teahouse, Featured Article links). | |||
* Code review is a sort of (very) fully protected style of ] for code. The general idea is that I post my code revision, but nobody uses that code unless and until someone else (someone trusted) looks it over and agrees that my code is sensible and unlikely to break stuff. | |||
* There is no way to require code review for any user script, any gadget, or any other page hosted on wiki. (Even if it could be applied to Javascript files or pages in the MediaWiki: namespace, Pending Changes never stops an admin from making live changes to a page.) | |||
** Exactly like user scripts, almost none of the gadgets at the English Misplaced Pages are fully (formally) code reviewed. This is because most of them are hosted directly on wiki, where your change to the page is live immediately, no matter what. | |||
** There is no way to prevent any admin from making immediate changes to what's in the list of gadgets or whether they're turned on by default. Other tech-savvy admins also watch the page, but your (any admin's) change to the gadgets page is live immediately, and if your typo breaks things, then it's broken for thousands of readers and editors immediately. There is currently no way to force code review for this page. Admins can optionally choose to post their suggested code in a sandbox or on the talk page, but there's nothing except their own fear of breaking things to require sensible measures like that. | |||
** Ditto for pages like ], which hosts what you might think of as "gadgets" that you're not allowed to opt out of. ] is a particularly relevant example, since it's code-reviewed using the same system that ] is proposing, it's enabled for everyone (with no ability to opt out, even), and it directly affects article content. | |||
* The lack of code review for on wiki scripts has led to a variety of problems, usually minor, over the years. Here at the English Misplaced Pages, it's usually resolved within a few hours. At some of the smaller wikis, problems have persisted for ''years'', and many of them are quite easily identified through basic code review. For example, in 2013, someone found and fixed a problem at a small Misplaced Pages that was due to someone pasting the same code twice into the common.js (or was it common.css?) file. This is the sort of problem that code review usually catches. | |||
Okay, does anyone know what should be changed to implement this? I presume this comes from ], I'll inform the people there about this discussion. ] (]) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
If you're interested in this problem, then I'll add that a system for code review for gadgets and other designated scripts could be implemented, but it would require more than a little bit of dev time. I don't know if it's likely to happen unless the larger communities request it. ] (]) 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for your contribution ]. I just checked and it seems like Gerrit has no repositories for gadgets! It looks like they are all developed via GitHub or some other code developing platform, or even through no platform at all (no code review). Indeed it would seem that organising and even centralising gadget development would be a good thing, but this is another issue (and a big one for sure). I may start a proposal at Wikimedia when I find the time. Anyway, back to the wikiwidgets, I told JohnBlackburne that I can probably move their development to Gerrit, but it would probably be easier to do that if we ''first'' implement wikiwidgets in the English Misplaced Pages, as doing so would add weight to the request to open repositories for them at Gerrit. Do you think that it would be better to move the development of wikiwidgets to Gerrit, or does it seem equally ok to you if it's done via GitHub? | |||
:], regarding performance and accessibility, I updated the code of the wikiwidgets so that they don't start by default. Could you check if the pages with the wikiwidgets in the Spanish Misplaced Pages load ok for you now? ] and ] are the links. Cheers! --] (]) 15:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I have no preference between Gerrit and GitHub. I am satisfied with any platform that encourages code review. ] (]) 20:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I would actively oppose a policy that required using a proprietary service to contribute to Misplaced Pages. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 05:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''<del>Tenatively</del> support''': This would be very useful for all sorts of things. An immediate one that comes to mind is illustrating things in ] articles, with a virtual billiards, pool, or snooker table. My security hairs raised immediately too, along with those of others, but your answers so far seem adequate. I'm seeing some "damned if you do, damned if you don't" flawed reasoning in some of the security-related naysaying. We can't simultaneously expect that the ability to inject Javascript into pages must be strictly limited, then complain that it can't be strictly limited because that would impede editors from using this tool. It's perfectly fine to require people to use GitHub if that's what's it takes to do this securely. We do stuff like this all the time, like now all the interwiki stuff is done offsite at Wikidata, and I can't be bothered to figure out how to use it. There are 100,000 other things for me to do on WP, so no overall productivity to the project is lost; some people just become Wikidata-competent and some don't. The move of complex templates to Lua modules is the same; some editors choose to learn enough Lua to deal with it, others work on something else. I also don't buy the "we can't require Javascript" argument; it'd be a simple content guidelines matter to add a line somewhere saying not to build articles in such a way that they can't be understood without JS. This really isn't any different from adding videos and other supplementary material, and frankly WP is already greatly usability-impeded without Javascript, as are almost all modern, complex websites. JS support is just part of how the Web basically works, and has been since the late 1990s. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 03:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for the tentative support ], let me know if you see any blocking problems. --] (]) 15:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't see any, really. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*These examples show that the javascript is used differently to the rest of the javascript on wikipedia. Rather than a tool for editing (or reading) support, the javascript is the content. I think this is important and that this this javascript needs to be treated more like images to video than the rest of javascript (think: moving to commons, systematic approaches to finding display alternatives, etc.). ] (]) 03:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::], moving the wikiwidgets to Commons would definitely make sense, as the code should be exactly the same throughout the various Wikipedias, except for the internationalised messages. However, I'm pretty sure that the software isn't quite ready for that, and until there are enough wikiwidgets in enough Wikipedias, there is little incentive for the Foundation to invest resources on it. If we want the wikiwidgets to be hosted in Commons, I think that the best start would be to implement them in enough Wikipedias, starting by the English Misplaced Pages, and if the project grows enough, we can then do a stronger proposal to the Foundation. --] (]) 15:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I tend to concur, though it wouldn't hurt to ask over at Commons and see what the reaction is. These strike me as different and severable issues though. Where it's hosted has little to do with whether en.wiki should use this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:This sounds interesting, but I don't personally have resources to help out further. However I do want to make three suggestions here with regards to performance: | |||
:# Don't auto-start. As ] pointed out, these widgets should only start computing things, creating DOM elements, bind event handlers, make HTTP requests, etc. until ''after'' the user has first performed some kind of interaction with the widget. | |||
:# Don't auto-load. In fact, I'd like us to take it a step further and also don't call importScript/importStylesheet until after user interaction. Loading the code and stylesheets is still significant overhead in HTTP requests and consumer bandwidth usage. This means that, in order to eliminate these initial loads, we have to standardise the "start" button (or equivalent) as part of the WikiWidget provider gadget. E.g. a play button or some other simple interface. We don't have to be limited to just a single way to start a widget, but we should provide a finite number of them. This also makes it easier to maintain a consistent user interface since these "entry doors" will be controlled by the same gadget (the WikiWidgets provider). | |||
:# Specify resources. Don't assume there will be a one JS and one CSS file. Instead, let the template declare which ones are expected to exist. Making a needless HTTP request that will only yield a 404 Not Found is a waste of resources. | |||
:Thanks for this great idea! --] (]) 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:So essentially what you are proposing is to delete ] and all its subcategories? I think it would be best to open a CfD for this, so that the full implications can be discussed and consensus assured. It is likely to have an effect on assessment tools, and tables such as ] would no longer add up to the expected number — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Proposal to add edit restrictor to MW software == | |||
::There was a CfD specifically for one, and the deletion of ] doesn't seem to have broken anything so far. A CfD for the deletion of 1700+ pages seems impractical, an RfC would be better probably. ] (]) 08:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Well a CfD just got closed with 14,000 categories, so that is not a barrier. It is also the technically correct venue for such discussions. By the way, all of the quality/importance intersection categories check that the category exists before using it, so deleting them shouldn't break anything. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 08:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::And were all these cats tagged, or how was this handled? ] (]) 10:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::]. HouseBlaster took care of listing each separate cateory on the working page. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 10:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I have no idea what the "working page" is though. ] (]) 11:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I'm going to have to '''oppose''' any more changes to class categories. Already changes are causing chaos across the system with the bots unable to process renamings and fixing redirects whilst ] is being overwhelmed by the side effects. Quite simply we must have no more changes that cannot be properly processed. Any proposal must have clear instructions posted before it is initiated, not some vague promise to fix a module later on. ] (]) 13:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{rfc|prop|tech|rfcid=E6A3013}} | |||
:Then I'm at an impasse. Module people tell me "start a CfD", you tell me "no CfD, first make changes at the module". No one wants the NA categories for these groups. What we can do is 1. RfC to formalize that they are unwanted, 2. Change module so they no longer get populated 3. Delete the empty cats caused by steps 1 and 2. Is that a workable plan for everybody? ] (]) 13:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I don't think @] was telling you to make the changes at the module first, rather to prepare the changes in advance so that the changes can be implemented as soon as the CfD reaches consensus. For example this might be achieved by having a detailed list of all the changes prepared and published in a format that can be fed to a bot. For a change of this volume though I do think a discussion as well advertised as an RFC is preferable to a CfD though. ] (]) 14:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Got it in one. There are just too many problems at the moment because the modules are not being properly amended in time. We need to be firmer in requiring proponents to identify the how to change before the proposal goes live so others can enact it if necessary, not close the discussion, slap the category on the working page and let a mess pile up whilst no changes to the module are implemented. ] (]) 19:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Oh, I got it as well, but at the module talk page, I was told to first have a CfD (to determine consensus first I suppose, instead of writing the code without knowing if it will be implemented). As I probably lack the knowledge to make the correct module changes, I'm at an impasse. That's why I suggested an RfC instead of a CfD to determine the consensus for "deletion after the module has been changed", instead of a CfD which is more of the "delete it now" variety. No one here has really objected to the deletion per se, but I guess that a more formal discussion might be welcome. ] (]) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' on the grounds that I think the way we do it currently is fine. ] (]) 05:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**What's the benefit of having two or three categories for the same group of pages? We have multiple systems (with two or three cats, and apparently other ones as well), with no apparent reason to keep this around. As an example, we have ] with more than 50,000 pages, e.g. ] apparently. But when I go to that page, it isn't listed in that category, it is supposedly listed in ] (which seems to be a nonsense category, we shouldn't have NA-class, only NA-importance). but that category doesn't contain that page. So now I have no idea what's going on or what any of this is trying to achieve. ] (]) 08:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**:Something changed recently. I think. But it is useful to know which NA pages are tagged with a project with a granularity beyond just "Not Article". It helps me do maintenance and find things that are tagged improperly, especially with categories. I do not care what happens to the importance ratings. ] (]) 09:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Category:Current sports events == | |||
The goal of wikipedia is to be able allow anyone to edit. It also follows the policy that blocks are to be preventative but not punitive. We also have topic bans. I propose we add a component to Misplaced Pages that allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages with the ability control expiry. | |||
I would like to propose that sports articles should be left in the ] for 48 hours after these events have finished. I'm sure many Misplaced Pages sports fans (including me) open CAT:CSE first and then click on a sporting event in that list. And we would like to do so in the coming days after the event ends to see the final standings and results. | |||
'''Purpose:''' | |||
*To allow administrators to control which pages a user cannot edit through specific page matching or through ] matching as well as control a restriction rule's expiry. | |||
Currently, this category is being removed from articles too early, sometimes even before the event ends. Just like yesterday. ], what do you say about that? | |||
'''Description of proposed addon:''' | |||
*The functioning is similar to the combination of the block function combined with parts of the title blacklist function, spam blacklist function, and the abuse filter. The blocking administrator is able to create a rule, where within the rule, s/he can place a regex expression into a deny list as well as pages in a page matching list. Any false positives through the regex deny list can be overridden through a page matching allow list. | |||
*The blocking administrator is able set an expiry for this rule. | |||
*There is no limit to the amount of rules that can be added, each with their own expiry. | |||
*Expiry can be indefinite. | |||
*Rules can be modified by other admins. | |||
So I would like to ask you to consider my proposal. Or, if you have a better suggestion, please comment. Thanks, ] (]) 16:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''Usefulness:''' | |||
*Users with topic bans can be stopped from editing those topic pages through a <s>reggae</s>regex expression or several page matching expressions. | |||
*Users caught in an edit war can be stopped from editing the page they are warring on while still allowing them to productively edit other pages. | |||
:Thank you for bringing up this point. I agree that leaving articles in the Category:Current sports events for a short grace period after the event concludes—such as 48 hours—would benefit readers who want to catch up on the final standings and outcomes. ] (]) 18:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''Why:''' | |||
: Sounds reasonable on its face. ] (]) 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*While blocks are to prevent a user from being disruptive somewhere, it also may prevent them from being constructive elsewhere on the project. | |||
:How would this be policed though? Usually that category is populated by the {{tl|current sport event}} template, which every user is going to want to remove immediately after it finishes. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 19:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Reduces arbitration enforcement blocks for those with IBANs or topic bans, thereby allowing the editor to continue to contribute constructively. | |||
*Blocks are not meant to punish, so let's not punish with them. Blocks can still be used for vandalism, or persistent disruption, but that can be worked out in a policy RfA should this pass. | |||
::{{ping|Lee Vilenski}} First of all, the ] has nothing to do with the ]; articles are added to that category in the usual way. | |||
'''Policy:''' | |||
*Should this feature come to pass, this feature is not to be used until the necessary follow up <s>RfAs</s>RfCs focusing on the policy on the usage of this feature have to come to pass. | |||
::You ask how it would be policed. Simply, we will teach editors to do it that way – to leave an article in that category for another 48 hours. AnishaShar have already expressed their opinion above. ] is also known for removing 'CAT:CSE's from articles. I think we could put some kind of notice in that category so other editors can notice it. We could set up a vote here. Maybe someone else will have a better idea. ] (]) 20:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''Userrights introduced:''' | |||
:Would it not be more suitable for a "recently completed sports event" category. It's pretty inaccurate to say it's current when the event finished over a day ago. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 21:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
3 user rights are introduced and grouped into the sysop user group. (or into different usergroups sometime in the future) | |||
*'''restrict-editing''': Allows a user to create an edit restriction rule. | |||
*'''unrestrict-editing''': Allows a user to remove an edit restriction rule. | |||
*'''modify-restriction''': Allows a user to modify an existing rule. | |||
Okay Lee, that's also a good idea. We have these two sports event categories: | |||
'''Access to this function:''' | |||
* ] | |||
*Links to this function neighbor the block links, if visible. | |||
* ] | |||
* ] can be a suitable addition to those two. ], you are also interested in categories and sporting events; what is your opinion? ] (]) 18:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I don't have any objection to a Recent sports events category being added, but personally, if I want to see results of recent sports events, I would be more likely to go to ], which should include all recent events. ] (]) 23:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
These abilities have been split into 3 rights should there be a reason to add certain abilities into different user groups. | |||
:::Did this get the go-ahead then? I see a comment has been added to the category, and my most recent edit was reverted when I removed the category after an event finished. I didn't see any further discussion after my last comment. ] (]) 09:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Proposed by —<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> | |||
== User-generated conflict maps == | |||
=== Support (edit restrictor) === | |||
# As proposer.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 12:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# Pretty top idea... I'm sure technical and procedural issues will need to be overcome, but as an idea it gets my support. ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 13:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# While I suspect that many users blocked from their pet pages might take to vandalizing elsewhere in retaliation, it might be worth a trial run. It would probably be easiest to allow blocking by category tree (although I'm not sure on the software end how feasible it is to include a category and all pages in sub-categories). --] (]) 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# Blocks aren't punative, thry're preventative. If we have a reasonably simple preventative method against users attacking specific groups of pages, without blocking them from nearly all of Misplaced Pages, it's certainly better. ] ] 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# There will certainly have to be a lot of discussion regarding implementation and policy, but I support the tool and the theory of using it. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-variant:caps;">] (])</span> 14:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''', it is like a technical embodiment of a topic ban, but I hope this restrictor can compare article categories too (not only article titles), because topics often have articles with very dissimilar titles but similar categories. ] (]) 14:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# '''Support''', block is a very blunt tool. Having administrators be able to use more specific intervention could be useful in cases where a usually great editor looses their head on a particular topic. It would give a great way to deal with those occasional, but very frustrating to newbies, cases where an established editor is allowed to act very badly on some pages because they are so useful in other areas. ] (]) 19:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support'''. Blocks are sometimes too broad and prevent otherwise constructive contributions as a result of issues on a specific page. Of course, as others have mentioned, there may be complicated technical work involved, but I support the concept. --]] 02:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Tentatively support''': Anything that reduces WP's dependenc—e on blocks (which we all know are often punitive, despite policy against this) would be an improvement, if it doesn't cause additional problems. I share the concern about movewarring, but not very seriously. If the tool is used to enforce a topic ban, then simply renaming the article to edit it won't do anything but get the user blocked for violating the topic ban. I would see this a supplement to editing restrictions of our present sort, not a replacement for them, but one that might obviate a large number of blocks. There may be devils in the details, though. I'm not sure I like the idea using this to stop alleged editwars and other supposed disruption. Plenty of noticeboard claims that "so-and-so is editwarring" aren't actually sustained on closer examination. The tool would also rob users subjected to it of a possibly minor editorial right, to ] against a topic ban, e.g. to revert blatant vandalism, for which they'd be unlikely to be found guilty of an actual topic-ban violation. I agree with the basic goal, which is keeping sometimes-productive editors productive instead of driven away completely. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support'''. I was going to bring up the same problem that Steel1943 had mentioned below, but I rather like cyberpower678's proposed solution. Otherwise, great idea. ] (]) 01:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' per SMcCandlish – ] — ] 02:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' – great idea and makes a lot of sense. – ] (]) 04:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Huge Support''' - Great idea, could be used as a topic-band or just to keep someone off a page. There is an anon user who vandalizes the same page repeatedly. We block, he comes back, we block again. To block him on just that page would be excellent. One question: would it be possible to use this as a rangeblock (for IP users)? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 05:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
# '''Conditional Support''' - As another said, the devil is in the details. '''(1) The ban should be imposed for a finite period''', automatically lifted when expired. I suggested the page-specific ban in my comment to the recent news about Sony executives puffing Sony pages. I hypothesized a trained and experience writer/researcher in the Sony office who gets out of line with his/er puffery in Wiki editing. The administrator imposes a 28 day ban on the Sony-related pages. The effect of the ban is a career penalty on that person at his/er place of work -- his/er production is frozen for 28 days. As long as s/he stays under the wire, everything is good. Over the wire -- bam! -- penalty. The puffer learns. '''(2) The word for this tool must be caution and discretion'''. My experience shows that Misplaced Pages is a community. Editors have specialized areas of interest and knowledge, so they stay active for extended periods on those pages. Controversies develop. The page pan must not be allowed to fall into partisan hands. '''(3) The page ban could be useful during DRN'''. During two recent DRN actions, some editors continued to edit the pages even even while the subject pages of the edits were under discussion. Other editors, even when instructed to avoid ''ad hominem'', launched immediately into ''ad hominem'', disrupting the DRN. A page-specific ban would be a useful tool in the hands of the arbitrator, imposed for the period of the DRN process would be useful. '''(4) A page-specific lock routinely imposed on DRN interested parties''' might prove useful during all DRN actions. This last proposal might be a bit drastic, but I am wondering if any editor named as an interested party in a DRN should be editing the subject page. If not, the routine page ban would be no hardship. ] (]) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC) '''PS: (5) This is not the remedy for vandalism'''; true vandalism should should incur complete banning. ] (]) 00:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC) '''Addendum''': I did not pay much attention to the regex proposal, and forgot to answer that. Given the complexity and various dialects of regular expressions, and given the variety of backgrounds among the administrators, I would vote against the use of regular expressions in this context. I have used regular expressions for more than 25 years, and would still never write an expression without thoroughly testing it prior to application. It is also unnecessary. To ban a user from a page or a list of pages, name the page or the list of pages. In that way, the ban can be posted to the user's page along with the expiration date, and everyone will understand (not just the reg and his ex'es). ] (]) 04:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' - Should be able to help situations where user vandalise a specific set of pages without precluding them from making useful contributions to other articles. — <span style="color: blue">Andrew Y</span> <sub>]</sub> 08:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Cautious support''' - as long as it doesn't become abused, this should be a useful feature. --] (]) 09:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' but without the regex funny stuff. If an editor is to be blocked from editing multiple pages, each page must be specified explicitly. Some simple wildcards, like subpages, are OK. <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {{]}}</code> 09:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Emphatically Support''' - just because an editor is having trouble in one "department" should not allow us to assume that he/she will cause trouble elsewhere. Adopting this policy will allow for the fine-tuning of blocks and bans to achieve their purpose of separating warring parties on specific articles, rather than using a sledgehammer for what a nutcracker can do. ] (]) 10:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' - A useful intermediate step before a proper block, as long as it's not abused (''which is the same stipulation given to any proposed control device''). <b>~</b> <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:17px;">] (] ⋅] ⋅])</font> 13:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#I'd like to see this used in place of blocks for isolated instances of edit warring. Other uses ... not so sure - let's see what comes out of a wider discussion. But as a far more surgical and less disruptive response to edit warring, it has my vote. --] (] · ] · ]) 13:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' ] (]) 14:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' with a period of time specified as with full blocks. The edit restrictor looks to be a better way to automate a ]. -] (]) 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' the idea of per-page editing restrictions. At the moment if someone is edit warring on a single article then we have no way to get them to stop without preventing them from editing all pages, anywhere, whether they're causing disruption anywhere else or not. This just doesn't make much sense. ''''']''''' 16:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' - in principle; the idea of implementing a 'topic ban' with actual technical restrictions is a very good one. ]] 16:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''': Practical way of enforcing topic bans, and where an editor is only causing disruption in one area of the encylopedia but is helping elsewhere, that editor can still be constructive. I once had a proposal to "selectively block" users from editing certain pages, but possibly because of the way I worded it, it didn't gain as much ground as this one. I still doubt this will pass though, since Misplaced Pages editors hate change and seem to oppose everything (that is, the majority of sensible proposals here still have more opposes than supports it seems). ] ] 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Wildly, enthusiastically, head-over-heels in a flowery meadow support''' I have been suggesting this for a ''very, very long time'', and was told the main problem was that it was a non-trivial technical problem. I am pleased to see that it no longer seems to be the case.<p>Before I voted, I took the time, as we all should, to read the oppose votes. I understand their objections but believe them to be misplaced:<p>Some opposes say that "anyone who can't follow a topic ban should not be allowed to edit in the first place." This might be true in the many cases where the tbanned editor's edits are overwhelmingly, predominantly, in that one topic. But even when it is ... we should give the editor a chance to prove that it's not the community that's the problem, but the topic. I have often suggested to editors feeling the walls closing in on them that they try editing articles about something other than their favorite bands or TV shows for a while, perhaps their hometowns, or their favorite foods. I find that editors, like myself, who edit in a wide and disparate group of topic areas are generally better-adjusted than those who focus on, say, one particular region's political history or something like that.<p>And others say it's a technical solution to a policy problem, that editors should be on their honor to obey topic bans. If that approach worked in real life, we wouldn't need radio-equipped ankle bracelets or ]s. Nor do I think this will lead to move wars to evade topic bans ... if you can't edit the article to begin with, you can't move it. ] (]) 17:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support'''- It will be useful when blocking a new editor or ip user who edits disruptively on specific articles but edits constructively on other articles. I don't see any bad sides of the tool, then having it is useful when time comes. I don't think this tool will be used as widely as standard block but it is definitely useful in some areas. I think rangeblock <s>or autoblock</s> will be helpful for reducing the chance of block evasion. - ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' - If nothing else it might force a definition of the "broadly construed" construction. It's also clear that some editors work fine in certain areas but may cause problems in others. This helps address that without resort to a more punitive block. ]] 18:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#I am all in for it if it gets tested first. If something goes wrong, this could be disatorious. And just for clarification, would this be for edit war style things only, or will it be used on vandals?--]]]/]] 20:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' - I support, as not all disruptive editing is straight up vandalism. There may be certain situations were an editor is just stubborn with a certain edit regarding a certain page, despite being over-ruled by the Talk Page/consensus. This would serve as a way to let the editor continue to helpful elsewhere while still restricting him/her for the sake of protecting the page he/she is disrupting. And if he/she continues to disrupt other pages, then administrators would still be able to block the user completely. It can also serve as a lesson to new users that disrupt one page, that way they don't disrupt any other pages in the future. I believe there is no harm in trying this out and, if it doesn't work, Misplaced Pages can just do away with it. ] (]) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support with caveat''': I'm in favor, but we ''really'' need to avoid the ]; see ]. --] (]) 03:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Partial support'''. I've often had to put in edit filters for this very purpose, so in my opinion, it should be used primarily for blocking a dynamic IP on a very active range who is targeting a narrow set of articles. I '''oppose''' the reasoning behind this proposal; I don't think it would be particularly helpful in dealing with topic bans. Nonetheless, I am in favor of the technical specifications as described, despite wanting to use it for a different purpose. -- ] ] ] ] ♠ 05:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' ] (]) 06:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Qualified support''' I do not understand the technical details of this proposal, and so cannot comment on its feasibility. I believe it is desirable, though; I work in multiple highly disrupted areas of the project, and we spend far too much time at AE and ANI because somebody violated a specific ban or another. If it were possible to simply prevent that, that might allow a lot of time to be better spent building content, which is what we're here for. I share the concerns expressed below that this might provoke move-wars, but I don't think that's too likely; editors with topic bans that still allow them to edit have too much at stake. This proposal won't help with users here purely for disruptive reasons, but it might help with those who are too outspoken or lack self-control, but are still a net positive elsewhere. ] (]) 09:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' I remain extremely skeptical about the utility of the proposal as applied to established editors, for the reasons explained by many of the opposes. However I don't see much harm, only a wasted effort, and as recently pointed out, this could be really useful if we could block '''IP Ranges''' from certain articles, without inflicting collateral damage on the unrelated edits coming from the range. ]] 15:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support'''. There are many people who are fairly normal editors, unless they get in an edit war. You could also request that someone be blocked from editing your talk page, a problem that some have had. I'm a bit skeptical about non-admins getting this feature, though. <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 16:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Conditionally Support'''. I'm a bit worried that Admins will feel freer to issue these new restricted blocks. The same standards should apply as now. Compare to police tasers, which would be a wonderful alternative to using deadly force, but many police seem to use them so they don't have to run after a fleeing suspect, or as a punishment, or out of sadism. I don't want Admins also getting lazy and just permanently blocking anyone in a dispute from ever editing the disputed article again. ] (]) 00:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' Topic blocks are a great idea. I've seen many editors who are disruptive in one area but very constructive in another area (e.g. edit warring on a political/religious article while pushing a science-related article towards GA or FA). Editors should only be prevented from editing areas where they are not a net benefit. Punishing them outright is silly. <font color="teal">]</font> <sup><font color="teal">(])(])</font></sup> 01:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' for use in e.g. dealing with revert wars. Would ''oppose'' using this in lieu of a "topic ban." But, specifics of use can be whittled out when the capability comes to fruition. --] (]) 03:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' as it would also be able to eliminate SPA's that are sockpuppets of banned editors or others that use multiple accounts to avoid a full accounting of their edits. --] (]) 06:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' because it sounds like a useful tool in managing a certain type of editor. ] (]) 03:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support'''As for the AbuseFilter, the Pending Changes, etc. etc., of course this will be a burden on the server, but likely way less than the AbuseFilter. Although its functionality is currently covered by the AbuseFilter, the lower server load and a possibility to implement timelimits is a pré. This is a good idea to be developed and made available to MediaWiki (and developing it, and making it available does not incur that it is going to be widely used, but there is use for this). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 04:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' but keep it simple, just have one right similar to block ( you can also reblock with changes or unblock). Also I expect a bit of code to make this efficient so that a regex is linked to a user, so it only slows down that one user. Alternately perhaps some users may get blocked from everything except one page to appeal or respond to a discussion about them. ] (]) 11:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' do I see problems like the opposers say? Yes, but I ''do'' think there are ''some'' situations it could be of good use. So worth a trial. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' Most problem edits are local. A person has either a POV/obsession/ignorance on a page and keep banging. I thought about it long ago. Specific blocks will help a lot. Actually, better specifications will help in other things too. ] (]) 15:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' Keep it simple and give it a try. Editors -- as humans -- have weak spots and instead of a using a heavy hand, this is a solution to keep otherwise good editors editing. ] (]) 20:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' Some admins are far too quick to block over isolated disputes (i.e. editwars). As least this would limit the damage and allow such editors to continue editing in unrelated areas. ] ] 10:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' ] ] 11:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''' I think it would be helpful to allow admins to enforce topic bans using this function. ] ] 12:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''': many Opposers seem to feel that if an editor should be banned from a topic, this should be achieved by banning them completely, as the editor is clearly irresponsible and not here to contribute. That's not what currently happens: topic bans can be and are implemented and enforced. I'm not saying the number of editors who should be given benefit of the doubt in the rest of Misplaced Pages is huge (run-of-the-mill vandals should just be blocked entirely), but within the narrow scope of people who benefit from topic bans, I think this proposal would be useful. Not a replacement for anything. Just an addition. And for the people arguing bans should be punitive, every unnecessary ban that stops someone contributing positively hurts the community. (And go easy on the regexing until you're sure the technical functions works. Another useful proposal might be to block users from editing any article whose talk page has Wikiproject X's template on it, if this is possible.) — ''']'''<sub>''']'''</sub><sup>]]</sup> 16:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''': Good way to enforce bans. ] (]) 12:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support''', hesitantly. This doesn't look like it's going anywhere, and I don't really think it would work - lists of pages are tedious to compile, regexes are error-prone, and categories are too easily messed with. But I want to specifically oppose some of the oppose comments to the effect that topic bans are an opportunity for the topic-banned editor to demonstrate self-control and good judgment. If someone is a total PITA in one topic area but apparently capable of working productively in a less contentious one, then why do we ''care'' how that constraint is enacted? Misplaced Pages isn't therapy. We're not here to teach or demonstrate impulse control. I'd be all for it if I had any expectation that it could be implemented effectively. ] (]) 05:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
In a number of articles we have (or had) user-generated conflict maps. I think the mains ones at the moment are ] and ]. The war in Afghanistan had one until it was removed as poorly-sourced in early 2021. As you can see from a brief review of ] the map has become quite controversial there too. | |||
=== Oppose (edit restrictor) === | |||
#From what I can see from the information provided, this proposal has good intentions. But with the way this proposal is currently worded/intended, it has the capacity to promote move warring (possibly by meat puppets or sock puppets) to allow the blocked editor to bypass the set title regex protection, and that essentially causes more harm than good. There are some things on here that are better off not automated, and per this proposal's current wording, this seems to be one of them. That, and enforced topic bans are probably more useful than this anyways since most topic bans usually come with a flurry of editors who are aware of the ban and have the affected article/subject on their Watchlist, and some will even go to extremes to watch the banned editor's contributions to see if there are violations. ] (]) 19:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#As repeated failures to automatically tag articles with wikiproject tags shows, it's surprisingly hard to do things like this in a reliable fashion. I have very little confidence that even a regex guru would be able to craft suitable regexes to protect the appropiate pages. ] (]) 02:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#*Thedifference is that in the case of WikiProject taging, we tend the bots to do a no-error job; in the case of regex page restrictions, a large number of missed pages doesn't make the filter bad - if it can do a 25% job, it's bettter than nothing. ] ] 07:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''oppose''' This is well meant and certainly would have its uses, but I shudder to think of the amount of work that would be needed. The addition of an entirely new mechanism for controlling access per user, with potentially large amounts of per-user data, with ways of viewing and editing (and controlling access to both) it. The amount of extra work for admins learning regexps and/or compiling lists of excluded articles/categories. The potential for it to break in all sorts of hard to detect ways (especially as only the editor that is banned will be able to confirm it is working as intended). And for what? The existing method of topic banning works pretty well, as all it requires is informing the editor (after e.g. an arbitration or AN decision). It is then up to the editor to abide by it. If they can't, so if they can't even after further warnings they cannot follow it, then blocks can be used. Also a ban done the current way is much more flexible than any filter based one can be: it can include topics within files, edit restrictions such as 1RR and interaction bans.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 02:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#A similar proposal was discussed ] where my response noted that if an editor cannot abide by community consensus they are not a good fit for Misplaced Pages—hiding a problem with a technical fix is not a solution. I saw a recent example of an admin topic-banning a user, where later the user asked at the admin's talk if the user could edit certain pages covered by the topic ban—after a very brief discussion the response was "yes". That is a perfect example of people collaborating, and someone who has to be forced to comply with reasonable conditions will find other ways to be a problem. ] (]) 12:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#Commendable thinking, but this is begging to be gamed or be undermined by the swiss cheese holes in it. --] (]) 12:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#Topic bans are handled via social security, not automated security. The existence of an automatic, page-specific block will have the unintended consequence of assuming such a block is sufficient to enforce the topic ban. It isn't. A topic ban is enforced by everyone being vigilant and reporting a person who violates it. The existence of such a tool implies that a topic ban merely consists of a finite and unchanging list of pages a person is not allowed to edit, and that enforcement requires nothing more than preventing someone from editing a few pages. No. That's a small part of what a topic ban is, and we should not turn over the human element of behavior enforcement to machines. They are ill suited for it. --]] 14:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#Good intentions aplenty for sure but not seeing this as a good idea. Not only does this seem like a wikilawyer's dream, it's incredibly prone to gaming (''"My topic ban said I couldn't call that user a dick anymore, but 'veiny spunknozzle' went through the edit filter just fine, so it's ok."''). But fundamentally I'm just not sure it would justify its added trouble--anyone disruptive enough that we need to program robots to stop them from shitting all over the furniture would probably be better off simply being shown the door. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 15:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#This is a technical solution for a policy problem. The ''problem'' is the incredible popularity, among admins, of the phrase '''"broadly construed"'''. If topic-banned editors actually know what they're allowed to edit and what they're not, they would seldom have any trouble following the ban; the problem is, they not only have vague boundaries, but often (usually?) there's some opponent from their previous trouble watching what they do and waiting for a chance to call them out. Suggestion: make the topic bans smaller and clearer, and you won't need the tool; otherwise, the tool will be useless anyway. ] (]) 20:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#:Except that this feature would promarily be used for the "narrowly contrued" topic, not the "broadly construed" one. The broadly construed topic can't easily be identified by software, and certainly can't by a regex. ] ] 08:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''': prone to wikilawyering, among other problems, especially the use of regular expressions. With "broadly construed", many regular expressions would have to be written to block even a majority of related articles covered by a topic ban. For example, while banning an editor from a very narrow area (like the village pump, broadly constured) requires only one or a few regular expressions (e.g. <code>Misplaced Pages:.*Village pump.*</code>); topic bans encompassing wide areas, which compose the majority of all topic bans, is difficult (imagine configuring a topic ban from American politics). <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --><!-- Template:Xsign --> | |||
#'''Oppose''' I understand the idea behind this, but I have serious concerns, especially the idea that a tban represents a choice for the sanctioned user, and this would remove that important indicator. And the incredible potential for wiki-lawyering should a user violate their ban by editing a page that hasn't been explicitly added to the restrictor. ] (]) 02:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''', this should be able to be handled by the edit filter. The edit filter can prevent edits based on user and article names. I don't think there are any policies that would support this, however. ] 04:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#:Edit filters would be an inefficient way to implement this, and indeed would probably fail because of the processing limits imposed, unless new functions were provided that would be the equivalent of this proposal anyway. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>19:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
#'''Oppose''' - I'm impressed by the number of admins - who, presumably, would be who this tool is designed to serve - opposing this, so I'm going to monitor the discussion, but for the moment, I will oppose as well. ] (]) 04:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' as impractical and not conducive to cooperation. Instead of simplifying the amount of work and resources involved in dealing with someone who already creates enough of a nuisance to get banned. It's too easy to cheat and escalate edit warring in other forms. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' - Misplaced Pages needs to start blocking or permanently banning editors that have been engaging in blatantly disruptive behavior. Misplaced Pages does not need to restrict bad faith editors from editing in a certain area of Misplaced Pages, only so they can spread their disruptive behavior elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages's blocks should be ''both'' preventative ''and'' punitive. ] (]) 08:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' - If an editor does not voluntarily comply with a community decision to topic ban them they are not fit to be editing at all. Simple as that.] (]) 09:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' per all above. Plus, when our trusted mop users (admins) block someone, they mean it. If he's a vandal, I don't find a reason why he should be given concession for editing. Otherwise, topic ban and Arbicom are the best methods we have now and further specific topic ban, IMO, is not so useful and isn't a much needed one. -] • ]] 09:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' Unnecessarily complex and only a partial solution anyway. The problem is often disruptive editors using shared IP addresses to disrupt randomly. Blocking the IP address for a period is a good way to encourage genuine would-be editors to register. Protecting articles is a simpler solution. ] ] 10:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' It seems unlikely that the costs and complexity of implementing this solution would be outweighed by the benefits of the contributions that users who repeatedly vandalize or war over particular pages would make to other pages. Also, someone who has shown a tendency to be disruptive and is blocked from one arena is likely to just repeat the behavior in another arena. ] (]) 13:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' If an editor can't abide by a topic or article ban, he has a serious attitude problem, and should not be allowed to edit on Misplaced Pages at all. Also, as the previous editor wrote correctly, if an editor has a problem, they often have it in other areas as well, and a block is the best solution. ] (]) 13:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' This seems technically rather difficult (because so much disruptive editing is done by IP hoppers). Besides, editors unable to abide by the terms of (for instance) an ArbCom restriction probably aren't going to be much use to the project anyway. A combination of sensible page protection, escalating blocks and (if necessary) a swinging of the Ban Hammer™ should continue to suffice. -- ] (]) 14:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''', per everyone else, I'm not really seeing how this helps solve the problem of troublesome editors. Some solid, real, examples of problematic editing where this would have been a better solution might help me change my mind. ]] 15:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#:The biggest example I can think of is an edit war. If the user is generally constructive but also edit wars a lot, blocking them from the page, instead of entirely, allows that editor to cool off, but still edit positively somewhere else. If it's clearly a vandal, then a normal block is in order. Another example, let's say an editor, not giving a name here, is probably one of the best editors around, but has trouble keeping his fingers off of TBANed areas. Clearly, blocking that editor from the page itself rather than entirely, will help him and the project. He can still contribute to the project, while being forced to keep his fingers off of the page he's banned from.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 16:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#::{{ping|C678}} When I said "solid, real, examples" I did not mean made-up fictitious scenarios. Is there a single case you can point to where edit restrictor would have had better results than a topic ban? ]] 17:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#:::Edit warring happens all the time. As for the second scenario, I pulled that from another editor currently active on Misplaced Pages, but refuse to mention his name, for I fear it may cause needless drama.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 18:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#::::I know edit warring happens all the time, that's not the issue. In my experience editors who edit war have that in their character and are likely to do it on any subject that they get hot under the collar about. True, many edit warriors concentrate on one topic area, but that is because they obsess on that area and don't edit much else. I refuse to be convinced that edit restrictor has any value until I see real cases of individuals who were blocked after a topic ban while at the same time being model editors in non-disputed areas. I want to examine the edit histories for myself to see if this proposal has any merit. ]] 22:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#You get banned. Abide by it, or you are not suitable for wikipedia. An editor who can't control themselves can't be expected to abide by the guidelines in the future. --]]] 16:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' Why make work for ourselves? It also imposes yet another new rule new administrators must learn; their job is difficult enough. - ] (]) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#Per Fauzan, the requirement that users have the self-control to avoid the topics they're banned from is a feature, not a bug, of the current system. <span style="font-family:Broadway">]]</span> 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' People who edit Misplaced Pages are volunteers. If they cannot voluntarily follow rules and rulings, then the problems they create will not be worth the contributions they make. Even if you could get the tool "smart" enough to tell when the person is editing something they shouldn't, having people enforce these blocks is a reminder that this isn't a video game to be "played", but a community to be interacted with. ] (]) 19:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' Clever idea, but seems completely impractical to me. If people get topic-banned and aren't going to abide by it, then the obvious solution is to block them, not employ some confusing technology. Same with edit warring- forcing people to stop isn't going to change their attitudes to collaborate and discuss. ] (]) 20:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' - kind of takes ] away from a generally disruptive editor. An editor who is disrupting the project by edit warring or POV pushing, for example, is driving towards exhausting community patience and should get blocked. Restrictions are just a way of slowing this cycle which clears out those who learn and those are are ] to learn to collaborate. Secondly, as some one else noted above, topic bans / ibans are not finite specific pages that one can't edit. They are broadly construed and this would just invite wikilawyering. On top of that, it also prevents a topic banned editor from reverting blatant vandalism from a page he is 'restricted' at... so we have a clear blockade of ]. Nope. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 20:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose.''' More or less guarenteed to cause more problems than it solves. Anything based around regex (which I very much doubt that the majority of admins are sufficiently familiar with to use effectively) will generate false positives, and fail to cover articles it is intended to. A simple list of articles covered by a ban would be more practical, except that topic bans are generally based around ''topics'', not titles. In any case, if the admin is going to be that specific, they can simply inform the contributor of the scope of the ban - as others have said, if a contributor can't comply with a topic ban voluntarily, they shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# '''Oppose''', as this complicates things unnecessarily, and I have a hard time believing that editors who misbehave in one area will simultaneously be productive in another. – ] <small><sup>(] | ])</sup></small> 21:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# '''Oppose''', because if i get blocked in a page, or anyone gets blocked in a page by example: vandalism, i can make the same thing in other wikis or in another page. by ], questions?? (]) | |||
