Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kudpung (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 5 October 2016 (→Priorities: No.8 being done already). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Priorities

Prioritise tweaks to Page Curation: We have been asked by the WMF to make a list in order of priority for the items at:

Misplaced Pages:Page Curation/Suggested improvements.

On that page there are 25 items that were either forgotten when the software was made, or were realised later to be essential requirements.

Please select what you think are the 10 most important ones and place them in your order of priority. If you use the hash marks, you won't need to renumber them all if you change your order of priorities:

NOTE: No.8 No Index until patrolled was already implemented nearly 5 years ago but due to an unreported bug has not been working for an unknown length of time. It is already being addressed at Phabricator. Please choose another item for your list.

Kudpung:

1. 9. Pages moved to mainspace from other namespaces
2. 24. Tool for moving to draftspace
3. 7. Recreations
4. 6. Welcome message
5. 3. Feed symbols
6. 12. User filters: Articles tagged for deletion
7. 16. Decline CSD
8. 21. More granular CSD A7 criteria as per Twinkle
9. 19. Patroling the patrolers

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Jim Carter:

1. 8. No Index until patrolled.
2. 9. Pages moved to mainspace from other namespaces
3. 7. Recreation
4. 19. Patrolling the patrollers
5. 21. Granular CSD
6. 16. Decline CSD
7. 3. Feed symbols
8. 9 Pagemoves
9. 15. Jumpback
10. 3. Feed symbols

-- Jim Carter 11:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley:

1. 8 No Index until patrolled
2. 19 Patrolling the Patrollers
3. 7 Recreations
4. 22 Adding stub tags and categories
5. 21 More Granular CSD
6. 23 Notability criteria
7. 3 Feed symbols
8. 16 Decline CSD
9. 9 Pagemoves
10. 15 Jumpback

-- Jbh 15:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 05:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

DGG

1. 8 no index until patrolled.
2. 9 pagemoves
3. 19 patrolling the patrollers
4. 21 More granular reasons (and multiple reasons)
5. 16 declineCSD (tho the new script "User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/csdhelper.js" does some of this

MER-C: I don't use New Page Triage, so I'm not commenting on the majority of proposals. I support #8 and wonder if mainspace pages should be not visible to unregistered users until patrolled. MER-C 05:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

ONUnicorn:

1. 8 No Index until patrolled
2. 2 Redirects
3. 26 Delay (but less than the 30 minutes suggested)
4. 7 Recreations
5. 6 Welcome message
6. 22 Adding stub tags
7. 14 wikiprojects
8. 27 Tag for hist merge
9. 25 DYK information
10. 5 Very short article

~ ONUnicornproblem solving 14:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter:

1. 8. No Index until patrolled
2. 2. Redirects
3. 6. Welcome message
4. 7. Recreations
5. 19. Patroling the patrolers
6. 27. Tag for hist merge

--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Next work group member:

ACTRIAL

Relaunch WP:ACTRIAL. This was a very strong community consensus to limit creation in mainspace to autoconfirmrd (4 days/10 edits) users for a 6-month trial, while allowing IP users and other non qualifying users to make an article in Draft mainspace through the Article Wizard. There are several ways of getting this implemented:

Place a request at Phabricator without any further ado

• Support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jbh 22:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited 05:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support, hoping that the second shot works. — Esquivalience (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Worth asking for, but don't expect anything. MER-C 05:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Do it locally using the abuse filter (or any code that does not require intervention by WMF devs)

• Neutral Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The less we need to depend on the WMF the better. We can run it for 6 months and if it works then either leave it in place or, if the filter causes too much load, ask the WMF to make something. Jbh 22:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I also support other any potintially better methods than the abuse filter per Esquivalience. My main point is that it should be implemented by en.wp rather than dealing with WMF. Jbh 03:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Using JavaScript or the title blacklist would inform newcomers immediately rather than after the fact. Otherwise, iff Phabricator doesn't work, then we do this Plan B. — Esquivalience (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support using JavaScript. The abuse filter is a suboptimal solution for the reason mentioned above. We should avoid dealing with the WMF, they have a proven track record of naive idealism and a very poor awareness of the situation on the front lines. MER-C 05:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 14:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Running an RfC to see if the 500 strong community is still in favour of it. (the arguments for it are in fact even stronger today than they were then).

• Oppose Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support- the RfC should also be on doing it via the abuse filter method, though I have absolutely no clue as to the technical intricacies required for this to happen. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already had an RfC. Jbh 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially with the obsession with watchlist notices, prompting more trolls to crash the RfC. — Esquivalience (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite so, and which sadly is indeed so true. We've certainly seen it at RfA since the Good Faith changes were made in January, and on most other serious RfCs since. The original RfC was one of the largest in Misplaced Pages history and had an overwhelming consensus. I don't think such a consensus would change, particularly if all the 500+ participants were (quite legally) canvassed. Even some members of the WMF staff are now very discretely intimidating that the former employee(s) who so offensively rejected it were wrong. Unfortunately our civility policy does not extend to external orojects such as Bugzilla or Phabricator. The fact that the WMF already changed its so called (nowhere documented) founding principle in 2005 in order to restrict article creation to registered users demonstrates that the project is organinc and as needs arise can indeed be changed again. Even DGG who originally opposed ACTRIAL, is beginning to believe we now have no options but to implement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I still do not support ACTRIAL, partly because the requirements are too minimal to do much good and partly because of the negative effect on editathons, , though I probably won't make an effort to improve it. I do support having all new editors diverted to Draft space, and ia don't se how this can be done without the WMF. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

DGG, this is what ACTRIAL proposed, all creations by new users to be channeled thru the Article Wizard. Even the modifications to templates, the Wizard, and the user interface had been prepared. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• A full RFC isn't necessary, just an informal check. This has enough drama potential such that whoever implements this should be prepared to go to arbitration. MER-C 05:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)