Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:23, 16 January 2015

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPM

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Speedy deletion of Adam (band)

The Speedy deletion of Adam (band) is again another example of why wikipedia needs to be seriously reformed. 750editsstrong (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletions_and_editor_retention

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention

If deleted see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Thewhitebox#RFC

Full text:

Studies show, editing on wikipedia is stagnating. I have been an editor off and on wikipedia for 12 years. Misplaced Pages has become less and less welcoming for new editors because of more and more deletion and speed deletion rules. There is a very negative company culture about new edits here on wikipedia. Editors who encourage deletion of good faith edits are rewarded, editors who fight against this trend are banned or leave in frustration.

1. I remember when established editors posed as new editors, and almost everyone of their new pages were deleted. The larger community was infuriated, not by how new editors were shown to be treated, but that established editors would pose as new editors. I know there is a 80% chance that my article will be deleted within one hour of it being created. If I have no references, it is within 5 minutes.
2. I remember how Jimmy Wales blessed the wide spread deletion of hundreds of bibliography articles with no notice, writing on the editors talk page what a wonderful job he did.
3. I remember the secret offline collusion in the case - twenty or so editors were working together to disrupt wikipeda and get tens of thousands of articles deleted. Any other time the editors would be banned, but instead any editors who mentioned the case were warned.
4. I remember the dozens of articles from mainstream media that complained how an incredibly notable article was deleted often within 5 minutes.
5. I remember the episode wars over television shows. In which editors wanted to delete thousands of pages on all television series.
6. I remember how I quit uploading non-copyrighted images from the 1890s because they were always deleted in mass, even when I put the right tags on them.
7. I have been appalled at many of the really mean editors who have become administrators and the arbcoms. The arbcoms get Jimmy's blessing.
8. I have been disgusted at how established editors treat other new editors, describing their new article monitoring as "garbage men" stopping "garbage"
9. I am shocked that every time I see an old editors page from 2006 or before, who really fought for treating editors nicely, he has been banned or left in disgust. Every time.
10. There is a new trend the last couple of years. I am appalled at extremely ignorant editors deleting whole sections of articles citing copyright violations. They have absolutely no understanding of copyright. Fair use is ignored and deletion is emphasized.

Editors, especially new editors, are consistently treated like shit here by a like minded group of editors.

Sadly I see only one solution

I have come to one sad conclusion: That Jimmy Wales, the founder of this site, is the person most responsible for this trend. He is most responsbile for this site's negative company culture. I believe that it is in the best interest of the long term future of Misplaced Pages that Jimmy Wales step down. I beleive wikipedia needs a new company culture that is more inclusive and kind.

If you have a better idea how to change this trend, something that has never been tried before, I would love to hear it.

Thoughts?

|}

Misplaced Pages:Take it easy is all I am going to say, you are overacting to this. Avono (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we get someone to warn User:Ansh666 not to delete whole sections of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard? Does anyone see the irony in what is going on here? Editors who support the status quo of deleting other editors contributions, are deleting other editors contributions! Please lets have a discussion about this, instead of deleting each others comments. Deleting other peoples contributions only causes conflict. 750editsstrong (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Orduin who this Misplaced Pages

Administrators'_noticeboard discusses deletes most of this section:

Ansh666 deletes this Misplaced Pages

Administrators'_noticeboard section:

Original text that was deleted here:

.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 23:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