# '''Oppose''',I really can see the good intentions behind such a proposal but banning only from certain topics only could make it easier to give bans more frequently and very fast ( I know some editors test admins patient big time but I am talking about people who are really just caught in misunderstanding condition ) don't get me wrong for me personally all admins I have been in touch with have been reasonable in giving bans to people and it seems work just fine. ,and then more importantly ..I just don't see how can someone with vandalism editions can be productive in another topics...so what is the point from all of this then ? ] (]) 22:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# '''Oppose'''. Don't put another burden on the shoulders of the admins. They are the next endangered species.] (]) 23:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# '''Oppose'''. At first sight I thought the proposal attractive, but reading the arguments for and against, above, I think the balance of advantage lies in a No vote. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.05em;">]]</span>''' 08:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# '''Oppose'''. When I saw the proposal, my thought was, brilliant - this is a no brainer. But as I read the details, I realised that it wouldn't work, and would create more problems than it solves. If an editor is messing up one page, than applying an individual lock to that page would make sense. But trying to enforce topic bans by automation is not going to work, because already there are arguments as to which articles do come under a topic ban. A ban based on a word string will create problems, and there will be appeal discussions that the block is preventing legitimate editing, as well as notifications that the block is being evaded because XYZ article is in the topic, but doesn't meet the word string; there will likely be frequent attempts to fine tune the word string, increasing the work load on enforcing a topic ban. ''']''' ''']''' 08:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#:If you think idea itself is brilliant, then you should be supporting this. How this is going to be used will be discussed some other time.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 15:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#Too complicated. Also, conduct problems are social problems and require social solutions (e.g., dispute resolution, bans) rather than technical ones. Good regex are hard to write, mediocre regex will produce a lot of false negatives and positives, with all the attendant overhead. I also doubt that regex can be written that would accurately cover what a ] entails. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose,''' per all of the above, especially the comments of Richard-of-Earth and Sandstein. In my view, adding yet another bureaucratic rule or regulation or tool is not absolutely necessary in this case, ], and would contribute to strengthening the (much less important) technocratic/ bureaucratic aspect of the project while eroding and weakening the (much more important) communitarian/ social component of the project. ] (]) 20:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Cautious oppose'''. {{edit conflict}}I understand the reasoning behind wanting such a tool, however, blanket page bands IMHO are dangerous. Individuals, although they may not agree with the majority of editors who actively edit a page, should still be able to suggest edits on article talk pages IMHO. A broken clock is right at least twice a day after all. Also, having this at the admin level IMHO is far to low. Furthermore, as suggested above, the idea of indef bans are draconian. Individual editors should be able to show that they can reform themselves. | |||
#:I will say it is an interesting idea, which in some form I might support, but in its present form, I cannot.--] (]) 20:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# '''Oppose'''. This idea fundamentally misconstrues the social contract between individual editors and the community. Fundamentally, and even before it has any evidence to that effect, the community agrees to ]. That means editors are responsible for their own behaviour; it's not the community's responsibility to micromanage editors. For an overwhelmingly vast majority of editors, this trust is well placed. For a ''tiny'' minority it isn't; we already spend too much of the constructive people's efforts in handholding those who can't or won't behave properly. We never used to do things like topic bans, namespace bans, or interaction bans - if someone had showed that the community's trust in them was misplaced, we asked them to leave. Now we've added various kinds of restrictions - trying desperately to show a little more good faith, even when someone has misbehaved for such a protracted time and to such a significant degree, we give them one last chance. And again, we put the onus of compliance on the individual editor. A topic-banned editor is responsible for policing ''their own'' topic ban; it's not the community and not admins' responsibility. Editors are responsible ''themselves'' for not edit warring - it's not up to the rest of us to step in and stop them. It's by consciously abiding by those restrictions that a sanctioned editor can show they've changed how they edit. This proposal attempts to impose restrictions by cumbersome technical and administrative means. No software can be written which will make people who can't or won't edit constructively do so. -- ]'''ᚠ'''] 20:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#:Talking about "trust" and "good faith" is beside the point. Misplaced Pages is a vast volunteer project, and we can't possibly expect our unpaid editors to behave like a disciplined community of monks or regiment of soldiers—unless we want a very small community or regiment. People will inevitably argue, arguments will inevitably escalate, and if we kick out everyone involved, who will be left to write the encyclopedia? We need people. If someone gets into a skirmish, it doesn't mean they are automatically "untrustworthy" or acting "in bad faith"—it usually just means there are strong feelings and hot tempers involved. Be realistic. ] (]) 21:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' Topic bans are intentionally vague- mechanically enforcing it would be entirely too hard. You'd either hit too little, and the users would still edit in that topic area (possibly pleading ignorance because they hadn't been blocked by the software from editing those unblocked but still related pages) or would hit too much, blocking them from pages that are unrelated to the topic area. Additionally, this would stop editors editing pages from which they have valid reasons to edit but might be topic banned from- for instance, for reverting obvious vandalism or removing BLP-violating material. <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 03:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Strongly Oppose''' Misplaced Pages was founded as a democratic forum. Already a two tiered system has developed where certain editors wield more powers than others regarding reverts or determining the “right” content (even if the editor provided academic sources, inline citations and even tried to engage with those editors in good faith). Mechanisms for other editors being able to plead their case are flimsy at best, ignored and ad hoc in getting due attention, and seeking out others may be regarding as “canvassing” which puts them at risk of being blocked and later even banned. There are times when even administrators seem not to give due attention when someone is asking for assistance or even advice in a matter. Hence with such avenues limited in what an editor can do I strongly oppose this proposal that would further curb Misplaced Pages’s ability to serve as a democratic educative and academic repository that is free for all to use. In the end who is allowed to be the gatekeeper? And what makes some editors/administrators privileged to have that status over others whom they may not personally like (because they may have expertise and credible academic sources on a topic which they dislike) and may block at will based on inadequate rationale. How long will it then take an editor to clear his/her name, if at all? Some thoughts for all to reflect upon.] (]) 05:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. Another level of abstraction requiring a mini-language to set up a controlling matrix; which might be appropriate way to guide Curiosity on Mars, but not the right way to trim the wiki-ship. It adds human workload, while scattering bits and chads to the detriment of transparency. Ultimately it is the community that makes intervention work. Ban-lets and block-lets will make enforcement more complicated and less effective — ] (]) 10:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Strongly Oppose''' All or nothing. A ban is a ban - it is supposed to hurt. If it doesn't hurt, it is not worth imposing. If an editor breaks the rules there should be consequences, none of this "Well, she is only a little bit pregnant". - ] (]) 12:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' per Sandstein and AtG. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 13:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
# Oppose, as I've never been fond of this idea. I've always said - if they're causing ''so'' much trouble that they need to be prevented from editing a page then they should not be wasting our time at all and be blocked entirely. ] (]) 15:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' I consider there should be a more effective way to prevent vandalism, but this just went extreme. We already have several tools for fighting vandalism and I consider including a never expiry ban is strict NO-NO. This would certainly give admins more power, but also would cause young editor from refrain editing Misplaced Pages. Indefinite expiry is No-No. Hence I am opposing this proposal. -]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. This would dramatically increase the workload of admins because we'd be playing ] until bad editors are eventually blocked entirely. The whole assumption that editors will go off to be constructive elsewhere when they are disruptive on particular topics seems very naive to me. On top of this it puts an additional technical burden (learning and knowing regex) on the daily tasks of admins and a difficult practical one (reading regexes can be time consuming and difficult). ] (]) 20:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' per John Blackburne. This has the potentially to drastically increase the backlog already facing administrators. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 22:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''': Topic/page bans should be decided by a bigger group of people (e.g. the community by consensus or the arbitration committee), as they are in their current form. More oversight and administration (sysop) time would be required to deal with appeals to the blocks, assuming there would be an appeal process, which would be an absolute necessity. I also assume this would require articles to be further categorized at least at some level (for the topic bans), which would require work and management/upkeep over time. <small>—]</small><sup>(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub> 02:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. The proposed layer of filtering would impose a heavy burden in processing time and it would add too many new ways to game the system. We either trust a user or we don't. ] (]) 04:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. Seems to be more trouble than it would be worth, adding a lot of work for a small benefit; topic bans seem to be enough to accomplish the goal desired. ] (]) 11:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. Per many of the above. ] (]) 11:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. Per Kiltpin and others. While a well-meaning idea, it will (IMO) have the consequence of just "shifting" the behaviour or issue elsewhere. Making it harder to track, manage, or address. ] (]) 12:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. Individuals who decline to be responsible for their own editing decisions should not be editing, period. Establishing technically-complicated, irritating-to-implement, likely-full-of-holes rubber rooms to protect these individuals from having responsibility for their own conduct isn't a good use of community resources. Lots of excellent additional opposing arguments above. ](]) 13:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. For topic bans, they need to be by definition broad, and so must be human interpreted. If someone is being disruptive in editing at the ] article (the first discretionary sanctions area that comes to mind), they probably shouldn't be editing '']'', either. I've seen some ugly regexes in my time, but good luck building one for an area like that, and having neither false positives nor negatives. Rather, we say "You're not allowed to make edits regarding climate change, and if you do so anyway, you'll get blocked." A reasonable person who wants to continue contributing here but just can't quite behave in that particular area would know when an edit is likely to be too close to a topic banned area and stay well away, and an unreasonable person or one whose only intent is to disrupt the area they were banned from will continue dancing on the line and eventually be shown the door. Both of those are useful outcomes, and neither can be implemented in software. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. I share the enthusiasm of supporters for a technical means to enforce topic bans, but in my opinion the one proposed is impractical. Topics cannot be defined by article titles, and even if effective regex construction was easy (which it isn't) it can't hope to catch anything close to the totality of required titles, and it would also create many false positives. Adding on a hand-crafted list of pages (and perhaps categories) is also not practical, as the articles that would need to be covered could easily number in the thousands. (Go create a list of, say, all pages covered by an "Israel/Palestine, broadly construed" topic ban, and see if you can get close to the whole lot before the Sun gets cold.) Implementing this in the software would require work, and trying to implement it for individual bans would require masses more, and with admin resources apparently quite badly pushed right now I really can't see anyone being prepared to put in the huge effort that would be required. The current system of "''You're banned from X, and if you violate that we'll block you''" takes no longer to implement than it does to type it, and only a relatively trivial effort to block if necessary. So, nice idea, but in practice it would be a massive waste of effort. ] (]) 15:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#:To get on to another angle that others have raised, I don't think we should even be wanting to implement this. A big part of the value of a topic ban is that it hopefully makes the banned editor stop and think about what they're doing, and seeing how they behave when given the chance to consciously stay away from topics can make a big difference to how they're viewed when it comes to re-examining their ban. ] (]) 15:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' as impractical and almost impossible to implement. If someone gets topic banned from editing articles relating to India-Pakistan-Afghanistan the edit restrictions would have to be registered on thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles. Unless the editing ban was for all articles in a certain category, in which case every single article would have to be catalogued and added to a bunch of new categories. In order to prevent abuse adding and removing articles from those categories would also have to be limited to administrators. ] ] 18:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' This is a poor technical solution to a social problem. ] (]) 19:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose weakly'''. I can see the legitimate uses of this - technically enforcing a Tban or ArbCom decision (much of which tend to be Tbans - but as has been pointed out above this is too gameable, and is utterly impractical for Tbans in extremely wide topic areas (such as ] or ]), as you'd have to include regex for every article and category covered by the Tban. I will also note that the requirement for regex knowledge means that, if this is paired with any other userright, it should be EFM, not admin (Admins do not automatically get the Edit Filter Manager right). If the scope is lessened to enforcing bans on individual pages as opposed to topic areas (perhaps as a subtle means of encouraging SPAs to branch out) I'd be more willing to support, but at present the manpower concerns are a dealbreaker. —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Weak Oppose''' After reading the proposal, I initially supported it. It seems to be made of common sense, which is usually a good thing. But after reading some of the objections, and noting the responses to some and the lack of response to others (along with my inability to refute them), I have to say that I don't see how this would be useful enough to be worth it. There's just as much potential for errors and abuse as there is for benefit. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Strongly Oppose''' Bad idea. We will be following them around blocking them from one article at a time. The anti vandal work will become even a bigger monster. Also, If someone can't be reasoned with to stop messing up a particular article, what makes you think they will be a saint anywhere else? You say that "banning is not a punishment". You're right, it's an exile off this site, and good riddens to them. Let them start a blog if their opinion is more important than Misplaced Pages.-] (]) 21:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' - Personally I think Blocks do the trick and are more of a "lesson learner", With this IPs/Editors will simply vandalize a page, Get restricted, and then move on to the next page, As for topic bans - If you can't abide by a topic ban then you deserve blocking and or banning plain and simple. –]<sup>]</sup> 00:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' We have more important tech things to develop. If people cannot follow their topic restrictions than they get blocked. ] (] · ] · ]) 08:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. Far too much of an olive branch to editors whose sole intention is to vandalise articles. Also allows them to string along sysops who could be devoting their time to far more worthy causes than taking care of disruptive editors. Removes the deterrent of a wiki-wide ban for making non-constructive edits. --''''']''''' '']'' <small><small><small>''formerly '''SUFCboy'''''</small></small></small> 12:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' Creates more work than it reduces, editors who knowingly violate topic bans should blocked swiftly for the duration of the ban and their edits reverted. The current system is both effective and efficient. ] ] 15:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''': Someone who refuses to follow a topic-ban voluntarily is someone the project is best rid of. – ]\<sup><font color="gray">]</font></sup> 17:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' per above, particularly Finlay McWalter. This is simply a "Block-Lite": if the editor to be sanctioned is not deemed to be deserving of a full block, then that should be the end of it. If they are deserving a block, likewise. ] (]) 22:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Strong Oppose''' I see no hard data or analysis, that this is serious problem, needing a solution. Just unverified opinions. I also agree that regexs are not the way to do this, if hard data shows a need. Regexs are a hard to use tool with a very steep learning curve - a burden we should only ask of our Admins, if there is enough benefit, or a better way can not be found. - ] (]) 04:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Strongest possible opposition''' - Technical solutions are never the answer to a social problem. ] (]) 03:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' Good idea on paper, but not a good idea in practice. As Lentower said, how many admins are familiar with regex? The amount of situations where this sort of solution could be used effectively is rather limited. ] <small>(]/])</small> 20:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. Gives admins too much power. One of the good things about the current setup is that admins have two choices: to block or to not block. This opens it up to arguments about what rules to use, etc etc. ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 02:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' per Resnjari's and Finlay McWalter's amazingly written paragraphs that completely changed my mind. ] ] 21:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' generally per {{U|SilkTork}} and others who have made similar comments. However, I do not concur with those who oppose on the basis that it would give admins more power - that, IMO is just nonsense, but this kind of thing is covered by T-ban which generally works and can be invoked at ANI by a consensus of anyone - including the peanut gallery and the admiship-abolitionists. When it doesn't, it's followed by a block which admins ''do'' have the power to do. T-ban is a human solution to social/behavioural issues that doesn't need an immediate technical implementation. Indeed, as others have stated, it give the user the spielraum to prove that they can behave themselves after all.--] (]) 03:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
My personal position is that sourcing conflict maps entirely from reports of occupation by one side or another of individual towns at various times, typically from Twitter accounts of dubious reliability, to produce a map of the current situation in an entire country (which is the process described ]), is a ]/]. I also don't see liveuamap.com as necessarily being a highly reliable source either since it basically is an ]/Wiki-style user-generated source, and ]. I can understand it if a reliable source produces a map that we can use, but that isn't what's happening here. | |||
=== Discussion (edit restrictor) === | |||
* {{ping|Cyberpower678}} Do you mean follow-up RfCs? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-variant:caps;">] (])</span> 13:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:Thank you for bringing that up. I have struck and corrected it in the proposal above.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Topic bans generally cover a range of articles; in some case this range can be quite broad (for example, someone topic-banned from "gender-related articles" will be prohibited from editing hundreds if not thousands of fairly disparate pages, with no easily-identifiable common factors). In addition, it is sometimes appropriate for topic-banned editors to edit some parts of an article but not others if the article covers a sizable topic (the hypothetical "gender-banned" editor could write about the architecture of London, for example, but not about its gender demographics). There is also the issue that topic-banned editors are often prohibited from discussing certain topics, which they can, in theory, do on ''any'' talkpage. How does the proposal address these issues? (In theory, I like the idea, but I see these as major stumbling blocks.) ] ]] 14:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
**Most topic bans explicitly will cnclude (but not be restricted to) groups of pages defined by regular expressions; using this feature will be useful in that regard. ] ] 14:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
**If you have a topic ban that enormous, it will obviously be difficult to manage but as one would block with arbitration enforcement, an admin could block the page instead with the same reason for example.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 14:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Part of the reason this flies under the radar on Misplaced Pages is it ultimately isn't information hosted on EN WP but instead on Commons, where reliable sourcing etc. is not a requirement. However, it is being used on Misplaced Pages to present information to users and therefore should fall within our PAGs. | |||
*This is an interesting and well-thought-out idea, but I'm not entirely sure I'm on board with it for the following reasons: | |||
:*Seems kind of complicated, unlike most admin tasks which are (don't tell anyone) incredibly simple. ''Good judgement'', not tech skills, are what make an admin. Perhaps this can be rectified with a script or something for non-technically minded admins like myself. | |||
:*Topic bans, more often than not, use the phrase "broadly construed" to indicate to the user that they should just stay the hell away from anything that could possibly be a violation for them to edit. For some topic bans this could mean tens of thousands of pages, for example if someone is banned from all BLPs or all articles related to politics in the United States, both very real examples. | |||
:*More of a philosophical issue, I feel that topic and interaction bans are a chanve for a user to show that they can ''voluntarily'' stop engaging in behavior that the community has deemed disruptive. If they aren't able to do that, they get blocked. This would eliminate that power to choose, to show some real character and maturity and just not do the thing they shouldn't be doing. I'm not sure there is a fix for that concern. | |||
:] (]) 17:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*:Maybe I can put your mind at ease. Technologically, if they can't create regex expressions they can use the page lists. Philosophically, my suggestions at pre-emptively blocking users from editing pages is a suggestion. Procedures for when a user should get blocked from page specific editing would get created in a follow up RfC if this passes. Policy could develop to only restrict when a user can't be mature enough to stay away on their own.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 20:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Perhaps if implemented could it be as simple as that a topic ban a category is used to blanket block all pages within that category? As a side effect this would also solve issues attached to page moves, it still may circumvented but almost everything is able to be circumvented.- ] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 03:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Question''': Will the user's page edit block still work in the event that the page is moved to a new title that does not match the regex? (Example: ] is banned from editing "Green box", but then the article is moved to "Sulfuric Terminator", which doesn't match the previous title in the least.) ] (]) 18:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:I hadn't considered that, but I imagine there is some feasible way to make sure. For example the move log can be checked at the time the rule was put in place to make sure the block isn't being bypassed. Another way, is to have the regex expression run against the pages currently on the database and compile page IDs. Page IDs never change even when the page gets moved. So even when a page gets moved, a person can't edit the page.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 20:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Quick note''' "Regex" stands for ], not ] expression :-) Unless you're trying to propose a way to block ] and the ] from editing :-) ] (]) 23:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*It seems that the way to do this might be some kind of category block - That is, you can block an editor from editing a page in a particular category or in a category and all sub-categories. This brings the humans back in, so that if a topic ban is complex or unusual, you could create a specific category just for that (something like ] or something) and block the users from the category. On a different note, I agree that this won't solve everything with topic bans, but it will make it easier to enforce them. ] (]) 13:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
I think these maps should be deprecated unless they can be shown to be sourced entirely to a reliable source, and not assembled out of individual reports including unreliable ] sources. ] (]) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Another problem (I could have added it to my oppose comment but it seems distinct enough to be worth raising here). As other editors have noted if an editor is not able to abide by a necessary ban then they don't belong here at all, and after further warnings and blocks may find themselves permanently blocked. But this works both ways. If an editor can show they can abide by an ban and continue to contribute to improving the encyclopaedia, without causing problems like those that led to the restriction, then they can show that the ban may no longer be needed and so can be relaxed or lifted. This is far harder to do with an edit restrictor like that described, as you don't know if the editor is being well behaved of their own accord or because the restrictor is making them.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 15:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*While I don't support this specific proposal, maybe something similar to restrict editing by namespaces would work: for example, COI accounts couldn't edit articlespace but could raise concerns or suggest imrovements in talk, and so on. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*] and start with simple blacklistes of pages. If, after initial trials, admins requests that the tool be made more difficult to use, you can introduce regex.--] (]) 05:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*This would put a big burden on those who are familiar with regex and could lead to some surprising outcomes that will require maintenance or even maintenance of maintenance, as shown in for {{tl|citation}}. - ] (]) 05:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Seriously, when in the history of mankind have anyone ever thought the thought: "Oh, damn, I wish could block that dude from editing ",? *'* **$"!"?--] (]) 06:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* When evaluating this poll, it should be noted how admins vote. They are the ones who will be using it. ] (]) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{anchor|Scunthorpe}} Though I'm generally in favor of this, where there's a regex block functionality there's a ''']''': unintentionally blocking superstrings of a banned string. For example, a carelessly coded ban on topics (article titles, categories) having to do with ] politics could unintentionally block anything mentioning "victory" or "factory". --] (]) 03:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:Blocking a problem editor from a few unintended extra pages is not so big a problem. The Scunthorpe problem is a only a real issue when it gets applied to the body of editors in general. ]] 11:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Note that I oppose the philosophy behind the proposal, that is, the implementation of t-bans, etc. However, the proposal from a purely technical point of view is worth supporting, I guess it is possible to restructure the proposal then? --]]] 18:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I'm a regex geek, but I'm ungeeky enough to realize it is a foreign language to most admins. If there is merit to this, I'd say jettison the regex part of it and replace it with something that is easy to understand, namely (1) the namespace restriction mentioned above plus (2) article name prefixes plus (3) category. Every admin should be able to understand these three. ] (]) 03:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Where is this search supposed to be conducted? If you look in titles, your likely to miss something. If it searches topics, the general consensus about the accuracy and reliability of those topics is not very good. If you search the text of the pages themselves, your going to have more than a few false positives. Furthermore, this seems like it could easily overwhelm the administrators very quickly. For example, if userA starts messing with one page and is restricted, and then another, and another, the Administrator that is dealing with userA has already had to restrict userA from numerous pages before deciding on an outright ban, or several other admins have become involved. Granted, this may be useful for normally reliable editors but, I think it would probably be better impose short bans on those, or long term bans on individual articles they just can't seem to leave alone. ] (]) 11:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' - I am not an admin here, but I have maintained access control lists in other applications/places. Maintenance for anything as large as (# of Misplaced Pages articles) x (# of Misplaced Pages editors) is a very large, very messy problem. Add to that the complexity of regexes and I foresee lots of both false positives and false negatives. Multiply that by (# of Misplaced Pages admins) and you get something which becomes, I think, a problem larger than the one you're trying to solve initially. Maybe if someone can design a good ACL management interface which compiles the whole list of article bans into regexes which are implemented "under the hood" it could work, but this is a huge project I don't really see working smoothly the way it's currently described. As a methodology, the best approach is "focus on the problem, not the solution." If you want mw development to solve a problem, it's better to specify the problem rather than proposing solutions. Then come up with a list of requirements for how the solution should work, not how the solution should be implemented. --] (]) 03:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Problem IP editors==== | |||
*] raises a good point in of the proposal. While I cannot see the benefit of this as proposed (with the target of edit warring editors) and have voted against, I could perhaps support a repurposed proposal. IP hopping disruptive editors are frequently a problem for administrators, often living in an IP range that is too wide to rangeblock. Help pages and the Reference Desks are particulary difficult because page protection is not a viable option either, since those pages are widely used by IPs. Blocking a wide IP range would be much more acceptable if it were limited to a small specified set of pages. ]] 11:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:This proposal proposes the idea itself. Use cases are just examples and are something that would be worked out in follow-up RfC.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 15:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I was also skeptical about its utility as applied to established editors, but if this works for IP Ranges, it could be really useful. Being able to block a large range, but only for certain articles could be quite effective and immensely reduce the collateral damage. ]] 15:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::No, sorry, we shouldn't just implement any old stuff in the hope it might be useful for something. We should start with a definition of a problem and then construct a solution. Otherwise we could end with something not intended or envisioned by the people who supported it. This proposal explicitly talks about topic bans and most of the discussion has centred around that. I am unconvinced that this would address that problem any better than what we already have, and could conceivably make matters worse by encouraging an edit warring editor to start disrupting a page that was not included in the regex, but was intended to be included in his topic ban. I cannot vote for this proposal in its current form, it would first have to be rewritten entirely and be addressing a problem that really exists, rather than one that I think doesn't. ]] 16:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:A lot of the maps seem like they run into SYNTH issues because if they're based on single sources they're likely running into copyright issue as derivative works. I would agree though that if an image does not have clear sourcing it shouldn't be used as running into primary/synth issues. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
====Article specific ban?==== | |||
::Though simple information isn't copyrightable, if it's sufficiently visually similar I suppose that might constitute a copyvio. ''']]''' 02:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
How about this —something I think most supporters (like me) and most opponents of the proposal could live with : instead of creating the ability to ban users per topic, how about the ability to ban users from particular articles? That way, we are precise. I'll tell you why I support the proposal : people may have passionate views on certain hot-button topics (e.g., religion, politics, etc), and may get carried away when editing on such topics. But the same editors might be very constructive contributors to other articles. Just because someone has produced a POV-packed article on gay marriage, for example, doesn't mean that he or she should be banned from editing an article on volcanoes. That's why I'm in favour of the proposed policy. I notice that some opponents of this change claim that it's too vague. So, how about an article-specific ban for certain editors who are seen to be causing problems with the article? ] (]) 03:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I agree these violate OR and at least the spirit of NOTNEWS and should be deprecated. I remember during the Wagner rebellion we had to fix one that incorrectly depicted Wagner as controlling a swath of Russia. ] (]) 05:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I proposed something similar to that with "selective blocks", but that didn't gain enough steam among other users to really go anywhere. ] ] 15:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
* The ] ''(right)'' seems quite respectable being based on the work of the ] and having lots of thoughtful process and rules for updates. It is used on many pages and in many Wikipedias. There is therefore a considerable consensus for its use. ]🐉(]) 11:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:'''Oppose''': First off, I'd like to state my bias as a bit of a map geek. I've followed the conflict maps closely for years. | |||
:I think the premise of this question is flawed. ''Some'' maps may be poorly sourced, but that doesn't mean all of them are. The updates to the Syrian, Ukraine, and Burma conflicts maps are sourced to third parties. So that resolves the OR issue. | |||
:The sources largely agree with each other, which makes SYNTH irrelevant. Occasionally one source may be ahead of another by a few hours (e.g., LiveUaMap vs. ISW), but they're almost entirely in lock step. | |||
:I think this proposal throws out the baby with the bathwater. One bad map doesn't mean we stop using maps; it means we stop using ''bad'' maps. | |||
:You may not like the fact that these sources sometimes use OSI (open-source intelligence). Unfortunately, that is the nature of conflict in a zone where the press isn't allowed. Any information you get from the AP or the US government is likely to rely on the same sources. | |||
:Do they make mistakes? Probably; but so do ''all'' historical sources. And these maps have the advantage that the Commons community continuously reviews changes made by other users. Much in the same way that Misplaced Pages is often more accurate than historical encyclopedias, I believe crowdsourcing may make these maps more accurate than historical ones. | |||
:I think deprecating these maps would leave the reader at a loss (pictures speak a 1,000 words and all that). Does it get a border crossing wrong here or there? Yes, but the knowledge is largely correct. | |||
:It would be an absolute shame to lose access to this knowledge. ] (]<small> • </small>]) 22:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@] ] is frowned upon as an argument for good reason. Beyond that: 1) the fact that these are based on fragmentary data is strangely not mentioned at all (] says 'Military situation as of December 18, 2024 at 2:00pm ET' which suggests that it's quite authoritative and should be trusted; the fact that it's based off the ISW is not disclosed.) 2) I'm not seeing where all the information is coming from the ISW. The ISW's map only covers territory, stuff like bridges, dams, "strategic hills" and the like are not present on the ISW map. Where is that info coming from? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The Commons Syria map uses both the ISW and Liveuamap. The two are largely in agreement, with Liveuamap being more precise but using less reliable sources. If you have an issue with using Liveuamap as a source, fine, bring it up on the talk pages where it's used, or on the Commons talk page itself. But banning any ''any'' map of a conflict is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Ukraine map is largely based on ISW-verifiable information. | |||
:::With regards to actual locations like bridges, I'm against banning Commons users from augmenting maps with easily verifiable landmarks. That definition of SYN is broad to the point of meaningless, as it would apply to any user-generated content that uses more than one source. ] (]<small> • </small>]) 23:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:'''Weak Oppose''' I've been updating the Ukraine map since May 2022, so I hope my input is helpful. While I agree that some of the sources currently being used to update these maps may be dubious in nature, that has not always been the case. In the past, particularly for the Syria map, these maps have been considered among the most accurate online due to their quality sourcing. It used to be that a source was required for each town if it was to be displayed on these maps, but more recently, people have just accepted taking sources like LivaUAMap and the ISW and copying them exactly. Personally, I think we should keep the maps but change how they are sourced. I think that going back to the old system of requiring a reliable source for each town would clear up most of the issues that you are referring to, though it would probably mean that the maps would be less detailed than they currently are now. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic, Ebrima;background-color:OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px#000000;padding:3px 3px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 07:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' The campaign maps are one of our absolute best features. The Syrian campaign map in particular was very accurate for much of the war. Having a high quality SVG of an entire country like that is awesome, and there really isn't anything else like it out there, which is why it provides such value to our readers. I think we have to recognize of our course that they're not 100% accurate, due to the fog of war. I wouldn't mind if we created subpages about the maps? Like, with a list of sources and their dates, designed to be reader facing, so that our readers could verify the control of specific towns for themselves. But getting rid of the maps altogether is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ] <sup>]</sup>] 23:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Google Maps: Maps, Places and Routes == | |||
== Incorrect information == | |||
] | |||
Dear All at Wiki: | |||
Google Maps have the following categories: Maps, Places and Routes | |||
Mightn it not be a prudent policy that before a posting is made where factual data might be dubitable, especially in light of changes that the passage of time might bring about, that that posting made available to the 'editing' public prior to that data being posted? Case in point: I opened the page on Nikeri, a town in Suriname, South America. It says there are tensions between Nikeri and neighboring country Guyana. The wiki approved article goes on to say in parenthesis that there has been sporadic fighting between the two neighboring states. There has never been any physical fighting nor talk (intentions) of fighting or any gesture of any disagreement that can be misconstrued as such in the course of the modern histories of the two South American countries. | |||
for example: | |||
P. Singh, Guyana | |||
most significant locations have a www.google.com/maps/place/___ URL | |||
ref: resident of border Guyana-Suriname last 60 years. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:05, 30 May 2015</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
:What you are proposing sounds like ], which we use to allow preview of edits on pages that have been subject to disruption. However, I can't find any mention on ] anywhere so I'm not sure what actual article it is you are talking about. ] (]) 17:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
these should be acknowledged and used somehow, perhaps | |||
:P. Singh appears to be talking about ].-<span style="font-family:cursive; color:grey;">]</span> 23:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 00:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The sporadic fighting referred to in that article presumably is about the incidents of 1969; as the article says, they were in the south of the country, not in Nickerie District, but this provides background for the scarcity of border crossings. There was an arbitration in 2007 which may have resolved this, but the article's content predates this. See ].-<span style="font-family:cursive; color:grey;">]</span> 23:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:What is the proposal here? If its for the google maps article, that would be more suitable for the talk page. As I see it, your proposal is simply saying that google maps has an api and we should use it for... something. I could be missing something, though ] (]) 08:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Dear P. Singh: Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia ]. We rely on volunteers to improve our content. If you can, try to ] yourself. We invite you to ] too which give you a bunch of extra features. ] (]) 16:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::As I understand it, the IP is proposing embeds of google maps, which would be nice from a functionality standpoint (the embedded map is kinda-rather buggy), but given Google is an advertising company, isn't great from a privacy standpoint. ''']]''' 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I think they're proposing the use of external links rather than embedding. ] (]) 18:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication == | |||
== More interactivity == | |||
I would like to propose that members of the ] user group be granted the <code>oathauth-enable</code> permission. This would allow them to use ] to enable ] on their accounts. | |||
My concern is born out of the fact that I am authoring the Dutch Language wikibook, but it may well be of larger interest. I have left similar massages on both meta and mediawiki, but they seem to get ignored. Wikibooks itself is worse: people seem to be so singularly interested in authoring their own book that there is little discourse between them. Learning a language by just reading a written text is a terrible way to acquire language. So, writing a wikibook easily defaults into writing a grammar that occasionally will be consulted by the odd reader at best. In an electronic age that just won't do and is not necessary either. Computers can very well engage learners in a far more interactive way. One good way is sound files. Fortunately uploading sound files has become less cumbersome and bureaucratic at common than it used to be, but putting them on a page is still overly cumbersome. The smallest button I can put on a page seems to be: | |||
:<nowiki>]"dit"</nowiki> which yields | |||
*]"dit" | |||
=== Rationale (2FA for page movers) === | |||
With an unnecessary line feed that screws up all tables. In fact collapsible wikitables for some reason only take a smallish number of these links and then things get out of whack, like in the collapsible table called Vocabulary on the right of . | |||
The page mover guideline already obligates people in that group to ], and failing to follow proper account security processes is grounds for ] of the right. This is because the group allows its members to (a) move pages along with up to 100 subpages, (b) override the title blacklist, and (c) have an increased rate limit for moving pages. In the hands of a vandal, these permissions could allow significant damage to be done very quickly, which is likely to be difficult to reverse. | |||
Additionally, there is precedent for granting 2FA access to users with rights that could be extremely dangerous in the event of account compromise, for instance, ], ], and ] have the ability to enable this access, as do most administrator-level permissions (sysop, checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward, interface admin). | |||
Sound files have been treated as a stepchild far too long, I think. Pretty much all Dutch words have a sound file despite of that being the case. | |||
=== Discussion (2FA for page movers) === | |||
But using sound files is only one possibility of increasing interactivity. I now find myself making practice sets for external websites like Quizlet of Memrise and ''send'' our readers there to practice their vocabulary because the wiki system has nothing comparable to offer. For example Dutch past tenses need to be memorized, so I created . But why do I have to send our readers / learners ''away'' from the wiki system for that? Wouldn't it be more sensible to start thinking of how to make it more interactive? Granted authoring language books is not what most people do here, but I'm sure there are other potential uses of more interactive software. The wiki system has already transformed the concept of an ''encyclopedia'' to a much enhanced level, but it could move much beyond that. | |||
* '''Support''' as proposer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 20:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' (but if you really want 2FA you can just request permission to enable it on Meta) ] ] 20:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:For the record, I do have 2FA enabled. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::Oops, that says you are member of "Two-factor authentication testers" (testers = good luck with that). ] (]) 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::: A group name which is IMO seriously misleading - 2FA is not being tested, it's being actively used to protect accounts. ] ] 23:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::] still says "currently in production testing with administrators (and users with admin-like permissions like interface editors), bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, stewards, edit filter managers and the OATH-testers global group." ] ] 09:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' as a pagemover myself, given the potential risks and need for increased security. I haven't requested it yet as I wasn't sure I qualified and didn't want to bother the stewards, but having <code><nowiki>oathauth-enable</nowiki></code> by default would make the process a lot more practical. ] (] · ]) 22:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*: Anyone is qualified - the filter for stewards granting 2FA is just "do you know what you're doing". ] ] 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Question''' When's the last time a page mover has had their account compromised and used for pagemove vandalisn? Edit 14:35 UTC: I'm not doubting the nom, rather I'm curious and can't think of a better way to phrase things. ''']]''' 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Why isn't everybody allowed to enable 2FA? I've never heard of any other website where users have to go request someone's (pro forma, rubber-stamp) permission if they want to use 2FA. And is it accurate that 2FA, after eight years, is still ]? I guess my overall first impression didn't inspire me with confidence in the reliability and maintenance. ] (]) 06:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
** Because the recovery process if you lose access to your device and recovery codes is still "contact WMF Trust and Safety", which doesn't scale. See also ]. ]] 15:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**:We should probably consult with WMF T&S before we create more work for them on what they might view as very low-risk accounts. Courtesy ping @]. –] <small>(])</small> 16:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**:No update comment since 2020 doesn't fill me with hope. I like 2FA, but it needs to be developed into a usable solution for all. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 00:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**::I ain't a technical person, but could a less secure version of 2fa be introduced, where an email is sent for any login on new devices? ''']]''' 01:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**:::Definitely. However email addresses also get detached from people, so that would require that people regularly reconfirm their contact information. —] (] • ]) 11:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:For TOTP (the 6-digit codes), it's not quite as bad as when it was written, as the implementation has been fixed over time. I haven't heard nearly as many instances of backup scratch codes not working these days compared to when it was new. The WebAuthn (physical security keys, Windows Hello, Apple Face ID, etc) implementation works fine on private wikis but I wouldn't recommend using it for CentralAuth, especially with the upcoming SUL3 migration. There's some hope it'll work better afterward, but will still require some development effort. As far as I'm aware, WMF is not currently planning to work on the 2FA implmentation.{{pb}} As far as risk for page mover accounts goes, they're at a moderate risk. Page move vandalism, while annoying to revert, is reversible and is usually pretty loud (actions of compromised accounts can be detected and stopped easily). The increased ratelimit is the largest concern, but compared to something like account creator (which has noratelimit) it's not too bad. I'm more concerned about new page reviewer. There probably isn't a ton of harm to enabling 2FA for these groups, but there isn't a particularly compelling need either. ] (]) 12:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' per nom. PMV is a high-trust role (suppressredirect is the ability to make a blue link turn red), and thus this makes sense. As a side note, I have changed this to bulleted discussion; # is used when we have separate sections for support and oppose. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 07:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' As a pagemover myself, I find pagemover is an ''extremely'' useful and do not wish to lose it. It is nowhere near the same class as template editor. You can already ask the stewards for 2FA although I would recommend creating a separate account for the purpose. After all these years, 2FA remains experimental, buggy and cumbersome. Incompatible with the Microsoft Authenticator app on my iphone. ] ] 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:The proposal (as I read it) isn't "you must have 2FA", rather "you have the option to add it". '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 00:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::@], ] is correct. This would merely provide page movers with the option to enable it. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 00:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::Understood, but I do not want it associated with an administrator-level permission, which would mean I am not permitted to use it, as I am not an admin. ] ] 09:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::It's not really that. It would be an opt-in to allow users (in the group) to put 2FA on their account - at their own digression. | |||
*::::The main reasons why 2FA is currently out to admins and the like is because they are more likely to be targeted for compromising and are also more experienced. The 2FA flag doesn't require any admin skills/tools and is only incedentally linked. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 12:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::Wait, so why is 2FA not an option for everyone already? ] (]) 01:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::@] the MediaWiki's 2FA implementation is complex, and the WMF's processes to support people who get locked out of their account aren't able to handle a large volume of requests (developers can let those who can prove they are the owner of the account back in). My understanding is that the current processes cannot be efficiently scaled up either, as it requires 1:1 attention from a developer, so unless and until new processes have been designed, tested and implemented 2FA is intended to be restricted to those who understand how to use it correctly and understand the risks of getting locked out. ] (]) 09:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*It probably won't make a huge difference because those who really desire 2FA can already ], and because no page mover will be required to do so. However, there will be page movers who wouldn't request a global permission for 2FA yet would enable it in their preferences if it was a simple option. And these page movers might benefit from 2FA even more than those who already care very strongly about the security of their account. ] (]) 03:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' and I can't think of any argument against something not only opt-in but already able to be opted into. ] (]) 08:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' this is a low value permission, not needed. If an individual PMV really wants to opt-in, they can already do so over at meta - no need to build custom configuration for this locally. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support'''; IMO all users should have the option to add 2FA. ] (]) 10:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' All users should be able to opt in to 2FA. Lack of a scalable workflow for users locked out of their accounts is going to be addressed by WMF only if enough people are using 2FA (and getting locked out?) to warrant its inclusion in the product roadmap. – ] (]) 14:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:That (and to @] above) sounds like an argument to do just that - get support put in place and enable this globally, not to piecemeal it in tiny batches for discretionary groups on a single project (this custom configuration would support about 3/10ths of one percent of our active editors). To the point of this RFC, why do you think adding this for this '''specific''' tiny group is a good idea? — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::FWIW, I tried to turn this on for anyone on meta-wiki, and the RFC failed (]). — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::Exactly. Rolling it out in small batches helps build the case for a bigger rollout in the future. – ] (]) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:I'm pretty sure that 2FA is already available to anyone. You just have to want it enough to either request it "for testing purposes" or to go to testwiki and request that you made an admin there, which will automatically give you access. See ]. ] (]) 23:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::We shouldn't have to jump through borderline manipulative and social-engineering hoops to get basic security functionality. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 04:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. It sounds like account recovery when 2FA is enabled involves Trust and Safety. I don't think page movers' account security is important enough to justify increasing the burden on them. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 14:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Losing access to the account is less common nowadays since most 2FA apps, including Google Authenticator, have implemented cloud syncing so that even if you lose your phone, you can still access the codes from another device. – ] (]) 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::But this isn't about Google Authenticator. ] (]) 02:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::Google Authenticator is a 2FA app, which at least till some point used to be the most popular one. – ] (]) 07:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::But (I believe), it is not available for use at Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::That's not true. You can use any ] authenticator app for MediaWiki 2FA. I currently use Ente Auth, having moved on from Authy recently, and from Google Authenticator a few years back. {{pb}}In case you're thinking of SMS-based 2FA, it has become a thing of the past and is not supported by MediaWiki either because it's insecure (attackers have ways to trick your network provider to send them your texts). – ] (]) 09:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support'''. Even aside from the fact that, in 2024+, everyone should be able to turn on 2FA .... Well, {{em|absolutely certainly}} should everyone who has an advanced bit, with potential for havoc in the wrong hands, be able to use 2FA here. That also includes template-editor, edit-filter-manager, file-mover, account-creator (and supersets like event-coordinator), checkuser (which is not strictly tied to adminship), and probably also mass-message-sender, perhaps a couple of the others, too. Some of us old hands have several of these bits and are almost as much risk as an admin when it comes to loss of account control. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 04:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Take a look at ] - much of what you mentioned is already in place, because these are groups that could use it '''and''' are widespread groups used on most WMF projects. (Unlike extendedmover). — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Re {{tq|That also includes , file-mover, account-creator (and supersets like event-coordinator), and probably mass-message-sender}}. How can in any way would file mover, account creator, event coordinator and mass message sender user groups be considered privileged, and therefore have the <code>oathauth-enable</code> userright? ] (]) 17:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Comment: It is really not usual for 2FA to be available to a user group that is not defined as privileged in the WMF files. By default, all user groups defined at CommonSettings.php (iirc) that are considered to be privileged have the <code>oathauth-enable</code> right. Also, the account security practices mentioned in ] are also mentioned at ], despite not being discussed at all. Shouldn't it be fair to have the <code>extendedmover</code> userright be defined as privileged. ] (]) 08:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support'''. Like SMcCandlish, I'd prefer that anyone, and particularly any editor with advanced perms, be allowed to turn on 2FA if they want (this is already an option on some social media platforms). But this is a good start, too.{{pb}}Since this is a proposal to allow page movers to ''opt in'' to 2FA, rather than a proposal to ''mandate'' 2FA for page movers, I see no downside in doing this. – ] (]) 17:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' this opt-in for PMs and the broader idea of '''everyone having it by default'''. Forgive me if this sounds blunt, but is the responsibility and accountability of protecting ''your'' account lie on ''you'' and not WMF. Yes, they can assist in recovery, but the burden should not lie on them. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 17:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Photographs by Peter Klashorst == | |||
] (]) 19:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Looks to me like what you want is more appropriate for Wikiversity than for Wikibooks. ] (]) 22:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Back in 2023 I ] a group of nude photographs by ] for deletion on Commons. I was concerned that the people depicted might not have been of age or consented to publication. Klashorst described himself as a "painting sex-tourist" because he would travel to third-world countries to have sex with women in brothels, and also paint pictures of them. On his Flickr account, he posted various nude photographs of African and Asian women, some of which appear to have been taken without the subjects' knowledge. Over the years, other Commons contributors have raised concerns about the Klashorst photographs (e.g. ). | |||
::I am really at a loss why you say that. There are many language books at Wikibooks ranging from German, French to Zulu or Punjabi. And no you do not need to go to a university to learn a language. In most countries learning languages starts long before that and continues long after. The US is perhaps -a rather sad- exception to that. Besides whether what I want is hosted at Wikibooks or Wikiversity is rather irrelevant for the point I made, because Wikiversity will run into the same lack of interactivity in the wikisoftware. But yes the poor interactivity of current wiki software is certainly a handicap for whatever is taught at Wikiversity. | |||
] (]) 00:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::], I didn't suggest Wikiversity because of the subject matter of ''language'', but because of the approach you desire. Since you're dissatisfied with what a textbook can offer, but textbooks are what Wikibooks does, it's not the right project for what you want to do. It may well be that Wikiversity can't technically handle this yet, but at least it would be a more appropriate location than Wikibooks. ] (]) 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
I noticed recently that several of the Klashorst images had disappeared from Commons but the deletions hadn't been logged. I believe this happens when the WMF takes an office action to remove files. I don't know for sure whether that's the case, or why only a small number of the photographs were removed this way. | |||
::I know nothing about Wikiversity and Wikibooks, but from the titles, this is what I would expect: | |||
::* Wikibooks sounds like I'd find books, maybe on-demand printing of material that is non interactive and not primarily oriented toward instruction. | |||
::* Wikiversity sounds like I'd find an educational institution, i.e., oriented primarily toward instruction and possibly interactive. | |||
::For this reason, it seems like you should look toward wikiversity not wikibooks. The title makes it sound like adult tertiary education, I would fully expect to find secondary school courses like history, biology, algebra and geometry. Primary school topics like penmanship and basic arithmetic would seem a bit less likely because of the name 'wikiversity', but I still think I'd be more likely to look for these things at wikiversity than at wikibooks. ] (]) 06:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
My proposal is that we stop using nude or explicit photographs by Klashorst in all namespaces of the English Misplaced Pages. This would affect about thirty pages, including high-traffic anatomy articles such as ] and ]. ]] 18:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, your expectations are . There is a lot more language text books at wikibooks than at wikiversity. The only one of any real importance is one in Breton. The wikiversity info for Portuguese and German e.g. ''refer'' to the wikibook version. | |||
:@]: This seems as if it's essentially a request for a community sanction, and thus probably belongs better on the ]. Please tell me if I am mistaken. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::But as I said this is also ''totally irrelevant'' to my question and concern of interactivity. Because neither Wikiversity nor Wikibooks nor any other site in the wimimedia universe has that. ] (]) 06:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{re|JJPMaster}} I am fine with moving the discussion elsewhere, if you think it more suitable. ]] 02:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Genericusername57}} I disagree with JJPMaster in that this seems to be the right venue, but I also disagree with your proposal. Klashorst might have been a sleazeball, yes, but the images at the two listed articles do not show recognizable subjects, nor do they resemble “creepshots”, nor is there evidence they’re underage. If you object to his images you can nominate them on Commons. Your ‘23 mass nomination failed because it was extremely indiscriminate (i.e. it included a self portrait of the artist). ] (]) 00:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: {{re|Dronebogus}} According to ], Commons users repeatedly contacted Klashorst, asking him to provide proof of age and consent for his models, but he did not do so. I am planning on renominating the photographs on Commons, and I think removing them from enwiki first will help avoid spurious ] arguments. The self-portrait you are referring to also included another naked person. ]] 02:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|Genericusername57}} replacing the ones at ] and ] wouldn’t be difficult; the first article arguably violates ] and conflicts with ] only showing a single image anyway. However I think it’s best if you went to those actual articles and discussed removing them. I don’t know what other pages use his images besides his own article but they should be dealt with separately. If you want to discuss banning his photos from Wikimedia in general that’s best discussed at Commons. In all cases my personal view is that regardless of whether they actually run afoul of any laws purging creepy, exploitative pornography of third-world women is no great loss. ] (]) 01:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I have to confess that I do not remember the details of the attempts to clarify things with Peter. If this turns out to be something upon which this decision might turn, I will try to do more research. But I’m afraid it’s lost in the mists of time. ++]: ]/] 01:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Note also that further attempts to clarify matters directly with Peter will not be possible, as he is now deceased. ++]: ]/] 15:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Several issues here. First, if the files are illegal, that's a matter for Commons as they should be deleted. On the enwiki side of things, if there's doubt about legality, Commons has plenty of other photos that can be used instead. Just replace the photos. The second issue is exploitation. Commons does have ] which could apply, and depending on the country in which the photo was taken ], but it's a hard sell to delete things on Commons if it seems like the person in the photo consented (with or without payment). The problem with removing files that may be tainted by exploitation is we'd presumably have to remove basically all images of all people who were imprisoned, enslaved, colonized, or vulnerable at the time of the photo/painting/drawing. It becomes a balance where we consider the context of the image (the specifics of when/where/how it was taken), whether the subject is still alive (probably relevant here), and encyclopedic importance. I'd be inclined to agree with some above that there aren't many photos here that couldn't be replaced with something else from Commons, but I don't think you'll find support for a formalized ban. Here's a question: what happens when you just try to replace them. As long as the photo you're replacing it with is high quality and just as relevant to the article, I don't think you'd face many challenges? — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 16:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Move the last edited notice from the bottom of the page to somewhere that's easier to find == | |||
::::Fair enough. My comment was about what I would expect, not about what actually exists. And your point about irrelevance is well taken; I had not thoroughly digested all of your previous reply. You are right in saying that lack of interactivity is not project-specific, but rather just as true at WP as at WV or WB. About all I can come up with is demonstrated over at ]. But if you are looking for others to join with you in advocating for more interactivity, it seems to me you'd find more support over at wikiversity than you found at wikibooks. Interactivity provides more benefit to courseware designers than to book authors or encyclopedia contributors. And that interactivity should be helpful in all topic areas, not just in language learning, so the relative lack of language materials at WV shouldn't deter you from trying over there. But even in the best imaginable outcome, it would probably take a long time for significant interactive features to get implemented. Best wishes! ] (]) 08:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Have you checked out Template:Listen and template:multi-listen start? ] (]) 16:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, Rmhermen, I have. In dismay. They remind me of this old and cruel joke about the GDR priding itself on having biggest transitors and computer chips... Sorry to get sassy, but they are perfect example of how outdated, quaint and obsolete wikimedia software really is. Both of those templates are '''<big>GINORMOUS</big>'''. If you have a hunderd words on a page that you want the reader to be able to hear they are totally, absolutely useless. | |||
Currently, if you want to check when the last page edit was, you have to look at the edit history or scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and look for it near the licensing info. I propose moving it under the view history and watch buttons, across from the standard "This article is from Misplaced Pages" disclaimer. Non-technical users may be put off by the behind-the-scenes nature of the page or simply not know of its existence. The Mobile site handles this quiet gracefully in my opinion. While it is still at the bottom of the page, it isn't found near Licensing talk and is a noticeable portion of the page ] (]) 08:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Actually they are bigger than my ginormous statement. Far bigger, bulkier an unwieldier. Real dinosaurs. | |||
] (]) 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:How 'bout {{tl|audio}} then? Isn't that exactly what you need? And if it's still too unwieldy, is there anything preventing you from modifying that template slightly so it only contains the parts needed for your purposes?—] • (]); <span class="nowrap">June 5, 2015</span>; 14:44 (UTC) | |||
:Editors can already enable {{slink|mw:XTools#PageInfo gadget}}, which provides this information (and more) below the article title. I don't think non-editors would find it useful enough to be worth the space. ] (]) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*{{ping|Ntsimp}}If you look ] you'll see a possible solution - little javascript apps that can be embedded in an article, now in use at Spanish wikipedia. Something like this might be what you need? ] (]) 20:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Two suggestions for you: Please add this to ]. Also, look at the number ''eins'' (one) at ], to see if that sort of idea might work for you. (It was mostly lifted from Wiktionary, and I don't know if it works in every browser. You'll get the best results from clicking on the pseudophoneticization, not the speaker icon.) ] (]) 13:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**No!No!No! That abducts people to some black screen away from the written text that I am trying to get them to read. UTTERLY USELESS. | |||
] (]) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== I wished Misplaced Pages supported wallpapers in pages... == | |||
== Can we get a bot to check the Internet Archive for dead link solutions? == | |||
It would be even more awesome if we could change the wallpaper of pages in Misplaced Pages. But the fonts' colors could change to adapt to the wallpaper. The button for that might look like this: ] ] ] (]) 11:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Can we get a bot to check the Internet Archive for dead link solutions?|2=―] ] 08:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
:I think we already tried this. It was called ] ;) —] (] • ]) 11:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Rather than merely tag dead links as being dead, can we have a bot see if the dead link was archived at the Internet Archive around the time when the link was added to the Misplaced Pages article, and either change the dead link to point to that Internet Archive link (which would presumably be a working representation of the page before it was a dead link), or at least make a report on the talk page proposing the fix? ] ] 04:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:See ] for information on creating your own stylesheet. ] (]) 18:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:On a related point: If the archive is added to the citation, I think it should be added as {{para|archive-url}} with {{para|deadurl|yes}}. This makes the citation title link to the archive while preserving the original link as "original" in the citation. Thus the original link can be easily checked for possible resurrection, which does happen sometimes. ―] ] 05:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' this is an excellent idea. "repairing" dead links have become a common spamming technique. If we had a bot add archive links from internet archives that would solve a lot of problems. Do we have someone interested in building such a bot? We could also added an internet archive for the links that are not dead just incase they become so. We would use for the live ones {{para|deadurl|no}} ] (] · ] · ]) 07:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* '''Problem''': sometimes the archived page at Internet Archive is not valid—they really do have to be checked by human eyes. ] ] 11:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**True, IA has significant reliability problems. Many times an archive version is unusable but another version of the same page, archived a few hours or days earlier or later, works fine. And a bot likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But is a bad archive version any worse than a dead link? Either way, a human needs to try to find an archive version that works. ―] ] 11:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*** I completely agree that human eyes are needed for confirmation, but it would be helpful to have a bot find and suggest the link. If a page has a lot of dead links, a bot report of some kind will also save the trouble of searching the Internet Archive for the ones that don't exist there at all. ] ] 12:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Another issue is the (rather uncommon) case that the cited webpage changes over time and the archived version chosen by the bot may not be the correct version to support the content it references. A good way to address technical problems would be for the bot to leave a message on the article's talk page, much like bots do on user talk pages. The message would say something like "On , repaired of references by inserting a link to archived versions of these dead links. The archived webpages should be verified to determine if the archived webpage displays properly and supports the content it references." That's just an idea for what the text should say, it needs to be worded better. The message would include a link to edit diff and could even display the links to the added archived webpages to make verification easier. The message template could also include a parameter for the verifying editor to adjust to indicate verification, similar to how ] includes a parameter indicating that the requested edit has been made. A parameter "archivebot=" could be added to citation templates to indicate that the archive link was added by a bot. I believe the benefit of repairing dead links (should check both IA and other web archiving sites) with a bot outweigh the drawback that a small percentage of archived webpages won't display properly or may not link to the right version of a webpage. ] (]) 13:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I came across an yesterday that first displays a message that cookies are disabled and need to be enabled to use the website (the page is in French) and in Firefox the tab has a spinning green circle indicating the page is loading. The first screen has a box to check "OK" and if you click "OK" it goes to the archived version of the webpage and the green spinning circle disappears (again, using Firefox). This is something that a bot might reject as a bad archived webpage. This supports using a bot that lets editors review the archived webpages, rather than automatically rejecting them. ] (]) 18:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' I think this is much better than just tagging the dead link. See comments in the threaded discussion above. ] (]) 13:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Conditional Support''' ... the condition being that it is not a fully automated process. Thanks for the idea ] (]) 15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Script it''' The internet archive sometimes archives ] pages (many websites make fake 404 pages that look like real webpages to bots), so this won't do. A script that shows a human the proposed link and gives them a yes or no choice and changes the link if the human clicks yes is just the ticket. ] (]) 20:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
** That would be ideal, yes. ] ] 20:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' as a semi-automatic script with user-check. ] (]) 21:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' (for Firefox users) In the meantime, on the Firefox Addon page adds a "Check for Internet archives" function to contextmenus of links and to the toolbar (not my invention, just mentioning it). Not a huge improvement, but still quite helpful. ] (]) 20:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' I think this is an essential service we need. We all know we have dead links scattered throughout wikipedia. WP does not control the status of external sites, but we rely on that information for our sources. Essentially when a dead link is detected, it becomes the sequence for removing content, sometimes selectively for POV purposes. Used in such malicious circumstances, the offending editor must first fail to search for the archive link and then deliberately remove content. An automated process will eliminate the question and the opportunity. Once a link to a website is posted within wikipedia, frequently it will cause the archive spider to find an otherwise unknown link and start the archiving process, so all WP needs is a means to link back to that archive if the originating site goes down and the proper information is retained in perpetuity. The knowledge is not lost. "Knowledge is good." ] (]) 20:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' Excellent idea and an efficient way to manage dead links. ] ] 20:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' The issue of the bot retrieving non-pertinent archive urls could be well dealt with by chucking in a template field that says the archive url has not yet been verified. Even if we say that the bot has only 50% accuracy in getting a good archive url, this would be a vast improvement from the current arrangement, at the cost of a slight amount of disappointment over there being two bad urls rather than one. I also support the idea of a scripted tool which would show users a non-verified link and allow them confirm, replace or remove the bot-provided url. ] 21:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''': This would also help reduce the incidence of a form of "article rot", in which dead links are used as excuses to pepper articles with inline or block citation dispute tags, or simply delete material as "unsourced" when it takes about as much time to take these unhelpful actions as it does to just go to archive.org and find a URL for the source that still works. Might as well just have a bot do it, if it can be done that way. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 19:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''': Having worked on repairing dead links, having a way of harvesting the archived versions of an URL seems useful. Maybe have such a bot add a marker (like {{tl|Archived URL available}} with the URL) that can be reviewed instead of outright replacing links, too - in case the archived URL is not suitable. ] (]) 11:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
** I would say that an "unsuitable" link is no worse than a "dead" link. I would prefer outright replacing the link and putting a "needs review" tag on it. ] ] 14:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*** That also works, I'd say. ] (]) 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
****The "needs review" is a good stipulation to add to the automated process I supported above. ] (]) 00:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Change page titles/names using "LGBTQ" to "LGBTQ+" == | |||
===Adding url to archive.org for deadlinks=== | |||
Please see my reasoning at ] (and please post your thoughts there). It was proposed that I use this page to escalate this matter, as seen on the linked talk page. ] (]) 20:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
We are wanting to create a bot that adds links to the archive.org url for urls marked with deadlink automatically when possible. We think it can be technically done at least some of the time. The eventual goal may be to have an archive url added even before the url goes dead to indicate the exact version that was used as a ref. Often websites changes their content even when the link does not go dead. Is their support for this idea? ] (] · ] · ]) 23:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
: Do you mean support specifically for the idea of adding the Internet Archive link even before the referenced link goes dead? I would support that. If the Internet Archive doesn't already have the page archived, we can instruct it to archive it. ] ] 23:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Yes ] (] · ] · ]) 00:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' in a way. Certain references are time related. When the original source changes, suddenly that could turn into a dead link or could get noticed by a human as not containing the content the article claims the source to support. If a logging system could track the date an archive.org's most timely capture of the site, that would be extremely useful. On the other hand, particularly with the long url's on archive.org, such a process would add a lot of bytes to sourcing and could make editing out of a mass of non-word based text more difficult. Ultimately across millions of articles, we are talking about a lot of extra data to store. The date stamped history could be an excellent source of that information, a log notation made each time a <nowiki><ref></nowiki> is created. That doesn't need to go any further until a human reports a dead link or that the source does not contain the material. Then rather than removing the content, the bot should activate the archive link and then make that source subject to human review. I'm sure the bot people will come up with better logic, the point being time stamped archive content being ready to replace changed or deleted content when there is a problem. ] (]) 10:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* {{ec}}I think this would be a good attempt to do, but it would need some heuristics to distinguish between the several types of archived pages which are not representative of the target page. This is a problem with archive.org, that it will index pages like "you have visited a page which is no longer on this site - please try searching for it", and http errors of several types (mostly 302s and 404s I think), and it will sometimes index pages which are redirects from the target page. Maybe if the bot were to be run for a time and the results reviewed to see how to improve the results incrementally.... Another option would be to build into the deadlink template something like the "certain" parameter for {{tl|self-published inline}} where the default would be "deadlink?" which could signal a bot or a human to test if there is an archived page; if a parameter like "reallydead=y" were added, this would signal that, indeed, the link had been tried to be recovered and it had failed. This wouldn't mean it "couldn't" be recovered, because sometimes its just a matter of the web url structure has been drastically altered and the original page is still present but hidden from casual view. | |||
:As for the matter of "exact version", I don't think this is something you can designate in archive.org for pages which have been previously indexed; in other words, I don't think there is a way to inject a specific version (i.e. today's version) into a saved set where the page is in the indexing queue. If it is the FIRST time a page has been indexed, yes, you can designate the exact version, though --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 23:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* There's another approach to consider as well. I've . Wondering if WikiMedia Foundation could approach Archive.org and have Misplaced Pages itself used as a directory to drive site indexing. This would not mean crawling Misplaced Pages to include in Archive.org, but crawling for URL-like strings appearing between <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> tags. Just a thought. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 00:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:{{quote|'''How can I get my site included in the Wayback Machine?''' | |||
::Much of our archived web data comes from our own crawls or from Alexa Internet's crawls. Neither organization has a "crawl my site now!" submission process. Internet Archive's crawls tend to find sites that are well linked from other sites. The best way to ensure that we find your web site is to make sure it is included in online directories and that similar/related sites link to you. | |||
::Alexa Internet uses its own methods to discover sites to crawl. It may be helpful to install the free Alexa toolbar and visit the site you want crawled to make sure they know about it. | |||
::Regardless of who is crawling the site, you should ensure that your site's 'robots.txt' rules and in-page META robots directives do not tell crawlers to avoid your site.}} | |||
::::::Often there are a lot of dates for which a specific page is available thus one could use the one that is closest per the "access date". I will try to meet with someone from archive.org to discuss ] (] · ] · ]) 00:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''comment''' why has another discussion been started on this topic, which is being discussed just a few discussions above this one ("Can we get a bot to check the Internet Archive for dead link solutions?")?? Usually it's helpful to keep related discussions together. Issues raised in the first comment by Ceyockey have already been raised...that does not mean Ceyockey's comment is not valuable or adds to the discussion, just that it's helpful to see what others have said. I think this discussion should be merged with the other (maybe as a subheader). ] (]) 05:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry ] yes merged. I have rounded up a bot programmer who states he can have something ready by the end of June for a trail run. Looks like their is sufficient support for ] ] (] · ] · ]) 05:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
===Meta comment (archive bot task force)=== | |||
It seems to me that some issues are very complex, requiring a lot of discussion, possibly for a few months, and probably could be decided by a small group of experts in the area. Is the Village Pump a good place for such things? Would there be any benefit to the concept of a task force, a sort of short-term WikiProject? Something like that could be tried informally for this issue on a page in the OP's user space, as a test of the concept. If things like this issue need community consensus, and I've seen more significant things happen without it, the group's solution could be brought back here as a well-developed proposal. If this process turned out to be no better, at least it wouldn't be any worse, and we would have learned something from the experience. ―] ] 10:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:This is a pretty good idea. An alternative would be to take this into Meta as that would set the stage for both sourcing solutions from other Wikipedias and disseminating solutions to multiple Wikipedias. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 23:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
If anyone, individual or group, manages to do anything that improves the situation, please do make sure you let me know. I'll shower them with barnstars, praise, love and puppies for eternity. It's a bane of the life of developers of quality content that it degrades with time, and this will be a massive dose of helpfulness in that regard. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
== Galleries - Who needs them? == | |||
Apologies if this has been discussed before but I propose that, given the existence of Commons and Wikilinks, there is no need for any wikipedia article to include a gallery. The danger being that inexperienced readers may believe that the gallery contains all images relating to the subject that the project holds when this is far from the case. Comments please ] (]) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Visual arts articles in particular benefit greatly from good use of galleries. You're not going to protect articles from newbies' shitty use of galleries any more than you'll protect them from newbies' shitty prose. The answer is to fix it, not to ban it. ] ] 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**Well gobbled. We have link templates to point readers to the relevant collection of images on Commons, so even if an article contains a gallery, chances are high that there will be a note "Wikimedia Commons has media related to <subject>" at the bottom of the page. And if inexperienced readers don't get such hints, that's no reason at all to penalise the rest by abolishing galleries. ] (]) 20:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**I agree 100%. Curated galleries are a benefit to some articles. Galleries should not be banned because of poor implementations on some articles. ] (]) 01:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*As a long-term user of Misplaced Pages, I understand the problems with galleries of indiscriminate images tacked on to the end of articles, as I've seen plenty and they can be bad. But used well, a gallery can definitely improve an article. The visual arts example given by Curly Turkey is a good one, and for example, the ] article would be poorer without a gallery of some of his works. But galleries can also be used very well in general subjects. See the article section ], where a simple two-image gallery is used to good effect (and there's another just below). So no, I think it would be a bad move to get rid of galleries. ] (]) 09:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**In the Roman Britain example would actually be better off using ] instead of a gallery. Using the template would eliminate the excessive gray border of those images and allow a single caption. ] (]) 01:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*** The "excessive" gray border is the same border used on all thumbmails, and that {{tl|multiple image}} ''doubles'' (one "excessive" gray border for the whole box, plus one for each image). If you want to eliminate the borders, then you use <nowiki><gallery mode=nolines caption="Roman invasion of Britain"></nowiki> in a gallery. (I'm not sure how to right-align it, though.) ] (]) 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I concur with Mr Potto. The problem of galleries of indiscriminate visual clutter is the same as, e.g., the problem of someone dwelling on excessive detail about a biography subject's childhood, or any other form of over-inclusion: It's a ] matter of content determination and adjustment for discussion at a particular article's talk page, not indicative of a site-wide problem requiring sweeping change. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 19:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
I understand the concern, but just banning galleries is not a solution. People will just add mor images without using the gallery templates, and there are places where galleries are appropriate. For example at ] there is a gallery (full disclosure:added by me) that shows different stages of the first year of a moose's life. Sometimes users mistake it for a place to just add more pictures of cute little moose calves. The solution is to just remove the excess (or consider using them to replace some of the existing ones if they're really good) not to just zap the whole thing and ban it forever. ] (]) 21:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Commons is a repository of all free images (in theory) on a subject. A galley is a select set of those images to provide some additional context on a subject. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 22:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Just to pile-on and agree with everyone else that abolishing galleries would be a terrible idea. For example, most major cancer articles now have mini-galleries with diagrams released for each main ] (images all from ]). Examples: ], ], and so on Try picking up that information from the Commons categories! Much of Commons is a nightmare to use because of the vast numbers of unsorted images & the often insane categorization schemes, which few know how to negotiate. Galleries certainly can be misused, but in my experience examples of this have greatly declined since say 5 or 8 years ago. They are certainly vital for visually-oriented topics like art. ] (]) 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== "What links here" for article sections == | |||
So currently there's the "What links here"-feature that shows all Misplaced Pages-pages that link to the current article. However the entries don't signify whether or not those links are linking to just the page or to a specific subsection of it.<br/> | |||
I'm proposing a change that either: | |||
* Also shows the subsections that pages link to on these ]. | |||
* Or (and I'd prefer that; it could also be done by an external AddOn/Gadget though): displays some kind of button next to the section-header at mouseover which at a click shows all articles that link to that section (for editors only; eventually also only for those who enabled this feature in the preferences).<br/>I think the first thing to do in this case however would be to get anchor links on section-headers -> I'm going to create a section in here on that in a minute as it's a separate issue. | |||
''So why would this be useful?'' -> it's useful when '''renaming section-headers''' to make sure the wikilinks that link to them don't break (amongst other things). | |||
Please post what you think of this suggestion; not sure if it was already asked in here or if it's a thing to put on phabricator. --] (]) 18:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* I think this would be useful, but maybe not as a baseline addition to the system. I think that at first one would want to create a routine to analyze incoming links to see if the originations have # cues and then do a validation to determine whether the #-value exists in the target article. There might be a couple of ways of doing this; if memory serves, there is an ordinal value assigned to sections sequentially which is independent of the title of the section; thus, there might be a way of "healing" broken section references if the order of sections has not changed. This would require some significant bot-heuristics looking at, for instance, the content of the first sentence and the number of paragraphs in the section as measures of identity between old-name section and new-name section ... maybe more trouble than its worth, but I'm not bot designer, so it might be reasonable. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 03:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' When I edit long controversial articles, it would be very useful to know what links to an individual section that is getting lots of attention over a period of time. ] (]) 08:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Display section-permalinks at mouseover of section-headers == | |||
So I'm not sure if this has already been asked in here...what about displaying permalinks for sections at mouseover of section-titles? | |||
I'm not sure how these things are called (section-anchors?) - here's what I mean: https://i.imgur.com/UUQemyS.jpg <br/> | |||
The site in that screenshot is: https://github.com/goldsmith/Wikipedia#installation - to see what I mean hover over the Installation-section. | |||
I meantioned this in my ] - if one had these anchors displayed at mouseover of sections one could also show a 2nd button there that at a clicks shows all the articles that link to that specific section. | |||
Is the reason it's not already featured that articles have these "contents"-boxes which can be used to create permalinks for article-sections? | |||
What do you think of this proposal? | |||
--] (]) 19:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:We recently tried this, but for various technical malfunctions it had to be undone. See also ], which has a ton of discussion. —] (] • ]) 23:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Interesting that there were technical problems with this. I just tested and the test worked ... just adding the <nowiki>"#{{{section title}}"</nowiki> to the end of a permalink and it worked. The test case .. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Samsung&oldid=666428903#Operations . So I think that this would be a suitable manual accomodation, and I'm sure that a script could be composed to generate these automatically. Not sure if this is a ''general'' solution, but it worked in this particular instance. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 03:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== A proposal to reform the power structure of Misplaced Pages == | |||
I have been a Wikipedian for 11½ years, and an administrator for almost as long. However, I took an extended break from 2007 until recently, apart from a few sporadic edits. When I returned this year, I was shocked to find that the number of active administrators/sysops is about the same as what it was back in 2007! I would have expected to find at least 10,000 — but no. | |||
I propose a thorough shake-up of the whole power structure. I am aware that certain folks who hold entrenched positions and/or who love '''titles''' will not like this proposal. But I think it would streamline the Misplaced Pages bureaucracy and make the project much more manageable. Here goes: | |||
'''Positions to be abolished :''' | |||
* Sysop/administrator - ''most'' rights of sysops to be transferred to ''all'' users who have been registered for six months and have completed 2000 edits to at least 200 unique articles. | |||
* Bureaucrat — position obsolete. Bots to take over. | |||
* Checkuser | |||
* Steward — these last two positions to be replaced by '''Guardians''' (see below). | |||
'''Proposed positions :''' | |||
* Editor — new editors, by default, will be just like normal users at present. Electronically upgraded after six months and 2000 edits to 200 unique articles; given all powers currently entrusted to sysops ''except'' the power to block other users. No need for a "bureaucrat" to give users these rights — a bot would electronically "clock" a user's edits and would electronically upgrade his or her status automatically on passing the threshold. | |||
* Restricted editor — an editor whose rights have been '''restricted''' by the Arbcom. In the case of an editor who has caused problems, a member of the Arbcom (or a '''Guardian''' — see below, acting on instructions from the Arbcom) could put a '''restriction''' on their account. This would either prevent, revoke, or suspend the post-threshold upgrade. | |||
* Guardian — To be given the powers currently entrusted to Stewards and Checkusers, as well as the blocking power of sysops. Grandfather all existing sysops, bureaucrats, checkusers, and stewards into Guardians (the Arbcom could veto certain users on a case-by-case basis). Replace the current RFA with RFG (Requests for Guardianship). Eligibility — one year's tenure and 10,000 edits to 1000 unique articles. Change the voting rules: Only existing Guardians should be allowed to vote; to be elected, a candidate should score 60% or more, and be "ratified" by 90% of the Arbcom. The Arbcom may revoke or suspend a Guardian at any time and for any reason, by a 90% vote. | |||
One other point: rights should be global, not restricted to a specific wiki. It's silly allowing somebody to do something on the English Misplaced Pages but not on the Italian Wikibooks, for example. | |||
Well, that's a rough proposal. It's not set in concrete — feel free to amend it. But '''something has to be done''' to streamline the ossified, Byzantine power structure of Misplaced Pages, and make it more of a bottom-up than a top-down system. ] (]) 12:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I suspect this will be a no-go in its entirety, but as a specific complaint, there is no way that every current admin could be given checkuser powers. It could be done technically, of course, but giving everyone that permission would almost certainly be a violation of WMF's privacy policies. Never minding the fact that checkusers (and Stewards, I believe) are required to identify themselves to the foundation. A natural consequence of this proposal would be a dramatic reduction in the number of admins/"Guardians" - and that appears to run counter what you intend. Likewise, disenfranchising non-guardians is a non-starter. RFA may be a mess, but taking away the right of the overwhelming majority of the project's members to participate is not a good thing. ]] 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