...do you even understand how this place works before trying to burn it down? From the contributions on your 3 linked accounts and the "RfC", it doesn't seem like it. You're slinging personal attacks at Jimbo Wales, complaining of some vast deletionist conspiracy, based on a horrible half-attempt to follow some old experiment that mostly worked. I'm not going to engage you further, please do not try to talk to me unless absolutely necessary. ansh666 23:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@750editsstrong: Ansh666 is not deleting whole sections of the noticeboard. He is simply removing what he thinks is spam, especially because of the incidents surrounding this event. Your contributions are still there, but there is no need to shout or post this everywhere. Also, the data from the experiment is 5 years old. It is time to move on. Drop the stick. -- Orduin 23:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A deletion notice was placed on an article with zero sources, despite the edit page screen telling users multiple times that sources are required. I see no symptom of the downfall of Misplaced Pages here. It functioned as desired and as designed. --Golbez (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Golbez Unsourced is only a deletion criteria for BLPs and this was a band not a BLP. The deletion tag was actually A7 and technically was valid. I'm not sure if the article would survive AFD, but this is a good example of why it would be good not to tag articles as A7 in the first few minutes of creation. ϢereSpielChequers 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two paths of response: One, while 'unsourced' may not in itself be a criteria for deletion, what WAS there was so sparse that it required sourcing. Otherwise saying "Adam is a band" is not deletion-worthy, which is nonsense. Two, I would very much disagree that a band cannot fall under BLP. If I said "This random band sings Nazi music" then I very much suspect that it would draw BLP complaints. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@750editsstrong May I remind you of the comments I made on this on one of your previous posts at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention? In repeating your post without responding to that sort of critique you risk undermining the valid parts of your case. Yes Misplaced Pages has problems, and deletionism is one of them, but exaggerating the problems undermines rather than reinforces your case. ϢereSpielChequers 23:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes some editors are too mean. No Jimbo stepping down won't help, since he is rarely directly involved with running this site. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are some new-page patrollers who are far too trigger-happy. It is unacceptable for Orduin (talk · contribs) to tag a page for speedy deletion under WP:A7 just one minute after the page is created. There are criteria - such as WP:G10 (Attack pages) and WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement) - where immediate action is desirable; but for most other criteria, A7 included, the creator must be given a chance to build it up. There are good reasons why WP:NPP#Special:NewPagesFeed recommends patrolling from the back. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree actually. Tagging a page is better, but this seemed too far off, and I was wondering why musicians having orgasms during a song was important to Misplaced Pages. I did, and still do not, see why it should be necessary (and that is why I will be avoiding the article for awhile). -- Orduin 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that they claim not to be a new user (12 years!), and they should know how the wiki works enough to avoid it if they were actually trying. This was a WP:POINTy article creation, and deserves to be WP:TNT'd at best. ansh666 00:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I regularly patrol CAT:CSD looking for "bad" A7s and try and decline any ones that don't meet the criteria (example). However, most do. Additionally, the actual facts and figures at WP:NEWT show that, at least in 2009, NPP was far less "trigger happy" on CSDs than 80%. Ritchie333 11:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Spending a lot of time at the Teahouse and helping newbies, I don't think that "trigger happy" reviewers is the only thing that makes the number of active editors drop. Many newbies nowadays are used to all the sophisticated, automatic, technical aspects of social media on the Internet in a way that was not as common in 2007. They expect things to work the same way here and find all the things you have to do manually to be too much of a bother. So they have a hard time really getting involved in the community let alone make decent edits in articles, resulting in speedy deletion, disappointment and quitting. We also often demand refs from book, newspapers and journals, but how do we deal with this when young newbies, our future grand editors, come from a generation who have only seen texts on screens and have never visited a library or a bookstore? I have no idea how to solve this, but I think these are questions we should start to look at. w.carter-Talk 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Re the graph apparently showing editor decline, remember those are raw figures. Many things have contributed to them including the rise of the edit filters and the shift of many internet users to devices such as mobiles on which Misplaced Pages editing is impractical. If the edit filters were running as real time bots instantaneously reverting vandalism that they currently reject then we would have many millions more edits, possibly more than we peaked with in 2007. But we are better off without that vandalism, even if it does make the raw edit figures look bad. It takes 5 edits to get four warnings and a block, so the number of editors doing their fifth edit is a very poor metric for community health. ϢereSpielChequers 10:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So an old editor pretending to be a newbie creates a pointless article on a WP:NOTNEWS band, gets the response they wanted, and rushes everywhere to raise a big WP:POINT? Yawn. Resolute 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Related and this is the best place perhaps to mention it, I've brought Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Deletions and editor retention to MfD, suggesting it be userfied as nothing to do with RFC. The discussion is here.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 22:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem

I think that what's going on here is as follows:

1. As time goes on, we have fewer administration hours per disruptive hours. (Administration hours defined to include not only admin actions, but also vandalism fighting, XfD time, etc.)
2. To deal with the reduction of administration hours per disruptive hours, we come up with various shortcuts which cause the disruption to be stopped by the software - edit filters, semi protection, anon-only blocking of IPs (we can now block major public IPs without worrying about possible issues with registered users), IP block exemption (which allows us to use more hard blocks for IPs), blocking of meatpuppets (frequently from a single IP - and they look like sockpuppets, but aren't), expanding the speedty deletion criteria, etc.
3. These shortcuts tend to scare off te editors who may end up being good admins otherwise, making the reduction of hours a more serious problem. Additionally, some of our major sockpuppeteers may, in fact, be users who were BITten by these shortcuts.