** We can tweak this a bit. Sure, if applicants are required to reveal their full identity, the proposal could easily mean that fewer Wikipedians would be willing to apply for Guardianship than are presently willing to apply for Adminship. But if almost all active users were to get most of the powers that sysops have at present, that wouldn't matter so much. As for the voting rules, non-Guardians could still have the right to make their voice heard in submissions to the Arbcom — anybody with objections could file them. ] (]) 14:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*another problem is that has said that non-administrators should not have the ability to see deleted material. -- ] ] 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
** We could retain that rule "in spirit". As I said, users would only get the powers that sysops presently have after six months and an editing threshold. But that is one power that could be transferred to Guardians, if too many people are concerned about it. ] (]) 14:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* The main problem with this that I can see is it opens the door to disruptive editors to gain rights/abilities with which they could do real damage. 2000 edits/200 articles is easy to achieve if you put your mind to it. It would be even more of an issue if it were done globally, as then it would be easy for an editor to make their edits on another Wiki that has fewer people watching it before before becoming disruptive e.g. here.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I would strongly oppose "electronically upgrading" editors to quasi-admins after a certain number of edits. Do you have any idea how easy it would be to make 2000 edits to 200 articles if you're doing stupid stuff like ] or making simple changes with ]? If you're going down this path (and I'm not sure how I feel about it yet), getting these extra permissions should at the minimum require the same sort of human review that we currently require for rollbacker and pending changes reviewer. --] (]) 14:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* I would also add that it's unclear what problem this is meant to address. Sure the number of admins has hardly increased, and there are probably fewer active than three or four years ago. But the number of active editors has decreased too. At the same time there has been near continuous improvement and development of tools and systems to automate the process of dealing with problems and problem editors: filters to stop problem edits happening at all, tags to alert editors of edit patterns that may be problematic, tools like Twinkle and AWB, greater centralisation of blocks and filters to stop WP hopping. If anything the encyclopaedia works better than ever at tackling and preventing problem edits and editors, as far as I can tell. And that may be why there has been little pressure to do anything about the admin numbers, there is no major shortage of them.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*{{ec}} This is an absolutely terrible idea, especially the part where only "Guardians" can have an impact on the selection of new admins. Why not limit the ability to select admins to editors who have created multiple featured articles instead? We are concerned about the quality of the encyclopedia, right? <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 14:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Let's see: automatic granting of admin rights, non-elected granting of ''viewdelete'', automatic privileges but manual removal of privileges, mixing of high-level rights with admin-level rights … if this proposal went to a poll, it'd be ] in an hour. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{{]|]|]}}</span> 16:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''].''' Firstly, the names are more ] than ]. Automatically giving protection, (revision) deletion, and other contentious permissions ''automatically'' at such a low bar? And then giving editors the ability to give or take rights globally at the usual bar for adminship (stewardship requires extensive cross-wiki contributions and 500+-voter scrutiny)? No. '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 22:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*"rights should be global, not restricted to a specific wiki"? If this is a serious proposal, it is clearly being made in entirely the wrong place - the English-language Misplaced Pages cannot grant rights elsewhere, end of story. This proposal appears not to have been thought through... ] (]) 22:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**Yes it is a serious proposal. I thought I'd float the idea here first, and then more widely (e.g. on the Meta) if it should gain general approval. Obviously nobody seems to agree with it. I'm also hoping, though, that in the event of its being rejected (which now seems certain), it will at least provoke some discussion about what CAN be done to improve the system. ] (]) 01:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
***It is still unclear what problems you see that need addressing. As I noted above though there may be fewer active admins than a few years ago that is not a problem in itself: there are fewer active editors and many technological and process improvements that further make things easier or work better. Two more of these that I didn't think of above but which are good examples. Pending chages are another tool that can be used to limit the impact of problem edits and editors with no administrator effort once in place. And the Template editor permission partly does the job of your upgraded editors, by giving a few editors the right to edit highly visible and so protected templates, without giving them full admin rights.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 02:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
****The fact that there are fewer active admins today than previously may not be a problem in itself, but I can see it becoming one. If the number is dwindling, it is highly likely that those who remain are "ageing" and if those who drop out are not being replaced by a steady supply of new blood, I can only see trouble down the track. Better, IMO, to prevent a problem than solve one. Ditto for the declining number of active users - I can see entire sections of Misplaced Pages becoming outdated if there are not enough new active users (this is already happening in certain historical articles - most of those related to Fiji, for example, have hardly been touched since 2007. I was the one who did most of the work on them; nobody did much about most of them in the eight years I was away. That should not happen. It looks as if I shall have to go through several hundred articles and update them all myself. I shouldn't have to - there should have been dozens of users taking care of these articles all these years. Misplaced Pages should be continuously attracting new users and few, if any, articles would be left unattended. (And don't blame Fiji's geographical isolation - most Fijians are very internet savvy). May I put it to you that fewer new editors are being attracted because they see Misplaced Pages as overly bureaucratic? Automating the lifting of editing restrictions (which is what sysop-access basically is) would create a much more inclusive atmosphere and new users would know that constructively contributing a reasonable amount of work would be rewarded, without their having to jump through a lot of hoops. | |||
Another problem that I think such automation would solve is the way the whole RFA electoral process is skewed. Does every editor show up to vote? Nope. Just a few regulars and a few other sporadic visitors. What that means in practice is that those who get elected are not necessarily the ones who do the most work, or the best work, but rather then ones who have good "connections" - either with the regular voters on the RFA or with a pool of people who are usually non-voters, but will show up just to vote for "their" candidate. Other GOOD users, who just beaver away quietly in obscure corners of the project, paying little attention to developing such relationships, are less likely to be chosen. That's not the way democracy is meant to function. Automating the process would make the lifting of restrictions not tied to an "office" to be elected to, but rather a recognition that the user has been contributing both quantity and quality to the project and is not a fly-by-night. Every new user would know that if he or she sticks around, and does not cause trouble, these rights will be granted automatically. The six-month period is ample time for the new user to learn the ropes and for other users to notice any signs of trouble and report that to the Arbcom, who would then "flag" that user's account as restricted. | |||
Of course, some unsuitable users will slip through the system that way. That's inevitable. But grandfathering present sysops and other "office holders", for want of a better term, into Guardians would mean that there would be a considerable number of people around with the power to do something about that. And if you re-read my propsal, the blocking power currently entrusted to sysops would be held only by Guardians. | |||
As for why I want to restrict the "electorate" to those who are already Guardians: see my comments above on who currently votes at RFA. A mixture of hobbyists and single-candidate supporters (and opponents). A stable "electoral college" is preferable to an electronic town meeting where only those who support / oppose a particluar candidate show up. Moreover, given the sweeping powers that Guardians would possess, it is only fair that new Guardians should have the trust of their peers, as well as the nearly unanimous approval of the Arbcom. Preventing non-Guardians from voting would in no way prevent them from making submissions; they could make their objections known and I'm sure that the Arbcom would take them into account, if the Guardians voting had failed to do so. ] (]) 07:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:This just seems to be another way for admins to gain more power at the expense of content creators. Admins already have too much power, giving them more is insane. We should limit them, not expand their power. Maybe a two-year term as an admin, followed by a loss of the mop for at least a year (i.e. term limits) would be the way to go. Under no circumstances is this proposal viable. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::While I agree that this does impact concentration of power, I do not believe your false dichotomy is helpful. "Content creator" and "admin" are not mutually exclusive. Nor is it a fact that the latter targets the former, no matter how much certain agitators wish to pretend otherwise. ]] 17:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::It's not a false dichotomy. Nor did I claim that admins could not be content creators or vice versa. On the contrary, there are plenty who are both. {{u|Cirt}} comes to mind, as do you, {{u|Worm That Turned}}, {{u|Rschen7754}}, {{u|Wehwalt}}, etc. We need more admins who are like those (and you), who have created content. Second, there are plenty of examples of administrators who go after content creators, one need only look at the block log of {{u|Eric Corbett}}. The difference is that the administrators have the power and can silence those who oppose them. Allowing the in-power group to consolidate their power even further is not good for the project. Excluding mere editors from determining who should be admins hurts the project. Limiting adminship to those trusted by people who have repeatedly contributed FA articles can only help the project. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 18:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::We should not credit any argument that says admins go after content creators because of one case (if it's only one case, than it shows that admins are definitely ''not'' going after ''content creators''). ] (]) 18:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::If you want, I can get a whole list, but that's a side issue. Listing one case is known as an analogy, but we can go through a bunch of them, one by one. It doesn't really serve the purpose of this discussion however, and provides a simple way for admins (and others) to deflect the conversation. The main point is that the current proposal is not acceptable. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Well, good then there was no point in bringing up the meme that admins want to go after content creators - they just don't. -- ] (]) 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Yeah, they do, albeit unintentionally because most admins do not know how to create content and the "rules" are more important than the content. Anytime you have ] driving the train instead of ], it becomes . <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 19:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Well, as long as we don't have to put up with more cliches - all the better. ] (]) 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*''']''', there's no way sucha frankly ridiculous, poorly conceived proposal could possiblty be approved. Also, we do not ''have'' the authority to get rid of stewards, they are elected by the global community. . ] (]) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I am not going to dignify this proposal with a response. --''']]]''' 01:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
** You could try being nice once in a while. ] (]) 01:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Has anyone perhaps considered that the proposer is a returning user who was relatively inactive for many years, and may not be informed about the community's new standards concerning adminship? After all, he was most active in the early days, when adminship could be obtained with a mere 3,000 edits and a few months' experience. Currently, the expectations are generally over one year of experience and more than 10,000 edits (or even 20-30,000), with very little tolerance for mistakes. I'm not saying that I support all aspects of the proposal, because I don't, but we need not be so hostile and condescending. This is not a good way to respond to a good-faith proposal by one of our recently-returned early contributors. (I know how it is to have a proposal ridiculed, so...) --]] 01:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' Our overall editor numbers are lower than they were in 2007. So it is not just the number of admins that has stagnated. The most important work of the encyclopedia still takes place at the level of article editing. Those who edit thus have the greatest power and I consider this to still be a bottom-up organization. Adminship is really just part of the dispute resolution mechanisms and the carrying out of community determined consensus. We have many successful and thus "powerful" editors who are not admins. ] (] · ] · ]) 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I have no comment on the proposal itself but I agree with {{u|Biblioworm}} that we should respond more nicely to this good-faith proposal by a returning early-contributor. ] '''·''' ] 03:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Creating a very powerful '''Check User Bot''' == | |||
{{archive top|result=We're done here. The proposal is replete with problems. I also strongly encourage {{U|CosmicEmperor}} to heed {{U|Reaper Eternal}}'s advice.--] (]) 20:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
Most Bots fight vandalism effectively. Due to privacy reasons, CheckUser data is only stored on the Wikimedia servers for 3 months, so running a check on an account that has been inactive for more than 3 months will have no result. After 3 months the blocked accounts become stale. I suggest let the data be stored for more than 3 months and only '''Check User Bot''' will be allowed to access it. A bot can't be contacted by BBC journalists to reveal the details of users. | |||
Only very few trusted Wikimedia employees(programmers and software professionals working in wikimedia foundation) will check the functioning of the Bots. | |||
This will not happen in a day. Creating such Bots with Check User power will take time.--<span style="border:1px solid #0072BC;padding:1px;">] ]</span> 05:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Define 'High A.I.' and then provide an example of working software currently used for a similar application. ] (]) 06:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thinking about it, if 'High A.I.' is actually capable of doing what is claimed, there might be scope for further expansion - why not get it to write the articles as well... ] (]) 06:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{reply|AndyTheGrump}} ]. ] (]) 07:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::], no disrespect but in light of this and your previous posts elsewhere, I really don't think you understand what the CheckUser tool actually does. An automated tool which is capable of determining accurately and without human input whether two anonymous accounts on a website are being operated by the same person—let alone one that can do this over a period of months as you're talking about, given that over that timescale accounts operated by the same person won't even share things as basic as IP address or useragent string—is something that would be beyond the reach of a national intelligence agency, let alone the ]. There's a reason ] is based on behavioural, not technical evidence. – ] 11:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''God no:''' I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous proposal, with no comment towards the proposer himself. This is a complete violation of the privacy policy. If this were to even remotely have a chance to gain any momentum, this would need to be advertised globally, as the rules for CU is not limited to this Misplaced Pages. The foundation would also need convincing, the Privacy Policy will need to be update and its change broadcasted to everyone, and it would need global community support, a consensus which will likely practically be a unanimous !vote in favor. I for one will retire from Misplaced Pages and pull my bots if this came to pass.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 12:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* A bot could fairly easily be setup to automatically deal with the majority of sockpuppets, it wouldn't be too hard for a bot to use CU to find related accounts, check if they're likely to be breaching policy and then privately refer the detection to a trusted user (any checkuser) for confirmation. With this sort of bot, the number of sockpuppets that would have to be reported by users would be next to none, compared to the amount now, but that's not really a good thing in this case. (If you banned cars, very few people would get speeding tickets) The problem with this is that for the bot to work, it would have to frequently run CUs on every active user, regardless if that's allowed by the privacy policy, it isn't something people would like. Another issue is that this would probably cause a lot of false positives, especially on people who use public connections, and especially if you use 6 months of IP logs, people will start to trust the bot more than they should (that is inevitable) and, when they do, people who did nothing but use the same public connection to edit the same page will end up blocked, this would be even worse if the bot made blocks itself (so the bot can't be used to avoid having to trust CUs) and would effectively block anyone with a (legitimate) alternate account or who uses a shared connection. Another issue is a result of allowing connections to exist. If someone has a legitimate alternate account, like a bot of their own, the CU bot will probably detect it as a sock and someone will need to tell it that it's ok, to keep this detection from happening every time the bot checks that account, the bot will end up having to keep a database of every user's legitimate alternate accounts, regardless of if they've been declared or not. This, again, is not impossible or hard, just very unpopular. These are just a few of the problems that exist, there are more and there are '''many''' more if the bot can be connected to from the internet. It'd be nice if a bots could take over as much work as possible, but it's probably not a good idea to have a bot do this. ] (]) 13:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I'm sorry, Cosmic, but you must realize that this bot would, even if it gained consensus '''''and''''' was approved by the WMF (very unlikely), be infinitely difficult to program. Technology in the world is simply not at such a level yet, and I've always suspected that it probably never will be. No machine can ever replicate or surpass our human ability to reason. Besides, why do we ''need'' this bot? Would it have so many benefits that it would be worth the pointless attempt to program a super-intelligent machine capable of reasoning? To be quite honest, I really do not see any urgent problem that needs fixing at the moment. Isolated cases like Wifione and OccultZone do not merit excessive measures such as these. Finally, I suggest that you read the ] and give these well-intentioned, but perhaps somewhat uninformed, proposals a rest. --]] 14:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Hell no'''. And stop making these ridiculous proposals, please. ] (]) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
== Enhancing the enhanced watchlist == | |||
Our default watchlist uses green bullets to indicate changes to pages since last visited. When you use the enanced (and grouped) watchlist, no such indicators are used. I plan to change that. I have prepared a test gadget for evaluation, and plan to enable it by default in the near future. This also enables me to move the code already in Common.css (and skin CSS) to centralize it, providing users the option to disable it completely (which reverts the display to the software default). The gadget can be found in your ] (all the way to the botom). <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {{]}}</code> 14:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
: Where is the option to enable the enhanced watchlist? ] (]) 14:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Prefs, Recent changes: "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist". --] (]) 15:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::And "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" under Watchlist tab. <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {{]}}</code> 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I personally use a black, bold, lowercase "c" to indicate a changed page, just prior to the page name. Using a new "bullet" might be interesting. --] (]) 15:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::First thought is that it will take some getting used to. I actually don't find it enough of an indicator of change (I much prefer the previous bold-the-entire-line we had going which is the default config option--did someone turn that off again?), but maybe time will change that. --] (]) 15:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I just override the entire thing with my CSS. I use stars and bold.—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 15:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::In the near future, turning off the gagdet should automatically give you bold (unless you check the future "do not use bold" gadget). <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {{]}}</code> 16:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I like it, except for shrinking the font used on the time & minor-edit/bot indicator. Set that back to what it was? ] (]) 14:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Actually, I ''enlarged'' it quite a bit (in Chrome that is). The original font declaration suffered from the ], which resulted in a great difference between browsers. It should now match the base font size in all browsers. <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {{]}}</code> 18:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Indefinitely logged in == | |||
{{tracked|T68699}} | |||
On the log in form, there is a checkbox that says "Keep me logged in (for up to 30 days)". Instead, it should simply say "Keep me logged in", getting rid of the 30-day limit in parentheses, so that it keeps you logged in indefinitely. ] (]) 00:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I could be wrong, but I believe the way that actually works is that it keeps you logged in for thirty days even if you don't edit during those thirty days, then you get logged out, but if you do edit during that time it keeps you logged in for thirty days from the time of your most recent activity. I'm pretty sure that's how it works as I hardly ever have to log in, usually only if I've done a software update or cleared out cookies or soemthing like that. ] (]) 02:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::The log in screen used to keep people logged in for up to six months, but it had to be scaled back to 30 days for legal reasons. Namely, it's against the Terms of Service to use cookies for longer than 30 days, and since it's a cookie that keeps you logged in, they have to expire and log an account out every 30 days. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''] ]'''</span> 06:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::This is no longer true. I'm hoping that it will happen . ] (]) 19:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== New button: View source == | |||
I propose that for each article, in every section, alongside the "Edit" button, we have another button, "View source". This would allow editors to see the code which generates the section text without opening the section for editing. Editors can then get a quick look at how specific formatting is accomplished without extensive hunting through the tutorials for explicit instructions, but without the slight danger of accidentally modifying the section. | |||
For example, ] have fairly complicated code. Suppose that someone wanted to insert matrices into a section of an article which does not already have matrices in it. The editor could simultaneously view the source code in another article which has matrices neatly formatted, while creating the matrices in the first article. — ] (]) 17:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I don't really see how this would be different from clicking edit on the page; that shows you the source markup. I've not heard accidentally saving changes being an issue, but if you do you can just undo the edit. Something similar that could be useful is a source page that has clickable links which take you to the relevant markup help pages or contains links to the templates being used in the article, this would help new users find exactly how things are being done in another article without having to hunt around. ] (]) 17:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::@{{u|Anita5192}}—an excellent idea! Viewing source code and manipulating working markup is the best way to learn. Using a live edit view is an invitation to learn ]; Misplaced Pages ''is'' the encyclopedia anyone can edit—but no one wants to do so accidentally. I began here copying source to my sandbox, and I worry still about unintentionally making a live edit. And @SW—undoing is only a fix ''if you realize you made an accidental edit'' (think multiple pages open, it's late, and your coffee's worn off).— ] (]) 22:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::@ {{u|Neonorange}}: My thoughts, exactly! {{(-:}} — ] (]) 18:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I also think it's a great idea. ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 16:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Labelling of English variety options on Misplaced Pages , or what is "English", is it American English? == | |||
I do not know how or why this arose, but at present on Misplaced Pages American English seems to have become "English". British English and Canadian English are labelled as such, but in drop-down menus etc. the option for "English" is in fact American English. I appreciate that there are many millions of American English speakers, but there also many millions of speakers of other varieties of English. The English language has no recognised "standard variety", it has no government-backed defence of language purity like French has, and is unlikely ever to gain one. Misplaced Pages, therefore, is not reflecting the situation in the real world and is artificially imposing a spurious primacy on American English. From a purely personal view, as a native Englishman, born and living in England, I think my variety of English should be "English", if any variety is. However, what I propose is that the present "English", as a "language option", be replaced by "American English". As a result all major varieties of the English language would be treated in a fully egalitarian manner and a measure of uncertainty be removed. ] (]) 19:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I'm guessing ''slightly'' at the context here, but I ''think'' you're talking about what you see under ], in the "Internationalisation" section, in the "Language" drop-down box. Is that correct? If there are any other places this shows up, please clarify. | |||
:I agree this is odd. The box has mostly a list of ISO two- and three-letter language codes, but in a few cases narrowed down to a sub-locale. For English there are three locales offered, "en", "en-CA", and "en-GB". I agree that one would certainly expect en-US, and probably others as well, at least en-AU and maybe en-IE, en-NZ, en-SG, en-ZA, en-IN as well. | |||
:However I'm not so sure that the "en" locale is really "American English". If that's so, then why do I see the section spelled "Internationalisation" instead of "Internationalization"? Maybe the setting doesn't control that; I admit I haven't tried. | |||
:In any case this strikes me as a ] issue. Why don't you try raising it there? If there's actually something that needs to be ''decided'', you could come back. --] (]) 19:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::"English" appears as an option in the location you mentioned, but also on the "Languages" option on the blue-coloured bar to the left of the text section when editing - for me it appears along with "British English" and "Scots". Whatever variety of English that is produced by clicking on this option, wherever it occurs, it is so ambiguous that it should be deleted in favour of having a selection of more defined options. The existence of a simple "English" option is very misleading. I imagine that many people click on "English" and then find that certain words are either spelt oddly or that some of their text spellings when editing are highlighted as being wrong. I cannot be the only person this has happened to. Given that options such as "British English" and "Canadian English" are available on these menus, that there is a simple "English" option renders the menu unsystematic at best. Perhaps the least confusing way to set out such menus would be in the form "English: American", "English: Canadian" etc. That way anyone looking for 'English' will find all available varieties together. ] (]) 20:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I went ahead and asked for you at ]. I only talked about "preferences" since that was the only one I knew about. You might want to contribute to that discussion. --] (]) 20:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks, ] (]) 20:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::There is no spelling checker at the English Misplaced Pages. If what you type is being highlighted as "wrong", then it's your web browser that's doing it. ] (]) 19:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Poll on expanding block log to include sanctions/bans of all kinds == | |||
Question: '''Would it benefit the project if sanctions other than blocks were noted in such a way that they would appear in an expanded sanctions log, rather like the current block log, but more comprehensive?''' | |||
] (]) 21:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Discussion<p> | |||
*'''Yes''' When I am deciding how to handle what I see as problematic behavior I like to check a user's past history with sanctions of all sorts. The block log is handy, but far from comprehensive, and while one can spelunk at ANI/AE/ARB for individual decisions, there's no list that I know of. It would be helpful if there were a simple way to track problem behaviors, because this would help us recognize long standing patterns when we encounter them for the first time with some editor we have just met. That in turn may be useful information to the community/admins/arbs when new complaints are filed. Your thoughts? ] (]) 21:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
* '''Yes but with a different approach''' To be frank, I don't think something like this will get implemented into the core software. Block logs are for blocks, so if anything there'd be a "ban log" or "sanction log". All we need is an easy way to see if a user is under sanctions, and I've thought about this before. My idea was to have the wikidata item for ] include structured data on users and their sanctions. Then I could implement a check of this page into ] (or something similar) that will link to the corresponding arbcom page when you're viewing a page related to that user. One issue is wikidata is for all projects, where this would only apply to enwiki. So we could have the data here on enwiki we'd just need to be disciplined about the way it is structured in order for a script or bot to be able to parse it. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 21:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I'm glad someone else is thinking about this, but I'm not enough of a wikinerd <small>term of affection</small> to have the slightest idea what you just said. I'll add one thing though.... ideally this would show ''current'' sanctions, but any sanctions, regardless of time. My purpose is pattern recognition, so old expired sanctions would still be relevant, maybe. ] (]) 22:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Basically I mean it's probably best we implement this logging system ourselves rather than relying on WMF to add it to ], particularly since the system of sanctions/bans may be unique to enwiki. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 00:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*A way (any centralized location) to track sanctions would be '''very beneficial if done well''', the problem is if it is used inconsistently or vaguely. If it is added, there needs to be a very clear way to determine what is added to the log to prevent certain users from appearing to have no problems due to entries not being added to their sanction log and others from appearing to be very problematic due to entries being added for minor things. It would also be beneficial to expand cases where thing are added to ''any'' "official" part of something that could lead to a sanction as long as it is very specific, for example, if someone names me in an ANI case but it is nothing happens, an entry could be added saying {{xt|AN/I discussion (link) started by ExampleUser}} and another saying {{xt|AN/I discussion (link) closed/archived with no support for action}} instead of just the first message, which could cause some users to believe there was a genuine problem. If there are any more proposals related to this, I ask that someone let me know, I am very interested in this idea. ] (]) 23:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::One simple way of ensuring consistency is to adopt a simple rule that no sanction can be enforced if it has not been added to (whatever log is created). ] (]) 23:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::That would effectively solve the problem of logging sanctions but to prevent people evading the log by agreeing to things like "voluntary" interaction bans when they think an "official" action is coming I think that things like being brought to ANI should be logged. The problem is people will continue to try to evade the system by trying to end the discussion before it gets to a logged event if the events are very specific or will cause over or under logging if the events are too vague, with some logging any discussion on a user's talk page where they provide some resistance and others not logging unless action is taken at ANI. I do think that an effective way of doing this can be found, perhaps quite easily, but want to stress its importance. ] (]) 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't think we should log being brought to ANI, only link to the thread if it resulted in a sanction/ban. It would be up to the closing administrator or arbcom clerk to update the sanction log. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 00:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I agree with MusikAnimal; lots of ANIs are spurious, and the named eds are victims, not problems. ] (]) 00:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::If we don't log being brought to ANI, it allows genuine problems that simply don't have much support for action at the time to be hidden away. Bad faith ANI reports are a problem, and simply logging something like {{!xt|brought to AN/I}} for something as complicated as ANI would cause problems which is why logs should be specific, linking to the thread to allow reviewing users to see what actually happened and saying what action, if any, was taken to keep those who don't check from jumping to conclusions. A centralized location for logging ''only'' sanctions would be beneficial, but I have a feeling people will rely on it too much which could cause people to underestimate certain problems. ] (]) 00:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Before we even consider logging more things, we need a better way to address bad/erroneous blocks in the log. Current policy is that pretty much no matter how bad the block is, it can never be removed (despite having the technical ability to delete it). Before we start adding more undeleteable content to the logs, we need to find a good way of cleaning bad blocks (and overturned sanctions from this proposal) from the logs of innocent. Ideally this would be done with full transparency, while also removing the blemish from the log on casual glance. I would propose that we allow redaction of block/sanction log entries, either with the consent of both the admin who originally enacted the sanction, and the target of the sanction, or with a clear consensus at a notice board in favor of redaction; we would then create separate, manual log of entries redacted under this process. In the case of the consensus route, the standard should be that the block must have been bad, as a matter of policy, at the time made , and not where it was just decided to unblock later. The log would provide transparency to the process, while removing the bad sanction from immediate view when looking at the editor's log. ]] 02:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Removed logs could just be hidden from default view with a note attached about why it was removed. This would require a software change for block logs but would solve the issues caused by accidental or bad blocks staying in the block log, would be very transparent and would allow easy restoration in case of accidents. I agree with your idea for conditions where blocks should be removed. ] (]) 03:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''': The block log is generated by administrators using a specific tool. It is not a manually created log. Before going any further down this rabbit hole, perhaps someone should find out exactly what would be required in order to log certain decisions. Keep in mind there is a difference between actions (which can be logged), and decisions (which are not logged now, anywhere, for anything, except in manually created data). Thus, it seems to me, there may need to be an additional "button" for "other sanction" or something like that. Who's writing the software? ] (]) 03:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::There would have to be another button or special page which would have to be used manually each time we wanted something logged since many things we want logged don't have a specific associated action. If it's integrated properly into Misplaced Pages it will have to be done my a MediaWiki dev, if we decide to throw something together ourselves it can be done using scripts/gadgets or default gadgets with the minimum necessary being a script that allows adding logs and nothing needed for reading them. ] (]) 03:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Maybe something involving a manual post to the editor's talk page that produces a filter, sort of like the current DS Alert system? ] (]) 08:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Scrollable reflist option == | |||
I have noticed that the pt:Misplaced Pages can display references in a box with a scroll, as can be seen ], different from ours ]. I don't know if this is the right place for a proposal of change, but if not, maybe one of you guys could take it to the proper place or people. That would be quite an interesting move ! ] <sup>]</sup> 21:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Krenakarore}} I'm not seeing the scroll box you described at that page, do you have a user preference checked or something which is enabling it? ] (]) 22:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:What box? what scroll?—<sup>]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-11ex;color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Offline</sub></small> 22:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Bingo ! ''Compactar referências: Permite "barra de rolagem" (Scroll) em referências''. So, that would be possible ! ] <sup>]</sup> 22:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Found that in Preferências->Gadgets, checked it. It reduced the number of references displayed from 233 to 36, but no way to scroll that I can see. I don't see the point anyway, since it sounds like it would simply replace one scroll action with a different one. ―] ] 22:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::However Mandruss, allocated in "Preferences", this gadget would allow users to make use of it or not. Besides, a long list of References would be displayed in a more concentrated form, enhancing the layout quality of this encyclopedia. As for the "but no way to scroll that I can see", I believe this only works when a number of references is reached. Best, ] <sup>]</sup> 05:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sorry, I still fail to see how anything would be enhanced. Without the feature, I can fill my screen with references, assuming the article has enough of them; with it, I would be limited to viewing a fraction of that at a time — in your example ] article, apparently only 36 out of 243 — even if it worked, which, as I said, it doesn't for me. I'd call that an anti-feature. Perhaps I'm just blind; please explain how it benefits a reader to have a scrollable part of the references and part of the notes on-screen at the same time, or a scrollable part of the references and part of the bibliography. ―] ] 10:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{ping|Krenakarore}} I have changed your heading to something more descriptive than "Suggestion"; I hope you don't mind. ―] ] 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} | |||
] | |||
Absolutely not Mandruss. Actually, you have just improved the title of the heading, which is the purpose here (better what I do and I'll return the favor). What I meant is that it might save space when we have long "lists" of references in this section, enhancing the appearance of the page (that's my work here, to better the quality of what I see and read). The example on the right shows a box and a scroll. The Notes section is above and Bibliography below, so I think it only works for this section. Nonetheless, if both sections (notes and references) occupy the same sub-section, they might well appear together. | |||
You see, there are many interesting ideas ''put to the test'' or in current use in other Wikipedias. Maybe creating gadgets like "justify paragraphs" (which I make use of once ''I have never seen a book without alignment on the right'', and I believe that does improve the quality of Misplaced Pages), might invite other users like me to edit articles. I really don't know if "Move section links to the right side of the screen", "Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC", or even our VisualEditor might benefit a reader, but in my humble opinion it's an improvement to the project. There will come a day when we users and reader alike will be able to watch holographic images come out of the screen, dance before our eyes in dynamic motion and stimulate our perception and understanding of what is worth seeing, believing, making, creating, thus changing our way to see the world. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Scrollable references have been discussed in the past (I'm afraid I don't have a quick link to the past discussions); they are discouraged because they can have a number of undesirable effects. Potential issues include: | |||
:*Incorrect, mangled, or broken display in some browsers; | |||
:*Incompatibilities or difficulties navigating with some accessibility tools (like screen readers for the blind); | |||
:*Incorrect or incomplete display of references when printing articles; | |||
:*Difficulties in rendering on small, low-resolution, or unusually-sized screens or windows; | |||
:*Probably a bunch of subtle but annoying things for editors reading, reviewing, or updating references. | |||
:As to justifying paragraphs on Misplaced Pages, there are good reasons ''not'' to do that on the web. Here are the first couple of links that Google throws up: , . Essentially, rendering text on the fly, to be displayed on screens of arbitrary size (especially arbitrary width), without careful supervision and tweaking (hyphenation and so forth) tends to make text less readable. It's particularly hard on the dyslexic and the vision impaired. ](]) 02:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Different hearts beat on different strings. When I first came here was to mention the existence of this feature, not to convince others that it is ]. Misplaced Pages has many advantages over other websites, being the main one the possibility to choose between using or not this or that gadget. The title of the link you gave me (much appropriate by the way) is: "Never Justify Type on the Web". So, if justifying paragraphs were mandatory I would be inclined to agree with you, but once it isn't... I guess the same applies to the scrollable references, regardless the browser I were using - I am getting in touch with programmers at their Village Pump to know if there are complaints about the use of this gadget. Many users here are against infoboxes, but it's the very first thing that appear on my mobile ! All in all, if we'd drop every opportunity to experiment, we'd better bury this project after all. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::To be clear, I don't have anything against individual users installing whatever gadgets they want, or ''opting in'' to whichever formatting changes they like. But the default display format for Misplaced Pages articles should be as friendly as possible to as wide a range of readers as possible—and should especially avoid doing things that are apt to make things difficult for readers already facing accessibility challenges. ](]) 22:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I would add that if some group finds a way to display reference lists in a non-default way, fine. But no one is making any commitments to such a group to support their preference. If some citation styles don't work with their special tools, tough luck; the outcome of this discussion shouldn't be viewed as requiring editors to alter any citation style to work with non-standard display tools. ] (]) 22:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Definitely, I agree with you. I got in touch with the people at their Village Pump and they informed me that only a few editors justify paragraphs, me being the last to copy the code from ] to my common.css today ! They also said that the scroll bar is important once there are articles with more than 100 or 200 references, and such distribution is impractical and extremely anti-aesthetic. Besides, the page about the ] to create gadgets did not exist shortly before the proposal that resulted in the gadget creation. So, they believe that it's unlikely that a gadget to compress references in the English Misplaced Pages be created, since the problems it would introduce are enough so it does not pass the criteria for gadgets creation. | |||
:::You said: "I don't have anything against individual users installing whatever gadgets they want". Could I create this gadget here (compacting references with a scroll bar) the way I did there today by copying that code to my commons.css, and which code would that be ? ] <sup>]</sup> 23:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::{{Done}}, thank you {{smiley}} ! | |||
== Revisiting trivia, and pop-culture / cultural references / cultural impact material == | |||
{{FYI|Pointers to relevant discussions elsewhere.}} | |||
#'''Proposal to develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance''': There is no question that the Misplaced Pages community has a general consensus on the handling (mostly rejection) of trivia, on the fact that not all popular culture material is trivial, and that material on cultural influence/impact is a necessary part of encyclopedic coverage. We have no content guideline covering this, but a number of essays that include some very well-accepted advice and rationales. It should not be too difficult to develop a draft guideline for ] from the best-regarded of these points, tied to ]. The last time this was attempted was many years ago, when inclusion of trivia was advocated by many editors. Much has changed since then. I advocate a descriptive as much as prescriptive/restrictive approach: Codify existing best practices, rather than introduce new rules.<br />Please comment at ]. | |||
#'''Proposal to restart WikiProject Popular Culture with a new focus''': It still has years-old material about "saving" trivia, and has of course become inactive. It should be repurposed improve actually encyclopedic cultural references material, and perhaps to speed the removal of unsourced, unencyclopedic trivia.<br />Please comment at ]. | |||
#'''Proposal to deprecate the "In popular culture" heading''': Other headings can more accurately describe the (proper) content of such sections, and be much less likely to attract the addition of trivial cruft. "Cultural references" seems to be the most popular alternative, but only address one of at least 3 rather different classes of / approaches to such sections.<br />Please comment at ]. | |||
Relatedly: | |||
:*'''New guideline material:''' I added a section to ], at ''']''', on how to approach pop-culture content from a MoS perspective (avoid list format, etc.). For content policy matters, I just cross-referenced to the relevant policies. I also (this will probably be the only potentially controversial part of the addition) linked to the ] essay in this section, but noted that it is an essay, and did not recommend anything in it, just observed that's there.<br />Please comment at ]. | |||
I think that together, such efforts may lead to better handling of encyclopedically relevant cultural-references and cultural-influence material, and a faster general reduction in unencyclopedic pop-culture trivia. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Trivia is not the same thing as "In popular culture". The academic study of the humanities, as well as much general reader interest, involves in considerable part the study of the influences of one topic or work or author upon others: this is the basis of which intellectual history is made. Similarly, even what we call trivial uses are significant as part of social history--what people put in the background of their works can be very meaningful. (I have for example seen academic discussions of the significance of the product brands chosen to characterize individuals in F Scott Fitzgerald's novels.) What needs reforming is our rules that restrict this coverage. At present we have an uneasy equilibrium, and accept a good deal of this material from major topics, but even this is continually challenged. I'd like to have more, but I am concerned about the possible effects of upsetting the balance. I think the rational position for those on either side of this issue is to let the compromise stand.Only a zealot really wants to gamble on all-or-nothing.''']''' (]) 00:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== New CSD criterion == | |||
A discussion (RfC) for introducing a new CSD criterion for drafts that are blatantly unencyclopedic or ] violations, is live at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 14:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Option to sort Version history or contribs in chronologic order (useful for ANI/AE) == | |||
'''QUESTION'''<p> | |||
'''Would it benefit the project if we had the option to sort contribs and version history pages in ''chronological'' order, instead of just displaying them in ''reverse'' order, as we do now?'''<p> | |||
] (]) 11:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
'''DISCUSSION''' | |||
*'''Yes, as proposer''' Although I like ''reverse'' order when reviewing edits and discussions I am participating in, it is sometimes regrettably necessary to file 3RR/ANI/AE complaints to maintain a collaborative environment. Marshaling evidence for those filings is rather tedious, because (at least based on my current wiki skill) I have to manually cut and paste, and then reverse the order of the DIFFS. If there's a better way, please teach me. Otherwise, could we have an option (maybe in preferences, or a button somewhere) to reverse the displayed order? ] (]) 11:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
** ... You could always just start at the end of the history and work your way forwards. ]] 12:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**:You mean when we arrange ] in chronological order we should just manually cut, paste, and format each, one at a time, in reverse order? That's basically how everyone does it now, and it's a dumb waste of time that could be better used improving content.] (]) 12:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
**:* Apparently I don't know what workflow you're using to obtain these diff lists that isn't involving right-clicking diff link or viewing it in the browser, copying the URL, then pasting and formatting it. Perhaps you should explain it. ]] 13:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Good idea. MY WORKFLOW | |||
:::::::(A) Grab a block containing the good stuff - I used to go diff-by-diff, then realized it's easier to do a block cut and paste to an external wordprocessor | |||
:::::::(B) Reverse the Wordprocessor order - I wrote a macro that does that | |||
:::::::(C) Expunge the uninteresting diffs - step through the wikipedia page using the embedded links to decide which to keep and which to chop, and flip back and forth to the wordprocessor list making those changes | |||
:::::::(D) Other things that have no bearing on this idea. | |||
:::::::(E) Include result (clean diff list marching ''forward'' in time) as evidence in ANI/AE/ARB proceedings | |||
::::::If we could tell version and contrib history pages to display their diffs in chronological order, that would eliminate the need for B altogether <small>which is good for editors with no programming skills of any kind</ins>, and it would greatly simplify step C, since both the source list and list under development are organized the same way (chronologically). Although I develop my lists off-wiki, the same points hold for those working in their wikipedia sandbox. ] (]) 13:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' - we should certainly make things easier for users when possible - and I can clearly see that for some users, this would tend to make more sense. ] ] 11:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Quiz Mode == | |||
I have started a proposal at ]. Please discuss it at ]. <br> | |||
—] (]) 03:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC) and 03:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== GEO CONTEXT == | |||
Hi | |||
Please revise guidelines with the view of getting contributors, particularly those from the US to provide suitable GEO context when the information they provide is US-centric ( or other country centric ). | |||
I object to reading wording like "the supreme court" without geo qualification, unless geo qualification is offered elsewhere then it should read "the US Supreme Court" in deference to non-US citizens. The US supreme court has no juristriction in my country so I prefer to read about it as a foreign entity by means of qualification. | |||
Writers from the US often write in a style in which figures or organisations of authority are referred to without any geo context, this can lead to a vague impression in the reader that the writer in some manner proposes these as global authorties rather than ones that apply only to US citizens. This is in effect a global example of the well known habit of New Yorkers to say that they come from "the city" which can be taken as arrogant by non-New Yorkers. | |||
Careless lack of geo context gives an impression of arrogance and an impression of a world in which there is the US and then there are all the 'other' countries. I single out the US as in my subjective view media from the US is worse in this respect than media from other countries but the observation is meant to be universal with a specific focus. | |||
The reader may very well guess the GEO context because certain figures or institutions are well known but that very same reader may still resent the fact that this is assumed. There are sensible limits for instance many city names are so well known and also unique that qualification seems redundant, on the other hand there are many presidents around the world so reference to "the president" will generally benefit from geo context. | |||
I would like to see the US army, president, senate, supreme court and similar qualified by "US" when they are first introduced in any article, otherwise we may forget that France has a president, Ireland has a senate and most countries have armies, airforces and so on. | |||
Kind regards | |||
Jon | |||
:Can you give me an example of an article where the geo context is unclear? For example, if I were writing an article about ], and I was mentioning the ], I think it would be obvious that I was talking about the ] and not the ]. Likewise, if I were writing an article about ] and discussing a disputed presidential election, I think it would be obvious that I'm talking about the ] and not the ]. Please give an example where there is a problem. ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 16:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC) (P.S. I realize China may not be the best example, and I really shouldn't have shortened it to "Supreme Court" when it's really the "Supreme People's Court" and by shortening it to "Supreme Court of China" one risks confusing it with the ] - so that was a bad example.) |
Latest revision as of 09:37, 25 December 2024
"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion and Misplaced Pages:Deletion requests. Discussion page for new proposalsPolicy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:
- Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals. You may also wish to search the FAQ.
- This page is for concrete, actionable proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at Village pump (idea lab).
- Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy).
- Proposed speedy deletion criteria belong at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
- Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
- Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
- Proposed new articles belong at Misplaced Pages:Requested articles.
- Discussions or proposals which warrant the attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation belong at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (WMF).
- Software changes which have consensus should be filed at Phabricator.
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.
« Archives, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215Centralized discussion
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
RfC: Log the use of the HistMerge tool at both the merge target and merge source
Currently, there are open phab tickets proposing that the use of the HistMerge tool be logged at the target article in addition to the source article. Several proposals have been made:
- Option 1a: When using Special:MergeHistory, a null edit should be placed in both the merge target and merge source's page's histories stating that a history merge took place.
- (phab:T341760: Special:MergeHistory should place a null edit in the page's history describing the merge, authored Jul 13 2023)
- Option 1b: When using Special:MergeHistory, add a log entry recorded for the articles at the both HistMerge target and source that records the existence of a history merge.
- (phab:T118132: Merging pages should add a log entry to the destination page, authored Nov 8 2015)
- Option 2: Do not log the use of the Special:MergeHistory tool at the merge target, maintaining the current status quo.
Should the use of the HistMerge tool be explicitly logged? If so, should the use be logged via an entry in the page history or should it instead be held in a dedicated log? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Survey: Log the use of the HistMerge tool
- Option 1a/b. I am in principle in support of adding this logging functionality, since people don't typically have access to the source article title (where the histmerge is currently logged) when viewing an article in the wild. There have been several times I can think of when I've been going diff hunting or browsing page history and where some explicit note of a histmerge having occurred would have been useful. As for whether this is logged directly in the page history (as is done currently with page protection) or if this is merely in a separate log file, I don't have particularly strong feelings, but I do think that adding functionality to log histmerges at the target article would improve clarity in page histories. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1a/b. No strong feelings on which way is best (I'll let the experienced histmergers comment on this), but logging a history merge definitely seems like a useful feature. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1a/b. Choatic Enby has said exactly what I would have said (but more concisely) had they not said it first. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1b would be most important to me but but 1a would be nice too. But this is really not the place for this sort of discussion, as noted below. Graham87 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 History merging done right should be seamless, leaving the page indistinguishable from if the copy-paste move being repaired had never happened. Adding extra annotations everywhere runs counter to that goal. Prefer 1b to 1a if we have to do one of them, as the extra null edits could easily interfere with the history merge being done in more complicated situations. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you expound on why they should be indistinguishable? I don't see how this could harm any utility. A log action at the target page would not show up in the history anyways, and a null edit would have no effect on comparing revisions. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't it be indistinguishable? Why it it necessary to go out of our way to say even louder that someone did something wrong and it had to be cleaned up? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- All cleanup actions are logged to all the pages they affect. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't it be indistinguishable? Why it it necessary to go out of our way to say even louder that someone did something wrong and it had to be cleaned up? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you expound on why they should be indistinguishable? I don't see how this could harm any utility. A log action at the target page would not show up in the history anyways, and a null edit would have no effect on comparing revisions. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- 2 History merges are already logged, so this survey name is somewhat off the mark. As someone who does this work: I do not think these should be displayed at either location. It would cause a lot of noise in history pages that people probably would not fundamentally understand (2 revisions for "please process this" and "remove tag" and a 3rd revision for the suggested log), and it would be "out of order" in that you will have merged a bunch of revisions but none of those revisions would be nearby the entry in the history page itself. I also find protections noisy in this way as well, and when moves end up causing a need for history merging, you end up with doubled move entries in the merged history, which also is confusing. Adding history merges to that case? No thanks. History merges are more like deletions and undeletions, which already do not add displayed content to the history view. Izno (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- They presently are logged, but only at the source article. Take for example this entry. When I search for the merge target, I get nothing. It's only when I search the merge source that I'm able to get a result, but there isn't a way to know the merge source.
- If I don't know when or if the histmerge took place, and I don't know what article the history was merged from, I'd have to look through the entirety of the merge log manually to figure that out—and that's suboptimal. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- ... Page moves do the same thing, only log the move source. Yet this is not seen as an issue? :)
- But ignoring that, why is it valuable to know this information? What do you gain? And is what you gain actually valuable to your end objective? For example, let's take your
There have been several times I can think of when I've been going diff hunting or browsing page history and where some explicit note of a histmerge having occurred would have been useful.
Is not the revisions left behind in the page history by both the person requesting and the person performing the histmerge not enough (see {{histmerge}})? There are history merges done that don't have that request format such as the WikiProject history merge format, but those are almost always ancient revisions, so what are you gaining there? And where they are not ancient revisions, they are trivial kinds of the form "draft x -> page y, I hate that I even had to interact with this history merge it was so trivial (but also these are great because I don't have to spend significant time on them)". Izno (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think everyone would necessarily agree (see Toadspike's comment below). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)... Page moves do the same thing, only log the move source. Yet this is not seen as an issue? :)
- Page moves do leave a null edit on the page that describes where the page was moved from and was moved to. And it's easy to work backwards from there to figure out the page move history. The same cannot be said of the Special:MergeHistory tool, which doesn't make it easy to re-construct what the heck went on unless we start diving naïvely through the logs. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- It can be *possible* to find the original history merge source page without looking through the merge log, but the method for doing so is very brittle and extremeley hacky. Basically, look for redirects to the page using "What links here", and find the redirect whose first edit has an unusual byte difference. This relies on the redirect being stable and not deleted or retargetted. There is also another way that relies on byte difference bugs as described in the above-linked discussion by wbm1058. Both of those are ... particularly awful. Graham87 (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- In the given example, the history-merge occurred here. Your "log" is the edit summaries. "Created page with '..." is the edit summary left by a normal page creation. But wait, there is page history before the edit that created the page. How did it get there? Hmm, the previous edit summary "Declining submission: v - Submission is improperly sourced (AFCH)" tips you off to look for the same title in draft: namespace. Voila! Anyone looking for help with understanding a particular merge may ask me and I'll probably be able to figure it out for you. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another example, of a merge within mainspace. The automatic edit summary (created by the MediaWiki software) of this (No difference) diff "Removed redirect to Jordan B. Acker" points you to the page that was merged at that point. Voila. Voila. Voila. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are times where those traces aren't left. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another scenario, this one from WP:WikiProject History Merge. The page history shows an edit adding +5,800 bytes, leaving the page with 5,800 bytes. But the previous edit did not leave a blank page. Some say this is a bug, but it's also a feature. That "bug" is actually your "log" reporting that a hist-merge occurred at that edit. Voila, the log for that page shows a temp delete & undelete setting the page up for a merge. The first item on the log:
- @ 20:14, 16 January 2021 Tbhotch moved page Flag of Yucatán to Flag of the Republic of Yucatán (Correct name)
- clues you in to where to look for the source of the merge. Voila, that single edit which removed −5,633 bytes tells you that previous history was merged off of that page. The log provides the details. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- (phab:T76557: Special:MergeHistory causes incorrect byte change values in history, authored Dec 2 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again, there are times where the clues are much harder to find, and even in those cases, it'd be much better to have a unified and assured way of finding the source. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is a prime example of an unintended undocumented feature. Graham87 (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. I don't think that we can permanently rely on that, given that future versions of MediaWiki are not bound in any real way to support that workaround. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is a prime example of an unintended undocumented feature. Graham87 (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again, there are times where the clues are much harder to find, and even in those cases, it'd be much better to have a unified and assured way of finding the source. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another scenario, this one from WP:WikiProject History Merge. The page history shows an edit adding +5,800 bytes, leaving the page with 5,800 bytes. But the previous edit did not leave a blank page. Some say this is a bug, but it's also a feature. That "bug" is actually your "log" reporting that a hist-merge occurred at that edit. Voila, the log for that page shows a temp delete & undelete setting the page up for a merge. The first item on the log:
- There are times where those traces aren't left. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support 1b (log only), oppose 1a (null edit). I defer to the experienced histmergers on this, and if they say that adding null edits everywhere would be inconvenient, I believe them. However, I haven't seen any arguments against logging the histmerge at both articles, so I'll support it as a sensible idea. (On a similar note, it bothers me that page moves are only logged at one title, not both.) Toadspike 17:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2. The merges are already logged, so there’s no reason to add it to page histories. While it may be useful for habitual editors, it will just confuse readers who are looking for an old revision and occasional editors. Ships & Space(Edits) 18:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- But only the source page is logged as the "target". IIRC it currently can be a bit hard to find out when and who merged history into a page if you don't know the source page and the mergeperson didn't leave any editing indication that they merged something. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1B. The present situation of the action being only logged at one page is confusing and unhelpful. But so would be injecting null-edits all over the place. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2. This exercise is dependent on finding a volunteer MediaWiki developer willing to work on this. Good luck with that. Maybe you'll find one a decade from now. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- And, more importantly, someone in the MediaWiki group to review it. I suspect there are many people, possibly including myself, who would code this if they didn't think they were wasting their time shuffling things from one queue to another. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- That link requires a Gerrit login/developer account to view. It was a struggle to get in to mine (I only have one because of an old Toolforge account and I'd basically forgotten about it), but for those who don't want to go through all that, that group has only 82 members (several of whose usernames I recognise) and I imagine they have a lot on their collective plate. There's more information about these groups at Gerrit/Privilege policy on MediaWiki. Graham87 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I totally forgot Gerrit behaved in that counterintuitive way and hid public information from logged out users for no reason. The things you miss if Gerrit interactions become something you do pretty much every day. If you want to count the members of the group you also have to follow the chain of included groups - it also includes https://ldap.toolforge.org/group/wmf, https://ldap.toolforge.org/group/ops and the WMDE-MediaWiki group (another login-only link), as well as a few other permission edge cases (almost all of which are redundant because the user is already in the MediaWiki group) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- That link requires a Gerrit login/developer account to view. It was a struggle to get in to mine (I only have one because of an old Toolforge account and I'd basically forgotten about it), but for those who don't want to go through all that, that group has only 82 members (several of whose usernames I recognise) and I imagine they have a lot on their collective plate. There's more information about these groups at Gerrit/Privilege policy on MediaWiki. Graham87 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- And, more importantly, someone in the MediaWiki group to review it. I suspect there are many people, possibly including myself, who would code this if they didn't think they were wasting their time shuffling things from one queue to another. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support 1a/b, and I would encourage the closer to disregard any opposition based solely on the chances of someone ever actually implementing it. —Compassionate727 12:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fine. This stupid RfC isn't even asking the right questions. Why did I need to delete (an expensive operation) and then restore a page in order to "set up for a history merge" Should we fix the software so that it doesn't require me to do that? Why did the page-mover resort to cut-paste because there was page history blocking their move, rather than ask a administrator for help? Why doesn't the software just let them move over that junk page history themselves, which would negate the need for a later hist-merge? (Actually in this case the offending user only has made 46 edits, so they don't have page-mover privileges. But they were able to move a page. They just couldn't move it back a day later after they changed their mind.) wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, revision move would be amazing, for a start. Graham87 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fine. This stupid RfC isn't even asking the right questions. Why did I need to delete (an expensive operation) and then restore a page in order to "set up for a history merge" Should we fix the software so that it doesn't require me to do that? Why did the page-mover resort to cut-paste because there was page history blocking their move, rather than ask a administrator for help? Why doesn't the software just let them move over that junk page history themselves, which would negate the need for a later hist-merge? (Actually in this case the offending user only has made 46 edits, so they don't have page-mover privileges. But they were able to move a page. They just couldn't move it back a day later after they changed their mind.) wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1b – changes to a page's history should be listed in that page's log. There's no need to make a null edit; pagemove null edits are useful because they meaningfully fit into the page's revision history, which isn't the case here. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1b sounds best since that's what those in the know seem to agree on, but 1a would probably be OK. Abzeronow (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1b seems like the one with the best transparency to me. Thanks. Huggums 06:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion: Log the use of the HistMerge tool
- I'm noticing some commentary in the above RfC (on widening importer rights) as to whether or not this might be useful going forward. I do think that having the community weigh in one way or another here would be helpful in terms of deciding whether or not this functionality is worth building. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a missing feature, not a config change. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed; it's about a feature proposal. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- As many of the above, this is a feature request and not something that should be special for the English Misplaced Pages. — xaosflux 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- See phab:T341760. I'm not seeing any sort of reason this would need per-project opt-ins requiring a local discussion. — xaosflux 16:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- True, but I agree with Red-tailed hawk that it's good to have the English Misplaced Pages community weigh on whether we want that feature implemented here to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here is the Phabricator project page for MergeHistory, and the project's 11 open tasks. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this is an odd thing to RFC. This is about a feature in MediaWiki core, and there are a lot more users of MediaWiki core than just English Misplaced Pages. However, please do post the results of this RFC to both of the phab tickets. It will be a useful data point with regards to what editors would find useful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
CheckUser for all new users
All new users (IPs and accounts) should be subject to CheckUser against known socks. This would prevent recidivist socks from returning and save the time and energy of users who have to prove a likely case at SPI. Recidivist socks often get better at covering their "tells" each time making detection increasingly difficult. Users should not have to make the huge effort of establishing an SPI when editing from an IP or creating a new account is so easy. We should not have to endure Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Phạm Văn Rạng/Archive or Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen/Archive if CheckUser can prevent them. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that even if we had enough checkuser capacity to routinely run checks on every new user that doing so would be contrary to global policy. Thryduulf (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Setting aside privacy issues, the fact that the WMF wouldn't let us do it, and a few other things: Checking a single account, without any idea of who you're comparing them to, is not very effective, and the worst LTAs are the ones it would be least effective against. This has been floated several times in the much narrower context of adminship candidates, and rejected each time. It probably belongs on WP:PEREN by now. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 04:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why can't it be automated? What are the privacy issues and what would WMF concerns be? There has to be a better system than SPI which imposes a huge burden on the filer (and often fails to catch socks) while we just leave the door open for LTAs. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- How would it be automated? We can't just block everyone who even sometimes shares an IP with someone, which is most editors once you factor in mobile editing and institutional WiFi. Even if we had a system that told checkusers about all shared-IP situations and asked them to investigate, what are they investigating for? The vast majority of IP overlaps will be entirely innocent, often people who don't even know each other. There's no way for a checkuser to find any signal in all that noise. So the only way a system like this would work is if checkusers manually identified IP ranges that are being used by LTAs, and then placed blocks on those ranges to restrict them from account creation... Which is what already happens. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 04:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would assume that IT experts can work out a way to automate CheckUser. If someone edits on a shared IP used by a previous sock that should be flagged and human CheckUsers notified so they can look at the edits and the previous sock edits and warn or block as necessary. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- We already have autoblock. For cases it doesn't catch, there's an additional manual layer of blocking, where if a sock is caught on an IP that's been used before but wasn't caught by autoblock, a checkuser will block the IP if it's technically feasible, sometimes for months or years at a time. Beyond that, I don't think you can imagine just how often "someone edits on a shared IP used by a previous sock". I'm doing that right now, probably, because I'm editing through T-Mobile. Basically anyone who's ever edited in India or Nigeria has been on an IP used by a previous sock. Basically anyone who's used a large institution's WiFi. There is not any way to weed through all that noise with automation. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum: An actually potentially workable innovation would be something like a system that notifies CUs if an IP is autoblocked more than once in a certain time period. That would be a software proposal for Phabricator, though, not an enwiki policy proposal, and would still have privacy implications that would need to be squared with the WMF. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 05:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe Tamzin has it about right, but I want to clarify a thing. If you're hypothetically using T-Mobile (and this also applies to many other ISPs and many LTAs) then the odds are very high that you're using an IP address which has never been used before. With T-Mobile, which is not unusually large by any means, you belong to at least one /32 range which contains a number of IP addresses so big that it has 30 digits. These ranges contain a huge number of users. At the other extreme you have some countries with only a handful of IPs, which everyone uses. These IPs also typically contain a huge number of users. TLDR; is someone is using a single IP on their own then we'll probably just block it, otherwise you're talking about matching a huge number of users. -- zzuuzz 03:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, if you're hypothetically using T-Mobile, then you're not editing, because someone range-blocked the whole network in pursuit of a vandal(s). See Misplaced Pages:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- T-Mobile USA is a perennial favourite of many of the most despicable LTAs, but that's besides the point. New users with an account can actually edit from T-Mobile. They can also edit from Jio, or Deutsche Telecom, Vodafone, or many other huge networks. -- zzuuzz 03:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, if you're hypothetically using T-Mobile, then you're not editing, because someone range-blocked the whole network in pursuit of a vandal(s). See Misplaced Pages:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- We already have autoblock. For cases it doesn't catch, there's an additional manual layer of blocking, where if a sock is caught on an IP that's been used before but wasn't caught by autoblock, a checkuser will block the IP if it's technically feasible, sometimes for months or years at a time. Beyond that, I don't think you can imagine just how often "someone edits on a shared IP used by a previous sock". I'm doing that right now, probably, because I'm editing through T-Mobile. Basically anyone who's ever edited in India or Nigeria has been on an IP used by a previous sock. Basically anyone who's used a large institution's WiFi. There is not any way to weed through all that noise with automation. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would assume that IT experts can work out a way to automate CheckUser. If someone edits on a shared IP used by a previous sock that should be flagged and human CheckUsers notified so they can look at the edits and the previous sock edits and warn or block as necessary. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- How would it be automated? We can't just block everyone who even sometimes shares an IP with someone, which is most editors once you factor in mobile editing and institutional WiFi. Even if we had a system that told checkusers about all shared-IP situations and asked them to investigate, what are they investigating for? The vast majority of IP overlaps will be entirely innocent, often people who don't even know each other. There's no way for a checkuser to find any signal in all that noise. So the only way a system like this would work is if checkusers manually identified IP ranges that are being used by LTAs, and then placed blocks on those ranges to restrict them from account creation... Which is what already happens. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 04:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why can't it be automated? What are the privacy issues and what would WMF concerns be? There has to be a better system than SPI which imposes a huge burden on the filer (and often fails to catch socks) while we just leave the door open for LTAs. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Would violate the policy WP:NOTFISHING. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- It would apply to every new User as a protective measure against sockpuppetry, like a credit check before you get a card/overdraft. WP:NOTFISHING is archaic like the whole burdensome SPI system that forces honest users to do all the hard work of proving sockpuppetry while socks and vandals just keep being welcomed in under WP:AGF. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- What you're suggesting is to just inundate checkusers with thousands of cases. The suggestion (as I understand it) removes burden from SPI filers by adding a disproportional burden on checkusers, who are already an overworked group. If you're suggesting an automated solution, then I believe IP blocks/IP range blocks and autoblock (discussed by Tamzin, above) already cover enough. It's quite hard to weigh up what you're really suggesting because it feels very vague without much detail - it sounds like you're just saying "a new SPI should be opened for every new user and IP, forever" which is not really a workable solution (for instance, 50 accounts were made in the last 15 minutes, which is about one every 18 seconds) BugGhost🦗👻 18:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- And most of those accounts will make zero, one, or two edits, and then never be used again. Even if we liked this idea, doing it for every single account creation would be a waste of resources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- What you're suggesting is to just inundate checkusers with thousands of cases. The suggestion (as I understand it) removes burden from SPI filers by adding a disproportional burden on checkusers, who are already an overworked group. If you're suggesting an automated solution, then I believe IP blocks/IP range blocks and autoblock (discussed by Tamzin, above) already cover enough. It's quite hard to weigh up what you're really suggesting because it feels very vague without much detail - it sounds like you're just saying "a new SPI should be opened for every new user and IP, forever" which is not really a workable solution (for instance, 50 accounts were made in the last 15 minutes, which is about one every 18 seconds) BugGhost🦗👻 18:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- It would apply to every new User as a protective measure against sockpuppetry, like a credit check before you get a card/overdraft. WP:NOTFISHING is archaic like the whole burdensome SPI system that forces honest users to do all the hard work of proving sockpuppetry while socks and vandals just keep being welcomed in under WP:AGF. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, they should not. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- This, very bluntly, flies in the face of WMF policy with regards to use/protection of PII, and as noted by Tamzin this would result in frankly obscene amounts of collateral damage. You have absolutely no idea how frequently IP addresses get passed around (especially in the developing world or on T Mobile), such that it could feasibly have three different, unrelated, people on it over the course of a day or so. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity: If a certain case of IPs spamming at Help Desk is any indication, would a CU be able to stop that in its track? 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 14:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- CU's use their tools to identify socks when technical proof is necessary. The problem you're linking to is caused by one particular LTA account who is extremely obvious and doesn't really require technical proof to identify - check users would just be able to provide evidence for something that is already easy to spot. There's an essay on the distinction over at WP:DUCK BugGhost🦗👻 14:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @2601AC47: No, and that is because the user in question's MO is to abuse VPNs. Checkuser is worthless in this case because of that (but the IPs can and should be blocked for 1yr as VPNs). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 19:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- LTA MAB is using a peer-to-peer VPN service which is similar to TOR. Blocking peer-to-peer VPN service endpoint IP addresses carries a higher risk of collateral damage because those aren't assigned to the VPN provider but rather a third party ISP who is likely to dynamically reassign the blocked address to a completely innocent party. 216.126.35.235 (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I slightly oppose this idea. This is not Reddit where socks are immediately banned or shadowbanned outright. Reddit doesn't have WP:DUCK as any wiki does. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- How do you know this is how Reddit deals with ban and suspension evasion? They use advanced techniques such as device and IP fingerprinting to ban and suspend users in under an hour. 2600:1700:69F1:1410:5D40:53D:B27E:D147 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can see where this is coming from, but we must realise that checkuser is not magic pixie dust nor is it meant for fishing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The question I ask myself is why must we realize that it is not meant for fishing? To catch fish, you need to fish. The no-fishing rule is not fit for purpose, nor is it a rule that other organizations that actively search for ban evasion use. Machines can do the fishing. They only need to show us the fish they caught. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think for the same reason we don't want governments to be reading our mail and emails. If we checkuser everybody, then nobody has any privacy. Donald Albury 20:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The question I ask myself is why must we realize that it is not meant for fishing? To catch fish, you need to fish. The no-fishing rule is not fit for purpose, nor is it a rule that other organizations that actively search for ban evasion use. Machines can do the fishing. They only need to show us the fish they caught. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I sympathize with Mztourist. The current system is less effective than it needs to be. Ban evading actors make a lot of edits, they are dedicated hard-working folk in contentious topic areas. They can make up nearly 10% of new extendedconfirmed actors some years and the quicker an actor becomes EC the more likely they are to be blocked later for ban evasion. Their presence splits the community into two classes, the sanctionable and the unsanctionable with completely different payoff matrices. This has many consequences in contentious topic areas and significantly impacts the dynamics. The current rules are probably not good rules. Other systems have things like a 'commitment to authenticity' and actively search for ban evasion. It's tempting to burn it all down and start again, but with what? Having said that, the SPI folks do a great job. The average time from being granted extendedconfirmed to being blocked for ban evasion seems to be going down. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I confess that I am doubtful about that 10% claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, me too. I'm doubtful about everything I say because I've noticed that the chance it is slightly to hugely wrong is quite high. The EC numbers are work in progress, but I got distracted. The description "nearly 10% of new extendedconfirmed actors" is a bit misleading, because 'new' doesn't really mean new actors. It means actors that acquired EC for a given year, so newly acquired privileges. They might have registered in previous years. Also, I don't have 100% confidence in the way count EC grants because there are some edge cases, and I'm ignoring sysops. But anyway, the statement was based on this data of questionable precision. And the statement about a potential relationship between speed of EC acquisition and probability of being blocked is based on this data of questionable precision. And of course, currently undetected socks are not included, and there will be many. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in clicking through to a Google file. Here's my back-of-the-envelope calculation: We have something like 120K accounts that would qualify for EXTCONF. Most of these are no longer active, and many stopped editing so long ago that they don't actually have the user right.
- Misplaced Pages is almost 24 years old. That makes convenient math: On average, since inception, 5K editors have achieved EXTCONF levels each year.
- If the 10% estimate is true, then 500 accounts per year – about 10 per week – are being created by banned editors and going undetected long enough for the accounts to make 500 edits and to work in CTOP areas. Do we even have enough WP:BANNED editors to make it plausible to expect banned editors to bring 500 accounts a year up to EXTCONF levels (plus however many accounts get started but are detected before then)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Suit yourself. I'm not interested in what interests other people or back of the envelope calculations. I'm interested in understanding the state of a system over time using evidence-based approaches by extracting data from the system itself. Let the data speak for itself. It has a lot to tell us. Then it is possible to test hypotheses and make evidence-based decisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing, there's a sockmaster in the IPA CTOP who has made more than 100 socks. 500 new XC socks every year doesn't seem that much of a stretch in comparison. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- More than 100 XC socks? Or more than 100 detected socks, including socks with zero edits?
- Making a lot of accounts isn't super unusual, but it's a lot of work to get 100 accounts up to 500+ edits. Making 50,000 edits is a lot, even if it's your full-time job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Lots of users get it done in a couple of days, often through vandal fighting tools. It really is not that many when the edits are mostly mindless. nableezy - 00:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- But that's kind of my point: "A couple of days", times 100 accounts, means 200–300 days per year. If you work five days per week and 52 weeks per year, that's 260 work days. This might be possible, but it's a full-time job.
- Since the 30-day limit is something that can't be achieved through effort, I wonder if a sudden change to, say, 6 months would produce a five-month reprieve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Who says it’s only one at a time? Icewhiz for example has had 4 plus accounts active at a time. nableezy - 02:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is some data about ban evasion timelines for some sockmasters in PIA that show how accounts are operated in parallel. Operating multiple accounts concurrently seems to be the norm. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Imagine that it takes an average of one minute to make a (convincing) edit. That means that 500 edits = 8.33 hours, i.e., more than one full work day.
- Imagine, too, that having reached this point, you actually need to spend some time using your newly EXTCONF account. This, too, takes time.
- If you operate several accounts at once, that means:
- You spend an hour editing from Account1. You spend the next hour editing from Account2. You spend another hour editing from Account3. You spend your fourth hour editing from Account4. Then you take a break for lunch, and come back to edit from Accounts 5 through 8.
- At the end of the day, you have brought 8 accounts up to 60 edits (12% of the minimum goal). And maybe one of them got blocked, too, which is lost effort. At this rate, it would take you an entire year of full-time work to get 100 EXTCONF accounts, even though you are operating multiple accounts concurrently. Doing 50 edits per day in 10 accounts is not faster than doing 500 edits in 1 account. It's the same amount of work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sure it’s an effort, though it doesn’t take a minute an edit. But I’m not sure why I need to imagine something that has happened multiple times already. Icewhiz most recently had like 4-5 EC accounts active, and there are probably several more. Yes, there is an effort there. But also yes, it keeps happening. nableezy - 15:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that "4-5 EC accounts" is not "100". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- It’s 4-5 at a time for a single sock master. Check the Icewhiz SPI for how many that adds up to over time. nableezy - 20:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that "4-5 EC accounts" is not "100". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sure it’s an effort, though it doesn’t take a minute an edit. But I’m not sure why I need to imagine something that has happened multiple times already. Icewhiz most recently had like 4-5 EC accounts active, and there are probably several more. Yes, there is an effort there. But also yes, it keeps happening. nableezy - 15:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is some data about ban evasion timelines for some sockmasters in PIA that show how accounts are operated in parallel. Operating multiple accounts concurrently seems to be the norm. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Many of our frequent fliers are already adept at warehousing accounts for months or even years, so a bump in the time period probably won't make much off a difference. Additionally, and without going into detail publicly, there are several methods whereby semi- or even fully-automated editing can be used to get to 500 edits with a minimum of effort, or at least well within script-kid territory. Because so many of those are obvious on inspection some will assume that all of them are, but there are a number of rather subtle cases that have come up over the years and it would be foolish to assume that it isn't ongoing. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Who says it’s only one at a time? Icewhiz for example has had 4 plus accounts active at a time. nableezy - 02:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Lots of users get it done in a couple of days, often through vandal fighting tools. It really is not that many when the edits are mostly mindless. nableezy - 00:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, me too. I'm doubtful about everything I say because I've noticed that the chance it is slightly to hugely wrong is quite high. The EC numbers are work in progress, but I got distracted. The description "nearly 10% of new extendedconfirmed actors" is a bit misleading, because 'new' doesn't really mean new actors. It means actors that acquired EC for a given year, so newly acquired privileges. They might have registered in previous years. Also, I don't have 100% confidence in the way count EC grants because there are some edge cases, and I'm ignoring sysops. But anyway, the statement was based on this data of questionable precision. And the statement about a potential relationship between speed of EC acquisition and probability of being blocked is based on this data of questionable precision. And of course, currently undetected socks are not included, and there will be many. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, if we divide the space into contentious vs not-contentious, maybe a one size fits all CU policy doesn't make sense. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Terrible idea. Let's AGF that most new users are here to improve Misplaced Pages instead of damage it. Some1 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ban evading actors who employ deception via sockpuppetry in the WP:PIA topic area are here to improve Misplaced Pages, from their perspective, rather than damage it. There is no need to use faith. There are statistics. There is a probability that a 'new user' is employing ban evasion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- My initial comment wasn't a direct response to yours, but new users and IPs won't be able to edit in the WP:PIA topic area anyway since they need to be extended confirmed. Some1 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let's not hold up the way PIA handles new users and IPs, in which they are allowed to post to talk pages but then have their talk page post removed if it doesn't fall within very specific parameters, as some sort of model. CMD (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- My initial comment wasn't a direct response to yours, but new users and IPs won't be able to edit in the WP:PIA topic area anyway since they need to be extended confirmed. Some1 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Strongly support automatically checkusering all active users (new and existing) at regular intervals. If it were automated -- e.g., a script runs that compares IPs, user agent, other typical subscriber info -- there would be no privacy violation, because that information doesn't have to be disclosed to any human beings. Only the "hits" can be forwarded to the CU team for follow-up. I'd run that script daily. If the policy forbids it, we should change the policy to allow it. It's mind-boggling that Misplaced Pages doesn't do this already. It's a basic security precaution. (Also, email-required registration and get rid of IP editing.) Levivich (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you've been reading the comments from people who know what they are talking about. There would be hundreds, at least, of hits per day that would require human checking. The policy that prohibits this sort of massive breach of privacy is the Foundation's and so not one that en.wp could change even if it were a good idea (which it isn't). Thryduulf (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- A computer can be programmed to check for similarities or patterns in subscriber info (IP, etc), and in editing activity (time cards, etc), and content of edits and talk page posts (like the existing language similarity tool), with various degrees of certainty in the same way the Cluebot does with ORES when it's reverting vandalism. And the threshold can be set so it only forwards matches of a certain certainty to human CUs for review, so as not to overwhelm the humans. The WMF can make this happen with just $1 million of its $180 million per year (and it wouldn't be violating its own policies if it did so). Enwiki could ask for it, other projects might join too. Levivich (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Oh now I see what you mean, Levivich, good point, I guess you know what you're talking about, after all."
- "Thanks, Thryduulf!" Levivich (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I seem to have missed this comment, sorry. However I am very sceptical that sockpuppet detection is meaningfully automatable. From what CUs say it is as much art as science (which is why SPI cases can result in determinations like "possilikely"). This is the sort of thing that is difficult (at best) to automate. Additionally the only way to reliably develop such automation would be for humans analyse and process a massive amount of data from accounts that both are and are not sockpuppets and classify results as one or the other, and that anaylsis would be a massive privacy violation on its own. Assuming you have developed this magic computer that can assign a likelihood of any editor being a sock of someone who has edited in the last three months (data older than that is deleted) on a percentage scale, you then have to decide what level is appropriate to send to humans to check. Say for the sake of argument it is 75%, that means roughly one in four people being accused are innocent and are having their privacy impinged unnecessarily - and how many CUs are needed to deal with this caseload? Do we have enough? SPI isn't exactly backlog free and there aren't hoards of people volunteering for the role (although unbreaking RFA might help with this in the medium to long term). The more you reduce the number sent to CUs to investigate, the less benefit there is over the status quo.
- In addition to all the above, how similar is "similar" in terms of articles edited, writing style, timecard, etc? How are you avoiding legitimate sockpuppets? Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- You know this already but for anyone reading this who doesn't: when a CU "checks" somebody, it's not like they send a signal out to that person's computer to go sniffing around. In fact, all the subscriber info (IP address, etc.) is already logged on the WMF's server logs (as with any website). A CU "check" just means a volunteer CU gets to look at a portion of those logs (to look up a particular account's subscriber info). That's the privacy concern: we have rules, rightfully so, about when volunteer CUs (not WMF staff) can read the server logs (or portions of them). Those rules do not apply to WMF staff, like devs and maintenance personnel, nor do they apply to the WMF's own software reading its own logs. Privacy is only an issue when those logs are revealed to volunteer CUs.
- So... feeding the logs into software in order to train the software doesn't violate anyone's policy. It's just letting a computer read its own files. Human verification of the training outcomes also doesn't have to violate anyone's privacy -- just don't use volunteer CUs to do it, use WMF staff. Or, anonymize the training data (changing usernames to "Example1", "Example2", etc.). Or use historical data -- which would certainly be part of the training, since the most effective way would be to put known socks into the training data to see if the computer catches them.
- Anyway, training the system won't violate anyone's privacy.
- As for the hit rate -- 75% would be way, way too low. We'd be looking for definitely over 90% or 95%, and probably more like 99.something percent. Cluebot doesn't get vandalism wrong 1 out of 4 times, neither should CluebotCU. Heck, if CluebotCU can't do better than 75%, it's not worth doing. A more interesting question is whether the 99.something% hit rate would be helpful to CUs, or whether that would only catch the socks that are so obvious you don't even need CU to recognize them. Only testing in the field would tell.
- But overall, AI looking for patterns, and checking subscriber info, edit patterns, and the content of edits, would be very helpful in tamping down on socking, because the computer can make far more checks than a human (a computer can look at 1,000 accounts and a 100,000 edits no problem, which no human can do), it'll be less biased than humans, and it can do it all without violating anyone's privacy -- in fact, lowering the privacy violations by lowering the false positives, sending only high-probability (90%+, not 75%+) to humans for review. And it can all be done with existing technology, and the WMF has the money to do it. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- The more you write the clearer you make it that you don't understand checkuser or the WMF's policies regarding privacy. It's also clear that I'm not going to convince you that this is unworkable so I'll stop trying. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it's weird how repeatedly insulting me hasn't convinced me yet. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you are are unable to distinguish between reasoned disagreement and insults, then it's not at all weird that reasoned disagreement fails to convince you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it's weird how repeatedly insulting me hasn't convinced me yet. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Whatever existing data set we have has too many biases to be useful for this, and this is going to be prone to false positives. AI needs lots of data to be meaningfully trained. Also, AI here would be learning a function; when the output is not in fact a function of the input, there's nothing for an AI model to target, and this is very much the case here. On Wikidata, where I am a CheckUser, almost all edit summaries are automated even for human edits (just like clicking the rollback button is, or undoing an edit is by default), and it is very hard to meaningfully tell whether someone is a sock or not without highly case-specific analysis. No AI model is better than the data it's trained on.