Just to clarify the obsticals a new user must overcome now in order to become a siginficantly constructive editor:

1. The page the user wants to edit for their first edit must not have any protection (even semi) - and this page is likely to be a BLP, current event, or controvertial topic - all of which tend to be semi-protected.
2. The user's IP address must not be blocked - which many school- mand public-IP addresses are.
3. The page must not have a BITEy edit notice - which every BLP, and many controvertial topics do.
4. The edit must not hit any disallow or warn filters - even a warn without a disallow is BITEy.
5. The edit must survive for a reasonable amount of time, and the user must not get a BITEy message on his/her talk page.
6. Onvce a user, by some miracle, has passed all these hurdles, (s)he is likely to recommend that his/her friends help him/her with editing - and then they will all be blocked as sockpuppets.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The big question is, then, how do we reverse this? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

While I don't have any complet solution to the issue, I believe that each of the following should help:

1. Make BITE a higher priority than BLP enforcement - BLP is probably the most BITEy policy, since it basically means that if a user wants to edit the most popular first-edit pages, (s)he first needs to read Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons (45K) and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (32K).
2. Careful about IP blocks - any long-term block for IP addresses should only be done after, or in paralel to, contacting the ISP and trying to get them to help us with the problem.
3. Slow down deletion - with the exception of blatant cases of the general criteria (excluding G4), an article or category shouldn't be speedy deleted within a couple weeks of creation; and with the exception of borderline cases of these criteria, it shouldn't be nominated for PROD or XFD during the same time period. Same should go for userspace pages created in the user's own space.
4. Fewer spckpuppetry blocks - with the exception of the major disruptive sockpuppeteers, we need to be extra careful about blocking "sockpuppets" - quite likely, many of the "sockpuppets" we block are actually meatpuppets who will diverge their edits ovwer time.
5. Cool it on VOA blocks - give a VOA indef block only the second time; the first time, give a 24 hour block.
6. Cool it on semi-protection - articles should only be semi-protected if absolutely necessary. Even PC is less BITEy than semi-protection.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The other big problem is visible two sections below. An editor getting a nasty personal attack in an edit summary because they posted the wrong image. I'm not sure how to get these kind of editors to stop being jerks. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Incivility is a big problem, but it always was one; I think, though, that the decline in number of editors is more because of the hurdles the user must pass before becoming a significant editor here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it a problem?

Re: "The big question is, then, how do we reverse this?"... I'm going to play devil's advocate here... the question assumes that the decline in number of editors is a bad thing that needs to be "reversed"... but is it really? Before we tackle the big question of how to reverse the decline, I think we need to ask the bigger question: do we actually want to reverse the decline (and why)? Has anyone examined the possibility that having fewer editors actually results in a better encyclopedia? Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the decline in number of admins seems to be causing a significant backlogging of systems here. Secondly, I keep seeing WikiProjects where there is little activity on the main WikiPoject talk page - and this tends to make it difficult to find someone who can help with a specific on-wiki problem. I believe that both of these are caused by a decline in the number of users who we can keep around. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright infringement on YouTube

Hey. I just wanted to ask if anybody knows what company is copyright owner of Lana Del Rey's Summertime Sadness, because someone illegally used that song in their video and I wanted to let the copyright owners know, but I don't know who they are. Alex 21:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Aleksa Lukic: "Summertime Sadness" lists the label as Interscope Records, so you might want to start with them. GoingBatty (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Culture of Kindness ...

Hi folks,

His this type of comment are frequent on English Misplaced Pages ?

A nice day for every one, Lionel Scheepmans 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope it's not common. That is utterly an unacceptable way to speak to another editor and I've said so on their talk page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And got the same type of comment back in response. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It's uncommon, but still way too common. If this happens (and it happens too much) call them on it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A Wikimedian ambassador in south of India

I've just finished an article intituled m:A Wikimedian ambassador in south of India. If somebody is interested, just click. A nice day to every one. Lionel Scheepmans 20:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Typhaine Case User:Panam2014/Typhaine Case

Hi Can you help me to translate fr:Affaire_Typhaine_Taton. It could be a good article for our encyclpedia. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Have you seen WP:RFT? That has plenty of advice on such matters. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Editors are trying to censor discussion (yep... censor DISCUSSION on a page talk) about a topic on this article. For knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#.22Civil_engineering_community.22 Dornicke (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that nobody is buying your conspiracy theory nuttery is not the same thing as censorship. Particularly given you are the one trying to remove information, "for knowledge". Forum shopping because you aren't getting your way is not going to lend credibility to your position. Resolute 15:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't remember asking for your (ill-mannered) opinion about me. Take your Lexotan or whatever it is you need to control your mental issues and chill out. Don't even know who you are, never talked to you before. Waiting for civil and educated editors interested in having a civil, educated discussion on the topic, according to the guidelines of the project. Thank you. Dornicke (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So much for "civil, educated discussion", eh? A little friendly advice: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Resolute 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for normal people with no mental issues to discuss the problem. Thank you. Dornicke (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages village pump
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links