- Also, about the privacy policy: you are completely incorrect when you
"Those rules do not apply to WMF staff, like devs and maintenance personnel, nor do they apply to the WMF's own software reading its own logs"
. Staff can only access that information on a need to know basis, just like CheckUsers, and data privacy laws like the EU's and California's means you cannot just do whatever random thing you want with the information you collect from users about them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)- So which part of the wmf:Privacy Policy would prohibit the WMF from developing an AI that looks at server logs to find socks? Do you want me to quote to you the portions that explicitly disclose that the WMF uses personal information to develop tools and improve security? Levivich (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I mean yeah that would probably be more productive than snarky bickering BugGhost🦗👻 22:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Did you read the part where I mentioned privacy laws? Also, in this industry no one is allowed unfettered usage of private data even internally; there are internal policies that govern this that are broadly similar to the privacy policy. It's one thing to test a proposed tool on an IP address like Special:Contribs/2001:db8::/32, but it's another to train an AI model on it. Arguably an equally big privacy concern is the usage of new data from new users after the model is trained and brought online. The foundation is already hiding IP addresses by default even for anonymous users soon, and they will not undermine that mission through a tool like this. Ultimately, the Board of Trustees has to assume legal responsibility and liability for such a thing; put yourself in their position and think of whether they'd like the liability of something like this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- So can you quote a part of the privacy policy, or a part of privacy laws, or anything, that would prohibit feeding server logs into a "Cluebot-CU" to find socking?
- Because I can quote the part of the wmf:Privacy Policy that allows it, and it's a lot:
Yeah that's a lot. Then there's this whole FAQ that saysWe may use your public contributions, either aggregated with the public contributions of others or individually, to create new features or data-related products for you or to learn more about how the Wikimedia Sites are used ...
Because of how browsers work, we receive some information automatically when you visit the Wikimedia Sites ... This information includes the type of device you are using (possibly including unique device identification numbers, for some beta versions of our mobile applications), the type and version of your browser, your browser's language preference, the type and version of your device's operating system, in some cases the name of your internet service provider or mobile carrier, the website that referred you to the Wikimedia Sites, which pages you request and visit, and the date and time of each request you make to the Wikimedia Sites.
Put simply, we use this information to enhance your experience with Wikimedia Sites. For example, we use this information to administer the sites, provide greater security, and fight vandalism; optimize mobile applications, customize content and set language preferences, test features to see what works, and improve performance; understand how users interact with the Wikimedia Sites, track and study use of various features, gain understanding about the demographics of the different Wikimedia Sites, and analyze trends. ...
We actively collect some types of information with a variety of commonly-used technologies. These generally include tracking pixels, JavaScript, and a variety of "locally stored data" technologies, such as cookies and local storage. ... Depending on which technology we use, locally stored data may include text, Personal Information (like your IP address), and information about your use of the Wikimedia Sites (like your username or the time of your visit). ... We use this information to make your experience with the Wikimedia Sites safer and better, to gain a greater understanding of user preferences and their interaction with the Wikimedia Sites, and to generally improve our services. ...
We and our service providers use your information ... to create new features or data-related products for you or to learn more about how the Wikimedia Sites are used ... To fight spam, identity theft, malware and other kinds of abuse. ... To test features to see what works, understand how users interact with the Wikimedia Sites, track and study use of various features, gain understanding about the demographics of the different Wikimedia Sites and analyze trends. ...
When you visit any Wikimedia Site, we automatically receive the IP address of the device (or your proxy server) you are using to access the Internet, which could be used to infer your geographical location. ... We use this location information to make your experience with the Wikimedia Sites safer and better, to gain a greater understanding of user preferences and their interaction with the Wikimedia Sites, and to generally improve our services. For example, we use this information to provide greater security, optimize mobile applications, and learn how to expand and better support Wikimedia communities. ...
We, or particular users with certain administrative rights as described below, need to use and share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, this Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies. ... We may also disclose your Personal Information if we reasonably believe it necessary to detect, prevent, or otherwise assess and address potential spam, malware, fraud, abuse, unlawful activity, and security or technical concerns. ... To facilitate their work, we give some developers limited access to systems that contain your Personal Information, but only as reasonably necessary for them to develop and contribute to the Wikimedia Sites. ...
It is important for us to be able to make sure everyone plays by the same rules, and sometimes that means we need to investigate and share specific users' information to ensure that they are.
For example, user information may be shared when a CheckUser is investigating abuse on a Project, such as suspected use of malicious "sockpuppets" (duplicate accounts), vandalism, harassment of other users, or disruptive behavior. If a user is found to be violating our Terms of Use or other relevant policy, the user's Personal Information may be released to a service provider, carrier, or other third-party entity, for example, to assist in the targeting of IP blocks or to launch a complaint to the relevant Internet Service Provider.
- So using IP addresses, etc., to develop new tools, to test features, to fight violations of the Terms of Use, and disclosing that info to Checkusers... all explicitly permitted by the Privacy Policy. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich:
"We, or particular users with certain administrative rights as described below, need to use and share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use"
– "reasonably believed to be necessary" is not going to hold up in court when it's sweepingly applied to everyone. This doesn't even take into consideration the laws I mentioned, like GDPR. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm guessing neither are you. If you want to be the one assuming the legal liability for this, contact the board today and sign the contract. Even then they would probably not agree to such an arrangement. So you're preaching to the choir: only the foundation could even consider assuming this risk. Also, it's clear that you do not have a single idea of how developing something like this works if you think it can be done for $1 million. Something this complex has to be done right and tech salaries and computing resources are expensive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)- What I am suggesting does not involve sharing everyone's data with Checkusers. It's pretty obvious that looking at their own server logs is "necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use". Five people is how big the WMF's wmf:Machine Learning team is, @ $200k each, $1m/year covers it. Five people is enough for that team to improve ORES, so another five-person team dedicated to "ORES-CU" seems a reasonable place to start. They could double that, and still have like $180M left over. Levivich (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Yeah no, lol. $200k each is not a very competitive total compensation, considering that that needs to include benefits, health insurance, etc. This doesn't include their manager or the hefty hardware required to run ML workflows. It doesn't include the legal support required given the data privacy law compliance needed. Capriciously looking at the logs does not count; accessing data of users the foundation cannot reasonably have said to be likely to cause abuse is not permissible. This all aside from the bias and other data quality issues at hand here. You can delude yourself all you want, but nature cannot be fooled. I'm finished arguing with you anyways, because this proposal is either way dead on arrival.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng, haggling over the math here isn't really important. You could quintuple the figures @Levivich gave and the Foundation would still have millions upon millions of dollars left over. -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: The point I'm making is Levivich does not understand the complexity behind this kind of thing and thus his arguments are not to be given weight by the closer. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- As a statistician/data scientist, @Levivich is correct about the technical side of this—building an ML algorithm to detect sockpuppets would be pretty easy. Duplicate user algorithms like these are common across many websites. For a basic classification task like this (basically an ML 101 homework problem), I think $1 million is about right. As a bonus, the same tools could be used to identify and correct for possible canvasing or brigading, which behaves a lot like sockpuppetry from a statistical perspective. A similar algorithm is already used by Twitter's community notes feature.
- IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal side of this, and I can't comment on whether that money would be better-spent elsewhere since I don't know what the WMF budget looks like. Overall though, the technical implementation wouldn't be a major hurdle. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Third-party services like Sift.com provide this kind of algorithm-based account fraud protection as an alternative to building and maintaining internally. czar 23:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Building such a model is only a small part of a real production system. If this system is to operate on all account creations, it needs to be at least as reliable as the existing systems that handle account creations. As you probably know, data scientists developing such a model need to be supported by software engineers and site reliability engineers supporting the actual system. Then you have the problem of new sockers who are not on the list of sockmasters to check against. Non-English-language speakers often would be put at a disadvantage too. It's not as trivial as you make it out to be, thus I stand by my estimate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- None of you have accounted for Hofstadter's law.
- I don't think we need to spend more time speculating about a system that WMF Legal is extremely unlikely to accept. Even if they did, it wouldn't exist until several years from now. Instead, let's try to think of things that we can do ourselves, or with only a very little assistance. Small, lightweight projects with full community control can help us now, and if we prove that ____ works, the WMF might be willing to adopt and expand it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a mistake -- doing the same thing Misplaced Pages has been doing for 20+ years. The mistake is in leaving it to volunteers to catch sockpuppetry, rather than insisting that the WMF devote significant resources to it. And it's a mistake because the one thing we volunteers can't do, that the WMF can do, is comb through the server logs looking for patterns. Levivich (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure about the "building an ML algorithm to detect sockpuppets would be pretty easy" part, but I admire the optimism. It is certainly the case that it is possible, and people have done it with a surprising level of success a very long time ago in ML terms e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.002. These projects tend to rely on the category graph to distinguish sock and non-sock sets for training, the categorization of accounts as confirmed or suspected socks. However, the category graph is woefully incomplete i.e. there is information in the logs that is not reflected in the graph, so ensuring that all ban evasion accounts are properly categorized as such might help a bit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thankfully, we wouldn't have to build an ML algorithm, we can just use one of the existing ones. Some are even open source. Or WMF could use a third party service like the aforementioned sift.com. Levivich (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let me guess: Essentially, you would like their machine-learning team to use Sift's
AI-Powered Fraud Protection
, which from what I can glance, handlessafeguarding subscriptions to defending digital content and in-app purchases
andhelps businesses reduce friction and stop sophisticated fraud attacks that gut growth
, to provide the ability for us toautomatically checkuser all active users
? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- The WMF already has the ability to "automatically checkuser all users" (the verb "checkuser" just means "look at the server logs"), I'm suggesting they use it. And that they use it in a sophisticated way, employing (existing, open source or commercially available) AI/ML technologies, like the same kind we already use to automatically revert vandalism. Contrary to claims here, doing so would not be illegal or even expensive (comparatively, for the WMF). Levivich (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- So, in my attempt to get things set right and steer towards a consensus that is satisfactory, I sincerely follow-up: What lies beyond that in this vast, uncharted sea? And could this mean any more in the next 5 years? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- What lies beyond is mw:Extension:SimilarEditors. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- So, @2601AC47, I think the answer to your question is "tell the WMF we really, really, really would like more attention to sockpuppetry and IP abuse from the ML team". -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Which I don't suppose someone can at the next board meeting on December 11? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- So, @2601AC47, I think the answer to your question is "tell the WMF we really, really, really would like more attention to sockpuppetry and IP abuse from the ML team". -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- What lies beyond is mw:Extension:SimilarEditors. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- So, in my attempt to get things set right and steer towards a consensus that is satisfactory, I sincerely follow-up: What lies beyond that in this vast, uncharted sea? And could this mean any more in the next 5 years? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- The WMF already has the ability to "automatically checkuser all users" (the verb "checkuser" just means "look at the server logs"), I'm suggesting they use it. And that they use it in a sophisticated way, employing (existing, open source or commercially available) AI/ML technologies, like the same kind we already use to automatically revert vandalism. Contrary to claims here, doing so would not be illegal or even expensive (comparatively, for the WMF). Levivich (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I may also point to this, where they mention
development in other areas, such as social media features and machine learning expertise
. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- e.g. m:Research:Sockpuppet_detection_in_Wikimedia_projects Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- And that mentions Socksfinder, still in beta it seems. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- 3 days! When I first posted my comment and some editors responded that I didn't know what I was talking about, it can't be done, it'd violate the privacy policy and privacy laws, WMF Legal would never allow it... I was wondering how long it would take before somebody pointed out that this thing that can't be done has already been done and has been under development for at least 7 years now.
- Of course it's already under development, it's pretty obvious that the same Misplaced Pages that developed ClueBot, one of the world's earlier and more successful examples of ML applications, would try to employ ML to fight multiple-account abuse. I mean, I'm obviously not gonna be the first person to think of this "innovation"!
- Anyway, it took 3 days. Thanks, Sean! Levivich (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- e.g. m:Research:Sockpuppet_detection_in_Wikimedia_projects Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let me guess: Essentially, you would like their machine-learning team to use Sift's
- Thankfully, we wouldn't have to build an ML algorithm, we can just use one of the existing ones. Some are even open source. Or WMF could use a third party service like the aforementioned sift.com. Levivich (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Unlike what is being proposed, SimilarEditors only works based on publicly available data (e.g. similarities in editing patterns), and not IP data. To quote the page Sean linked,
in the model's current form, we are only considering public data, but most saliently private data such as IP addresses or user-agent information are features currently used by checkusers that could be later (carefully) incorporated into the models
.So, not only the current model doesn't look at IP data, the research project also acknowledges that actually using such data should only be done in a "careful" way, because of those very same privacy policy issues quoted above.On the ML side, however, this does proves that it's being worked on, and I'm honestly not surprised at all that the WMF is working on machine learning-based tools to detect sockpuppets. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- Right. We should ask WMF to do the
later (carefully) incorporated into the models
part (especially since it's now later). BTW, the SimilarUsers API already pulls IP and other metadata. SimilarExtensions (a tool that uses the API) doesn't release that information to CheckUsers, by design. And that's a good thing, we can't just release all IPs to CheckUsers, it does indeed have to be done carefully. But user metadata can be used. What I'm suggesting is that the WMF should proceed to develop these types of tools (including the careful use of user metadata). Levivich (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right. We should ask WMF to do the
- Not really clear that they're pulling IP data from logged-in users. The relevant sections reads:
This reads like they're collecting the username or IP depending on whether they're a logged-in user or an IP user. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)USER_METADATA
(203MB): for every user inCOEDIT_DATA
, this contains basic metadata about them (total number of edits in data, total number of pages edited, user or IP, timestamp range of edits). - In a few years people might look back on these days when we only had to deal with simple devious primates employing deception as the halcyon days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure about the "building an ML algorithm to detect sockpuppets would be pretty easy" part, but I admire the optimism. It is certainly the case that it is possible, and people have done it with a surprising level of success a very long time ago in ML terms e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.002. These projects tend to rely on the category graph to distinguish sock and non-sock sets for training, the categorization of accounts as confirmed or suspected socks. However, the category graph is woefully incomplete i.e. there is information in the logs that is not reflected in the graph, so ensuring that all ban evasion accounts are properly categorized as such might help a bit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I assumed 1 million USD/year was accounting for Hofstadter's law several times over. Otherwise it feels wildly pessimistic. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a mistake -- doing the same thing Misplaced Pages has been doing for 20+ years. The mistake is in leaving it to volunteers to catch sockpuppetry, rather than insisting that the WMF devote significant resources to it. And it's a mistake because the one thing we volunteers can't do, that the WMF can do, is comb through the server logs looking for patterns. Levivich (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng, haggling over the math here isn't really important. You could quintuple the figures @Levivich gave and the Foundation would still have millions upon millions of dollars left over. -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Yeah no, lol. $200k each is not a very competitive total compensation, considering that that needs to include benefits, health insurance, etc. This doesn't include their manager or the hefty hardware required to run ML workflows. It doesn't include the legal support required given the data privacy law compliance needed. Capriciously looking at the logs does not count; accessing data of users the foundation cannot reasonably have said to be likely to cause abuse is not permissible. This all aside from the bias and other data quality issues at hand here. You can delude yourself all you want, but nature cannot be fooled. I'm finished arguing with you anyways, because this proposal is either way dead on arrival.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- What I am suggesting does not involve sharing everyone's data with Checkusers. It's pretty obvious that looking at their own server logs is "necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use". Five people is how big the WMF's wmf:Machine Learning team is, @ $200k each, $1m/year covers it. Five people is enough for that team to improve ORES, so another five-person team dedicated to "ORES-CU" seems a reasonable place to start. They could double that, and still have like $180M left over. Levivich (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich:
- So which part of the wmf:Privacy Policy would prohibit the WMF from developing an AI that looks at server logs to find socks? Do you want me to quote to you the portions that explicitly disclose that the WMF uses personal information to develop tools and improve security? Levivich (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- The more you write the clearer you make it that you don't understand checkuser or the WMF's policies regarding privacy. It's also clear that I'm not going to convince you that this is unworkable so I'll stop trying. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- A computer can be programmed to check for similarities or patterns in subscriber info (IP, etc), and in editing activity (time cards, etc), and content of edits and talk page posts (like the existing language similarity tool), with various degrees of certainty in the same way the Cluebot does with ORES when it's reverting vandalism. And the threshold can be set so it only forwards matches of a certain certainty to human CUs for review, so as not to overwhelm the humans. The WMF can make this happen with just $1 million of its $180 million per year (and it wouldn't be violating its own policies if it did so). Enwiki could ask for it, other projects might join too. Levivich (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
IP range 2600:1700:69F1:1410:0:0:0:0/64 blocked by a CU |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Any such system would be subject to numerous biases or be easily defeatable. Such an automated anti-abuse system would have to be exclusively a foundation initiative as only they have the resources for such a monumental undertaking. It would need its own team of developers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely no chance that this would pass. WP:SNOW, even though there isn't a flood of opposes. There are two problems:
- The existing CheckUser team barely has the bandwidth for the existing SPI load. Doing this on every single new user would be impractical and would enable WP:LTA's by diverting valuable CheckUser bandwidth.
- Even if we had enough CheckUser's, this would be a severe privacy violation absolutely prohibited under the Foundation privacy policy.
The vast majority of vandals and other disruptive users don't need CU involvement to deal with. There's very little to be gained from this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is perhaps an interesting conversation to have but I have to agree that it is unworkable, and directly contrary to foundation-level policy which we cannot make a local exemption to. En.wp, I believe, already has the largest CU team of any WMF project, but we would need hundreds more people on that team to handle something like this. In the last round of appointments, the committee approved exactly one checkuser, and that one was a returning former mamber of the team. And there is the very real risk that if we appointed a whole bunch of new CUs, some of them would abuse the tool. Just Step Sideways 18:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- And its worth pointing out that the Committee approving too few volunteers for Checkuser (regardless of whether you think they are or aren't) is not a significant part of this issue. There simply are not tens of people who are putting themselves forward for consideration as CUs. Since 2016 54 applications (an average of per year) have been put forward for consideration by Functionaries (the highest was 9, the lowest was 2). Note this is total applications not applicants (more than one person has applied multiple times), and is not limited to candidates who had a realistic chance of being appointed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- The dearth of candidates has for sure been an ongoing thing, it's worth reminding admins that they don't have to wait for the committee to call for candidates, you can put your name forward at any time by emailing the committee. Just Step Sideways 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- And its worth pointing out that the Committee approving too few volunteers for Checkuser (regardless of whether you think they are or aren't) is not a significant part of this issue. There simply are not tens of people who are putting themselves forward for consideration as CUs. Since 2016 54 applications (an average of per year) have been put forward for consideration by Functionaries (the highest was 9, the lowest was 2). Note this is total applications not applicants (more than one person has applied multiple times), and is not limited to candidates who had a realistic chance of being appointed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, I tend to get the impression from those who have checkuser rights that CU should be done as a last resort, and other, less invasive methods are preferred, and it would seem that indiscriminate use of it would be a bad idea, so I would have some major misgivings about this proposal. And given the ANI case, the less user information that we retain, the better (which is also probably why temporary accounts are a necessary and prudent idea despite other potential drawbacks). Abzeronow (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. A lot has already been written on the unsustainable workload for the CU team this would create and the amount of collateral damage; I'll add in the fact that our most notorious sockmasters in areas like PIA already use highly sophisticated methods to evade CU detection, and based on what I've seen at the relevant SPIs most of the blocks in these cases are made with more weight given to the behaviour, and even then only after lengthy deliberations on the matter. These sort of sockmasters seem to have been in the OP's mind when the request was made, and I do not see automated CU being of any more use than current techniques against such dedicated sockmasters. And, has been mentioned before, most cases of sockpuppetry (such as run-of-the-mill vandals and trolls using throwaway accounts for abuse) don't need CU anyways. JavaHurricane 08:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- These are, unfortunately, fair points about the limits of CU and the many experienced and dedicated ban evading actors in PIA. CU information retention policy is also a complicating factor. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I said in my original post, recidivist socks often get better at covering their "tells" each time making behavioural detection increasingly difficult and meaning the entire burden falls on the honest user to convince an Admin to take an SPI case seriously with scarce evidence. After many years I'm tired of defending various pages from sock POV edits and if WMF won't make life easier then increasingly I just won't bother, I'm sure plenty of other users feel the same way. Mztourist (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- These are, unfortunately, fair points about the limits of CU and the many experienced and dedicated ban evading actors in PIA. CU information retention policy is also a complicating factor. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
SimilarEditors
The development of mw:Extension:SimilarEditors -- the type of tool that could be used to do what Mztourist suggests -- has been "stalled" since 2023 and downgraded to low-priority in 2024, according to its documentation page and related phab tasks (see e.g. phab:T376548, phab:T304633, phab:T291509). Anybody know why? Levivich (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, the main function of that sort of thing seems to be compiling data that is already available on XTools and various editor interaction analyzers, and then presenting it nicely and neatly. I think that such a page could be useful as a sanity check, and it might even be worth having that sort of thing as a standalone toolforge app, but I don't really see why the WMF would make that particular extension a high priority. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't have to be that particular extension, but it seems to me that the entire "idea" has been stalled, unless they're working on another tool that I'm unaware of (very possible). (Or, it could be because of recent changes in domestic and int'l privacy laws that derailed their previous development advances, or it could be because of advancements in ML elsewhere making in-house development no longer practical.)
As to why the WMF would make this sort of problem a high priority, I'd say because the spread of misinformation on Misplaced Pages by sockpuppets is a big problem. Even without getting into the use of user metadata, just look at recent SPIs I filed, like Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#27 August 2024 and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#09 October 2024. That involved no private data at all, but a computer could have done automatically, in seconds, what took me hours to do manually, and those socks could have been uncovered before they made thousands and thousands of edits spreading misinformation. If the computer looked at private data as well as public data, it would be even more effective (and would save CUs time as well). Seems to me to be a worthy expenditure of 0.5% or 1% of the WMF's annual budget. Levivich (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't have to be that particular extension, but it seems to me that the entire "idea" has been stalled, unless they're working on another tool that I'm unaware of (very possible). (Or, it could be because of recent changes in domestic and int'l privacy laws that derailed their previous development advances, or it could be because of advancements in ML elsewhere making in-house development no longer practical.)
- This looks really interesting. I don't really know how extensions are rolled out to individual wikis - can anyone with knowledge about that summarise if having this tool turned on (for check users/relevant admins) for en.wp is feasible? Do we need a RFC, or is this a "maybe wait several years for a phab ticket" situation? BugGhost🦗👻 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I find it amusing that ~4 separate users above are arguing that automatic identification of sockpuppets is impossible, impractical, and the WMF would never do it—and meanwhile, the WMF is already doing it. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- So, discussion is over? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think what's happening is that people are having two simultaneous discussions – automatic identification of sockpuppets is already being done, but what people say "the WMF would never do" is using private data (e.g. IP addresses) to identify them. Which adds another level of (ethical, if not legal) complications compared to what SimilarEditors is doing (only processing data everyone can access, but in an automated way). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- "automatic identification of sockpuppets is already being done" is probably an overstatement, but I agree that there may be a potential legal and ethical minefield between the Similarusers service that uses public information available to anyone from the databases after redaction of private information (i.e. course-grained sampling of revision timestamps combined with an attempt to quantify page intersection data), and a service that has access to the private information associated with a registered account name. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- The WMF said they're planning on incorporating IP addresses and device info as well! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, automatic identification of (these) sockpuppets is impossible. There are many reasons for this, but the simplest one is this: These types of tools require hundreds of edits – at minimum – to return any viable data, and the sort of sockmasters who get accounts up to that volume of edits know how to evade detection by tools that analyse public information. The markers would likely indicate people from similar countries – naturally, two Cypriots would be interested in Category:Cyprus and over time similar hour and day overlaps will emerge, but what's to let you know whether these are actual socks when they're evading technical analysis? You're back to square one. There are other tools such as mediawikiwiki:User:Ladsgroup/masz which I consider equally circumstantial; an analysis of myself returns a high likelihood of me being other administrators and arbitrators, while analysing an alleged sock currently at SPI returns the filer as the third most likely sockmaster. This is not commentary on the tools themselves, but rather simply the way things are. DatGuyContribs 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, fun! Too bad it's CU-restricted, I'm quite curious to know what user I'm most stylometrically similar to. -- asilvering (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- That would be LittlePuppers and LEvalyn. DatGuyContribs 03:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fascinating! One I've worked with, one I haven't, both AfC reviewers. Not bad. -- asilvering (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- That would be LittlePuppers and LEvalyn. DatGuyContribs 03:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Idk, the half dozen ARBPIA socks I recently reported at SPI were obvious af to me, as are several others I haven't reported yet. That may be because that particular sockfarm is easy to spot by its POV pushing and a few other habits; though I bet in other topic areas it's the same. WP:ARBECR helps because it forces the socks to make 500 edits minimum before they can start POV pushing, but still we have to let them edit for a while post-XC just to generate enough diffs to support an SPI filing. Software that combines tools like Masz and SimilarEditor, and does other kinds of similar analysis, could significantly reduce the amount of editor time required to identify and report them. Levivich (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is possible, studies have demonstrated that it is possible, but it is true that having a sufficient number of samples is critical. Samples can be aggregated in some cases. There are several other important factors too. I have tried some techniques, and sometimes they work, or let's say they can sometimes produce results consistent with SPI results, better than random, but with plenty of false positives. It is also true that there are a number of detection countermeasures (that I won't describe) that are already employed by some bad actors that make detection harder. But I think the objective should be modest, to just move a bit in the right direction by detecting more ban evading accounts than are currently detected, or at least to find ways to reduce the size of the search space by providing ban evasion candidates. Taking the human out of the detection loop might take a while. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you mean it's never going to be possible to catch some sockpuppets—the best-hidden, cleverest, etc. ones—you're completely correct. But I'm guessing we could cut the amount of time SPI has to spend dramatically with just some basic checks. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. Empirically, the vast majority of time spent at SPI is not on finding possible socks, nor is it using the CheckUser tool on them, but rather it's the CU completed cases (of which there are currently 14 and I should probably stop slacking and get onto some) with non-definitive technical results waiting on an administrator to make the final determination on whether they're socks or not. Extension:SimilarUsers would concentrate various information that already exists (EIA, RoySmith's SPI tools) in one place, but I wouldn't say the accessibility of these tools is a cause of SPI backlog. An AI analysis tool to give an accurate magic number for likelihood? I'm anything but a Luddite, but still believe that's wishful thinking. DatGuyContribs 03:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Something seems better than nothing in this context doesn't it? EIA and the Similarusers service don't provide an estimate of the significance of page intersections. An intersection on a page with few revisions or few unique actors or few pageviews etc. is very different from a page intersection on the Donald Trump page. That kind of information is probably something that could sometimes help, even just to evaluate the importance of intersection evidence presented at SPIs. It seems to me that any kind of assistance could help. And another thing about the number of edits is that too many samples can also present challenges related to noise, with signals getting smeared out, although the type of noise in a user's data can itself be a characteristic signal in some cases it seems. And if there are too few samples, you can generate synthetic samples based on the actual samples and inject them into spaces. Search strategy matters a lot. The space of everyone vs everyone is vast, so good luck finding potential matches in that space without a lot of compute, especially for diffs. But many socks inhabit relatively small subspaces of Misplaced Pages, at least in the 20%-ish of time (on average in PIA) they edit(war)/POV-push etc. in their topic of interest. So, choosing the candidate search space and search strategy wisely can make the problem much more tractable for a given topic area/subspace. Targeted fishing by picking a potential sock and looking for potential matches (the strategy used by the Similarusers service and CU I guess) is obviously a very different challenge than large-scale industrial fishing for socks in general. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- And to continue the whining about existing tools, EIA and the Similarusers service use a suboptimal strategy in my view. If the objective is page intersection information for a potential sock against a sockmaster, and a ban evasion source has employed n identified actors so far e.g. almost 50 accounts for Icewhiz, the source's revision data should be aggregated for the intersection. This is not difficult to do using the category graph and the logs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is so much more that could be done with the software. EIA gives you page overlaps (and isn't 100% accurate at it), but it doesn't tell you:
- how many times the accounts made the same edits (tag team edit warring)
- how many times they voted in the same formal discussions (RfC, AfD, RM, etc) and whether they voted the same way or different (vote stacking)
- how many times they use the same language and whether they use unique phraseology
- whether they edit at the same times of day
- whether they edit on the same days
- whether account creation dates (or start-of-regular-editing dates) line up with when other socks were blocked
- whether they changed focus after reaching XC and to what extent (useful in any ARBECR area)
- whether they "gamed" or "rushed" to XC (same)
- All of this (and more) would be useful to see in a combined way, like a dashboard. It might make sense to restrict access to such compilations of data to CUs, and the software could also throw in metadata or subscriber info in there, too (or not), and it doesn't have to reduce it all into a single score like ORES, but just having this info compiled in one place would save editors the time of having to compile it manually. If the software auto-swept logs for this info and alerted humans to any "high scores" (however defined, eg "matches across multiple criteria"), it would probably not only reduce editor time but also increase sock discovery. Levivich (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is like one of my favorite strategies for meetings. Propose multiple things, many of which are technically challenging, then just walk out of the meeting.
- The 'how many times the accounts made the same edits' is probably do-able because you can connect reverted revisions to the revisions that reverted them using json data in the database populated as part of the tagging system, look at the target state reverted to and whether the revision was an exact revert. ...or maybe not without computing diffs, having just looked at an article with a history of edit warring. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Levivich that automated, privacy-protecting sock-detection is not a pipe dream. I proposed a system something like this in 2018, see also here, and more recently here. However, it definitely requires a bit of software development and testing. It also requires the community and the foundation devs or product folks to prioritize the idea. Andre🚐 02:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is so much more that could be done with the software. EIA gives you page overlaps (and isn't 100% accurate at it), but it doesn't tell you:
- I disagree. Empirically, the vast majority of time spent at SPI is not on finding possible socks, nor is it using the CheckUser tool on them, but rather it's the CU completed cases (of which there are currently 14 and I should probably stop slacking and get onto some) with non-definitive technical results waiting on an administrator to make the final determination on whether they're socks or not. Extension:SimilarUsers would concentrate various information that already exists (EIA, RoySmith's SPI tools) in one place, but I wouldn't say the accessibility of these tools is a cause of SPI backlog. An AI analysis tool to give an accurate magic number for likelihood? I'm anything but a Luddite, but still believe that's wishful thinking. DatGuyContribs 03:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, fun! Too bad it's CU-restricted, I'm quite curious to know what user I'm most stylometrically similar to. -- asilvering (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. For some time I have vehemnently suspected that this site is crawling with massive numbers of sockpuppets, that the community seems to be unable or unwilling to recognise probable sockpuppets for what they are, and it is not feasible to send them to SPI one at a time. I see a large number of accounts that are sleepers, or that have low edit counts, trying to do things that are controversial or otherwise suspicious. I see them showing up at discussions in large numbers and in quick succession, and offering !votes consist of interpretations of our policies and guidelines that may not reflect consensus, or other statements that may not be factually accurate.
- I think the solution is simple: when closing community discussions, admins should look at the edit count of each !voter when determining how much weight to give his !vote. The lower the edit count, the greater the level of sleeper behaviour, and the more controversial the subject of the discussion is amongst the community, the less weight should be given to !vote.
- For example, if an account with less than one thousand edits !votes in a discussion about 16th century Tibetan manuscripts, we may well be able to trust that !vote, because the community does not care about such manuscripts. But if the same account !votes on anything connected with "databases" or "lugstubs", we should probably give that !vote very little weight, because that was the subject of a massive dispute amongst the community, and any discussion on that subject is not particulary unlikely to be crawling with socks on both sides. The feeling is that, if you want to be taken seriously in such a controversial discussion, you need to make enough edits to prove that you are a real person, and not a sock. James500 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The site presumably has a large number of unidentified sockpuppets. As for the identified ban evading accounts, accounts categorized or logged as socks, if you look at 2 million randomly selected articles for the 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06 year, just under 2% of the revisions are by ban evading actors blocked for sockpuppetry (211,546 revisions out of 10,732,361). A problem with making weight dependent on edit count is that the edit count number does not tell you anything about the probability that an account is a sock. Some people use hundreds of disposable accounts, making just a few edits with each account. Others stick around and make thousands of edits before they are detected. Also, Misplaced Pages provides plenty of tools that people can use to rapidly increase their edit count. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose any idea of mass-CUing any group of users, and I'm pretty sure the WMF does too. This isn't the right way to fight sockpuppets. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can I ask why? Is it a privacy-based concern? IPs are automatically collected and stored for 90 days, and maybe for years in the backups, regardless of CUs. That's a 90 day window that a machine could use to do something with them without anyone running a CU and without anyone having to see what the machine sees. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primarily privacy concerns, as well as concerns about false positives. A lot of people here probably share an IP with other editors without even knowing it. I also would like to maintain my personal privacy, and I know many other editors would too. There are other methods of fighting sockpuppets that don't have as much collateral damage, and we should pursue those instead. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, it wouldn't even work on some sockpuppets, because IP info is only retained for 90 days, so a blocked editor could just wait out the 90 days and then return with a new account. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can I ask why? Is it a privacy-based concern? IPs are automatically collected and stored for 90 days, and maybe for years in the backups, regardless of CUs. That's a 90 day window that a machine could use to do something with them without anyone running a CU and without anyone having to see what the machine sees. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich—one situation where I think we could pull a lot of data, and probably detect tons of sockpuppets, is !votes like RfAs and RfCs. Those have a lot of data, in addition to a very strong incentive for socking—you'd expect to see a bimodal distribution where most accounts have moderately-correlated views, but a handful have extremely strong-correlations (always !voting the same way), more than could plausibly happen by chance or by overlapping views. For accounts in the latter group, we'd have strong grounds to suspect collusion/canvassing or socking.
- RfAs are already in a very nice machine-readable format. RfCs aren't, but most could easily be made machine-readable (by adopting a few standardized templates). We could also build a tool for semi-automated recoding of old RfCs to get more data. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would that data help with the general problem? If there are a lot of socks on an RfA, I'd expect that to be picked up by editors. Those are very well-attended. The same may apply to many RfCs. Perhaps the less well-attended ones might be affected, but the main challenge is article edits, which will not be similarly structured. CMD (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Would that data help with the general problem? If there are a lot of socks on an RfA, I'd expect that to be picked up by editors.
- Given we've had situations of sockpuppets being made admins themselves, I'm not too sure of this myself. If someone did create a bunch of socks, as some people have alleged in this thread, it'd be weird of them not to use those socks to influence policy decisions. I'm pretty skeptical, but I do think investigating would be a good idea (if nothing else because of how important it is—even the possibility of substantial RfA/RfC manipulation is quite bad, because it undermines the whole idea of consensus). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- RFAs, RfCs, RMs, AfDs, and arbcom elections. Levivich (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would that data help with the general problem? If there are a lot of socks on an RfA, I'd expect that to be picked up by editors. Those are very well-attended. The same may apply to many RfCs. Perhaps the less well-attended ones might be affected, but the main challenge is article edits, which will not be similarly structured. CMD (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
What do we do with this information?
I think we've put the cart before the horse here a bit. While we've established it's possible to detect most sockpuppets automatically—and the WMF is already working on it—it's not clear what this would actually achieve, because having multiple accounts isn't against the rules. I think we'd need to establish a set of easy-to-enforce boundaries for people using multiple accounts. My proposal is to keep it simple—two accounts controlled by the same person can't edit the same page (or participate in the same discussion) without disclosing they're the same editor.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is already covered by WP:LEGITSOCK I think. Andre🚐 05:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- And as there are multiple legitimate ways to disclose, not all of which are machine readable, any automatically generated list is going to need human review. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's definitely the case, an automatic sock detection should probably never be an autoblock, or at least not unless there is a good reason in that specific circumstance, like a well-trained filter for a specific LTA. Having the output of automatic sock detection should still be restricted to CU/OS or another limited user group who can be trusted to treat possible user-privacy-related issues with discretion, and have gone through the appropriate legal rigmarole. There could also be some false positives or unusual situations when piloting a program like this. For example, I've seen dynamic IPs get assigned to someone else after a while, which is unlikely but not impossible depending on how an ISP implements DHCP, though I guess collisions become less common with IPV6. Or if the fingerprinting is implemented with a lot of datapoints to reduce the likelihood of false positives. Andre🚐 10:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think we are probably years away from being able to rely on autonomous agents to detect and block socks without a human in the loop. For now, people need as much help as they can get to identify ban evasion candidates. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
or at least not unless there is a good reason in that specific circumstance,
- Yep, basically I'm saying we need to define "good reason". The obvious situation is automatically blocking socks of blocked accounts. I also think we should just automatically prevent detected socks from editing the same page (ideally make it impossible, to keep it from being done accidentally). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's definitely the case, an automatic sock detection should probably never be an autoblock, or at least not unless there is a good reason in that specific circumstance, like a well-trained filter for a specific LTA. Having the output of automatic sock detection should still be restricted to CU/OS or another limited user group who can be trusted to treat possible user-privacy-related issues with discretion, and have gone through the appropriate legal rigmarole. There could also be some false positives or unusual situations when piloting a program like this. For example, I've seen dynamic IPs get assigned to someone else after a while, which is unlikely but not impossible depending on how an ISP implements DHCP, though I guess collisions become less common with IPV6. Or if the fingerprinting is implemented with a lot of datapoints to reduce the likelihood of false positives. Andre🚐 10:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- And as there are multiple legitimate ways to disclose, not all of which are machine readable, any automatically generated list is going to need human review. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Requiring registration for editing
- Note: This section was split off from "CheckUser for all new users" (permalink) and the "parenthetical comment" referred to below is:
(Also, email-required registration and get rid of IP editing.)
—03:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich, about your parenthetical comment on requiring registration:
Part of the eternally unsolvable problem is that new editors are frankly bad at it. I can give examples from my own editing: Create an article citing a personal blog post as the main source? Check. Merge two articles that were actually different subjects? Been there, done that, got the revert. Misunderstand and mangle wikitext? More times than I can count. And that's after I created my account. Like about half of experienced editors, I edited as an IP first, fixing a typo here or reverting some vandalism there.
But if we don't persist through these early problems, we don't get experienced editors. And if we don't get experienced editors, Misplaced Pages will die.
Requiring registration ("get rid of IP editing") shrinks the number of people who edit. The Portuguese Misplaced Pages banned IPs only from the mainspace three years ago. Have a look at the trend. After the ban went into effect, they had 10K or 11K registered editors each month. It's since dropped to 8K. The number of contributions has dropped, too. They went from 160K to 210K edits per month down to 140K most months.
Some of the experienced editors have said that they like this. No IPs means less impulsive vandalism, and the talk pages are stable if you want to talk to the editor. Fewer newbies means I don't "have to" clean up after so many mistake-makers! Fewer editors, and especially fewer inexperienced editors, is more convenient – in the short term. But I wonder whether they're going to feel the same way a decade from now, when their community keeps shrinking, and they start wondering when they will lose critical mass.
The same thing happens in the real world, by the way. Businesses want to hire someone with experience. They don't want to train the helpless newbie. And then after years of everybody deciding that training entry-level workers is Somebody else's problem, they all look around and say: Where are all the workers that I need? Why didn't someone else train the next generation while I was busy taking the easy path?
In case you're curious, there is a Misplaced Pages that puts all of the IP and newbie edits under "PC" type restrictions. Nobody can see the edits until they've been approved by an experienced editor. The rate of vandalism visible to ordinary readers is low. Experienced editors love the level of control they have. Have a look at what's happened to the size of their community during the last decade. Is that what you want to see here? If so, we know how to make that happen. The path to that destination even looks broad, easy, and paved with all kinds of good intentions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Size isn't everything... what happened to their output--the quality of their encyclopedias--after they made those changes? Levivich (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I can tell you objectively that the number of edits declined, but "quality" is in the eye of the beholder. I understand that the latter community has the lowest use of inline citations of any mid-size or larger Misplaced Pages. What's now yesterday's TFA there wouldn't even be rated B-class here due to whole sections not having any ref tags. In terms of citation density, their FA standard is currently where ours was >15 years ago.
- But I think you have missed the point. Even if the quality has gone up according to the measure of your choice, if the number of contributors is steadily trending in the direction of zero, what will the quality be when something close to zero is reached? That community has almost halved in the last decade. How many articles are out of date, or missing, because there simply aren't enough people to write them? A decade from now, with half as many editors again, how much worse will the articles be? We're none of us idiots here. We can see the trend. We know that people die. You have doubtless seen this famous line:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
- I say:
All Misplaced Pages editors are mortal. Dead editors do not maintain or improve Misplaced Pages articles. Therefore, maintaining and improving Misplaced Pages requires editors who are not dead.
- – and, memento mori, we are going to die, my friend. I am going to die. If we want Misplaced Pages to outlive us, we cannot be so shortsighted as to care only about the quality today, and never the quality the day after we die. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Trends don't last forever. Enwiki's active user count decreased from its peak over a few years, then flattened out for over a decade. The quality increased over that period of time (by any measure). Just because these other projects have shed users doesn't mean they're doomed to have zero users at some point in the future. And I think there's too many variables to know how much any particular change made on a project affects its overall user count, nevermind the quality of its output. Levivich (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- If the graph to the right accurately reflects the age distribution of Misplaced Pages users, then a large chunk of the user base will die off within the next decade or two. Not to be dramatic, but I agree that requiring registration to edit, which will discourage readers from editing in the first place, will hasten the project's decline.... Some1 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- 😂 Seriously? What do you suppose that chart looked like 20 years ago, and then what happened? Levivich (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are significantly more barriers to entry than there were 20 years ago, and over that time the age profile has increased (quite significantly iirc). Adding more barriers to entry is not the way to solve the issued caused by barriers to entry. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- "PaperQA2 writes cited, Misplaced Pages style summaries of scientific topics that are significantly more accurate than existing, human-written Misplaced Pages articles" - maybe the demographics of the community will change. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- That talks about LLMs usage in artcles, not the users. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 16:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Or you could say it's about a user called PaperQA2 that writes Misplaced Pages articles significantly more accurate than articles written by other users. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is very clearly about a language model. As far as I know, PaperQA2, or WikiCrow (the generative model using PaperQA2 for question answering), has not actually been making any edits on Misplaced Pages itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is true. It is not making any edits on Misplaced Pages itself. There is a barrier. But my point is that in the future that barrier may not be there. There may be users like PaperQA2 writing articles better than other users and the demographics will have changed to include new kinds of users, much younger than us. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- And who will never die off! Levivich (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- But which will not be Misplaced Pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- And who will never die off! Levivich (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is true. It is not making any edits on Misplaced Pages itself. There is a barrier. But my point is that in the future that barrier may not be there. There may be users like PaperQA2 writing articles better than other users and the demographics will have changed to include new kinds of users, much younger than us. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is very clearly about a language model. As far as I know, PaperQA2, or WikiCrow (the generative model using PaperQA2 for question answering), has not actually been making any edits on Misplaced Pages itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Or you could say it's about a user called PaperQA2 that writes Misplaced Pages articles significantly more accurate than articles written by other users. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- That talks about LLMs usage in artcles, not the users. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 16:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- "PaperQA2 writes cited, Misplaced Pages style summaries of scientific topics that are significantly more accurate than existing, human-written Misplaced Pages articles" - maybe the demographics of the community will change. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- In re "What do you suppose that chart looked like 20 years ago": I believe that the numbers, very roughly, are that the community has gotten about 10 years older, on average, than it was 20 years ago. That is, we are bringing in some younger people, but not at a rate that would allow us to maintain the original age distribution. (Whether the original age distribution was a good thing is a separate consideration.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are significantly more barriers to entry than there were 20 years ago, and over that time the age profile has increased (quite significantly iirc). Adding more barriers to entry is not the way to solve the issued caused by barriers to entry. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I like looking at the en.wikipedia user retention graph hosted on Toolforge (for anyone who might go looking for it later, there's a link to it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention § Resources). It shows histograms of how many editors have edited in each month, grouped by all the editors who started editing in the same month. The data is noisy, but it does seem to show an increase in editing tenure since 2020 (when the pursuit of a lot of solo hobbies picked up, of course). Prior to that, there does seem to be a bit of slow growth in tenure length since the lowest point around 2013. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- The trend is a bit clearer when looking at the retention graph based on those who made at least 10 edits in a month. (To see the trend when looking at the retention graph based on 100 edits in a month, the default colour range needs to be shifted to accommodate the smaller numbers.) isaacl (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that the story there is: Something amazing happened in 2006. Ours (since both of us registered our accounts that year) was the year from which people stuck around. I think that would be just about the time that the wall o' automated rejection really got going. There was some UPE-type commercial pressure, but it didn't feel unmanageable. It looks like an inflection point in retention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think something particularly amazing happened in 2006. I think the rapid growth in articles starting in 2004 attracted a large land rush of editors as Misplaced Pages became established as a top search result. The cohort of editors at that time had the opportunity to cover a lot of topics for the first time on Misplaced Pages, requiring a lot of co-ordination, which created bonds between editors. As topic coverage grew, there were fewer articles that could be more readily created by generalists, the land rush subsided, and there was less motivation for new editors to persist in editing. Boom-bust cycles are common for a lot of popular things, particularly in tech where newer, shinier things launch all the time. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes, that glorious time when we gained an article on every Pokemon character and, it seems, every actor who was ever credited in a porn movie. Unfortunately, many of the editors I bonded with then are no longer active. Some are dead, some finished school, some presumably burned out, at least one went into the ministry. Donald Albury 23:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think something particularly amazing happened in 2006. I think the rapid growth in articles starting in 2004 attracted a large land rush of editors as Misplaced Pages became established as a top search result. The cohort of editors at that time had the opportunity to cover a lot of topics for the first time on Misplaced Pages, requiring a lot of co-ordination, which created bonds between editors. As topic coverage grew, there were fewer articles that could be more readily created by generalists, the land rush subsided, and there was less motivation for new editors to persist in editing. Boom-bust cycles are common for a lot of popular things, particularly in tech where newer, shinier things launch all the time. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that the story there is: Something amazing happened in 2006. Ours (since both of us registered our accounts that year) was the year from which people stuck around. I think that would be just about the time that the wall o' automated rejection really got going. There was some UPE-type commercial pressure, but it didn't feel unmanageable. It looks like an inflection point in retention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- 😂 Seriously? What do you suppose that chart looked like 20 years ago, and then what happened? Levivich (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Have a look at what happened to the size of their community.
—I'm gonna be honest: eyeballing it, I don't actually see much (if any) difference with enwiki's activity. "Look at this graph" only convinces people when the dataset passes the interocular trauma test (e.g. the hockey stick).- On the other hand, if there's a dataset of "when did $LANGUAGEwiki adopt universal pending changes protections", we could settle this argument once and for all using a real statistical model that can deliver precise effect sizes on activity. Maybe then we can all finally drop the stick. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is requested once or twice a year, and the answer will always be no. You would know this if you read WP:PERENNIAL, as is requested at the top of this page Mgjertson (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
This particular idea will not pass, but the binary developing in the discussion is depressing. A bargain where we allow IPs to edit (or unregistered users generally when IPs are masked), and therefore will sit on our hands when dealing with abuse and even harassment is a grim one. Any steps taken to curtail the second half of that bargain would make the first half stronger, and I am generally glad to see thoughts about it, even if they end up being impractical. CMD (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want us to sit on our hands when we see abuse and harassment. I think our toolset is about 20 years out of date, and I believe there are things we could do that will help (e.g., mw:Temporary accounts, cross-wiki checkuser tools for Stewards, detecting and responding to a little bit more information about devices/settings ). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Temporary accounts will help with the casual vandalism, but they’re not going to help with abuse and harassment. If it limits the ability to see ranges, it will make issues slightly worse. CMD (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the current story is there, but when I talked to the team last (i.e., in mid-2023), we were talking about the value of a tool that would do range-related work. For various reasons, this would probably be Toolforge instead of MediaWiki, and it would probably be restricted (e.g., to admins, or to a suitable group chosen by each community), but the goal was to make it require less manual work, particularly for cross-wiki abuse, and to be able to aggregate some information without requiring direct disclosure of some PII. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Temporary accounts will help with the casual vandalism, but they’re not going to help with abuse and harassment. If it limits the ability to see ranges, it will make issues slightly worse. CMD (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh look, misleading statistics! "The Portuguese Misplaced Pages banned IPs only from the mainspace three years ago. Have a look at the trend. After the ban went into effect, they had 10K or 11K registered editors each month. It's since dropped to 8K. " Of course you have a spike in new registrations soon after you stop allowing IP edits, and you can't sustain that spike. That is not evidence of anything. It would have been more honest and illustrative to show the graph before and after the policy change, not only afterwards, e.g. thus. Oh look, banning IP editing has resulted in on average some 50% more registered editors than before the ban. Number of active editors is up 50% as well. The number of new pages has stayed the same. Number of edits is down, yes, but how much of this is due to less vandalism / vandalism reverts? A lot apparently, as the count of user edits has stayed about the same. Basically, from those statistics, used properly, it is impossible to detect any issues with the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to the banning of IP editing. Fram (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- "how much of this is due to less vandalism / vandalism reverts?" That's a good question. Do we have some data on this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, the dashboard is here although it looks like they stopped reporting the data in late 2021. If you take "Number of reverts" as a proxy for vandalism, you can see that the block shifted the number of reverts from a higher equilibrium to a lower one, while overall non-reverted edits does not seem to have changed significantly during that period. CMD (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Upon thinking, it would be useful to know how many good edits are done by IP. Or as is, unreverted edits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, the dashboard is here although it looks like they stopped reporting the data in late 2021. If you take "Number of reverts" as a proxy for vandalism, you can see that the block shifted the number of reverts from a higher equilibrium to a lower one, while overall non-reverted edits does not seem to have changed significantly during that period. CMD (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that one should expect a spike in registration. (In fact, I have suggested a strictly temporary requirement to register – a few hours, even – to push some of our regular IPs into creating accounts.) But once you look past that initial spike, the trend is downward. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
But once you look past that initial spike, the trend is downward.
- I still don't see any evidence that this downward trend is unusual. Apparently the WMF did an analysis of ptwiki and didn't find evidence of a drop in activity. Net edits (non-revert edits standing for at least 48 hours) increased by 5.7%, although edits across other wikis increased slightly more. The impression I get is any effects are small either way—the gains from freeing up anti-vandalism resources basically offset the cost of some IP editors not signing up.
- TBH this lines up with what I'd expect. Very few people I talk to cite issues like "creating an account" as a major barrier to editing Misplaced Pages. The most common barrier I've heard from people who tried editing and gave it up is "Oh, I tried, but then some random admin reverted me, linked me to MOS:OBSCURE BULLSHIT, and told me to go fuck myself but with less expletives." – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Not really obvious, and not more or even less so in Portuguese wikipedia than in e.g. Enwiki, FRwiki, NLwiki, ESwiki, Svwiki... So, once again, these statistics show no issue at all with disabling IP editing on Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Fram (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)But once you look past that initial spike, the trend is downward.
Aside from the obvious loss of good 'IP' editors, I think there's a risk of unintended consequences from 'stopping vandalism' at all; 'vandalism' and 'disruptive editing' from IP editors (or others) isn't necessarily a bad thing, long term. Even the worst disruptive editors 'stir the pot' of articles, bringing attention to articles that need it, and otherwise would have gone unnoticed. As someone who mostly just trawls through recent changes, I can remember dozens of times when where an IP, or brand new, user comes along and breaks an article entirely, but their edit leads inexorably to the article being improved. Sometimes there is a glimmer of a good point in their edit, that I was able to express better than they were, maybe in a more balanced or neutral way. Sometimes they make an entirely inappropriate edit, but it brings the article to the top of the list, and upon reading it I notice a number of other, previously missed, problems in the article. Sometimes, having reverted a disruptive change, I just go and add some sources or fix a few typos in the article before I go on my merry way. You might think 'Ah, but 'Random article' would let you find those problems too. BUT random article' is, well, random. IP editors are more targeted, and that someone felt the need to disparage a certain person's mother in fact brings attention to an article about someone who is, unbeknownst to us editors, particularly contentious in the world of Czech Jazz Flautists so there is a lot there to fix. By stopping people making these edits, we risk a larger proportion of articles becoming an entirely stagnant. JeffUK 15:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that the glassmaker has been too clever by half here. "Ahh, but vandalism of articles stimulates improvements to those articles." If the analysis ends there, I have no objections. But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion that it is a good thing to vandalize articles, that it causes information to circulate, and that the encouragement of editing in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Halt! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen." If I were to pay a thousand people to vandalize Misplaced Pages articles full-time, bringing more attention to them, would I be a hero or villain? If vandalism is good, why do we ban vandals instead of thanking them? Because vandalism is bad—every hour spent cleaning up after a vandal is one not spent writing a new article or improving an existing one.
- On targeting: vandals are more targeted than a "random article", but are far more destructive than basic tools for prioritizing content, and less effective than even very basic prioritization tools like sorting articles by total views. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I only said Vandalism "isn't necessarily a bad thing, long term", I don't think it's completely good, but maybe I should have added 'in small doses', fixing vandalism takes one or two clicks of the mouse in most cases and it seems, based entirely on my anecdotal experience, to sometimes have surprisingly good consequences; intuitively, you wouldn't prescribe vandalism, but these things have a way of finding a natural balance, and what's intuitive isn't necessarily what's right. One wouldn't prescribe dropping asteroids on the planet you're trying to foster life upon after you finally got it going, but we can be pretty happy that it happened! - And 'vandalism' is the very worst of what unregistered (and registered!) users get up to, there are many, many more unambiguously positive contributors than unambiguously malicious. JeffUK 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
intuitively, you wouldn't prescribe vandalism
- Right, and I think this is mainly the intuition I wanted to invoke here—"more vandalism would be good" a bit too galaxy-brained of a take for me to find it compelling without some strong empirical evidence to back it up.
- Although TBH, I don't see this as a big deal either way. We already have to review and check IP edits for vandalism; the only difference is whether that content is displayed while we wait for review (with pending changes, the edit is hidden until it's reviewed; without it, the edit is visible until someone reviews and reverts it). This is unlikely to substantially affect contributions (the only difference on the IP's end is they have to wait a bit for their edit to show up) or vandalism (since we already de facto review IP edits). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I only said Vandalism "isn't necessarily a bad thing, long term", I don't think it's completely good, but maybe I should have added 'in small doses', fixing vandalism takes one or two clicks of the mouse in most cases and it seems, based entirely on my anecdotal experience, to sometimes have surprisingly good consequences; intuitively, you wouldn't prescribe vandalism, but these things have a way of finding a natural balance, and what's intuitive isn't necessarily what's right. One wouldn't prescribe dropping asteroids on the planet you're trying to foster life upon after you finally got it going, but we can be pretty happy that it happened! - And 'vandalism' is the very worst of what unregistered (and registered!) users get up to, there are many, many more unambiguously positive contributors than unambiguously malicious. JeffUK 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Revise Misplaced Pages:INACTIVITY
Point 1 of Procedural removal for inactive administrators which currently reads "Has made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period" should be replaced with "Has made no administrative actions for at least a 12-month period". The current wording of 1. means that an Admin who takes no admin actions keeps the tools provided they make at least a few edits every year, which really isn't the point. The whole purpose of adminship is to protect and advance the project. If an admin isn't using the tools then they don't need to have them. Mztourist (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Endorsement/Opposition (Admin inactivity removal)
- Support as proposer. Mztourist (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - this would create an unnecessary barrier to admins who, for real life reasons, have limited engagement for a bit. Asking the tools back at BN can feel like a faff. Plus, logged admin activity is a poor guide to actual admin activity. In some areas, maybe half of actions aren't logged? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. First, not all admin actions are logged as such. One example which immediately comes to mind is declining an unblock request. In the logs, that's just a normal edit, but it's one only admins are permitted to make. That aside, if someone has remained at least somewhat engaged with the project, they're showing they're still interested in returning to more activity one day, even if real-life commitments prevent them from it right now. We all have things come up that take away our available time for Misplaced Pages from time to time, and that's just part of life. Say, for example, someone is currently engaged in a PhD program, which is a tremendously time-consuming activity, but they still make an edit here or there when they can snatch a spare moment. Do we really want to discourage that person from coming back around once they've completed it? Seraphimblade 21:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- We could declare specific types of edits which count as admin actions despite being mere edits. It should be fairly simple to write a bot which checks if an admin has added or removed specific texts in any edit, or made any of specific modifications to pages. Checking for protected edits can be a little harder (we need to check for protection at the time of edit, not for the time of the check), but even this can be managed. Edits to pages which match specific regular expression patterns should be trivial to detect. Animal lover |666| 11:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose There's no indication that this is a problem needs fixing. ⇒SWATJester 00:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Admins who don't use the tools should not have the tools. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose While I have never accepted "not all admin actions are logged" as a realistic reason for no logged actions in an entre year, I just don't see what problematic group of admins this is in response to. Previous tweaks to the rules were in response to admins that seemed to be gaming the system, that were basically inactive and when they did use the tools they did it badly, etc. We don't need a rule that ins't pointed a provable, ongoing problem. Just Step Sideways 19:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose If an admin is still editing, it's not unreasonable to assume that they are still up to date with policies, community norms etc. I see no particular risk in allowing them to keep their tools. Scribolt (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: It feels like some people are trying to accelerate admin attrition and I don't know why. This is a solution in search of a problem. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sure there is a problem, but the real problem I think is that it is puzzling why they are still admins. Perhaps we could get them all to make a periodic 'declaration of intent' or some such every five years that explains why they want to remain an admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose largely per scribolt. We want to take away mops from inactive accounts where there is a risk of them being compromised, or having got out of touch with community norms, this proposal rather targets the admins who are active members of the community. Also declining incorrect deletion tags and AIV reports doesn't require the use of the tools, doesn't get logged but is also an important thing for admins to do. ϢereSpielChequers 07:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. What is the motivation for this frenzy to make more hoops for admins to jump through and use not jumping through hoops as an excuse to de-admin them? What problem does it solve? It seems counterproductive and de-inspiring when the bigger issue is that we don't have enough new admins. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Some admin actions aren't logged, and I also don't see why this is necessary. Worst case scenario, we have WP:RECALL. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I quite agree with David Eppstein's sentiment. What's with the rush to add more hoops? Is there some problem with the admin corps that we're not adequately dealing with? Our issue is that we have too few admins, not that we have too many. CaptainEek ⚓ 23:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (Admin inactivity removal)
- Making administrative actions can be helpful to show that the admin is still up-to-date with community norms. We could argue that if someone is active but doesn't use the tools, it isn't a big issue whether they have them or not. Still, the tools can be requested back following an inactivity desysop, if the formerly inactive admin changes their mind and wants to make admin actions again. For now, I don't see any immediate issues with this proposal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking back at previous RFCs, in 2011 the reasoning was to reduce the attack surface for inactive account takeover, and in 2022 it was about admins who haven't been around enough to keep up with changing community norms. What's the justification for this besides "use it or lose it"? Further, we already have a mechanism (from the 2022 RFC) to account for admins who make a few edits every year. Anomie⚔ 12:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also note that not all admin actions are logged. Logging editing through full protection requires abusing the Edit Filter extension. Reviewing of deleted content isn't logged at all. Who will decide whether an admin's XFD "keep" closures are really WP:NACs or not? Do adminbot actions count for the operator? There are probably more examples. Currently we ignore these edge cases since the edits will probably also be there, but now if we can desysop someone who made 100,000 edits in the year we may need to consider them. Anomie⚔ 12:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had completely forgotten that many admin actions weren't logged (and thus didn't "count" for activity levels), that's actually a good point (and stops the "community norms" arguments as healthy levels of community interaction can definitely be good evidence of that). And, since admins desysopped for inactivity can request the tools back, an admin needing the bit but not making any logged actions can just ask for it back. At this point, I'm not sure if there's a reason to go through the automated process of desysopping/asking for resysop at all, rather than just politely ask the admin if they still need the tools.I'm still very neutral on this by virtue of it being a pretty pointless and harmless process either way (as, again, there's nothing preventing an active admin desysopped for "inactivity" from requesting the tools back), but I might lean oppose just so we don't add a pointless process for the sake of it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- To me this comes down to whether the community considers it problematic for an admin to have tools they aren't using. Since it's been noted that not all admin actions are logged, and an admin who isn't using their tools also isn't causing any problems, I'm not sure I see a need to actively remove the tools from an inactive admin; in a worst-case scenario, isn't this encouraging an admin to (potentially mis-)use the tools solely in the interest of keeping their bit? There also seems to be somewhat of a bad-faith assumption to the argument that an admin who isn't using their tools may also be falling behind on community norms. I'd certainly like to hope that if I was an admin who had been inactive that I would review P&G relevant to any admin action I intended to undertake before I executed. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I have understood it, the original rationale for desysopping after no activity for a year was the perception that an inactive account was at higher danger of being hijacked. It had nothing to do with how often the tools were being used, and presumably, if the admin was still editing, even if not using the tools, the account was less likely to be hijacked. - Donald Albury 22:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- And also, if the account of an active admin was hijacked, both the account owner and those they interact with regularly would be more likely to notice the hijacking. The sooner a hijacked account is identified as hijacked, the sooner it is blocked/locked which obviously minimises the damage that can be done. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was not aware that not all admin actions are logged, obviously they should all be correctly logged as admin actions. If you're an Admin you should be doing Admin stuff, if not then you obviously don't need the tools. If an Admin is busy IRL then they can either give up the tools voluntarily or get desysopped for inactivity. The "Asking the tools back at BN can feel like a faff." isn't a valid argument, if an Admin has been desysopped for inactivity then getting the tools back should be "a faff". Regarding the comment that "There's no indication that this is a problem needs fixing." the problem is Admins who don't undertake admin activity, don't stay up to date with policies and norms, but don't voluntarily give up the tools. The 2022 change was about total edits over 5 years, not specifically admin actions and so didn't adequately address the issue. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
obviously they should all be correctly logged as admin actions
- how would you log actions that are administrative actions due to context/requiring passive use of tools (viewing deleted content, etc.) rather than active use (deleting/undeleting, blocking, and so on)/declining requests where accepting them would require tool use? (e.g. closing various discussions that really shouldn't be NAC'd, reviewing deleted content, declining page restoration) Maybe there are good ways of doing that, but I haven't seen any proposed the various times this subject came up. Unless and until "soft" admin actions are actually logged somehow, "editor has admin tools and continues to engage with the project by editing" is the closest, if very imperfect, approximation to it we have, with criterion 2 sort-of functioning to catch cases of "but these specific folks edit so little over a prolonged time that it's unlikely they're up-to-date and actively engaging in soft admin actions". (I definitely do feel criterion 2 could be significantly stricter, fwiw) AddWittyNameHere 05:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)- Not being an Admin I have no idea how their actions are or aren't logged, but is it a big ask that Admins perform at least a few logged Admin actions in a year? The "imperfect, approximation" that "editor has admin tools and continues to engage with the project by editing" is completely inadequate to capture Admin inactivity. Mztourist (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why is it "completely inadequate"? Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've been a "hawk" regarding admin activity standards for a very long time, but this proposal comes off as half-baked. The rules we have now are the result of careful consideration and incremental changes aimed at specific, provable issues with previous standards. While I am not a proponent of "not all actions are logged" as a blanket excuse for no logged actions in several years, it is feasible that an admin could be otherwise fully engaged with the community while not having any logged actions. We haven't been having trouble with admins who would be removed by this, so where's the problem? Just Step Sideways 19:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why is it "completely inadequate"? Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not being an Admin I have no idea how their actions are or aren't logged, but is it a big ask that Admins perform at least a few logged Admin actions in a year? The "imperfect, approximation" that "editor has admin tools and continues to engage with the project by editing" is completely inadequate to capture Admin inactivity. Mztourist (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
"Blur all images" switch
Although i know that WP:NOTCENSORED, i propose that the Vector 2022 and Minerva Neue skins (+the Misplaced Pages mobile apps) have a "blur all images" toggle that blurs all the images on all pages (requiring clicking on them to view them), which simplifies the process of doing HELP:NOSEE as that means:
- You don't need to create an account to hide all images.
- You don't need any complex JavaScript or CSS installation procedures. Not even browser extensions.
- You can blur all images in the mobile apps, too.
- It's all done with one push of a button. No extra steps needed.
- Blurring all images > hiding all images. The content of a blurred image could be easily memorized, while a completely hidden image is difficult to compare to the others.
And it shouldn't be limited to just Misplaced Pages. This toggle should be available on all other WMF projects and MediaWiki-powered wikis, too. 67.209.128.126 (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Damon will be thrilled. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like something I can try to make a demo of as a userscript! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Chaotic Enby/blur.js should do the job, although I'm not sure how to deal with the Page Previews extension's images. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, @Chaotic Enby, is that usable on all skins/browsers/devices? If so, we should be referring people to it from everywhere instead of the not-very-helpful WP:NOSEE, which I didn't even bother to try to figure out. Valereee (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't tested it beyond my own setup, although I can't see reasons why it wouldn't work elsewhere. However, there are two small bugs I'm not sure how to fix: when loading a new page, the images briefly show up for a fraction of a second before being blurred; and the images in Page Previews aren't blurred (the latter, mostly because I couldn't get the html code for the popups). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I see both of those. Probably best to get at least the briefly-showing bug fixed before recommending it generally. The page previews would be good to fix but may be less of an issue for recommending generally, since people using that can be assumed to know how to turn it off. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a way to get around when the Javascript file is loaded and executed. I think users will have to modify their personal CSS file to blur images on initial load, much like the solution described at Help:Options to hide an image § Hide all images until they are clicked on. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I see both of those. Probably best to get at least the briefly-showing bug fixed before recommending it generally. The page previews would be good to fix but may be less of an issue for recommending generally, since people using that can be assumed to know how to turn it off. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee -- the issue with a script would be as follows:
- Even for logged-in users, user scripts are a moderate barrier to install (digging through settings, or worse still, having to copy-paste to the JS/CSS user pages).
- The majority of readers do not have an account, and the overwhelming majority of all readers make zero edits. For many people, it's too much of a hassle to sign up (or they can't remember their password, or a number of other reasons etc, etc)
- What all readers and users have, though, is this menu:
- I say instead of telling the occasional IP or user who complains to install a script (there are probably many more people who object to NOTCENSORED, but don't want to or don't know how to voice objections), we could add the option to replace all images with a placeholder (or blur) and perhaps also an option to increase thumbnail size.
- On the image blacklist aspect, doesn't Anomie have a script that hides potentially offensive images? I've not a clue how it works, but perhaps it could be added to the appearance menu (I don't support this myself, for a number of reasons)
- JayCubby 18:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's User:Anomie/hide-images, which is already listed on WP:NOSEE. I wrote it a long time ago as a joke for one of these kinds of discussions: it does very well at hiding all "potentially offensive" images because it hides all images. But people who want to have to click to see any images found it useful enough to list it on WP:NOSEE. Anomie⚔ 22:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, how does it filter for potentially offensive images? The code at user:Anomie/hide-images.js seems rather minimal (as I write this, I realize it may work by hiding all images, so I may have answered my own question). JayCubby 22:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
because it hides all images
isaacl (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, how does it filter for potentially offensive images? The code at user:Anomie/hide-images.js seems rather minimal (as I write this, I realize it may work by hiding all images, so I may have answered my own question). JayCubby 22:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's User:Anomie/hide-images, which is already listed on WP:NOSEE. I wrote it a long time ago as a joke for one of these kinds of discussions: it does very well at hiding all "potentially offensive" images because it hides all images. But people who want to have to click to see any images found it useful enough to list it on WP:NOSEE. Anomie⚔ 22:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't tested it beyond my own setup, although I can't see reasons why it wouldn't work elsewhere. However, there are two small bugs I'm not sure how to fix: when loading a new page, the images briefly show up for a fraction of a second before being blurred; and the images in Page Previews aren't blurred (the latter, mostly because I couldn't get the html code for the popups). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, @Chaotic Enby, is that usable on all skins/browsers/devices? If so, we should be referring people to it from everywhere instead of the not-very-helpful WP:NOSEE, which I didn't even bother to try to figure out. Valereee (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Chaotic Enby/blur.js should do the job, although I'm not sure how to deal with the Page Previews extension's images. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Will be a problem for non registered users, as the default would clearly to leave images in blurred for them. — Masem (t) 15:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Better show all images by default for all users. If you clear your cookies often you can simply change the toggle every time. 67.209.128.132 (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's my point: if you are unregistered, you will see whatever the default setting is (which I assume will be unblurred, which might lead to more complaints). We had similar problems dealing with image thumbnail sizes, a setting that unregistered users can't adjust. Masem (t) 01:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused about how this would lead to more complaints. Right now, logged-out users see every image without obfuscation. After this toggle rolls out, logged-out users would still see every image without obfuscation. What fresh circumstance is leading to new complaints? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we'd be putting in an option to censor, but not actively doing it. People will have issues with that. Lee Vilenski 10:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't the page Help:Options to hide an image "an option to censor" we've put in? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we'd be putting in an option to censor, but not actively doing it. People will have issues with that. Lee Vilenski 10:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused about how this would lead to more complaints. Right now, logged-out users see every image without obfuscation. After this toggle rolls out, logged-out users would still see every image without obfuscation. What fresh circumstance is leading to new complaints? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's my point: if you are unregistered, you will see whatever the default setting is (which I assume will be unblurred, which might lead to more complaints). We had similar problems dealing with image thumbnail sizes, a setting that unregistered users can't adjust. Masem (t) 01:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Better show all images by default for all users. If you clear your cookies often you can simply change the toggle every time. 67.209.128.132 (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to this, if it can be made to work, fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- What would be the goal of a blur all images option? It seems too tailored. But a "hide all images" could be suitable. EEpic (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Simply removing them might break page layout, so images could be replaced with an equally sized placeholder. JayCubby 13:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Could there be an option to simply not load images for people with a low-bandwidth connection or who don't want them? Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. This way, the options would go as
- Show all images
- Blur all images
- Hide all images
- It would honestly be better with your suggestion. 67.209.128.132 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, it will do nothing to appease the "These pics shouldn't be on WP at all" people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- “Commons be thataway” is what we should tell them Dronebogus (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest that the "hide all images" display file name if possible. Between file name and caption (which admittedly are often similar, but not always), there should be sufficient clue whether an image will be useful (and some suggestion, but not reliably so, if it may offend a sensibility.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, it will do nothing to appease the "These pics shouldn't be on WP at all" people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- For low-bandwidth or expensive bandwidth -- many folks are on mobile plans which charge for bandwidth. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding not limiting image management choices to Misplaced Pages: that's why it's better to manage this on the client side. Anyone needing to limit their bandwidth usage, or to otherwise decide individually on whether or not to load each photo, will likely want to do this generally in their web browsing. isaacl (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely a browser issue. You can get plug-ins for Chrome right now that will do exactly this, and there's no need for Misplaced Pages/Mediawiki to implent anything. — The Anome (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I propose something a bit different: all images on the bad images list can only be viewed with a user account that has been verified to be over 18 with government issued ID. I say this because in my view there is absolutely no reason for a minor to view it. Jayson (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that means readers will be forced to not only create an account, but also disclose sensitive personal information, just to see encyclopedic images. That is pretty much the opposite of a 💕. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can support allowing users to opt to blu4 or hide some types of images, but this needs to be an opt-in only. By default, show all images. And I'm also opposed to any technical restriction which requires self-identification to overcome, except for cases where the Foundation deems it necessary to protect private information (checkuser, oversight-level hiding, or emails involving private information). Please also keep in mind that even if a user sends a copy of an ID which indicates the individual person's age, there is no way to verify that it was the user's own ID whuch had been sent. Animal lover |666| 11:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the bad images list is a really terrible standard. Around 6% of it is completely harmless content that happened to be abused. And even some of the “NSFW” images are perfectly fine for children to view, for example File:UC and her minutes-old baby.jpg. Are we becoming Texas or Florida now? Dronebogus (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- You could've chosen a much better example like dirty toilet or the flag of Hezbollah... Traumnovelle (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but I rank that as “harmless”. I don’t know why anyone would consider a woman with her newborn baby so inappropriate for children it needs to be censored like hardcore porn. Dronebogus (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Hezbollah flag might be blacklisted because it's copyrighted, but placed in articles by uninformed editors (though one of JJMC89's bots automatically removes NFC files from pages). We have File:InfoboxHez.PNG for those uses. JayCubby 16:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- You could've chosen a much better example like dirty toilet or the flag of Hezbollah... Traumnovelle (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the bad images list is a really terrible standard. Around 6% of it is completely harmless content that happened to be abused. And even some of the “NSFW” images are perfectly fine for children to view, for example File:UC and her minutes-old baby.jpg. Are we becoming Texas or Florida now? Dronebogus (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can support allowing users to opt to blu4 or hide some types of images, but this needs to be an opt-in only. By default, show all images. And I'm also opposed to any technical restriction which requires self-identification to overcome, except for cases where the Foundation deems it necessary to protect private information (checkuser, oversight-level hiding, or emails involving private information). Please also keep in mind that even if a user sends a copy of an ID which indicates the individual person's age, there is no way to verify that it was the user's own ID whuch had been sent. Animal lover |666| 11:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support this proposal. It’s a very clean compromise between the “think of the children” camp and the “freeze peach camp”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Let me dox myself so I can view this image. Even Google image search doesn't require something this stringent. Lee Vilenski 19:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- oppose should not be providing toggles to censor. ValarianB (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- What about an option to disable images entirely? It might use significantly less data. JayCubby 02:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is an even better idea as an opt-in toggle than the blur one. Load no images by default, and let users click a button to load individual images. That has a use beyond sensitivity. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I like that idea even better. I think in any case we should use alt text to describe the image so people don’t have to play Russian roulette based on potentially vague or nonexistent descriptions, i.e. without alt text an ignorant reader would have no idea the album cover for Virgin Killer depicts a nude child in a… questionable pose. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- An option to replace images with alt text seems both much more useful and much more neutral as an option. There are technical reasons why a user might want to not load images (or only selectively load them based on the description), so that feels more like a neutral interface setting. An option to blur images by default sends a stronger message that images are dangerous.--Trystan (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also it'd negate the bandwidth savings somewhat (assuming an image is displayed as a low pixel-count version). I'm of the belief that Misplaced Pages should have more features tailored to the reader. JayCubby 16:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least, add a filter that allows you to block all images on the bad image list, specifically that list and those images. To the people who say you shouldnt have to give up personal info, I say that we should go the way Roblox does. Seems a bit random, hear me out: To play 17+ games, you need to verify with gov id, those games have blood alcohol, unplayable gambling and "romance". I say that we do the same. Giving up personal info to view bad things doesn't seem so bad to me. Jayson (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Building up a database of people who have applied to view bad things on a service that's available in restrictive regimes sounds like a way of putting our users in danger. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Roblox =/= Misplaced Pages. I don’t know why I have to say this, nor did I ever think I would. And did you read what I already said about the “bad list”? Do you want people to have to submit their ID to look at poop, a woman with her baby, the Hezbollah flag, or graffiti? How about we age-lock articles about adult topics next? Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. Lee Vilenski 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- So removing a significant thing that makes Misplaced Pages free is worth preventing underaged users from viewing certain images? I wouldn't say that would be a good idea if we want to make Misplaced Pages stay successful. If a reader wants to read an article, they should expect to see images relevant to the topic. This includes topics that are usually considered NSFW like Graphic violence, Sexual intercourse, et cetera. If a person willingly reads an article about an NSFW topic, they should acknowledge that they would see topic-related NSFW images. ZZ'S 16:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- What "bad things"? You haven't listed any. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is moot. Requiring personal information to use Misplaced Pages isn't something this community even has the authority to do. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least, add a filter that allows you to block all images on the bad image list, specifically that list and those images. To the people who say you shouldnt have to give up personal info, I say that we should go the way Roblox does. Seems a bit random, hear me out: To play 17+ games, you need to verify with gov id, those games have blood alcohol, unplayable gambling and "romance". I say that we do the same. Giving up personal info to view bad things doesn't seem so bad to me. Jayson (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also it'd negate the bandwidth savings somewhat (assuming an image is displayed as a low pixel-count version). I'm of the belief that Misplaced Pages should have more features tailored to the reader. JayCubby 16:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, if this happens it should be through a disable all images toggle, not an additional blur. There have been times that would have been very helpful for me. CMD (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is an even better idea as an opt-in toggle than the blur one. Load no images by default, and let users click a button to load individual images. That has a use beyond sensitivity. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support the proposal as written. I'd imagine WMF can add a button below the already-existing accessibility options. People have different cultural, safety, age, and mental needs to block certain images. Ca 13:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd support an option to replace images with the alt text, as long as all you had to do to see a hidden image was a single click/tap (we'd need some fallback for when an image has no alt text, but that's a minor issue). Blurring images doesn't provide any significant bandwidth benefits and could in some circumstances cause problems (some blurred innocent images look very similar to some blurred blurred images that some people regard as problematic, e.g. human flesh and cooked chicken). I strongly oppose anything that requires submitting personal information of any sort in order to see images per NatGertler. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fallback for alt text could be filename, which is generally at least slightly descriptive. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- These ideas (particularly the toggle button to blur/hide all images) can be suggested at m:Community Wishlist. Some1 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Class icons in categories
This is something that has frequently occurred to me as a potentially useful feature when browsing categories, but I have never quite gotten around to actually proposing it until now.
Basically, I'm thinking it could be very helpful to have content-assessment class icons appear next to article entries in categories. This should be helpful not only to readers, to guide them to the more complete entries, but also to editors, to alert them to articles in the category that are in need of work. Thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we go with this, I think there should be only 4 levels - Stub, Average (i.e. Start, C, or B), GA, & FA.
- There are significant differences between Start, C, and B, but there's no consistent effort to grade these articles correctly and consistently, so it might be better to lump them into one group. Especially if an article goes down in quality, almost nobody will bother to demote it from B to C. ypn^2 04:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that more of an argument for consolidation of the existing levels rather than reducing their number for one particular application?
- Other than that, I think I would have to agree that there are too many levels - the difference between Start and C class, for example, seems quite arbitrary, and I'm not sure of the usefulness of A class - but the lack of consistency within levels is certainly not confined to these lower levels, as GAs can vary enormously in quality and even FAs. But the project nonetheless finds the content assessment model to be useful, and I still think their usefulness would be enhanced by addition to categories (with, perhaps, an ability to opt in or out of the feature).
- I might also add that including content assessment class icons to categories would be a good way to draw more attention to them and encourage users to update them when appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe anything visible in reader-facing namespaces needs to be more definitively accurate than in editor-facing namespaces. So I'm fine having all these levels on talk pages, but not on category pages, unless they're applied more rigorously.
- On the other hand, with FAs and GAs, although standards vary within a range, they do undergo a comprehensive, well-documented, and consistent process for promotion and demotion. So just like we have an icon at the top of those articles (and in the past, next to interwiki links), I could hear putting them in categories. ypn^2 18:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't the display of links Category pages entirely dependent on the Mediawiki software? We don't even have Short descriptions displayed, which would probably be considerably more useful.Any function that has to retrieve content from member articles (much less their talkpages) is likely to be somewhat computationally expensive. Someone with more technical knowledge may have better information. Folly Mox (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this will definitely require MediaWiki development, but probably not so complex. And I wonder why this will be more computationally expensive than scanning articles for ] tags in the first place. ypn^2 18:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
And I wonder why this will be more computationally expensive than scanning articles for ] tags in the first place
my understanding is that this is not what happens. When a category is added to or removed from an article, the software adds or removes that page as a record from a database, and that database is what is read when viewing the category page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this will definitely require MediaWiki development, but probably not so complex. And I wonder why this will be more computationally expensive than scanning articles for ] tags in the first place. ypn^2 18:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that in the short term, this could likely be implemented using a user script (displaying short descriptions would also be nice). Longer-term, if done via an extension, I suggest limiting the icons to GAs and FAs for readers without accounts, as other labels aren't currently accessible to them. (Whether this should change is a separate but useful discussion). — Frostly (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd settle for a user script. Who wants to write it? :) Gatoclass (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- As an FYI for whoever decides to write it, Special:ApiHelp/query+pageassessments may be useful to you. Anomie⚔ 01:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass, the Misplaced Pages:Metadata gadget already exists. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets-gadget-section-appearance and scroll about two-thirds of the way through that section.
- I strongly believe that ordinary readers don't care about this kind of inside baseball, but if you want it for yourself, then use the gadget or fork its script. Changing this old gadget from "adding text and color" to "displaying an icon" should be relatively simple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- As an FYI for whoever decides to write it, Special:ApiHelp/query+pageassessments may be useful to you. Anomie⚔ 01:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd settle for a user script. Who wants to write it? :) Gatoclass (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose loading any default javascript solution that would cause hundreds of client-side queries every time a category page is opened. As far as making an upstream software request, there are multiple competing page quality metrics and schemes that would need to be reviewed. — xaosflux 15:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Cleaning up NA-class categories
We have a long-standing system of double classification of pages, by quality (stub, start, C, ...) and importance (top, high, ...). And then there are thousands of pages that don't need either of these; portals, redirects, categories, ... As a result most of these pages have a double or even triple categorization, e.g. Portal talk:American Civil War/This week in American Civil War history/38 is in Category:Portal-Class United States articles, Category:NA-importance United States articles, and Category:Portal-Class United States articles of NA-importance.
My suggestion would be to put those pages only in the "Class" category (in this case Category:Portal-Class United States articles), and only give that category a NA-rating. Doing this for all these subcats (File, Template, ...) would bring the at the moment 276,534 (!) pages in Category:NA-importance United States articles back to near-zero, only leaving the anomalies which probably need a different importance rating (and thus making it a useful cleanup category).
It is unclear why we have two systems (3 cat vs. 2 cat), the tags on Category talk:2nd millennium in South Carolina (without class or NA indication) have a different effect than the tags on e.g. Category talk:4 ft 6 in gauge railways in the United Kingdom, but my proposal is to make the behaviour the same, and in both cases to reduce it to the class category only (and make the classes themselve categorize as "NA importance"). This would only require an update in the templates/modules behind this, not on the pages directly, I think. Fram (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any pages that don't have the default? e.g. are there any portals or Category talk: pages rated something other than N/A importance? If not then I can't see any downsides to the proposal as written. If there are exceptions, then as long as the revised behaviour allows for the default to be overwritten when desired again it would seem beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there are no exceptions. And I believe that one can always override the default behaviour with a local parameter. @Tom.Reding: I guess you know these things better and/or knows who to contact for this. Fram (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking a bit further, there do seem to be exceptions, but I wonder why we would e.g. have redirects which are of high importance to a project (Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of High-importance). Certainly when one considers that in some cases, the targets have a lower importance than the redirects? E.g. Talk:List of Mississippi county name etymologies. Fram (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was imagining high importance United States redirects to be things like USA but that isn't there and what is is a very motley collection. I only took a look at one, Talk:United States women. As far as I can make out the article was originally at this title but later moved to Women in the United States over a redirect. Both titles had independent talk pages that were neither swapped nor combined, each being rated high importance when they were the talk page of the article. It seems like a worthwhile exercise for the project to determine whether any of those redirects are actually (still?) high priority but that's independent of this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Custom importance masks of WikiProject banners (15) is where to look for projects that might use an importance other than NA for cats, or other deviations. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most projects don't use this double intersection (as can be seen by the amount of categories in Category:Articles by quality and importance, compared to Category:GA-Class articles). I personally feel that the bot updated page like User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Television is enough here and requires less category maintenance (creating, moving, updating, etc.) for a system that is underused. Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support this, even if there might be a few exceptions, it will make them easier to spot and deal with rather than having large unsorted NA-importance categories. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with this. It's bizarre having two different systems, as well as a pain in the ass sometimes. Ideally we should adopt a single consistent categorization system for importance/quality. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, does anyone know what should be changed to implement this? I presume this comes from Module:WikiProject banner, I'll inform the people there about this discussion. Fram (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- So essentially what you are proposing is to delete Category:NA-importance articles and all its subcategories? I think it would be best to open a CfD for this, so that the full implications can be discussed and consensus assured. It is likely to have an effect on assessment tools, and tables such as User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Africa would no longer add up to the expected number — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was a CfD specifically for one, and the deletion of Category:Category-Class Comics articles of NA-importance doesn't seem to have broken anything so far. A CfD for the deletion of 1700+ pages seems impractical, an RfC would be better probably. Fram (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well a CfD just got closed with 14,000 categories, so that is not a barrier. It is also the technically correct venue for such discussions. By the way, all of the quality/importance intersection categories check that the category exists before using it, so deleting them shouldn't break anything. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- And were all these cats tagged, or how was this handled? Fram (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#Category:Category-Class articles. HouseBlaster took care of listing each separate cateory on the working page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the "working page" is though. Fram (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#Category:Category-Class articles. HouseBlaster took care of listing each separate cateory on the working page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- And were all these cats tagged, or how was this handled? Fram (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well a CfD just got closed with 14,000 categories, so that is not a barrier. It is also the technically correct venue for such discussions. By the way, all of the quality/importance intersection categories check that the category exists before using it, so deleting them shouldn't break anything. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was a CfD specifically for one, and the deletion of Category:Category-Class Comics articles of NA-importance doesn't seem to have broken anything so far. A CfD for the deletion of 1700+ pages seems impractical, an RfC would be better probably. Fram (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to have to oppose any more changes to class categories. Already changes are causing chaos across the system with the bots unable to process renamings and fixing redirects whilst Special:Wantedcategories is being overwhelmed by the side effects. Quite simply we must have no more changes that cannot be properly processed. Any proposal must have clear instructions posted before it is initiated, not some vague promise to fix a module later on. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then I'm at an impasse. Module people tell me "start a CfD", you tell me "no CfD, first make changes at the module". No one wants the NA categories for these groups. What we can do is 1. RfC to formalize that they are unwanted, 2. Change module so they no longer get populated 3. Delete the empty cats caused by steps 1 and 2. Is that a workable plan for everybody? Fram (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think @Timrollpickering was telling you to make the changes at the module first, rather to prepare the changes in advance so that the changes can be implemented as soon as the CfD reaches consensus. For example this might be achieved by having a detailed list of all the changes prepared and published in a format that can be fed to a bot. For a change of this volume though I do think a discussion as well advertised as an RFC is preferable to a CfD though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Got it in one. There are just too many problems at the moment because the modules are not being properly amended in time. We need to be firmer in requiring proponents to identify the how to change before the proposal goes live so others can enact it if necessary, not close the discussion, slap the category on the working page and let a mess pile up whilst no changes to the module are implemented. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I got it as well, but at the module talk page, I was told to first have a CfD (to determine consensus first I suppose, instead of writing the code without knowing if it will be implemented). As I probably lack the knowledge to make the correct module changes, I'm at an impasse. That's why I suggested an RfC instead of a CfD to determine the consensus for "deletion after the module has been changed", instead of a CfD which is more of the "delete it now" variety. No one here has really objected to the deletion per se, but I guess that a more formal discussion might be welcome. Fram (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Got it in one. There are just too many problems at the moment because the modules are not being properly amended in time. We need to be firmer in requiring proponents to identify the how to change before the proposal goes live so others can enact it if necessary, not close the discussion, slap the category on the working page and let a mess pile up whilst no changes to the module are implemented. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think @Timrollpickering was telling you to make the changes at the module first, rather to prepare the changes in advance so that the changes can be implemented as soon as the CfD reaches consensus. For example this might be achieved by having a detailed list of all the changes prepared and published in a format that can be fed to a bot. For a change of this volume though I do think a discussion as well advertised as an RFC is preferable to a CfD though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose on the grounds that I think the way we do it currently is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's the benefit of having two or three categories for the same group of pages? We have multiple systems (with two or three cats, and apparently other ones as well), with no apparent reason to keep this around. As an example, we have Category:Category-Class film articles with more than 50,000 pages, e.g. Category talk:20th century in American cinema apparently. But when I go to that page, it isn't listed in that category, it is supposedly listed in Category:NA-Class film articles (which seems to be a nonsense category, we shouldn't have NA-class, only NA-importance). but that category doesn't contain that page. So now I have no idea what's going on or what any of this is trying to achieve. Fram (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Something changed recently. I think. But it is useful to know which NA pages are tagged with a project with a granularity beyond just "Not Article". It helps me do maintenance and find things that are tagged improperly, especially with categories. I do not care what happens to the importance ratings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's the benefit of having two or three categories for the same group of pages? We have multiple systems (with two or three cats, and apparently other ones as well), with no apparent reason to keep this around. As an example, we have Category:Category-Class film articles with more than 50,000 pages, e.g. Category talk:20th century in American cinema apparently. But when I go to that page, it isn't listed in that category, it is supposedly listed in Category:NA-Class film articles (which seems to be a nonsense category, we shouldn't have NA-class, only NA-importance). but that category doesn't contain that page. So now I have no idea what's going on or what any of this is trying to achieve. Fram (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Category:Current sports events
I would like to propose that sports articles should be left in the Category:Current sports events for 48 hours after these events have finished. I'm sure many Misplaced Pages sports fans (including me) open CAT:CSE first and then click on a sporting event in that list. And we would like to do so in the coming days after the event ends to see the final standings and results.
Currently, this category is being removed from articles too early, sometimes even before the event ends. Just like yesterday. AnishaShar, what do you say about that?
So I would like to ask you to consider my proposal. Or, if you have a better suggestion, please comment. Thanks, Maiō T. (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing up this point. I agree that leaving articles in the Category:Current sports events for a short grace period after the event concludes—such as 48 hours—would benefit readers who want to catch up on the final standings and outcomes. AnishaShar (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable on its face. Gatoclass (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- How would this be policed though? Usually that category is populated by the {{current sport event}} template, which every user is going to want to remove immediately after it finishes. Lee Vilenski 19:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: First of all, the Category:Current sports events has nothing to do with the Template:Current sport; articles are added to that category in the usual way.
- You ask how it would be policed. Simply, we will teach editors to do it that way – to leave an article in that category for another 48 hours. AnishaShar have already expressed their opinion above. WL Pro for life is also known for removing 'CAT:CSE's from articles. I think we could put some kind of notice in that category so other editors can notice it. We could set up a vote here. Maybe someone else will have a better idea. Maiō T. (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would it not be more suitable for a "recently completed sports event" category. It's pretty inaccurate to say it's current when the event finished over a day ago. Lee Vilenski 21:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay Lee, that's also a good idea. We have these two sports event categories:
- Category:Scheduled sports events
- Category:Current sports events
- Category:Recent sports events can be a suitable addition to those two. Edin75, you are also interested in categories and sporting events; what is your opinion? Maiō T. (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have any objection to a Recent sports events category being added, but personally, if I want to see results of recent sports events, I would be more likely to go to Category:December 2024 sports events, which should include all recent events. Edin75 (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did this get the go-ahead then? I see a comment has been added to the category, and my most recent edit was reverted when I removed the category after an event finished. I didn't see any further discussion after my last comment. Edin75 (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
User-generated conflict maps
In a number of articles we have (or had) user-generated conflict maps. I think the mains ones at the moment are Syrian civil war and Russian invasion of Ukraine. The war in Afghanistan had one until it was removed as poorly-sourced in early 2021. As you can see from a brief review of Talk:Syrian civil war the map has become quite controversial there too.
My personal position is that sourcing conflict maps entirely from reports of occupation by one side or another of individual towns at various times, typically from Twitter accounts of dubious reliability, to produce a map of the current situation in an entire country (which is the process described here), is a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. I also don't see liveuamap.com as necessarily being a highly reliable source either since it basically is an WP:SPS/Wiki-style user-generated source, and when it was discussed at RSN editors there generally agreed with that. I can understand it if a reliable source produces a map that we can use, but that isn't what's happening here.
Part of the reason this flies under the radar on Misplaced Pages is it ultimately isn't information hosted on EN WP but instead on Commons, where reliable sourcing etc. is not a requirement. However, it is being used on Misplaced Pages to present information to users and therefore should fall within our PAGs.
I think these maps should be deprecated unless they can be shown to be sourced entirely to a reliable source, and not assembled out of individual reports including unreliable WP:SPS sources. FOARP (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of the maps seem like they run into SYNTH issues because if they're based on single sources they're likely running into copyright issue as derivative works. I would agree though that if an image does not have clear sourcing it shouldn't be used as running into primary/synth issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Though simple information isn't copyrightable, if it's sufficiently visually similar I suppose that might constitute a copyvio. JayCubby 02:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree these violate OR and at least the spirit of NOTNEWS and should be deprecated. I remember during the Wagner rebellion we had to fix one that incorrectly depicted Wagner as controlling a swath of Russia. Levivich (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Syrian map (right) seems quite respectable being based on the work of the Institute for the Study of War and having lots of thoughtful process and rules for updates. It is used on many pages and in many Wikipedias. There is therefore a considerable consensus for its use. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: First off, I'd like to state my bias as a bit of a map geek. I've followed the conflict maps closely for years.
- I think the premise of this question is flawed. Some maps may be poorly sourced, but that doesn't mean all of them are. The updates to the Syrian, Ukraine, and Burma conflicts maps are sourced to third parties. So that resolves the OR issue.
- The sources largely agree with each other, which makes SYNTH irrelevant. Occasionally one source may be ahead of another by a few hours (e.g., LiveUaMap vs. ISW), but they're almost entirely in lock step.
- I think this proposal throws out the baby with the bathwater. One bad map doesn't mean we stop using maps; it means we stop using bad maps.
- You may not like the fact that these sources sometimes use OSI (open-source intelligence). Unfortunately, that is the nature of conflict in a zone where the press isn't allowed. Any information you get from the AP or the US government is likely to rely on the same sources.
- Do they make mistakes? Probably; but so do all historical sources. And these maps have the advantage that the Commons community continuously reviews changes made by other users. Much in the same way that Misplaced Pages is often more accurate than historical encyclopedias, I believe crowdsourcing may make these maps more accurate than historical ones.
- I think deprecating these maps would leave the reader at a loss (pictures speak a 1,000 words and all that). Does it get a border crossing wrong here or there? Yes, but the knowledge is largely correct.
- It would be an absolute shame to lose access to this knowledge. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre WP:ITSUSEFUL is frowned upon as an argument for good reason. Beyond that: 1) the fact that these are based on fragmentary data is strangely not mentioned at all (Syrian civil war says 'Military situation as of December 18, 2024 at 2:00pm ET' which suggests that it's quite authoritative and should be trusted; the fact that it's based off the ISW is not disclosed.) 2) I'm not seeing where all the information is coming from the ISW. The ISW's map only covers territory, stuff like bridges, dams, "strategic hills" and the like are not present on the ISW map. Where is that info coming from? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Commons Syria map uses both the ISW and Liveuamap. The two are largely in agreement, with Liveuamap being more precise but using less reliable sources. If you have an issue with using Liveuamap as a source, fine, bring it up on the talk pages where it's used, or on the Commons talk page itself. But banning any any map of a conflict is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Ukraine map is largely based on ISW-verifiable information.
- With regards to actual locations like bridges, I'm against banning Commons users from augmenting maps with easily verifiable landmarks. That definition of SYN is broad to the point of meaningless, as it would apply to any user-generated content that uses more than one source. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre WP:ITSUSEFUL is frowned upon as an argument for good reason. Beyond that: 1) the fact that these are based on fragmentary data is strangely not mentioned at all (Syrian civil war says 'Military situation as of December 18, 2024 at 2:00pm ET' which suggests that it's quite authoritative and should be trusted; the fact that it's based off the ISW is not disclosed.) 2) I'm not seeing where all the information is coming from the ISW. The ISW's map only covers territory, stuff like bridges, dams, "strategic hills" and the like are not present on the ISW map. Where is that info coming from? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I've been updating the Ukraine map since May 2022, so I hope my input is helpful. While I agree that some of the sources currently being used to update these maps may be dubious in nature, that has not always been the case. In the past, particularly for the Syria map, these maps have been considered among the most accurate online due to their quality sourcing. It used to be that a source was required for each town if it was to be displayed on these maps, but more recently, people have just accepted taking sources like LivaUAMap and the ISW and copying them exactly. Personally, I think we should keep the maps but change how they are sourced. I think that going back to the old system of requiring a reliable source for each town would clear up most of the issues that you are referring to, though it would probably mean that the maps would be less detailed than they currently are now. Physeters 07:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The campaign maps are one of our absolute best features. The Syrian campaign map in particular was very accurate for much of the war. Having a high quality SVG of an entire country like that is awesome, and there really isn't anything else like it out there, which is why it provides such value to our readers. I think we have to recognize of our course that they're not 100% accurate, due to the fog of war. I wouldn't mind if we created subpages about the maps? Like, with a list of sources and their dates, designed to be reader facing, so that our readers could verify the control of specific towns for themselves. But getting rid of the maps altogether is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. CaptainEek ⚓ 23:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Google Maps: Maps, Places and Routes
Google Maps have the following categories: Maps, Places and Routes
for example: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sheats+Apartments/@34.0678041,-118.4494914,3a,75y,90t/data=!...........
most significant locations have a www.google.com/maps/place/___ URL
these should be acknowledged and used somehow, perhaps geohack
69.181.17.113 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- What is the proposal here? If its for the google maps article, that would be more suitable for the talk page. As I see it, your proposal is simply saying that google maps has an api and we should use it for... something. I could be missing something, though Mgjertson (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the IP is proposing embeds of google maps, which would be nice from a functionality standpoint (the embedded map is kinda-rather buggy), but given Google is an advertising company, isn't great from a privacy standpoint. JayCubby 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think they're proposing the use of external links rather than embedding. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the IP is proposing embeds of google maps, which would be nice from a functionality standpoint (the embedded map is kinda-rather buggy), but given Google is an advertising company, isn't great from a privacy standpoint. JayCubby 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
I would like to propose that members of the page mover user group be granted the oathauth-enable
permission. This would allow them to use Special:OATH to enable two-factor authentication on their accounts.
Rationale (2FA for page movers)
The page mover guideline already obligates people in that group to have a strong password, and failing to follow proper account security processes is grounds for revocation of the right. This is because the group allows its members to (a) move pages along with up to 100 subpages, (b) override the title blacklist, and (c) have an increased rate limit for moving pages. In the hands of a vandal, these permissions could allow significant damage to be done very quickly, which is likely to be difficult to reverse.
Additionally, there is precedent for granting 2FA access to users with rights that could be extremely dangerous in the event of account compromise, for instance, template editors, importers, and transwiki importers have the ability to enable this access, as do most administrator-level permissions (sysop, checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward, interface admin).
Discussion (2FA for page movers)
- Support as proposer. JJPMaster (she/they) 20:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support (but if you really want 2FA you can just request permission to enable it on Meta) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I do have 2FA enabled. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, that says you are member of "Two-factor authentication testers" (testers = good luck with that). Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- A group name which is IMO seriously misleading - 2FA is not being tested, it's being actively used to protect accounts. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- meta:Help:Two-factor authentication still says "currently in production testing with administrators (and users with admin-like permissions like interface editors), bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, stewards, edit filter managers and the OATH-testers global group." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- A group name which is IMO seriously misleading - 2FA is not being tested, it's being actively used to protect accounts. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, that says you are member of "Two-factor authentication testers" (testers = good luck with that). Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I do have 2FA enabled. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support as a pagemover myself, given the potential risks and need for increased security. I haven't requested it yet as I wasn't sure I qualified and didn't want to bother the stewards, but having
oathauth-enable
by default would make the process a lot more practical. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)- Anyone is qualified - the filter for stewards granting 2FA is just "do you know what you're doing". * Pppery * it has begun... 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question When's the last time a page mover has had their account compromised and used for pagemove vandalisn? Edit 14:35 UTC: I'm not doubting the nom, rather I'm curious and can't think of a better way to phrase things. JayCubby 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why isn't everybody allowed to enable 2FA? I've never heard of any other website where users have to go request someone's (pro forma, rubber-stamp) permission if they want to use 2FA. And is it accurate that 2FA, after eight years, is still "experimental" and "in production testing"? I guess my overall first impression didn't inspire me with confidence in the reliability and maintenance. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because the recovery process if you lose access to your device and recovery codes is still "contact WMF Trust and Safety", which doesn't scale. See also phab:T166622#4802579. Anomie⚔ 15:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should probably consult with WMF T&S before we create more work for them on what they might view as very low-risk accounts. Courtesy ping @JSutherland (WMF). –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- No update comment since 2020 doesn't fill me with hope. I like 2FA, but it needs to be developed into a usable solution for all. Lee Vilenski 00:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I ain't a technical person, but could a less secure version of 2fa be introduced, where an email is sent for any login on new devices? JayCubby 01:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. However email addresses also get detached from people, so that would require that people regularly reconfirm their contact information. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I ain't a technical person, but could a less secure version of 2fa be introduced, where an email is sent for any login on new devices? JayCubby 01:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- For TOTP (the 6-digit codes), it's not quite as bad as when it was written, as the implementation has been fixed over time. I haven't heard nearly as many instances of backup scratch codes not working these days compared to when it was new. The WebAuthn (physical security keys, Windows Hello, Apple Face ID, etc) implementation works fine on private wikis but I wouldn't recommend using it for CentralAuth, especially with the upcoming SUL3 migration. There's some hope it'll work better afterward, but will still require some development effort. As far as I'm aware, WMF is not currently planning to work on the 2FA implmentation. As far as risk for page mover accounts goes, they're at a moderate risk. Page move vandalism, while annoying to revert, is reversible and is usually pretty loud (actions of compromised accounts can be detected and stopped easily). The increased ratelimit is the largest concern, but compared to something like account creator (which has noratelimit) it's not too bad. I'm more concerned about new page reviewer. There probably isn't a ton of harm to enabling 2FA for these groups, but there isn't a particularly compelling need either. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because the recovery process if you lose access to your device and recovery codes is still "contact WMF Trust and Safety", which doesn't scale. See also phab:T166622#4802579. Anomie⚔ 15:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. PMV is a high-trust role (suppressredirect is the ability to make a blue link turn red), and thus this makes sense. As a side note, I have changed this to bulleted discussion; # is used when we have separate sections for support and oppose. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose As a pagemover myself, I find pagemover is an extremely useful and do not wish to lose it. It is nowhere near the same class as template editor. You can already ask the stewards for 2FA although I would recommend creating a separate account for the purpose. After all these years, 2FA remains experimental, buggy and cumbersome. Incompatible with the Microsoft Authenticator app on my iphone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- The proposal (as I read it) isn't "you must have 2FA", rather "you have the option to add it". Lee Vilenski 00:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7, Lee Vilenski is correct. This would merely provide page movers with the option to enable it. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, but I do not want it associated with an administrator-level permission, which would mean I am not permitted to use it, as I am not an admin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not really that. It would be an opt-in to allow users (in the group) to put 2FA on their account - at their own digression.
- The main reasons why 2FA is currently out to admins and the like is because they are more likely to be targeted for compromising and are also more experienced. The 2FA flag doesn't require any admin skills/tools and is only incedentally linked. Lee Vilenski 12:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, so why is 2FA not an option for everyone already? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Closed Limelike Curves the MediaWiki's 2FA implementation is complex, and the WMF's processes to support people who get locked out of their account aren't able to handle a large volume of requests (developers can let those who can prove they are the owner of the account back in). My understanding is that the current processes cannot be efficiently scaled up either, as it requires 1:1 attention from a developer, so unless and until new processes have been designed, tested and implemented 2FA is intended to be restricted to those who understand how to use it correctly and understand the risks of getting locked out. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, so why is 2FA not an option for everyone already? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, but I do not want it associated with an administrator-level permission, which would mean I am not permitted to use it, as I am not an admin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7, Lee Vilenski is correct. This would merely provide page movers with the option to enable it. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- The proposal (as I read it) isn't "you must have 2FA", rather "you have the option to add it". Lee Vilenski 00:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- It probably won't make a huge difference because those who really desire 2FA can already request the permission to enable it for their account, and because no page mover will be required to do so. However, there will be page movers who wouldn't request a global permission for 2FA yet would enable it in their preferences if it was a simple option. And these page movers might benefit from 2FA even more than those who already care very strongly about the security of their account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support and I can't think of any argument against something not only opt-in but already able to be opted into. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose this is a low value permission, not needed. If an individual PMV really wants to opt-in, they can already do so over at meta - no need to build custom configuration for this locally. — xaosflux 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support; IMO all users should have the option to add 2FA. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support All users should be able to opt in to 2FA. Lack of a scalable workflow for users locked out of their accounts is going to be addressed by WMF only if enough people are using 2FA (and getting locked out?) to warrant its inclusion in the product roadmap. – SD0001 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- That (and to @Stifle above) sounds like an argument to do just that - get support put in place and enable this globally, not to piecemeal it in tiny batches for discretionary groups on a single project (this custom configuration would support about 3/10ths of one percent of our active editors). To the point of this RFC, why do you think adding this for this specific tiny group is a good idea? — xaosflux 15:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I tried to turn this on for anyone on meta-wiki, and the RFC failed (meta:Meta:Requests for comment/Enable 2FA on meta for all users). — xaosflux 21:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Rolling it out in small batches helps build the case for a bigger rollout in the future. – SD0001 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I tried to turn this on for anyone on meta-wiki, and the RFC failed (meta:Meta:Requests for comment/Enable 2FA on meta for all users). — xaosflux 21:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that 2FA is already available to anyone. You just have to want it enough to either request it "for testing purposes" or to go to testwiki and request that you made an admin there, which will automatically give you access. See H:ACCESS2FA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- We shouldn't have to jump through borderline manipulative and social-engineering hoops to get basic security functionality. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- That (and to @Stifle above) sounds like an argument to do just that - get support put in place and enable this globally, not to piecemeal it in tiny batches for discretionary groups on a single project (this custom configuration would support about 3/10ths of one percent of our active editors). To the point of this RFC, why do you think adding this for this specific tiny group is a good idea? — xaosflux 15:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. It sounds like account recovery when 2FA is enabled involves Trust and Safety. I don't think page movers' account security is important enough to justify increasing the burden on them. —Compassionate727 14:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Losing access to the account is less common nowadays since most 2FA apps, including Google Authenticator, have implemented cloud syncing so that even if you lose your phone, you can still access the codes from another device. – SD0001 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- But this isn't about Google Authenticator. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Google Authenticator is a 2FA app, which at least till some point used to be the most popular one. – SD0001 (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- But (I believe), it is not available for use at Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's not true. You can use any TOTP authenticator app for MediaWiki 2FA. I currently use Ente Auth, having moved on from Authy recently, and from Google Authenticator a few years back. In case you're thinking of SMS-based 2FA, it has become a thing of the past and is not supported by MediaWiki either because it's insecure (attackers have ways to trick your network provider to send them your texts). – SD0001 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- But (I believe), it is not available for use at Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Google Authenticator is a 2FA app, which at least till some point used to be the most popular one. – SD0001 (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- But this isn't about Google Authenticator. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Losing access to the account is less common nowadays since most 2FA apps, including Google Authenticator, have implemented cloud syncing so that even if you lose your phone, you can still access the codes from another device. – SD0001 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Even aside from the fact that, in 2024+, everyone should be able to turn on 2FA .... Well, absolutely certainly should everyone who has an advanced bit, with potential for havoc in the wrong hands, be able to use 2FA here. That also includes template-editor, edit-filter-manager, file-mover, account-creator (and supersets like event-coordinator), checkuser (which is not strictly tied to adminship), and probably also mass-message-sender, perhaps a couple of the others, too. Some of us old hands have several of these bits and are almost as much risk as an admin when it comes to loss of account control. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Take a look at Special:ListGroupRights - much of what you mentioned is already in place, because these are groups that could use it and are widespread groups used on most WMF projects. (Unlike extendedmover). — xaosflux 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Re
That also includes , file-mover, account-creator (and supersets like event-coordinator), and probably mass-message-sender
. How can in any way would file mover, account creator, event coordinator and mass message sender user groups be considered privileged, and therefore have theoathauth-enable
userright? ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: It is really not usual for 2FA to be available to a user group that is not defined as privileged in the WMF files. By default, all user groups defined at CommonSettings.php (iirc) that are considered to be privileged have the
oathauth-enable
right. Also, the account security practices mentioned in wp:PGM are also mentioned at wp:New pages patrol/Reviewers, despite not being discussed at all. Shouldn't it be fair to have theextendedmover
userright be defined as privileged. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) - Support. Like SMcCandlish, I'd prefer that anyone, and particularly any editor with advanced perms, be allowed to turn on 2FA if they want (this is already an option on some social media platforms). But this is a good start, too.Since this is a proposal to allow page movers to opt in to 2FA, rather than a proposal to mandate 2FA for page movers, I see no downside in doing this. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support this opt-in for PMs and the broader idea of everyone having it by default. Forgive me if this sounds blunt, but is the responsibility and accountability of protecting your account lie on you and not WMF. Yes, they can assist in recovery, but the burden should not lie on them. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Photographs by Peter Klashorst
Back in 2023 I unsuccessfully nominated a group of nude photographs by Peter Klashorst for deletion on Commons. I was concerned that the people depicted might not have been of age or consented to publication. Klashorst described himself as a "painting sex-tourist" because he would travel to third-world countries to have sex with women in brothels, and also paint pictures of them. On his Flickr account, he posted various nude photographs of African and Asian women, some of which appear to have been taken without the subjects' knowledge. Over the years, other Commons contributors have raised concerns about the Klashorst photographs (e.g. ).
I noticed recently that several of the Klashorst images had disappeared from Commons but the deletions hadn't been logged. I believe this happens when the WMF takes an office action to remove files. I don't know for sure whether that's the case, or why only a small number of the photographs were removed this way.
My proposal is that we stop using nude or explicit photographs by Klashorst in all namespaces of the English Misplaced Pages. This would affect about thirty pages, including high-traffic anatomy articles such as Buttocks and Vulva. gnu57 18:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Genericusername57: This seems as if it's essentially a request for a community sanction, and thus probably belongs better on the administrators' noticeboard. Please tell me if I am mistaken. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: I am fine with moving the discussion elsewhere, if you think it more suitable. gnu57 02:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Genericusername57: I disagree with JJPMaster in that this seems to be the right venue, but I also disagree with your proposal. Klashorst might have been a sleazeball, yes, but the images at the two listed articles do not show recognizable subjects, nor do they resemble “creepshots”, nor is there evidence they’re underage. If you object to his images you can nominate them on Commons. Your ‘23 mass nomination failed because it was extremely indiscriminate (i.e. it included a self portrait of the artist). Dronebogus (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: According to User:Lar, Commons users repeatedly contacted Klashorst, asking him to provide proof of age and consent for his models, but he did not do so. I am planning on renominating the photographs on Commons, and I think removing them from enwiki first will help avoid spurious c:COM:INUSE arguments. The self-portrait you are referring to also included another naked person. gnu57 02:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Genericusername57: replacing the ones at vulva and buttocks wouldn’t be difficult; the first article arguably violates WP:ETHNICGALLERY and conflicts with human penis only showing a single image anyway. However I think it’s best if you went to those actual articles and discussed removing them. I don’t know what other pages use his images besides his own article but they should be dealt with separately. If you want to discuss banning his photos from Wikimedia in general that’s best discussed at Commons. In all cases my personal view is that regardless of whether they actually run afoul of any laws purging creepy, exploitative pornography of third-world women is no great loss. Dronebogus (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have to confess that I do not remember the details of the attempts to clarify things with Peter. If this turns out to be something upon which this decision might turn, I will try to do more research. But I’m afraid it’s lost in the mists of time. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note also that further attempts to clarify matters directly with Peter will not be possible, as he is now deceased. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have to confess that I do not remember the details of the attempts to clarify things with Peter. If this turns out to be something upon which this decision might turn, I will try to do more research. But I’m afraid it’s lost in the mists of time. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Genericusername57: replacing the ones at vulva and buttocks wouldn’t be difficult; the first article arguably violates WP:ETHNICGALLERY and conflicts with human penis only showing a single image anyway. However I think it’s best if you went to those actual articles and discussed removing them. I don’t know what other pages use his images besides his own article but they should be dealt with separately. If you want to discuss banning his photos from Wikimedia in general that’s best discussed at Commons. In all cases my personal view is that regardless of whether they actually run afoul of any laws purging creepy, exploitative pornography of third-world women is no great loss. Dronebogus (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: According to User:Lar, Commons users repeatedly contacted Klashorst, asking him to provide proof of age and consent for his models, but he did not do so. I am planning on renominating the photographs on Commons, and I think removing them from enwiki first will help avoid spurious c:COM:INUSE arguments. The self-portrait you are referring to also included another naked person. gnu57 02:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Several issues here. First, if the files are illegal, that's a matter for Commons as they should be deleted. On the enwiki side of things, if there's doubt about legality, Commons has plenty of other photos that can be used instead. Just replace the photos. The second issue is exploitation. Commons does have commons:COM:DIGNITY which could apply, and depending on the country in which the photo was taken there may be stricter laws for publication vs. capture, but it's a hard sell to delete things on Commons if it seems like the person in the photo consented (with or without payment). The problem with removing files that may be tainted by exploitation is we'd presumably have to remove basically all images of all people who were imprisoned, enslaved, colonized, or vulnerable at the time of the photo/painting/drawing. It becomes a balance where we consider the context of the image (the specifics of when/where/how it was taken), whether the subject is still alive (probably relevant here), and encyclopedic importance. I'd be inclined to agree with some above that there aren't many photos here that couldn't be replaced with something else from Commons, but I don't think you'll find support for a formalized ban. Here's a question: what happens when you just try to replace them. As long as the photo you're replacing it with is high quality and just as relevant to the article, I don't think you'd face many challenges? — Rhododendrites \\ 16:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Move the last edited notice from the bottom of the page to somewhere that's easier to find
Currently, if you want to check when the last page edit was, you have to look at the edit history or scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and look for it near the licensing info. I propose moving it under the view history and watch buttons, across from the standard "This article is from Misplaced Pages" disclaimer. Non-technical users may be put off by the behind-the-scenes nature of the page or simply not know of its existence. The Mobile site handles this quiet gracefully in my opinion. While it is still at the bottom of the page, it isn't found near Licensing talk and is a noticeable portion of the page Mgjertson (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Editors can already enable mw:XTools § PageInfo gadget, which provides this information (and more) below the article title. I don't think non-editors would find it useful enough to be worth the space. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I wished Misplaced Pages supported wallpapers in pages...
It would be even more awesome if we could change the wallpaper of pages in Misplaced Pages. But the fonts' colors could change to adapt to the wallpaper. The button for that might look like this: Change wallpaper Gnu779 (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think we already tried this. It was called Myspace ;) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- See Help:User style for information on creating your own stylesheet. isaacl (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Change page titles/names using "LGBTQ" to "LGBTQ+"
Please see my reasoning at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies#LGBTQ to LGBTQ+ (and please post your thoughts there). It was proposed that I use this page to escalate this matter, as seen on the linked talk page. Helper201 (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: