Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 80

I don't know whether this is technically possible or not, but is it possible to prevent going directly into edit mode when clicking on a redlinked user page? Often I only click on such a page to get to see that users contributions, so it is a bit unnecessary that clicking on the redlink triggers edit mode for that page. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably user customization (js or css) can do this [might want to move this to VPT]. Have you tried

WP:POPUPS? You can use that to access contribs with mouse-hover. –xeno^talk

14:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. No I haven't tried popups, as I don't have a need for most of the functionality that script offers and would prefer a standalone solution if one existed. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I got a link in the “Toolbox” on the left to the user contributions even from the user talk page.

 

23:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

One thing I noticed on Commons is that "Hidden Categories" are shown in a smaller font. While one of the reasons for that is because they are displayed by default, which is not the case here. Just wondering what everyone thought about doing that here for those who show the hidden cats. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In the above discussion, it occurred to me that the user name policy is not linked from the plain account creation screen. It might be linked from

• Support nothing much else to say. Well summarized. -- fg^TC 23:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Looks like MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount? There is a link to the policy in "Simply choose a username", but it's hardly something people would notice. Could stand to make it more obvious. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I was aware of that link, but I think it's not well contextualized and eclipsed by the one in the previous sentence. I didn't pay any attention to it when I registered my initial account. Because only "username" is linked there, a newbie would probably expect that link to provide a definition of "username" rather than rules of what's allowed and what not in it. If you consider that the "benefits" sentence is in bold and has its own link to a rather long page (
    talk
    ) 00:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a possible problem with

WP:TL;DR to address there. -- fg^TC

00:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it could be "simply choose a suitable username..."--Kotniski (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That is probably a good minimal change to make.

talk

) 15:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly support this is an excellent idea. I can't count the number of times I've had to report unsuitable usernames to
  WP:UAA (well, I could, but I've got better things to do. It's a lot, leave it at that). A simple note on the account creation screen dissuading new users from signing up as User:Bob's Autopart Supplies, User:I'vegotamassivetadger, User:WikipediaAdministratorBot or similar would save a lot of work. Yunshui 雲水
  08:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral. It won't really stop anyone with agenda though. At least violating usernames are quick to identify. If
  TALK
  10:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not deluding myself about spammers etc. But look at
    talk
    ) 15:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, I did say ".. users should be made aware of what's acceptable when they register ..". I still would want to see the whole proposed text first. —  
      TALK
      09:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: A double-edged sword. A comment with a suggestion to keep it short and in the Latin alphabet should be helpful for seriously minded newbies. On the other hand, allowing people to first register with an offensive name may help us to identify potential vandals, and allowing them to first register with company or personal names may help catch COI, spammers, and autobiographers. After they have been requested to change their name, we can still keep an eye on their edits. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• I just tried the 'create account' link, and MediaWiki:Customusertemplate-ACP1-signupstart was displayed, followed by MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount. I definitely think that that screen could be improved, and some short summary of acceptable names would probably be beneficial. But I'd need to see a specific mock-up to support/oppose/discuss it.  Chzz  ►  11:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• We need to make it more clear that company or organization usernames are not allowed. Right now, it's easy to miss that information. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Rd232 (talk · contribs) has reminded me of the fact that the signup page did once include all this information, so it's just a matter of getting consensus to restore it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• See another example of blocked user
  User talk:Crops for the Future. ASCIIn2Bme (talk
  ) 09:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Restore old version

• Stong support fg^t_c 02:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose //Hannibal (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC) (statistics argue against this)
• Oppose. It is quite probable that it could cause the registrations to drop again. Anyway, what I had in mind by "nutshell" was the actual nutshell atop the policy "This page in a nutshell: When choosing an account name, do not choose names which may be offensive, misleading, disruptive, or promotional. In general, one username should represent one person." The old account creation page does look like a laundry list with all those bullets even if it says not much more. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

I see the current version was implemented in May as "test nr 1" [1] What does that refer to? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's

here to build an encyclopedia such as spammers and trollz-and-lulzers. After all, what's a more obvious block then User:Peter Pan Promotions or User:I boned yo mom. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 20:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry for being late to this discussion. I have had very little time to continue the Account Creation Improvement Project since my Wikimedia Foundation Fellowship ended. However, this is an interesting queston, so I felt I should jump in. (Thanks to ASCIIn2Bme for poking me.)

The tests that were announced has yet to be closed, although noone is measuring anything at the moment. This means that anyone who creates an account is randomly assigned one of three alternatives. As you can see in this report, we have a very clear positive result for version number 1 (the one starting here. All that is left to do is turn off the MediaWiki:Customerusertemplate function and paste the nr 1 alternative pages onto the old ones. They give us about 9 more active Wikipedians each day than the version we are using today. (And that's people who make at least five edits, not just creating accounts!)

Of course it could be improved, and I in fact think we should make more tests, but my life away from Wikipedia have so far stopped me from making much of those hopes. Anyway, I think including the user name policy is a good improvement, and the way to do it without clutting the page is probably the one that Kotniski suggested previously: "simply choose a suitable username...".

Thanks for reading.//Hannibal (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC) (PS. By the way, we have seen bad user names both before and after this change. If you want to see if there has been a change in this, I suggest you do a comprehensive study. So far nothing suggests that it has inspired more trolls to create accounts.)

Good point about the trolls. Someone who creates an account with a name like "I did your sister" expects to be blocked, he's just here to do one drive by trollsy action or to see how many article he can replace with "POOP" before being blocked. My point is still valid for promotional names though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some people want to get caught :-) However, do I take it that you think that there has been an increase in promotional names? And what is that hypothesis based on, please?//Hannibal (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there was an upsurge in registration it seems (it was not just seasonal variation, I presume) but do you have any estimates for how many username blocks were handed out before and after the change? I've seen some anecdotal evidence of good faith editors not reading the linked pages and registering as "fan clubs" etc., which seems to be prohibited. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The stats were collected at the same time (people were randomly taken through one of three different account creation processes), and these numbers were then compared both to each other, and to a baseline we had established.

Unfortunally, the project was very limited. We did not test if the number of promotional names increased or decreased. I have seen several people state that the missing user name policy would (or did) increase the number of promotional names), but so far there is only anecdotal arguments to support that. I would rather try to find out which of the following alternatives is most accurate:

• promotional user names have stayed roughly the same after making the user name policy less prominent
• promotional user names have decreased in frequency after making the user name policy less prominent
• promotional user names have increased in frequency after making the user name policy less prominent - in essence nullifying the number of new active editors (e.g. 9 new active editors vs 15 new users with promotional names)
• promotional user names have increased in frequency after making the user name policy less prominent - however, this fact is made less important by the greater influx of new editors (eg. 9 new active editors vs 1 new user with promotional name)

This type of statistics are still possible to get, thanks to the Customerusertemplate function. It's just a matter of actually doing it :-)

Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, we need these statistics, unless the WMF would like to handle unblock requests made by corporate or organization editors who did not know the username policy. We cannot target the real root of the problem until we know what it is. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for minimal change

I've looked through Lennart's report and he does have A/B testing evidence that the shorter page (ACP1) leads to more new active editors registering than when using the old one (ACP3). So, the prudent thing to do here seems to be leave it as uncluttered as possible, and simply change the word linked as proposed by Kotniski, i.e.

changing "simply choose a suitable username..." to "simply choose a suitable username..."

• Support. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - common sense, really. Acather96 (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I basically support any change that makes it simpler and cleaner for users to create an account that doesn't immediately get them bitten. I advocate all forms of help for noobs. I would take the idea further than this minimal change but any small change in the right direction is good. fg^t_c 08:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Because they always get hit hard by the IPs while the event is going on. I know we don't preemptively semi pages but I can we get a consensus to make an exception?--Adam in MO Talk 04:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose On the one hand, I know that there are large numbers of edits to UFC pages when UFC events are going on. On the other hand, they're not all vandalism. I'd be more for the "place admins and vandal fighters on alert and raise the wikiDEFCON when the event starts" tactic.
  Wha?
  05:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Svens remark that "
  they're not all vandalism". fg^t_c
  05:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose any preemptive semi on non-critical pages. For the same reason I oppose and will always oppose pending changes : this is a wiki. We are already making the "anyone can edit" slogan into a half-truth, let's not make it an outright lie. Disruptive edits will be reverted, disruptive editors will be blocked, non-encyclopedic articles will be deleted, and that's that. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - we want to encourage new editors to articles. We shouldn't let the vandals ruin it for others. Deal with the vandalism, and only protect when absolutely necessary.  Chzz  ►  08:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Fair enough. I am clearly in the minority. But lets be accurate about this those pages get up to 15 edits per minute, of mostly vandalism. The vandals are ruining it for everyone already. And having your edit conflict time after time because the vandals are moving so fast, and then only then to have it vandalized immediately is not very encouraging to new people. Add this to the racist/homophobic/misogynistic trolling on the page and it seems like a no brainier. I guess it comes down to which philosophy you maintain, openness or accuracy.--Adam in MO Talk 20:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

While the vandalism is current and virtually impossible to control I support semi-protection of any/all pages. This is/was a proposal for semi-protecting pre-emptively that flies in the face of one of the main ethics of Wikipedia: The assumption of good faith. If and only when the pages ARE (not might be) under constant attack they should be semi-protected and a template or other suitable message placed at the top of the article encouraging enthusiastic editors to suggest changes to be made on the talk page until the page protection is (and it should be) lifted. fg^t_c 00:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, the user does have something of a point. Those who are saying that we should wait for vandalism to occur may not know that

page protection requests can at times sit for half a day before being acted on, long after the article has been thoroughly plundered. For events like these, it seems like most of the insane editing is going to come during and right before the event itself, and I bet it's more likely than not that the protection won't be implemented until after the event is already done. That being said, I'm not really sure that the problem is so horrible that we want to pre-emptively protect pages. Personally, I think this is yet another reason why we need the VandalFighter user right, one of whose "abilities" would be to drop 1-6 hour semi-protections, just to stop such egregious and time-sensitive attacks. There's a lot more vandal patrollers (a meaningful proportion of whom could probably get this right) than there are admins who are patrolling RFPP. My guess is that sporting events may be an extra problem if they take place on a weekend, as I feel that's when admin activity drops down lowest. Qwyrxian (talk

) 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively if RFPP is too slow and its a big deal that a page isn't protected ANI could be used for its actual purpose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is also no chance of an admin-rights split out to give people the ability to make 6 hour protections - you can't get one to edit full protected pages which is far less serious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How about an alternative proposal for software supported automatic protection for pages edited n number of times per hour? The protection being administered in the form of an editing break. The edit tabs all shut down (or vanish all together (better)) for n number of minutes and an automatic header notice opens explaining that "Due to high editing rates this page is too tired to deal with all the stress man. Like I'm having some time off dude! Come back in n minutes." (or words to that effect (I need a cuppa)) Then after n minutes have passed the ability to edit reopens (for refreshed pages (although it could be dynamic people would just wait and try to be first past the post)). Possible, fast, relatively easy to implement, non judgemental (since it shuts everyone out (accept admin)), efficient and would solve the problem for all articles (so not weighted in favour of any particular article(s). fg^t_c 08:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like not a great idea, as some events more fast and attract large numbers of edits and you want to encourage more editing, not less. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Although, anyone with something worth waiting to add is more likely to be adding something worth waiting for. Most vandalism seems to be simple opportunism (thankfully little seems to be thought through). If the opportunity is removed only those who are dedicated will come back later and be happy to do so since they understand why they must. Anyway, just a thought. fg^t_c 08:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Although people might also not come back later to add good content because life is too short, and they might well come back later and vandalise to show that they can. Its difficult to know what people will do to be honest - its always worth suggesting stuff though - more suggestions are good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an utterly horrible idea, because it could very easily lock in a horribly vandalized state. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If the page under lock-down defaulted to a safe page version last set as such by an admin and the hatnote (suggested above) stated as much it would not be left in a horribly vandalized state and it would provide breathing space for editors and admin to get organized. It was just an idea. Something to expand on perhaps. We already have word from an admin ((Qwyrxian) who should know what they are talking about) that an issue is often that admin can't respond as quickly as is needed but, with an auto-lock-down, time would be granted. Sure, as I left the suggestion, there would have been the possibility of a messed up page been locked. I did suggest that admin would still have edit access though and if the page is under brutal attack no responsible editor can control, it would be no worse to lock it than to leave it open and in constant and server straining flux. More importantly, if a proposal or suggestion seems floored in any way it is better to suggest how it could be improved upon than to simply toss the baby out with the bath water. fg^t_c 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that idea at all. I don't want our admins to be in the position of deciding what a 'safe' version of a page should be. Content choices are what editors do and should be left to that. A semi would keep the vandals at bay and let the editors fix the damage. I am just trying to brainstorm here and find out what is the best way to mitigate the vandal swarms that pop up from time to time. I think that ultimately the grassroots nature of the project isn't nimble enough to put the fires out fast when these things happen. Waiting it out and fixing the damage seems to be the best course of action at this point.--Adam in MO Talk 04:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

According to

WP:RFA. It is a difficulty of Wikipedia that pages are open to attack but that difficulty is also its greatest strength. Whatever is thought of my automated idea I absolutely oppose pre-emptive protection. Once one is passed they'll all want it. 6,812,365 articles!! Either they are all (until there is no sensible choice) open or none are. fg^t_c

05:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Who better?" All of us is better then a few. I know full well what

RFA is all about. But we are all in the business of making content decisions not just a few. To those few go the tools and the mops, as it were, to keep the project working and that is it. I think where you and I differ is in timing and scope. I oppose in all forms a full protection, even if automated, unless there is cause, and ip vandalism is never a cause for full protection, logged in users cause that.--Adam in MO Talk

06:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. We protect FAs when they go on the front page. I don't see why if there is a well-known problem with UFC-related pages during UFC events, it would be so bad to semi-pp them. If there is a well-known problem with this kind of vandalism, that would rather show that the assumption of good faith has been broken. I assume good faith when I walk down the street, but if the street becomes filled with pickpockets, you don't have to carry on believing there is good faith. Assume good faith... but be prepared to find a solution when the person fails to live up to your assumptions. That said, I don't know whether the UFC proposal is a good idea or not. —Tom Morris (talk

) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Normally, if an article has been nominated for deletion and the outcome of the discussion is "Keep", one clicks on the talk page and click on the hypertext link that takes one to the discussion. We are told in these discussions "Please do not modify it" (the discussion), but how do we know that people really are not modifying the discussion? Is there a technical way to prevent people from editing these discussions - in other words, to protect them? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but if I comment in a deletion discussion, then I add it to my watchlist, and then leave it there indefinitely. So, even if someone modifies it months or more later, I'll still see it. In fact, it can actually be a helpful tip off to someone who intends to do something untoward in actual mainspace (especially when I see someone modify a discussion where the result was to delete). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I don't think I've ever un-watched a deletion discussion I've participated in. (Of course, many deletion discussions only have two or three participants, who may no longer be active.) @ACEOREVIVED, is this a preventative suggestion, or have you noticed some vandalism to closed deletion discussions? 28bytes (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the

 

23:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt a malicious editor has much to gain from changing an old deletion discussion; they can't actually change the end result. Also, very few people would read it again, it's not in article space... so it's hard to do much damage other than waste a couple of editors' time with "Why would somebody edit an old AfD?". bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for directing to "Don't stuff beans up your nose" or giving a wikilink that directed to that article - I have never ever seen that article before now! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Old discussions sometimes get modified several months later from people retroactively changing their signatures after a username change (see the history WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts for an example). It allows people who've decided to edit under something other than their real name to at least try to stuff the genie back into the lamp, which I guess I don't really see the harm in. I can't remember ever seeing anyone do it for malicious purposes, though I suppose it could happen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that vandalism to old deletion discussions, if it happens, isn't as bad as vandalism to other pages - it's read by few users, all of who are presumably with Wikipedia's "page history" feature, and it's usually simple to know which version is the correct one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. This might have been discussed before, however I'd like to make the proposal and see if it floats. I believe names using characters that are not used in an everyday language, such as ʔ (recently adopted by

It's one thing if you had a name like User:兔子, those are actual characters in a written language, and I am in no way saying that we should do away characters from other languages, however it's an entirely different thing if you choose a name that exists in no language and appears on no keyboard. Windings, phonetic symbols, and the like are difficult to find, identify, or even name, and that presents a large number of communication difficulties. There is little to no redeeming factor that would outweigh the difficulty that these cause.

My proposal is that effective as of this gaining consensus, new accounts using such characters are to be prohibited (users would be asked to pick a new name, and blocked if they don't comply, as is done with other abusive names), but old accounts will be grandfathered in, but strongly encouraged to modify their usernames.

Thoughts?

talk

) 08:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When we try to convince IP editors to register and get a name, one of the reasons we give is to simplify communication. A name that cannot be easily typed in the way the user displays it does not simplify communication. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot easily type Chinese, Arabic, and a few other languages as well. How fast can you type, say, Σ, א, خ, or 子?

talk

) 08:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but other users come from other projects that either use those languages as primaries or are multilingual. That's why we don't ban all non-English characters.

Wha?

08:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are

talk

) 10:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't immediately see how non-Latin usernames complicate communication. How often is it actually necessary to physically type an editor's username? If I want to write

Uʔ's name in a discussion, I copypaste. If I want to visit his userpages, I click the links in his signature. If I want to view his contributions, I look at his last edit and use the link there. The fact that I can't type "ʔ" on my keyboard (and I really can't; I have no idea what combination of keystrokes I'd need) doesn't actually inconvenience me or prevent me from communicating with him. Since the username policy specifically states that non-Latin usernames are welcome, I tend to assume that the current consensus does not see them as disruptive. Yunshui 雲水

08:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That assumes that he's already in the conversation.

Wha?

08:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I should note that ʔ appears in the "IPA (English)" section of Wikipedia symbol insertion toolbar. If this information shocks someone into realizing their English can be written in IPA as well, then I may have contributed to their sum of knowledge a bit, I hope. There's no easy way to insert Chinese using Wikipedia's toolbar however.

talk

) 09:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

wɛl ðæts kwajt jusfəl. θæŋk ju. Yunshui 雲水 09:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Two issues:

1. Most Asian characters for me are boxes so the topmost example of an acceptable user name is unreadable for me whereas the Glottal stop shows up just fine.
2. The bulk of our interactions on Wikipedia are such that we need rarely reference another user by name. As long as the wikilinking works it doesn't bother me if the letters don't even render. If I need to talk to Mr or Ms boxboxbox, I would (in most situations) just click their link and post to their page.

It is the limitation of my own PC that stops it from rendering some unusual characters. The fact that Mr boxboxbox and Ms boxboxbox are hard to distinguish is occasionally frustrating but as I already said, I see User Glottle stop and User Triangle just fine and the family boxboxbox are using accepted characters.

Since there is no way to be sure what viewers will be able to render what characters (outside a very limited selection), if this proposal carried any weight at all, we would have to ban the use of all unusual characters from the whole of Wikipedia. As long as people do good work and/or enjoy reading and can be contacted if needed, I really don't see a problem worth upsetting anyone over. Apart from anything, having a triangle for a name is really rather cool -- fg^TC 09:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yunshui - your posts have simply reinforced my point. You can type my user name directly with the keyboard.. The obvious abbreviation makes it even easier. While it is possible to copy and paste more complicated names, and do all sorts of other tricky things, why make it harder than it needs to be? (A work colleague told me recently that she needs someone to teach her about "this cut and paste thing", so don't assume skills.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should continue to be up to users' own discretion. No-one's obliged to use a user name anyway, so if you use one that makes it a bit harder to communicate with you, that's a downside that you're presumably prepared to accept. Allowing people to express their identity in ways that appeal to them (as long as they aren't offensive) is one of the things that keep community spirits up.--Kotniski (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an odd response. Obviously the user with the weird name is comfortable with it, and "prepared to accept" it. It's other editors that things are being made harder for. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes... so since the user was under no obligation to provide a user name at all, we can't really complain if he/she provides one that isn't quite as convenient for us as it might have been.--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So, having just brushed aside my point about who has to accept it, you now completely ignore the point I made earlier that one of the reasons we give when suggesting that editors register is to make it EASIER to communicate. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, let's ban all unusual characters and give all of us numbers... you can henceforth address me as User:78753965245671 09:49, 26 October 2011

And that response is just silly. (Or was it meant to be?) HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Good grief. Let's kill this proposal off and then dump it in

WP:PEREN where it belongs (I'm sure we've had it a time or two before, but can't remember where off hand). Since we have global accounts, it makes no sense to ban characters which are part of a language (at least for those languages with WMF projects). Taking that as a given, there is no reason to ban non-language characters: They are no more (and often less) cryptic, hard to render/type, etc. than the foreign-language characters. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.}

10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a bad faith post. After several editors have given reasons above, you say "there is no reason". Quite insulting really. Disagree with them perhaps, but don't claim they don't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, there's no good reason, as demonstrated by the rest of my post. Jayron32 restates my point, below, in much more eloquent language. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is to restrict freedom of expression for some users. In the grand scheme of things, perhaps, it is a comparatively minor restriction, but a restriction nonetheless. The benefits advanced for doing so seem mainly theoretical, rather than practical, and to the extent that they are practical, the justifications set forth for protecting some types of difficult-to-type names but not others are not convincing, to me, at any rate, and I happen to detest IPA characters. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is covered by

• Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 2#non-latin names
• Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 2#Protest
• Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 3#Non-latin characters and Unified Login
• Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 4#Latin character server suggestion
• Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 4#Latin character transliterations
• Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 8#Non-latin usernames, revisited
• Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 10#Introducing a term: The المستهلك Test
• Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 17#disruptive use of non-Latin usernames

As you can see in archives 3 and 4, the arrival of SUL resulted in a nearly immediate reversal of the old policy. The question was brought up again as recently as August 2011, at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I know this isn't exactly easy, but I would support banning non-Latin characters that look like Latin characters. Stuff like the dotless i, or maybe Greek letters like omicron, if that has a Unicode. Too easy for someone trying to make trouble to register a username that's not the same as an existing one, but looks the same. --Trovatore (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • talk
    ) 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:☂ says, "…this is really venturing into instruction creep territory."

In fact I don't think it is. This isn't

instruction creep because the concern being expressed here does not pertain to the content of articles. Bus stop (talk

) 22:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm.

talk

) 22:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's another concern entirely. The notion of "instruction creep" would never have arisen in the first place if we were not involved in the ostensible practice of writing an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This proposal will fail for the same reasons other, similar proposals have failed: (a) There is no clearly definable criterion for what an "uncommon" character is, or just how uncommon it has to be in order to be intolerable; (b) we have to tolerate lots of uncommon characters coming in through SUL from other wikis anyway, so the few users who choose uncommon characters here for frivolous reasons don't really add any significant weight to the problem, in proportion to the many who have them for the obviously legitimate reasons. Sure, choosing a hard-to-type name just for the fun of it may come across as annoying, but trying to stop people from being annoying by making rules about annoying behaviour is an exercise in futility. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Annoying is debatable. Editing Wikipedia is a political statement as it was demonstrated during the Italian Wikipedia strike. We should keep Wikipedia as open as possible while observing its primary role as an encyclopedia.

talk

) 23:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this proposal probably won't pass. We have a better chance of amending our signature policy to require that at least a portion of any signature must be in local-language characters on a given local-language wiki (English in this case since we have no jurisdiction over other wikis). In such a case, our example User:兔子 could have their signature appear as '兔子 (English alias)', giving other editors at least something to refer to them as.

talk

) 23:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That already exists; see

talk

) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I know about that section, but it has no weight. It's a suggestion out of courtesy and countless editors don't follow it. I'm suggesting it be required, rather than recommended.

talk

) 23:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a good idea. Just consider the editor who makes only a few edits here like interwiki links, etc. After he makes his first talk page post, boom, an admin warning (or block) lands on their talk page requiring them to change their signature. Quite WP:BITE-y. Perhaps have Twinkle detect non-Latin characters in username and add a polite message alongside the welcome screen instead? I would support that.

talk

) 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose can we put this under

WP:SUL; with all of the writing systems and whatnot, it is nearly impossible to, at first glance, tell if some character is part of another writing system which I am unfamiliar with, or is a non-linguistic symbol. Given the royal pain in enforcing such a proposed rule (does every admin have to scour through pages and pages of writing systems before deciding to block a username for containing non-language symbols?) and the lack of reason why a non-language symbol is somehow more of a problem than a username in Greek or Cyrillic or Japanese, I really don't see any reason why such a rule needs to exist. Let me state that again: There's no reason why a non-language symbol like ʔ or even ♠ is somehow more of a problem than, say, a Japanese character. Given that the latter are allowed, there's nothing disruptive about the former. --Jayron32

00:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did check for a

WP:PEREN entry, before making my post above. ;) Might be time. – Luna Santin (talk

) 00:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Σ is a character in a written language. There's an old thread on
  WT:UN that may be relevant. →Στc
  . 01:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose a specific criterion. However, I think common-sense should tell us that "
  User:ʔ" is confusing to the point of disruption, and should be forced to change.  Chzz  ► 
  03:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't find it confusing, and certainly not disruptive. I'd far rather someone had a distinctive username like that than something unmemorable like JohnSmith2479. I can't quite type it, but so what - when do I ever need to type someone's exact username? --Kotniski (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I need to know an exact user name all the time. You don't always have access to a diff which you can copy. And in this particular case, ʔ is close enough to ? to be actively (deliberately) confusing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Since there's no active user ?, I don't think it can be deliberate (and hardly confusing either). Can you fill me in on the situations where you need to type someone's exact username, not having a diff or signature or something to click on or paste from? It doesn't seem to happen to me. The thing I find genuinely annoying and confusing is people who sign themselves by one name when their username is actually something else (I don't mean you, since you tell us your real username in your sig).--Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
        • It'd be confusing if ever I needed to refer to him by his user name without his being active on the page I was referring to him in as I'd need to go poking about looking for a diff or a mention of him to be able to link to him. Additional examples include if I think an editor might have some expertise on an article he hasn't previously edited, and want to visit his talk page, or if I'm referring to an editor on ANI (or any other discussion) for whatever reason, such as past precedent. It is in everyone's best interests if editors pick user names which are easy to write and remember, and deliberately abusing Unicode for giggles does not help at all there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
          • In the spirit of friendship and compromise, I have created a page you can bookmark that will help you if you ever find yourself in that situation:
            talk
            ) 18:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Non-Latin usernames are just as (if not more) opaque than symbols for most people, so I can see no good grounds to disallow symbolic usernames unless perhaps they're pathologically complicated & unintelligible (e.g. User:₦✠Ωα✄☂☎☣). --Cybercobra (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

IPA is a symbol set, not a language, and AFAIK, outside of linguistic circles, is practically unheard of in the USA., while it is use is widespread in multilingual Europe. We've had hundreds of complaints about readers not understanding the 'gibberish' for the phonetic transcription on article leads. I'm fully in favour of the IPA where it is called for (hmm... because I work with it anyway) but I think it is misplaced in usernames. I was also never in favour of non-Latin names on the en.WIki, unless the sig carries a Latin transcription. Normal diacritics such as ü, é, è, ä, are standard keyboard chars and can be accessed through Shift+Option combinations etc. Chinese can't, and can't be pronounced, and hence cannot be retained in memory. Most other common scripts such as Cyrillic, Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Devanagari, and Thai, etc are very easily accessible on a Mac even if most of us can't pronounce them, but I'm not sure about PC if the fonts are not installed. ∑'s sig infuriates me no end, because we collaborate a lot ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt a useful policy could be drafted that would prevent people from being

WP:DICK while at the same time accommodating legitimate names in non-latin writing. However, I think dismissing the problem on the basis of cut-and-paste is wrong. When communicating with, or about, an editor, it is often necessary to cut-and-paste several things, such as the URL of a diff and a passage of text the editor wrote. But there is only one clipboard (or if there is a way to have several, few editors know about it). At some point it becomes necessary to open a separate text editor to hold the various items that need to be pasted, but having a user name that can be typed will reduce the need to resort to opening a text editor. Jc3s5h (talk

) 11:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick did into Google will reveal a whole host of freeware or very cheap desk accessories that do just that. They will store and insert any number of frequently used characters or even paragraphs on a short keyboard combination. It's also great way to insert your custom 'template' warnings and welcomes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't use it myself, but I'm informed that Firefox with the Clipple extension makes such multi-copypaste jobs a breeze. Yunshui 雲水 12:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia. Arguing about generally confusing usernames is unproductive. Choosing a username that most people wouldn't know how to say (e.g., none of my friends know what a glottal stop is) is unwise. But what's done is done. So let's stop arguing and hope that in the future, people will be more considerate of how others communicate to them by choosing easily typable or referable usernames. (For example, let's say I forget that the symbol stands for "glottal stop", and I'm only trying to refer to that user so I don't have anything to copy-paste ... do you really have to be so inconsiderate as to make my life unnecessarily hard just so you can have the username that is "cool"?) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "looks like a question mark", "looks like a sickle"? I wouldn't be offended. Actually someone above objected precisely because it looks like a question mark, which can't be a user name on MW anymore.
    talk
    ) 21:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Special:contributions:? leads nowhere. Whether or not the interface allows one to create that username, it has a non-negligible chance of annoying and frustrating other editors who wish to get to one's user page / talk page / contributions list / comments one has made. At least with editors whose usernames are obviously in a non-Latin script there is notice in advance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • On a related note, the correct link is Special:Contributions/?. →Στc. 23:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Seriously, this is trivial to solve.
          User:ʔ. Henceforth he can thus be referred to as "user questionmark". Yoenit (talk
          ) 23:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
          • I thought that there could be no User:?, but apparently I was wrong. For some reason the account list tool takes forever to list it. There is no SUL for "?", but there are a bunch of unattached accounts on various wikis: [2] (Oddly enough, if you try to click on them from there, you get a "bad title" page on all wikis. Something to do with the URL encoding, I guess.) Anyway, thanks for trying to help me, but that redirect is not really needed anymore because I've changed my user name as you can see. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Once, I thought about changing my username to some frivolous unicode character. But you know what? I used common sense and realized that it would extremely inconsiderate to other users and would furthermore be completely irrelevant to the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm not about wasting other peoples' seconds. If someone else wants to do that, I'll just avoid communication with him or her. Not my problem, not my loss. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose totalitarian "I don't like it so I'll ban it or tax it" attitude - this is silly. Like many users, I can't type most non-Latin characters, so should we ban zhwiki and jpwiki editors from editing here? Greek? Russian? Nordic? What exactly is the particular issue with symbols that could possibly justify a double standard? To me there is no difference in the amount of effort needed to refer to ☂ or 兔子 in a discussion. It's in both case a small effort to search for the username and copy and paste the characters, perhaps annoying, but hey, life is tough and unfair and what not. — CharlieEchoTango — 23:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the subject is active: As I stated earlier east-Asian characters don't render for me (I'll get it sorted when I update my old and frankly rubbish PC). When editing pages that have boxes instead of the characters they are supposed to be; I am worried that as I save the page I am destroying the originals and replacing them with boxes. Could someone please confirm that this is not happening? Since I have saved this page and it has boxes (east-Asian (I assume) characters) on it (in signatures and as examples) there is no need to look at other pages I have edited to check. Thanks. -- fg^TC 07:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, you didn't break anything. If you're ever in doubt, you can go to the edit history and look at the diff of your edit; the software will highlight the paragraphs you've changed or added, and if a paragraph with the boxes isn't highlighted, it hasn't been changed.

talk

) 08:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Further to what umbrella says: if you see boxes, it means you just don't have the right font, but the underlying character is still there. If you should ever see question marks instead (on a Windows machine), that's a warning sign, because it means some non-unicode program has actually mangled the underlying encoded text. But that should never happen when dealing with wiki stuff on a decent modern browser. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both . I've checked edit diffs repeatedly while worrying and so far have seen no accidental changes. For now I shall take your word for it and muddle on. There are good reasons why I really ought to know a lot more about this than I obviously do. I won't bore you with the details. -- fg^TC 09:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposal is doomed, and I've started a description at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Require_usernames_to_be_easy_to_type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This may help

I have created a "unicode usernames" list of active user accounts that contain characters not found on a standard English keyboard, for the convenience of folks who have trouble typing them. You can find it at

• Wow. Lots of Princes running around. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, we're all special
    talk
    ) 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, at least the flake part ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask someone with toolserver access (like Δ) to create a proper list. I'm sure there are thousands of editors that should go on that list.

talk

) 19:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure there are thousands of active editors with that type of name. Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC).

Exchange all instances of {{Image gallery}} with {{Gallery}}

We have two templates for generating image galleries that seem to be redundant to each other, namely {{

WP:BOTREQ. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk

) 13:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Image gallery still works? Then why would you make create a bot (task) and make a number of bot edits for no actual benefit? Perhaps we can focus on things that are truly a problem (copyright violations, hoaxes, missing articles, badly translated ones, unsourced ones, POV articles, articles that need a more worldwide point of view, ...) instead of replacing something that works with something else that works?

Fram (talk

) 13:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is the reason for the proposed merge. Merging the two templates seem sensible. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 13:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it. Can you give examples of articles where the bot replacement of image gallery with gallery would be an improvement? And can you assure that such bot replacement wouldn't be making things worse on other articles at the same time?

Fram (talk

) 09:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like something that ought to be discussed at

WP:TFD, as part of a proposal to merge the two templates. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Feel free to go ahead with it. I'm short on time right now. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Foreign character warning boxes

[copied from Village Pump (idea lab)]
All these take up quite some space, esp. when placed at the top of the page; it's distracting, and pushes down infoboxes. I'd like to get some ideas how to make them more effective and less space-consuming. My thought would be to have them as a line, like a header, or some top-icon, or whatever else. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree they just deface articles, if we were to add these to any article containing foreign languages scripts before infoboxes, the damage to the layout is far greater than the trivial information they bring. It's unfortunate that the MOS doesn't regulate this. The first thing you see in an article about something as important as China is that trivial information box...Some other warning boxes are even longer than the Chinese one.

And what about articles containing more than one script? Using the same logic can a user add 2 or 3 different warning boxes to the top? that would be absurd. On top of that we have the other tags (refimprove, POV, linkrot etc), just picture an article with all of this on top. Definitely their use needs to be regulated. --

talk

) 07:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So how about the top-icon idea? That would be as un-intrusive as a featured-article star or padlock-icon... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Great idea, it should be implemented

talk

) 05:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support—Yes I agree. Anything we can do to reduce the informational distractions from the main topic is likely to be beneficial (in terms of the ergonomic principle of reducing mental work-load). Displaying the foreign character message via an icon mouse-over is a good proposal. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[end copy]

We need to bear

Phil Bridger (talk

) 21:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I oppose the "icon" implementation. I suggest widening the box to the width of the info box, and removing the "Image" characters in the left of it. The height would shrink dramatically. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps the box can be presented for those using screen readers, but invisible to those without. There could be some style sheet choice. People with their own .css file could suppress it. It could even be a part of the top icon. For example in 0.1 point font that normal reader cannot see, but that a voice reader would pick up. I always thought that this was for editors that trashed the page by using windows 3.1 or something old taht could not handle unicode. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Move it around to somewhere less intrusive but still up top, sure. Remove the descriptive aspect entirely, so that only experianced users that already know that what the icon means will know how to proceed? Please no. It is intrusive because it needs to be in order to help the large number of users burdened with Microsoft OSes that have little to no foreign language support.
  Wha?
  10:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, as you can see (I hope you read it), the gist of it is that the current implementation is simply distracting, especially when the Manual of style apparently dictates that they must appear over any infoboxes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Question Is it possible to hack it to appear in the sidebar, under Toolbox/Special pages? Designate (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

New Articles - WikiProject perhaps?

I have had peeks at the various extensive pages on Wikipedia like

WP:DEV

) was that after the articles are made, a slow and steady article progress would commence including many contributors until a final perfected product had been completed. I think that this spirit should continue in a project to build the foundations before building our way up. Obviously improving articles will still be of it most priority, but I do think that getting these many backlogged articled out of the way and de-redlinked is a good idea.

Any thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles that you can join. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That project is comprehensive alright, but it is still not exactly what I want to be a part of. The project describes itself like this: "Wikipedia ought to contain articles on topics that other encyclopaedias contain", i.e, it wants to have an adequate Wikipedia page on every single topic listed in Encyclopaedia Britannica etc. This is not what I am saying. All the random articles that have made their way into huge forgotten lists should all be created. Perhaps someone likes a certain topic but never thought to contribute to its growth because there was no such page on the topic on Wikipedia. I think that working together, all these rogue articles can find a day in the sun and be given the chance to grow and flourish in the future, instead of being forgotten under a hundred-page list of red-links.--Coin945 (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery might be the sort of thing you're looking for too. There seem to be loads of projects that encourage page development. I found this at the bottom of a project page I found at the bottom of a project page (and so ad infinitum!). There is one drawback to creating pages for every or any red link; Notability and adequate references that are not primary source would be needed if the article was ever going to be worth the pixels it's printed on. Many red links may be red for good reason. With that said, good luck! Happy editing  fg^t_c 11:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course I will take notability into account, and I fully understand what you are saying. But there is no denying that there are tons upon tons of article that haven't been created simply due to other articles taking greater precedence, because noone thought to add these completely notable topics before, or just because people couldnt be bothered and have taken a "someone else will sort it all out" attitude towards the whole endeavour. Now obviously creating tens of thousands of stubs/draft articles may arguably not be such a good idea, but I really do think it will have some definite value. I will check out that Wikiproject. Thanks Fred_Gandt. :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Stubs are fine, so long as you spend the time on each one to ensure that they are well written and have more than one or two sources. There is a small faction that is content with spawning thousands of two line, one refernce stubs semi-automatically, and I've yet to see a batch done that didn't have a ton of problems.

Wha?

13:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes of course, I understand. When I say stubs, I do mean articles that are readable in their own right, but just havent had the care and love put into them as much as they need to reach their full potential. That is merely due to the sheer scale of articles that will need to be attended to. I only consider a stub to be a paragraph or so long at least, with good refutable sources at least placed at the bottom for someone else to continue doing his/her work, if not properly referenced That should not be a problem at all.--Coin945 (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In my experience such wikiprojects would never work as functionally as they could. Most editors choose to work independently and work at what interest them. We have the missing article project and WP:Intertranswiki and even those are not running as full scale as they could be, far from it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

...ahhhhh... well then I guess it was just wishful thinking.. --Coin945 (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Detector checker

I propose to create a tool for detector disambiguations as

Galician Wikipedia (gl:Wikipedia:Detector de homónimos) and Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:Wikipédia:Detector de desambiguações

) have. This tool is used to detect the links that link to articles that are disambiguations. For example, someone put the link Cuatro in an article in a television program, but would have to be this Cuatro (TV channel). And these links are marked yellow. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the link is yellow, because I use User:Anomie/linkclassifier. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

WildBot used to serve a similar purpose. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove ability for new users to create other accounts

RESULT BY CLOSING ADMIN

This was a difficult RfC to close in being that which ever way you looked at it, (with or without the comments from section 1) I see a 75% support for this proposal. I have to note that there are quite a few users who were confusing this with the ability to create accounts as an IP vs. a user (yes, they are two different things). That being said the oppose argument of this is not something that is broken is a viable argument in this case. Looking at this from the sense of what damage it could do, the only potential damage is a teacher creating accounts for all of their students while logged in. Taking into account a comment below which was talking about how they could just log back out and recreate accounts, that is very true, but as the comment said, would people even understand this. And generally no, your average real world non-regular editor is not going to know the difference. Your socks, maybe, because they have been here a while. But that brings us back to the central point of no damage since the average person doesn't create multiple accounts. Also, for teachers, if they do want to create multiple accounts, they are going to hit the 6 per day on the IP limit anyway, and unless you have a class with less than six students, this is still going to be an issue. Strictly closing this as an admin without my opinion involved, there is a support of most users to go forward with this. But also a reminder that these discussions are not binding, and that another discussion could overturn this. So the root consensus here seems to be that the community supports limiting an account's ability to create accounts. Looking into those who supported, the majority were in support of creation of two accounts but would like to add the variable that !voters may not have clearly taken into account the limiting of this to 24 hours option and could probably use further comments. --

(t) (e)

17:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Developer request filed, per this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For background, see [3] - it is a common MO of a number of serial vandals to create one account, then use that account to mass-create a bunch of "sleeper" accounts. These accounts have no log entries of their own, which makes detecting them through Checkuser impossible until they are used, thus allowing the vandals to continue attacking the site after the main account is blocked. Even aside from these nefarious purposes, I have noticed a number of new users create an account, get confused, and accidentally create another account. Now they have two accounts, and in rare occasions get blocked as sockpuppets because they start editing with the first, then later log into the second mistakenly thinking it was the one they created in the first place.

To this end, I'd like to propose that the ability for non-autoconfirmed users to create accounts be revoked. This may seem backwards, as anonymous users can still make accounts, but in the first example, the serial vandal would have to make a log entry in the checkuser database for all of the accounts, making them infinitely easier to locate and block all at once. In the second case, the new user may be confused by the "access denied" message, but hopefully with the use of Mediawiki messages, we can make it clear that it's because they already created an account and are free to edit. Thoughts, comments, and concerns are welcome.

a/c

) 01:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea but I'm just wondering: once a person sees they can't create multiple accounts while logged in, wouldn't it be just as simple for them to log out and then create whatever number of accounts they'd like to, logging off in between each creation? Maybe the idea is still just as viable because people won't think of this workaround, so it will still be preventative, but I'm just wondering about the mechanics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I saw the ANI thread that led to this proposal, which does sound reasonable. Are there any potential pitfalls of it, besides the "access denied" issue you already raised? I presume the situation of multiple people on one IP address (such as library access, university access) would not have a problem because they'd individually be registering accounts from that IP, right? LadyofShalott 01:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the Checkuser tools but I suppose you know that public logs show who created an account and which other accounts they have created. For example, [4] shows that User:Kentdorfman was created by Hersfold, and [5] shows other accounts created by Hersfold. If it doesn't exist already then somebody could maybe make a one-click script to get these logs from a user page, or display them by default. But if you say the proposal would make it much easier for Checkusers to find abuse then I believe you. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• From a technical point of view, it would be easy to modify the throttle limit for account creations from the current 6 accounts to 1 every 24 hours, however, this would place users at
  WP:ACC at a severe disadvantage. Also, I'm not sure if it would be technically possible to disallow account creations by new users. If the createaccount right was restricted in the user group, then anyone in the user group would be unable to create accounts - regardless of whether or not the user had access to the right as part of another user group. To do this, new users would need to be automatically put in a separate group which would then be removed when they became autoconfirmed... and that would take time and effort on part of the devs. Ajraddatz (Talk
  ) 04:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• For it to stop
  the primary offender, we'll need both a ban on new accounts creating accounts and a lower throttle; 2 or 3 for non-ACC people would seem reasonable. The above-linked banned user won't be any less difficult to spot, as anyone who's seen him knows, it'll just make it harder for him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)I must admit, though, I had to laugh when I saw User:Cloudy with a Chance of Mascots
  ; in a strange way, it can be entertaining.

I just wanted to snipe my 2 cents in here too. I also agree that there is no need for someone to be able to create an army of additional accounts on day one. I think the idea of limiting this ability to Autoconfirmed users is good as is the limitation of only creating 1 account per 24 hours. Additionally, it should be possible to write a sql report against the database to see if a user has created another User account and in particular if they haev created multiples. It may even be possible to determine if those accounts have contributed. Let me do some asking around and see if that is possible. --

talk

) 14:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible step forward - there is no good reason for non-auto-confirmed users to be able to create multiple accounts. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I see this a good direction to explore further. I am puzzled at the above comment that users at

WP:ACC would be disadvantaged by this change. I assume that the people who handle requests at ACC have the ability to create accounts in large numbers if they are needed. Also, why would the creation of a new account by a registered user not show up in their own log? Can't all users (not just checkusers) see what other accounts someone has created? EdJohnston (talk

) 20:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They can (and that's one of the reasons it's so easy to nail MascotGuy socks), but new users probably don't know how to check that. I see that happen with some frequency when I monitor the new user log; a person will join as Davidsmith, then (for instance) create the account David smith, because they thought that's what their account was named in the first place (there are a couple scenarios where that might happen), and they end up confusing themselves. Our logs aren't exactly easy to find if you don't know how to get to them, so although it shows up there, a new user won't realize what they accidentally did. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Only those with the accountcreator flag are free of rate limits, so new contributors to the ACC would be at a disadvantage. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why not improve the logging so that the account creations appear in the log that the checkuser reviews? Seems overkill to restrict the ability when the real problem seems to be the lack of the log entry for the Checkusers to see. Monty₈₄₅ 22:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  How so? What do you mean by appearing in the log that the checkuser reviews? Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I think it'd be a simple log that shows each account creation with either a user name or IP address, restrict access to checkuser only. If someone starts making a lot of enteries then the check user will be able to see it easily also by checking thru the log they can identify every account easily. Gnangarra 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Special:Log/newusers? Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

      The rationale for the change was in part: These accounts have no log entries of their own, which makes detecting them through Checkuser impossible until they are used fix that and restricting creation is unnecessary as I understand it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would support cutting the limit of accounts that can be created by new accounts (or non autoconfirmed accounts, whichever) to one. TNXMan 14:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• I echo Tnxman above for non-autoconfirmed accounts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that the reason why multiple accounts are "authorized" is due to the fact that the only check here is to see if the same IP address is being used to create multiple accounts. For users at something like an internet cafe, at a school, or some other activity where multiple people can be using the same computers and/or ip address, putting a throttle on new account creation actually can keep some legitimate users from being able to create accounts. Yes, it would be a rare exception for when this situation would happen (such as a classroom assignment for some tech class of non-Wikimedia users simultaneously creating accounts in a short period of time), and the real question would be to ask how many new users with genuine accounts would this impact? It would not be zero people, as I know this has happened, but my experience is that such efforts are usually quite rare, on the order of once or twice per month if I was being extremely generous (more like a couple of times per year). In this exceedingly rare situation, an instructor could also get some cooperation from an admin to help out in terms of simply creating the accounts as well, so I don't think it is necessarily the end of the world. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• If the root problem here is that these "secondarily created" accounts don't get log entries, surely it would be just as easy to develop a way to make this be logged in the same fashion as normal account creation?
  talk
  | 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think there are two issues getting confused here. One is the ability to track account creations with the checkuser tool. Let's leave that aside for the moment.
• The bigger issue here, I think, is someone registering an account and then using that new account to create multiple other accounts (not multiple people registering one account on the same IP address or anything like that). There is simply no reason for someone to create an account, then use that account to create multiple other accounts (see this log entry). TNXMan 18:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  That's the problem I have as well. Anyone who watches the new user log will have seen innumerable similar log entries, and the way it's set up now he's allowed to multiply x6 (this is what can be done with the current throttle), making it that much more annoying because admins have to block all the accounts and non-admins can't do anything but report, watch, and wait. I can't think of a good reason why a newly registered account would need to create more than one new account (and then only for things like softerblocked usernames and the like). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I found out that it is possible to create a report that would tell if someone used their account to create another account even if that account has never been used. I don't know how useful it would be since technically its allowed until they do something stupid with it but I thought I would drop a note and let you know. --

talk

) 19:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have thought that Special:Log/newusers was created many years ago. You seems to be unaware of it. Ruslik_Zero 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Lower the limit of account creation in a 24 hour period by non-autoconfirmed accounts

A discussion at

WP:USERNAME policy. There are two proposals, one to lower the limit for non-autoconfirmed users to two accounts per 24 hour period, the other to one account per 24 period. Cerejota (talk

) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC) moved from ANI as per

WP:SNOW, only moved !vote, not discussion on moving here--Cerejota (talk

) 20:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Two accounts - Otherwise, inappropriately named accounts cannot create a
  per-policy account except by waiting 24 hours. Reaper Eternal (talk
  ) 20:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Users should be permitted to create one original account and one additional account, if needed. TNXMan 20:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• What Tnxman says above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Tnxman's proposal sounds sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Tnxman307, there's a legitimate reason for creating one additional account (if a person is soft-blocked for username violation but encouraged to create a new account) but the only reason I see to create more accounts is sock-puppetry. -- Atama頭 22:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two accounts per twenty four hours, to allow newbies to ACC to be able to do stuff and so that inappropriate usernames can make a new account. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Forgot to !vote, lol: yeah what Tnxman said for the reasons Atama said.--Cerejota (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• One original and one additional only per Tnxman Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two accounts in 24 hours per Tnxman. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Although the title of this section mentions non-autoconfirmed users, it doesn't state that in the body of the text. Not trying to be nit-picky, but would somebody mind adding non-autoconfirmed to the body of the text so that this proposal doesn't inadvertently impact the
  Account Creation Team? Thanks in advance. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V
  ) 04:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Another mindless proposal that will only serve to turn Wikipedia into a club with restricted access. I also do not understand why the above proposal was discussed for only one day before a consensus was declared? And why are we now asked to determine an exact number if there was no consensus above? There are also doubts that it is technically feasible to do. Ruslik_Zero 19:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As a developer/hacker familiar with MediaWiki, I can assure you that it's feasible. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two accounts an original, and a rename for an inappropriate first try. Should the individual screw up a second time it's not hard for an admin or accountcreater to give them a hand. For that matter, it should be two accounts per 24 hours for ALL individuals without the admin/accountcreator flag, but that's another discussion for another day.
  N419BH
  20:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, don't see evidence that the vandal situation is out of control enough to inconvenience anyone. Per
  WP:DENY, we don't make policy to deal with single vandals anyway. —Kusma (t·c
  ) 20:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree that is not a problem. TNXMan 20:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah I think we are editing different wikipedias :)--Cerejota (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Kusma, we're not talking about a "slight vandal" here; read
    this, and watch the new user log for a couple of days. There are others, but he's the primary annoyance. Frankly, this should have been done years ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい
    ) 22:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two accounts seems very reasonable to me. — AlexSm 23:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two accounts per Tnxman & others in support.--JayJasper (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two accounts per Tnxman et al. If they need more (how often does that happen?) they can ask an admin for assistance. Herostratus (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• weak oppose I understand the problem but the discussion here seems to fall into the category of "I just made one account here and I'm fine". We should be careful creating strict technical limits on the basis of a sampling of long term editors alone. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two accounts. Not sure this is really a common problem, but two accounts seems pretty common-sensical to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two accounts Makes sense to me. -- Donald Albury 11:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ruslik0. Perhaps this specific vandal's behaviour is annoying, but this would be weird even to document - how to explain why IPs may create up to 6 accounts per day, but registered users may only create one? Makes no sense to me. As an active account creator, I can also say the ACC process isn't pleasurable and should be avoided within reason when it's possible. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two seems fine, although consideration should be given to placing a similar restriction against IPs per KuduIO. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not convinced that anything is broken. This measure would only force vandals to log out before creating many sock puppets, making those which are not currently doing so much harder to spot/verify for non-privileged users. If the checkuser tools don't provide this information, then the checkuser tools should be fixed, not the servers. Hans Adler 07:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support - I spend a lot of time fighting vandalism, and in the case of persistent vandalism cases (Holy Land USA is a good example) this would have been a mitigant. People are lazy, and like other "soft deterrents" this would be a curb. One account a day is plenty. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Two accounts is plenty. bd2412 T 13:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Protonk. Ironholds (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How about treating this like aspirin?

Is the issue really # of accounts in 24 hours or # of accounts in a short period of time? What if we had a limit of 6 accounts per day but 2 per hour? Or even beyond that, 2 per hour, 6 per day and 12 per week? Protonk (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But why do new accounts/non autoconfirmed users need to create that many accounts? I just don't see what anyone would do with that many accounts. TNXMan 11:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Will be teaching a class of medical students coming up. They will all be creating new accounts from a single IP. Would this proposal interfere with that?

talk · contribs · email

) 11:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, this only affects users who create an account, then use that account to make more accounts. Editors that use one IP to make multiple accounts, per your example, would be fine. TNXMan 13:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I can think of a few reasons, but my point is the restrictions should match our goals. It doesn't need to be 6 per day but it is pointless to just say "well no one should need that many accounts." I'm just suggesting a solution which nets the same benefits but keeps an overall rate limit closer to the old one so we don't curtail legitimate use. Protonk (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, a few things. First, Protonk, what you suggest is possible (I think), but honestly is it needed? I think that 2 per day would be fine, no real need to make it more complicated from there. Doc James, yes this would affect you (and Tnxman you are wrong, the reduced limit applies for the IP and not accounts), but you can request temporary accountcreator flag at
  WP:RFR to allow you to bypass the rate limit. Ajraddatz (Talk
  ) 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to know a single hypothetical or real scenario for which a non-autoconfirmed user might want to create six accounts a day. Name just one. I have a rather wild imagination and I cant think of one other than puppetfarming. Autoconfirmed users do have at least one reason, which is to help the article creation team, but even then that's a right.--Cerejota (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A professor creating accounts for his students. It's happened before, several times. We've always had to use the accountcreator right for that, though. And puppet farming is stupid if you create it from your same account. Then it's logged, and what's the point of logging your sockpuppetey? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to

this guy, then; he's been doing that since 2004. He seems to just like doing it, and the throttle now lets him do this, which is 300% the annoyance compared to lowering the threshold to 2 accounts. And he does this at least a few times a day. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 17:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not annoyed by MG. If you are, it is your problem. Do not try to solve it at the expense of others. Ruslik_Zero 18:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That you aren't involved in fixing the damage he creates is your problem; don't foist your laziness on those of us who are trying to do something about it. Give me one good reason why a new editor would need to create 6 accounts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is there is no legitimate reason for anyone except an accountcreator or sysop to need the ability to create six accounts in one day. The only example of a need for more than two that has been thus far brought up is a professor creating accounts for students, and this requires the accountcreator anyway.

N419BH

18:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, that reason was provided several lines above your comment, but you seem to have ignored it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well a higher account limit would allow for professors to make accounts (or the students themselves, if the computer lab parcels out one IP for dozens of computers) without being dragged through PERM or ACC. Both processes are (no offense to participants there) a pain in the ass. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay so if I need to create a hundred accounts in the span of a few minutes for a workship at McMaster [6] how do I go about doing this again? Will I need to create them myself and then hand them out?

talk · contribs · email

) 05:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In your case, you should be fine, as you're an admin. For others, it shouldn't be too hard to go through the ACC people; if this is implemented, we'll of course want to make ACC easier to find. Perhaps a note in the login window about it would be good. That is the only reason I can think of a new user would need to create so many accounts, and we have a way of doing it that won't open us up to the annoyance of malicious users doing it. @Fetchomms; I didn't ignore it, I merely think that our ACC process can already handle it, and new users should arguably go through it already. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you've used the ACC system before (as a volunteer, not applying for an account) but it's a bit of a hassle if we get a bunch of requests at once, to check that they're all from the same IP, then create them, and then tell the requesters to check their email for a password, etc., etc. This could be addressed if there was a better way to request accountcreator (and if the account creation limit was displayed more prominently somewhere for professors/teachers/etc. to see), but it's still annoying. It would also mean that basically every ACC volunteer will get the accountcreator right, which has the side effect of being able to edit editnotices (unless they changed that), and people have messed around with that ability before. Anyway, MascotGuy won't stop creating accounts if there's a lower limit; it just means a minute saved for admins blocking them. But he's so easy to detect there's no real problem there. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems he'd not the only one doing this at the moment; see [7]. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm missing something, but all those problematic usernames weren't created by other accounts as far as I can see ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's me not thinking straight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

IPs would still be limited by this throttle. This would also slow down this kind of crap. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to reduce the timeframe from 24 hours along with account creation, say perhaps 12 hours or similar? You can argue that would have the same effect in stopping a good amount of disruption as with 24 but would minimize much of the collateral damage caused. –MuZemike 18:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's possible. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone clarify for me - are we targeting an actual problem here? Yes, MascotGuy is annoying. He's also just one person - last time I checked, we didn't make technical changes which affected every new user based on one person, or, for that matter, on "it makes my life a bit easier, and that's the only concern" - although some of the people I see in this discussion seem to have a track record of believing that things work that way. Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  Reaper Eternal linked to another vandal who seems to like mass account creation, and I've seen this happen elsewhere too (a whole series of accounts named User:Tim Pawlenty's DNA, User:John Boehner's DNA, and so on with various Republican politicians' names). Yes, MascotGuy is the primary annoyance and the most visibly obvious one, but it's not just him. And finally, I'm pretty sure Filter 360 was set up last summer to help prevent one particular IP-hopping user from spamming something, which was configured to nail IPs and non-autoconfirmed users. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

  So...three. You're restricting account creation to deal with three people, one of whom, by your explanation, seems to have such an obvious modus operandi that an edit filter would work a lot better. Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  The examples were meant to be demonstrative, not exhaustive, but regardless I'd be fine with simply making an edit filter to handle it. I don't much care how, more that it gets done in some form. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spell checker (spellchecker)

I propose to create a tool, the spell checker (spellchecker) como

Galician Wikipedia (gl:Wikipedia:Corrector ortográfico) have. This tool marks misspelled words in red, introduced previous in a list. --Vivaelcelta (talk

) 14:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. If you can get people to code it and provide the spell checker with enough of a data set, it could be very successful. On some internet browsers, I believe it is already possible to spell check content, though. Still, I would likely use it if it turns out well. Marechal Ney (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this mark questionable spellings when the article is viewed, or only in edit more? If only in edit mode, it would be a decent addition. Monty₈₄₅ 05:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The FAW box at

WP:COFAQ#SPELL, which appears to be out of date, says the contrary. Now might be the time to have one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs

) 09:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Any modern browser now has a spellchecker. How would this interact? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Any modern browser now has a spellchecker"? How do I access the spell checker for Internet Explorer? A deficiency of the Firefox spell checker is it can't ignore wiki markup. A plus of the Firefox spell checker is one can choose between UK and US spelling (but not the Oxford variant of UK spelling). Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(Sidestepping the definition of modern) IE10 has spell checking,[8] and older versions have had an add-on for quite a while.[9] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The spell checker mark the words of the article when it is viewed, but not in edit mode. But that's good, because when we are seeing an article, we see the errors now, without having to view each article to find errror. Incorrect words should introcucirlas in a list like this: es:Wikipedia:Corrector ortográfico/Listado. And everyone can edit. The code is available in any of the articles of the other Wikipedias, simply have to change a couple of facts.-- Vivaelcelta {discusión  · contributions} 17:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

League of Delegates

OK, this is a little outside the box, but thinking about the some recent pretty contentious kerfluffles over article titles --

Sega Genesis and Mega Drive

-- how about this.

In my opinion, it would be functional if we had a chief editor to decide these things. The point is not to make a "right" decision but to make a decision and move on. Granted our rubric is for the community to hash things out and find the best answer and that usually works, but sometimes it just devolves into endless and pointless bickering about trivial stuff that just wastes energy. Anyway, we don't have a chief editor and maybe that's best, but suppose there was a WikiProject composed of people who agreed as a group to step in perform this function.

If a situation came up -- I'm thinking mainly of titles right now -- where these four criteria are met:

1. There's no obvious "right" answer.
2. It's not really important (titles are seldom very important assuming that redirects are in place to get readers to the right article -- it's the article contents that matter).
3. It's contentious and sucking up a lot of oxygen.
4. There's no clear consensus or supermajority emerging -- it's stuck.

Then the members of the project could, after deciding that these four criteria are met, decide by some method -- random number generator, majority vote, pick the "side" that seems to be marginally "ahead", whatever -- which argument to support and go support it en bloc. You know, if you had 20 editors show up and all say "I agree that the title should be 'Shuck and jive' rather than 'Jive and shuck'" or whatever -- that'd help put the matter to bed.

Granted "votes" aren't supposed to count, but realistically, in the absence of agreement, supermajorities have a great deal of weight, often decisive weight. Changing the headcount in a discussion from 13-10 to 33-10 matters a lot. (Note that [[WP:CANVASS (only a guideline anyway) allows (indeed encourages) broadening participation of a neutral and nonpartisan nature, which this certainly would be.)

I dunno. I agree that this sounds very strange, but, you know, it might well be functional. Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A pretty interesting idea, but I feel like there would then be too much drama over the composition of the group. Maybe it would be better to have some sort of coin toss page, where each element in a debate gets assigned a number, a button is pressed to draw a number from random.org, and whoever gets it gets their way? That way, it's purely up to chance, without the possibility of even more pointless debate about biases in the chief editor, etc. since there's no human intervention in the decision making. Of course, both of theses solutions beg raise the question: how do you get the debaters to agree to this method? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's actually possibly a good idea but the drama factor would likely be high and it'd be attacked (with some justification) as "un-Wikipedia" (whereas endless sterile arguing is (sometimes) very "Wikipedian", I guess). Well,

WP:3O is a kind of random-number solution in that you both agree to abide the opinion of the first editor who happens along. But that's only good for minor small-scale disputes. Hmmmm.... there is {{Random number}}... maybe if the debaters are all tired enough there'll come a time when they agree to use it. I'll keep that in mind. (BTW thank you for striking "beg".) Herostratus (talk

) 04:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose both ideas The idea of an editor group that solves disputes by making a decision and forcing the discussion to move on is intriguing, but fundamentally flawed. When you have issues as contentious as territorial disputes, or other contentious issues, there is no way that this will work. One side is always going to continue to disagree, and unless the "chief editor" has the authority to block upwards of a dozen people, the argumenets will, if anything, escalate.

Secondly, this goes against Wikipedia's model in a big way. Wikipedia dosen't have a "Chief Editor", that's one of the big distinguishes between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias. We have the consensus model, which functions 99% of the time. When it does, you don't hear about it, which is why the number seems high to anyone that watches AN, AN/I, and ArbCom. The creation of something like this would be a massive turnoff, and could cause a mass exodus of editors, as it would mean that our very core is being changed.

Finally, random numbers is an even more terrible idea. The idea of solving disputes by removing context and discussion and making it based on chance flies in the face of our policies, not to mention basic academic integrity. It would ruin Wikipedia's reputation. "The encyclopedia where everything is decided by random chance".

Wha?

05:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge of

Long-term abuse

Lets merge Abuse Response (formerly Abuse reports), and Long-term abuse. Abuse response takes reports from IPs that were blocked and reports it to the ISP (or responsible place). While that, Long-term abuse keeps reports of users of them. The two of them are like sister projects, as Abuse Response and Long-term abuse are specialized places for actionning vandalism. The 2 big and only differences are that 1 takes users, and the other, IPs. The other difference is that for LTA, we normally don't contact the ISP, or whatever (with a couple exceptions). They are just points of reference that aren't used that much. So with a couple of small changes, we could easily merge the two projects (which are pretty disorganized too). ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 22:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Abuse Response and Long-term abuse are specialized places for actionning vandalism" - Well, yeah, they are specialised areas that deal with issues relating to users. However, the idea that all specialised forums are similar in that they're all specialised (in other words, they aren't similar at all) and therefore should be merged into one general forum is fundamentally flawed (yet seems to be something that you have been pushing for insistently recently, e.g. Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Re-formatting/Discussion#Main). Abuse report is a forum that deals with reporting IP address to ISPs; LTA is a forum that documents MOs/other information about long terms offenders (e.g. Scibaby, etc. etc.) for the sake of reference. These are two forums that provide distinctly different services, and merging them without demonstrating any real need for such a merge (or even really demonstrating much understanding of what they are (e.g. "The 2 big and only differences are that 1 takes users, and the other, IPs" is very simplified)) seems unnecessary. Please can you provide an actual reason why they should be merged. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Abuse response and vice-versa. –MuZemike

22:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add a warning or link in the MoodBar that feedback text is subject to community policies

For background see

WP:NPA violations in the feedback log, and administrators have to police that and smack the users afterwards. Currently the MoodBar gadget has only a tiny link to its terms of use found at foundation:feedback privacy statement, which give general information about the licensing of the feedback information, but no indication that practically everyone can read that feedback, nor any information about behavioral rules that apply. Of course, the English Wikipedia community has no power to alter a foundation page or gadget, but we can ask them to provide a link to a local Wikipedia page as well (either in their foundation page, or in the MoodBar itself), where the community can provide additional information and rules. ASCIIn2Bme (talk

) 17:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to watchlist a special page, either with a script or some other way? Monty₈₄₅ 18:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. It's probably best that you ask the developers on

WP:VPT. ASCIIn2Bme (talk

) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't believe there is currently a way to watchlist changes to a special page, though I bet it's theoretically possible for it to be added. There are lots of ideas for the further versions of the tool here, and if you want to do stuff like watchlist changes, you should speak up on the talk page. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not possible to watch special page because it's a special page not an article, as such has no revisions to watch, anyway it's possible to implement the watchlist inside moodbar special page, so that its changes could be logged on watchlist, it would be complicated anyway, possibly doesn't worth that modification. Petrb (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just warned a user for a personal attack directed at a specific editor, which was in this thing. But I cannot remove the offending comment - as I would be able to if it were on any other type of page. I think that is a concern; in this specific case, it's really no big deal - but what if it was libellous or a death-threat or something?  Chzz  ►  12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, administrators can hide any of those comments from public view, which is practically the same thing as deleting anything on Wikipedia short of wp:oversight. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, administrators can - I can't. That means that effectively, these are fully protected pages. There are additional concerns, but I will raise those elsewhere per

WP:BEANS.  Chzz  ► 

15:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I requested a oversight of an e-mail-address (which was successfully done). mabdul 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to extend this for anyone else than sysops. Petrb (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It was hidden (from non-admins); it was not oversighted/suppressed.  Chzz  ►  16:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop editing between 11am and 11:02am, or at least prompt user about it

I am disappointed to see so many westerners editing between 11am and 11:02am today. For next remberance day, how about introducing a feature that asks them if they really really really want to? It should be individual choice of course, but people should at least be reminded. Willothewisp (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily 11 o'clock in their timezone. After all, you described them as "Westerners" which is incredibly broad. In any case, a script could probably do this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

We are an international and multi-cultural project. Not everybody in the world observes Remembrance Day, nor can everybody be expected to even know or care about it. Other countries have other days of remembrance. Are we also going to pop up such a message to everybody editing in Israel on Yom HaShoah 10:00? Or to people editing in Turkey on 10 November 09:05? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Willothewisp (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose People, including Wikipedia editors, have the right to observe or not observe such events as they see fit. To prohibit them from editing is to deny them that choice, and is contrary to the spirit of both Wikipedia and the democracy which the remembered soldiers fought to preserve. If people want to observe Remembrance Day, nothing is preventing them from doing so. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; it is not our place or mission to proscribe or encourage such things. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Although a noble thought, I agree with the last oppositional comments. If any user wants to stop and remember, Wikimedia isn't stopping them and shouldn't provide a guilt trip either. In fact I find that kind of thing (especially around this time of year) quite off-putting. Banners with cartoon pumpkins or holly sprigs in the corner. This is an encyclopaedia not a shopping mall. fg^t_c 11:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh??? What is a "rememb[e?]rance day", why should I care about it, and what has it got to do with these specific times? So far I thought of myself as a Westerner, but that doesn't seem to be what you mean, either. Hans Adler 12:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Remembrance Day fg^t_c

I don't think it's appropriate for a world-wide project such as Wikipedia. If I were going to make such an observance in a more appropriate environment, my first task would be to figure out what time zone, if any, was observed on the battlefield(s) in 1918. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Those being remembered fought and died for our freedom to live without others telling us to follow their brand of patriotism. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but this is not a "free encyclopedia that everyone can edit except on a certain time at a specific memorial day of some specific countries". —  
  TALK
  14:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - NPOV. →Στc. 22:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was wounded in both Northern Ireland and the Falklands and know that respect must be freely given - if it is imposed it is not respect and is meaningless. Kiltpin (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• While I figure it's moot, I'll just point out that, for example, in the United States, Memorial Day is held at the end of May, while November 11 is designated Veterans Day and is meant to pay tribute to all veterans, live or dead, wartime or peacetime service, and we certainly don't designate a specific time of day to do so. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yeah, and please also on following full days also: Sunday, Friday (for our Arabic users), Volkstrauertag (for our Germans), Christmas (for our Christs), Hanukkah (for our Jews), and other geographic and religious holidays. -_- mabdul 23:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Current Events

I'm looking for a consensus for new categorization of Current Events contents. Please come here and discuss about that. LyJPedia (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Shared IP talk page archiving

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus seems to lean strongly towards doing a test for two months, archiving complete threads every two weeks. Contingencies that would delay archiving until the next automated date would be an active block notice or active discussion. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

---

As some of you already know,

running some A/B tests

of common user warning templates. In the course of analyzing data from the first two tests, we've realized that shared IPs pose an extra challenge, because their talk pages are filled with dozens of warnings that are months or years old. That makes it all but impossible to tell whether or not our new messages are having any effect on those users.

Not only is this getting in the way of our current analysis, but it's probably hurting new editors inadvertently, too. Our hypothesis is that shared IP talk pages, which are cluttered with tons of old warnings, are probably discouraging good contributors (who click on the "You have new messages" banner and see a wall of warnings not meant for them) and encouraging bad-faith ones (who do the same and think it's okay to vandalize Wikipedia because everyone else seems to be doing it). This is just a theory, but it's one we can actually

test empirically

– in brief, we were thinking of dividing the list of shared IPs in half and setting up a vigorous archival system for the test group (possibly using MiszaBot III or a similar user talk archiving bot), so that their talk pages will only display the most current messages.

Does this sound like a good idea? If so, it would be great if we could get the assistance of a bot operator to help us set up archiving for some 1000+ shared IP talk pages, since that kind of thing would be not so fun to do by hand :) Let me know if you're interested!

And if you're interested in our template tests in general, you should feel free to sign up for our

task force, which we're running with the gracious help of WikiProject User warnings. If you have ideas about other tests to run, we may just have the time and resources to try them out... Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk

) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I always collapse the old warnings with {{

Old IP bottom}}, but I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk

> 21:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to mass nuke all old IP talk pages? If the page hasn't been edited in a long period of time the messages are irrelevant. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If we get somebody with a database dump to run some clever queries, we could easily produce a list of pages. Or I suppose we could start from transclusion lists for {{

sharedip}} and the like. Dunno how practical is is, but it's certainly possible. – Luna Santin (talk

) 00:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can do one better than that, I have access to the toolserver. just let me know what you need. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just as soon delete the warnings -- how often is anyone ever going to take an interest in a wall of old warnings? I don't see any utility in keeping them around, but I could be missing something. What sort of schedule are we looking at? Bimonthly, maybe? I worry a little bit about triggering extra "new messages" banners. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How we can set it. We can't nuke all IP pages at once. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should nuke everything and start fresh just yet (though maybe after we see the numbers from a month-long test, we might want to have a discussion about the idea). A/B testing appeals to me because it will actually show us the effect, in quantitative terms, of walls of warnings. And that's good to know in general. It's not exactly a secret that the amount of warnings on user talk in English Wikipedia has skyrocketed over the past few years; what is still a bit of a mystery is what kind of an impact that's having on the community overall. If we see a huge difference between the two test groups, that will start to give us some clues.

As for how often to archive, I'm thinking even more vigorous than that: how about archiving every hour that there are no edits to the talk page? Is that too crazy? Remember, we're talking about shared IPs here, some of which change hands as often as every few minutes. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

1 hour is far too quick. I would say 30 days. While a shared IP could be used by several users concurrently, vandals on that address have a habit of returning. When I see an IP vandalize a certain article, or articles within a topic, then come back a few hours or days later, it is pretty

obvious that it is the same person. Super-fast archiving would make it harder for us to monitor such behaviour. The overall idea is sound, however. Resolute

23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's entirely possible that shared IPs frequently represent multiple simultaneous readers, but in my own experience they very rarely represent multiple simultaneous editors -- in terms of editing, I'd say that changing hands even once or twice a day is fairly rare. That's not to say we can't consider IPs which do have multiple simultaneous editors, but there aren't very many of those. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good point! Will have to think through this a bit more... my instinct is that a month is too long, though. Perhaps a week? I mean, after that long, does the warning even have any real reprimanding power anymore? ("You did something bad... a week ago! Stop this instant!") Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, as to the time between multiple editors, you're probably right that minutes is an exaggeration, but I've definitely seen my fair share of several hours' worth of difference. Just came across one in coding: compare this and this diff, both made on the same day by the same IP. Not the norm, but not uncommon, either. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Touche. If you plan on using MiszaBot (or anything like it), I believe the wait time can be configured case-by-case. If this is adopted as a long-term strategy, we might look into some guidelines on setting varied archival rates, based on a quick glance at each IP's contribs in recent months; if it makes the research easier, though, defaulting to a week should be fine. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You are possible forgetting one thing: If/When the warnings are to be removed, the "you got mail" banner should be removed as well. I don't know if this can be possible in the current version of MediaWiki, or if an feature request needs to be pushed onto the poor developers. _→AzaToth 00:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that IP talk pages covered in warnings are a bad thing and am impressed by this attempt at a solution. I am of the opinion that IP edits should be peer reviewed and realise this is hugely contentious but worth a mention.

Could ALL IP talk pages be patrolled by a bot with a specific task to rather than archive old warnings simply delete them? Warnings that have either worked or for some other reason not escalated past #2 could be blitzed after only a day (I think). Whereas warnings above #2 could be left in place for a week. I sincerely doubt that warnings more than two weeks old are going to deter anyone; whether the IP user they were meant for or a new vandal (assuming the warning was appropriate in the first place).

Perhaps the most prevalent issue here is the impression given to a new user allocated an IP with past warnings who's intentions are entirely honourable. As mentioned above they could be put off or even insulted into misbehaviour (some folk are sensitive). In this case, having a large friendly intro on EVERY IP talk page, that is never removed explaining that "being an IP...if warnings...not meant for you...blah blah blah" that really hits the message home would be enough to calm potentially bad reactions to all the old warnings (not suggesting that removal shouldn't happen but that this should accompany it). I know these messages are already used but they are far less obvious than some WARNINGS!!.

So in summary:

1. Good on you for thinking of how to improve the experience of casual users.
2. A bot used to clear rather than archive would be awesome if:
   1. It cleared different levels of warning at different intervals; leaving more severe warnings in place longer.
   2. It left in place a large friendly page top intro template saying "Hiya! " that is far more jazz-hands than any warnings below it.
3. That along with these actions there could be a reconsideration that IP edits could be peer reviewed before deploying or not. -- fg^TC 01:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My threshold (personally) is 12 months. I've dealt with some unique IP addresses that love applying a very specific set of changes that they don't get the picture and aren't willing to conform to an already established consensus that has been brought to their attention multiple times. In the case of these IP addresses, they only show up for editing a TV series and vanish into the woodwork once the series is complete. Hasteur (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the mentions of possibly deleting old warnings, there was a case in March 2009 where a (now former) admin aggressively deleted old IP talk pages using an unapproved bot (deleting the page, not just the content). Part of the resulting flack involved strenuous requests from highly regarded anti-spam admins that old talk pages with certain anti-spam user warning templates be retained as it had been found that often spammers used particular IPs over a long period (years), and it was useful for anti-spam patrollers to be able to quickly review the past history of warnings, which sometimes included useful side information such as links to related discussions or related spam (e.g. people spamming x.com often also spammed y.com). While I agree that clearing old IP talk pages is an attractive idea, there should be a central discussion with wide community involvement (and a notice at places like WT:Spam). Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

An excellent point. Archiving seems like a perfectly fine solution to me – especially since I'm a big fan of wiki-excavation and like the idea of preserving as much historical onwiki discussion as possible, even the nasty warning variety :)

So, it sounds like folks are generally supportive of this test. Do we have a bot op in the audience who might like to help? Should I float this to

WP:BON? Maryana (WMF) (talk

) 17:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, by which I mean

WP:BOTREQ? (So many noticeboards...) Maryana (WMF) (talk

) 18:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Some notes:

- There is no need to disable email notifications about tp changes, since mw doesn't warn such people.

- It's needed to somehow overturn the you have new messages after that clean up, it's possible to do that as a one time database clean up, or with mw extension which would allow certain people modify the tp in "silent way", depends on how long is this going to take.

- Imho, nuke is very good option, the warning history should get lost together with warnings, it only confuse the tools. Anyway if you need I can help with all mentioned tasks from mediawiki patch till bot which automaticaly do this. Petrb (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not have the bot subst in (along with the standard "shared" template) a note saying "This is a shared IP address, so this maessage may not be intended for you. Warning messages to previous users of this address have been [archived]. We welcome your contributions here." or something reasonably cheery? Franamax (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This is slightly perennial, and is not non-controversial (as Johnuniq already noticed - I think I was the admin blocking the deleting admin in that case ..). Please do realise that some warnings are used as 'proof' for further actions on Wikipedia. I am fully against outright deletion of old talkpages of IPs which have not edited in a long, long time (I have seen POV editors on rotating IPs coming back immediately after a year page protection - if their old talkpages are gone it is very difficult to see the scope of the problem; I have seen spammers coming back after months or years - also there it is very difficult to find old warnings if the talkpages are deleted, even for admins). Note that some 'vandals' will come back, albeit that they use another talkpage, they are the same person. If the history is invisible, a non-admin can not say 'I know you are the same person as who spammed there, and I know you have received final warnings before there and there', it becomes 'I know you are the same person as who spammed there, but I have to go through a number of warnings again before I can do something'. Even for admins, having a list of 20 IPs, but all talkpages deleted or redlinked does give work to see which ones were deleted, browse into the deleted history, see if there were warnings, and for non-admins this is simply impossible to do. Also, if domains get added by a series of IPs, we need to be able to show that sufficient attempts have been done to warn the editor before blacklisting. Having a blacklisted domain and not being able to show the sufficient warnings makes that type of proof less transparent (and it does need admin intervention). This also is to help non-en.wikipedia-regulars in cross-wiki vandal/spam situations, they also do not have access to deleted pages.

I am therefore in favour of blanking or archiving of talkpages (if archiving is done by a bot no message flag will be set - I do not get messages if Miszabot is archiving my talkpage), but am against deletion of talkpages (I know this is not the suggestion here) - also after they were blanked years ago (old blanked user talkpages may even contain other discussions of interest, not only warnings). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually you get that message even when bot change it, but I will check the configuration of enwp to get more details. Petrb (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am sure that Miszabot does not trigger it. Maybe it is the combination of 'minor edit' and edit-by-bot (example edit: diff), or that the bot is only removing and not adding anything (but it sometimes updates the template, so that is not it either). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right, didn't know that. Petrb (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that the pages should be deleted. I oppose even a test that does that. It seems quite a few other users above have similar reservations - mostly, because of the lack of traceback for repeat-offenders, particlarly to non-admin vandal-fighters.

I conditionally support a trial of a bot to replace stale warnings with an appropriate friendly message, on condition that a) the message indicates that previous warnings were removed, and b) that we can agree on a time after which the bot may perform the edit. I think that is the key problem in moving forwards here;

I do not think it is appropriate to remove warnings after less than one month. It seems above, that some other users think an even longer time - up to a year - is necessary. The problem there is, if the IP has not edited for a year, then it is quite unlikely that any statistically significant portion of a relatively small test-group will edit during a short trial.

The actual bot-task would not be difficult, and a number of people - including myself - could code it without much difficulty; but if/when there is consensus here for a trial, I suggest placing a

BOTREQ so that the due process there can be followed.  Chzz  ► 

15:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Including a notice about old, irrelevant warnings doesn't make sense if that appears to the IP editor who we don't want hit with old, irrelevant warnings. That would kind of defeat the purpose of the whole exercise. I do think it would make more sense for the bot to automatically log all its actions, like 28bot does here with test edits. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The notice would not need to be bitey about the old warnings, it could be 90% welcome message, with a small note that the IP has a history, with a link to where the warnings are archived. The note would not even need to mention the history is of warnings. That way we are friendly to new users of the IP, but the information is readily available to those who know what the message means. Monty₈₄₅ 18:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think it will affect the 'niceness' of the notice if, at the end, it has something like, Stale warnings were automatically [difflink|removed] from this page. or similar.  Chzz  ►  06:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I never really found out why this bot is running, but the list of never blocked IPs with a talkpage who haven't edited over a year can be found at Wikipedia:Database reports/Old IP talk pages. Yoenit (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm pretty sure someone/thing is still deleting or blanking old IP talk pages. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC).
  
• Comment. IF:
  1. No deletion; in other words, the bot must archive, rather than delete; and the archive pages should be at least semi-protected, so a "friend" of the IP cannot delete them.
  2. No "archive by move"; in other words, the bot must retain the history.
  3. Bot edit summary indicates what has been archived (i.e., number of level 1-4 warnings, blocks, and unspecified warnings removed)

  Then it's somewhat acceptable. Otherwise, not, per (for example) school IPs which only vandalize once a year would not have an appropriate record. Unless we're willing to permanently block IPs....? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support archival (not deletion) of shared and dynamic IP talk pages. I once came across a warning that was not addressed to me while browsing/editing as an IP, and I can't imagine how confusing it would be for a new editor. We can't prevent that in all cases, but I think archiving and replacing with something along the lines of "This is the talk page for an IP address, see history" after a while is a good idea. "A while" is obviously subjective, but my opinion is that 2-3 weeks is fair, that's about the time it takes for my IP to change. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Thanks for your feedback/comments everyone! I'm seeing a bit of confusion here about what's actually being proposed... which is probably my fault, for not being clearer in the first place :) Here's how I'm thinking about this proposal:

• This will be a test, not a permanent change to the system. The test will allow us to see if archiving actually has any kind of positive effect. If at the end of the test we see that it does, then we should probably have a community discussion about making a systemic change. If not, we'll still have learned something valuable, and Steven and I can move on to trying something else.
• I'm proposing archiving, not deleting.
• Because this is intended to be a short-term test, we need to make a significant change, not a minor one, in order to see any results at all. That's why I'd like to see the effect of very rapid archiving – every 72 hours after no talk page activity. I'm taking the 72 hour mark from Twinkle and Huggle, which automatically reset to issuing a level one warning after 72 hours of the user receiving no further warnings. To those of you who have raised concerns that archiving will affect your vandal-fighting ability, here's the thing: the tools many of you are using are already built with the assumption that the person receiving a warning 72 hours later is not the same person who was warned previously, so why don't we push that idea further and hide those old warnings entirely? I'm sure there are many cases where a serial vandal returns, but (according to the Twinkle and Huggle devs, anyway) they're the exception, not the rule. The benefit of archiving is you'll still be able to see those old warnings if you know where to look.
• Again, this is a test that would probably only run for a month or two (to get a big enough sample), and would only affect half of all shared IPs. It's not a permanent change and won't be unless it produces positive results. And if things get ugly, we can always kill it :)
• I really like the idea of an archive banner that has a big, friendly message encouraging the IP to register an account, and I think it would be fine to include some smaller print for vandal-fighters/admins about where to find the stale warnings. We can place that at the top of the test group's talk pages and then log the number of users who actually do register from that IP. So, not only will we be able to assess the quality of edits from clean versus stale talk pages, we'll see if it makes any difference for registration recruitment.

Hope that's a little more straightforward – please let me know what you think! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Post clarification comments

• Support testing. I actually can't see any reason at this time why I wouldn't support this not being a test but simply deployed. All looks quite sound to me. fg^t_c 07:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because 72 hours is far too short. What is the proposed scope of the trial? Are you talking about testing this on half of all IPs? My additional concern is that the last time WMF suggested a two-month trial, it lasted for almost a year and caused enormous turmoil.  Chzz  ►  11:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The test would run for a month, possibly two if our preliminary data analysis showed interesting results. It would affect only the talk pages listed in Category:Wikipedia user talk pages of shared IP addresses – not all IPs, just the known shared ones. And if this really does negatively affect the work of vandal-fighters, we're perfectly willing to pull the plug.

I'm not sure which WMF trial you're referring to, but this isn't actually a "trial" in that sense – i.e., we're not making a temporary change to the system on a trial basis in order to see if we can enact it permanently. We're actually just interested in what's going to happen. We have some hypotheses, but they could turn out to be completely wrong... in which case, we're perfectly happy to scrap this and move on to something else. The whole point of the A/B testing project as Steven and I see it – and this really is just a project the two of us are directing, not some huge scheme in the WMF 5-year plan :) – is not to surreptitiously make a bunch of changes and then call it a day; it's to start a process in which the whole community is continually engaged in testing things like templates, constantly reconfiguring and recalibrating its tools to keep up with the evolution of the project. For the first time ever, WMF has the resources to track and analyze that kind of data and people like me and Steven to do the grunt work :) So, while I do understand where your suspicion is coming from (this kind of quick iterative project is a pretty new thing for Foundation staff to be doing), I think it's misplaced.

Would it help to schedule an IRC meeting to talk about this? I'm on the en.wiki channel all the time, and I'd be happy to chat more with you about this and our other tests. Just let me know a good time for you! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This cmt superseded, 'coz we've been talking elsewhere; nothing nefarious; will post on-wiki when there's something to add; this is just a placeholder  Chzz  ►  21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Chzz's suggestion, a clarification to the clarification:

• The test would run for 1-2 months (unless it creates a problem, in which case we'll immediately kill it)
• It will affect half of the ~40,000 talk pages of shared and dynamic IPs (any talk page with the following header template: {{Shared IP}}, {{ISP}}, {{Shared IP address (public)}}, {{Dynamic IP}}, {{Mobile IP}}, {{Shared IP corp}}, {{Shared IP edu}}, {{Shared IP gov}}, {{SingNet}}, {{Static IP}}, {{Whois}})
• We will archive all old messages except current block notifications. Those will stay in place to alert vandal-patrollers and blocked users.
• For the pages we archive, we'll tweak the header templates slightly (a welcome and more prominent suggestion to create an account, drafts of the new templates
  here
  ) as well as adding an auto archive notice and prominent link to archives.
• I'm proposing archiving every 72 hours (3 days) – the amount of time it takes Huggle/Twinkle to reset to issuing a level one warning. Considering that the vast majority of vandalfighting is done via those tools or bots, there is no reason to keep warnings that old other than in a human-readable archive (which happens to be very clearly linked at the top of the page).
• The archiving will be done by a new bot (mostly patterned after MiszaBot III), which we'll propose at
  WP:BRFA before going forward. Right now Petrb is working on the code, which will be openly available in case anybody's interested :) Maryana (WMF) (talk
  ) 00:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds like a well thought out test that should yield interesting information (one way or the other) about the effect of cluttered talk pages for dynamic IPs.--
  talk
  ) 03:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support the test, but oppose 72 hours as way, way too short. Huggle and Cluebot restart after 72 hours. XLinkBot restarts even after 4 hours IIRC (can be changed in User:XLinkBot/Settings, never really optimized that time - never considered to make it longer, have to think about that - 72 hours seems long, will have a check of IPs with multiple warnings later). However, restarting counting is something completely different than ignoring old warnings already. I disagree that that time should be the same. A relatively slow vandal will maybe come once a week, and will every time get a low level warning, however, that now gets obscured too much as old warnings are archived. Similarly, it may be that one IP is used by multiple vandals, but still is vandalism only - and that is still of interest, even if it is already physically someone else who is using the IP. 72 hours is 3 days .. I would set the archiving to something like 2 weeks or 1 month. Do also note, that if a vandal vandalises a page and leaves quickly - and a bot will warn the editor after that (lag-time of Cluebot is a couple of seconds, XLinkBot in the range of 30-60 seconds due to extensive testing needed), that the new message flag will be set. If that physically the same vandal would return 5 days later (e.g. in case this is a static IP...), the bot would already have archived the page, and the IP would get a confusing page and may not even get it was warned. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Note: I brought XLinkBot in line with Cluebot and Huggle - XLinkBot now 'forgets' also after 72 hours. Did find one obvious case where the warning system could have stopped the abuse faster in this way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Note2: I see above an idea about dependence on warning level. I could support archival of level1/level2 warnings after 1 week, leaving level3 warnings for 2 weeks, and level4 and higher for 4 weeks. Just as a thought (I don't know what Huggle and Cluebot do - XLinkBot parses the last 50-or-so diffs of a talkpage and counts warnings - it does not parse the actual page content (removal of warnings by the 'vandal' is more common than editors realising that they left a wrong warning and removing it then). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but like Dirk, I'd like more than 72 hours. A week, maybe? We run
  WP:PRODs and such for a week because of the number of people who only stop by Wikipedia once a week (e.g., only on the weekends). WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 17:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy to compromise on a week!

But I have to say that I still have very little faith that warnings, even the meanest and nastiest ones we've got, really do anything to deter bad-faith contributors. I'm pretty sure it's actually the good-faith contributors who see those messages that get affected negatively. But I have a hunch that I'm not going to get anywhere if I propose a test (even a short week-long one) where we stop warning people entirely and come up with a totally different system to log level 1, 2, 3, and 4 vandalism – completely scandalous and shocking idea, I know :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1,2,3 system does work, at least to some extent. Plenty of times I've issued a couple of warnings and then the vandal has stopped. Sometimes they've even written 'sorry, won't do it again'. In a few cases, they've even become productive editors.

But there's another way it works too - it lets other users who later see another concern see what has already happened - in a very obvious way. When 'investigating' a problematic user, one of the first things people do is to look at their user talk page. That's not ideal, I admit - 'coz they could e.g. have blanked it themselves - so the 'investigator' should of course look in the history too. But I know they often don't.

That's why several of us here are wary of removing old messages. When assessing the history of a problematic user, to decide what action might be appropriate (such as a specific/level warning, or a block, or whatever), the user talk is often a factor in the judgement call. For right or wrong.  Chzz  ►  19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion (which might help address Beetstra's concerns) - The bot could keep a count of the total number of warnings that have ever been removed from each specific page (adding any previous count), and thus a) add a small-ish text somewhere in the replacement message saying e.g. "A bot has archived 42 stale warning messages from this page" and b) the count can appear in the bot's edit summary.
• I am still concerned that the time delay suggested by Maryana is too short; I still feel one month would be best.
• When we're discussing this 'minimum age before archiving) do we mean a) the age of the warning, or b) the last time the page was edited / the user edited? I think it should be the latter, because if another edit has been added on the page - even if some time after the warning - then I don't think that the warning should be removed.
• Re. block notice - in the above spec it is not clear from "current block notifications" if we will only skip blocks for actually currrently blocked users - and I think that, for a user that has been blocked "fairly recently", we shouldn't archive the talk page even if the block has expired. "fairly recently" would be at least a month - regardless of whatever other "age" we agree to
• It will not be very easy for the bot to unambiguously identify exactly which part/s of the talk are warnings. IP talks can get pretty messy - edits can break up {{templates, users place multiple
  {{helpme}} and {{unblock}}
  and so on. I think the bot should be conservative, and should only remove warnings that it is pretty confident are just a warning. Of course, it could flag up others for possible manual sorting-out.
• The main concern is the age-before-archiving - several users have expressed that that is their main issue; so I think we have to get to some agreement about that, before we can make progress. Maryana, you might be happy to compromise on one week, but not everyone is; Beetstra suggested 4 weeks in some cases. My choice would still be a month; I could probably accept 2 weeks, as an absolute minimum.  Chzz  ►  19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not convinced about archiving school talk pages, unless we are sure that the school itself might not be interested in them. I also think we should keep the last two block notices.
  talk
  ) 19:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If anyone is interested in the old warnings, they will be in a human-readable archive which is clearly advertised with two banners (the archive links box and the message that the archive happens). We're also suggesting that the bot automatically update a count of how many messages have been archived, so people can see the scale at a glance without opening the archive. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• One more concern to add: I'll give an example, which does happen quite often: -a new IP user creates an AFC submission; it's declined and they get help on their user-talk page (e.g. 'how to add references' or COI advice, and/or warnings for copyvio, or whatever). They keep logging in and working on it, over a period of weeks. There would not be any further activity on their talk - if they're working away on a draft, nobody would really notice. This bot would remove all the help/advice on their user talk page. That might be problematic.  Chzz  ►  19:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This example seems irrelevant. We're talking about dynamic IPs only. If that user is working on an AFC with a dynamic IP for weeks or months, then those comments will be spread over a dozen user talk pages, because nearly every time the user comes to Wikipedia, his IP will have changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• So let's focus on the question of how long, since it's a blocker... Based on the comments above, I think archiving every 2 weeks is viable however that means we need to run the test longer than one month to get any kind of statistical significance about its effect. Two would be the minimum, three ideal. If we archive every week instead of every two, we could do a single month for the duration of the test. What would folks prefer? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1-2 week duration with suggestion - the problem with a short duration is that a block could get archived while it's still active. Suppose an IP was blocked for 10 days. It shouldn't get archived until 2 weeks past the end of the block, not 2 weeks from when it was left on the page. tedder (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion, Tedder. Our solution to this is to split the bot task into two pieces: one is the archiving piece, which would happen every 1-2 weeks (whatever the community decides). The other piece is removing block notices that are expired (i.e., when the user is no longer blocked). While doing the archiving task, the bot will not archive block notices. While performing its other task, the bot will archive block notices that are no longer applicable, but not ones that still are. Does that make sense? Sorry if there's confusion about that – it may be more clear in our two bot requests, here and here, which we're keeping separate for clarity's sake. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comments As stated, this test will be carried out only on known shared IP talk pages where the concern is that loads of old warnings and block notices could detrimentally affect the attitude of users who have recently been allocated the IP (and thus for whom the messages were never intended). The test (so it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong)) is to establish an understanding of how to treat shared IP pages in order to shape the design(s) of templates to best serve the specific market (shared IPs). The results of the test would allow the WMF (by shaping their welcomes and warnings) to better encourage IP users to create an account. Also the results might indicate that the established way we warn and re-warn is simply less effective than another way could be. It may of course be found that the present methods work better than the proposed method. The only way to find out is to run exactly this sort of testing.
  • Re-suggestion I suggested earlier on that different levels of warning could be archived after different lengths of time. I see Dirk Beetstra picked up on that suggestion. Since (it seems) the main concern here is what is the most suitable length of time to leave warnings in place before archiving?, I'd like to ask for a re-examination of this proposal. Agreement is forming around a 1-2 week period before archiving. Perhaps 1 week can be agreed as suitable for weak (level 1 & 2) warnings, 2 weeks for stronger with perhaps 3 weeks for level 4 warnings being left in place?

  As Steven Walling has stated: the longer the length of time the warning are to be left on the talk page is, the longer the test needs to go on for in order to gain any useful results from it. Since this test is only on known shared IPs there is little doubt that those warnings are not received by the human they were meant for but are only seen by humans (not to confuse "user" with "address/page/record") after only a very short amount of time. I believe that some dynamic IPs (including mine) are swapped around as quickly as every few hours or less. Thus 3 days was a quite fair suggestion by Maryana. So for archiving to be done only after a week should be more than fair (especially considering that this is only a test, not a set in stone change of WMF policy etc.)

• Summary I believe 1 week is more than enough time for a warning to have it's desired effect and (if left in place) any longer is likely to be detrimental to new users of that shared IP. This test is the only sure fire way to establish if that belief is justified. Since the aim is to learn how best to encourage account creation for users with dynamic/shared (forgive me if I use the wrong terms in places) IPs and to establish (possibly) better ways to warn users, I fully support the tests and suggest that if agreement cannot be found regarding the length of time warnings are left in place that my suggestion of different lengths of time for different levels of warning be considered as a way to compromise. fg^t_c 01:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Fred. RE: archiving different level warnings at different times: I like the idea, but it would present some serious logistical problems. Not only would it make the bot task more technically complex but, as Sven Manguard pointed out in a different discussion, breaking up the causal chain of warnings on the archive page would make it really confusing and difficult for vandal patrollers to reconstruct. That's why I think we should just pick a time that people are happy with (two weeks, it looks like?) and stick with it. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Mhmm. That's a good point (of Sven's). Yes, any present warnings and/or blocks should definitely be in chronological order. Not so sure I mind if the bot gets out of breath but then I like automation! I wonder if now would be a good time to ask for one last clarification followed by rather than a RfC (since we did that already) but a RfFC (request for final comment)? I'm sure you and Steven are keen to get cracking and it looks as if all the bumps are flattened out. If you asked for a simple "support|any", "support|1", "support|2", "support|3" or "oppose" where the number is weeks (without extra comment), perhaps the previous participants would do you the honour of helping you finalize a balance between needed and accepted. fg^t_c 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Steven's plan sounds good to me. If we go with the longer time frame, it will take us that much longer to figure out whether archiving warnings meant for a previous user will encourage more productive work from the innocent, new user of that IP, but there's no deadline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I just read through all the comments and compiled a list (regarding the time frame Maryana and Steven are hoping to settle) of what users have said previously (since there is little response to the request for final comment). If anyone feels I am misrepresenting them, bear in mind two things:

1. I have only drawn the details from your own comments.
2. Don't blame anyone but me for this post. This is not Maryana or Steven's idea. I'm just trying to help keep the ball rolling.

So:

• I agree... User:Eraserhead1
• ...mass nuke all old IP talk pages... User:Alpha_Quadrant
• ...delete the warnings...Bimonthly... User:Luna_Santin
• ...30 days... User:Resolute
• ...2-3 weeks... User:CharlieEchoTango
• 72 hours...
  User:Kubigula
• A week... User:WhatamIdoing
• ...2 weeks... User:Chzz
• ...1-2 week... User:Tedder

It should be born in mind that although I have tried not to twist your statements, these are no longer in context. Please consider answering the request for final comment below. fg^t_c 14:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for final comment

Per Fred Gandt's suggestion, let's move this to the lightning round :)

Would those of you who have participated in this discussion please give us your final word on the following options that are currently on the table:

1. support any amount of archiving time, any length of test
2. support archiving every 72 hours (three days), one month test
3. support archiving every week, one month test
4. support archiving every two weeks, two month test
5. oppose the test entirely

Please note that we're taking our archiving bot through

WP:BRFA, which is where we can iron out the more specific details of its task. For now, let's focus on reaching consensus about the test itself and the question of archiving time. (Big thanks to to everyone who participated and added thoughtful comments/critiques/suggestions!) Maryana (WMF) (talk

) 17:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Any. fg^t_c 02:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• I Support archiving - but still have the concern that if a dynamic IP is used mainly for vandalism due to a location, that 72 hours is WAY too short - every two weeks is IMHO a minimum period. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support 72-hour archiving in particular, but any test in general. 72-hour archiving is a big improvement from the every hour, on the hour archiving we first talked about on the project talk page. 72 hours may seem a bit short, but I think it'll give the best data for this test, and (purely personally) I think one to three extra vandalism edits every 72 hours is a fair trade for the data we'd collect. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Could either Stephen, or Maryana, please finally clarify the final post-final clarification? That's slightly sarcastic; I don't like heading things "final" in general - 'coz it's a wiki...

If this is a trial to "archive the ENTIRE talk page of dynamic-IP talk pages after <n>" then I support it, for n>2 weeks. However, some of the discussion indicates that you wish to archive "block" notifications instantly - and I oppose that. I also oppose any form of archiving that splits up comments and replies. "Task 2" indicates it would remove 'blocked' notices moments after they expire -and I definitely object to that. I think, above, many people support the general notion of archiving the talks of dynamic IP's after a reasonable time - but some of the comments from WMF-staff indicate that the trial would remove some comments after a very short time; I hope it is clear that that notion lacks consensus at this time.  Chzz  ►  00:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have to break up any messages. We suggested it because people were concerned about potentially removing block notices. If we care more about preserving threads intact, that's cool too. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, we seem to have a communication breakdown here; I will try to say it more clearly:

Will the trial remove block notices within 'x days' of the block ending, or as soon as they expire?  Chzz  ►  06:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No communication breakdown. It's just that this isn't a canonical proposal that we designed in our secret lair and are bringing forward for the community to stamp off :) It's a discussion – as people come up with new ideas/critiques/solutions to the problem, the proposal changes.

One of the ideas Petrb had was to use this bot to archive all expired block messages. I thought that was awesome and told him to go forward with proposing that separately at BRFA, since it seemed totally noncontroversial to the both of us. There, Sven brought up the very good point that archiving blocks separately would break the thread of interaction between the vandal-patroller and the IP. Though I personally still think we should be archiving block notices that no longer apply, I totally see his point, and it's not something that has to be a part of this test at all. We can just go with the original idea, archiving talk pages that haven't been edited in two weeks. But the functionality of the bot to detect expired versus current blocks would still need to be there, so that it wouldn't archive any page with an indefblock, for example, or any block that went past two weeks (though I doubt those happen too often on shared IPs). Maryana (WMF) (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• So, it looks to me like this discussion has pretty much wrapped up. And (massive gratitude to Fred for keeping everybody's opinion straight!) it also looks like archiving every two weeks will be the least controversial time span (if you average out the folks who want a month and those who want 72 hours or even to nuke all the messages permanently, heh). I think we should move any further discussion to the BRFA. And thank you again to everyone who weighed in! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewriting Naming conventions for ethnic groups

A new proposal for ethnic groups naming conventions can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#New proposal for "Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes)". -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Proposal to limit use of the "Lists of Russians" template

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to actively encourage IP editors who have contributed well

All too typically (it seems to me) IP talk pages are only filled with warnings, block notifications and occasionally some short contentious disagreements. Although it is of course at each editors discretion whether or not to individually thank other editors, I have seen very few "Thank you" messages on any IP talk pages. There are however (I have added them myself) welcome templates and messages that seem to be only added following a first time (possible) vandalism. These usually have a less than welcoming tone due to their main purpose being to sternly advise. I have seen time and time again good quality work done by IP editors who might become valued account holders if they were more widely thanked and encouraged.

• I propose that editors make a greater effort to welcome and encourage IP editors who have drawn our attention for doing good work.

We have barnstars but although they serve to award they do nothing to educate or encourage account creation.

• Perhaps a template welcome message could be created by the community that we will then be advised (by community guidelines (such as those that guide us to warn vandals)) and encouraged to add to any IP editors talk page after we see them do good work on any article we may have been watching or simply visiting. I'm not suggesting sweeping change and policy rigmarole. I'm suggesting more of a spirited drive to thank casual editors for their efforts.
• A knock on effect would be that all IP talk pages carrying these "Thank you"s will have as their first message a big helpful thank you message serving to enlighten any new user of that potentially (words escape me) anti-static IP. I hope you'll take this proposal in the spirit it is proposed and even if it leads to no great community effort each reader will consider adopting the proposal in a personal capacity. fg^t_c 21:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that we ought to have something like {{

Welcome-anon}} and {{Welcome-anon-vandalism-fighter}}? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup! And the drive to use it/them. I didn't know of those exact templates but have used similar. I assumed there might be some somewhere that could be used. Maybe I am looking in the wrong places but since signing up I have heard a great deal about making sure vandals are warned and dealing with IPs. I'd like to hear and see more about encouragement and support. If equal or better still greater weight was given to encouragement and support of new users and anon IP casual editors than is given to warning and watching out for and banning and monitoring and blocking with semi-protections, we might see more involvement and less bickering, warring and blatant vandalism. Anyway, I didn't intend this to be my soapbox so that's the pitch! (Thanks for the template links WhatamIdoing) fg^t_c 03:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way: a good term for an "anti-static" IP is a dynamic IP. bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Mhmm that's the one! TY  fg^t_c 00:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is a very good idea, and it seems to be within the scope of
  WP:WC, except the fact that the Welcoming Committee only features recently created user accounts, and it is rather tedious to praise IP editors, simply because there are many of them. If an easy, perhaps automated solution could be implemented, such as those suggested by User:WhatamIdoing, I'm sure this would work well. Tarheel95 (talk
  ) 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  WP:TWINKLE offers a semi-automated welcome system that includes several templates specifically for IP users, including the two I linked. Getting people to remember to use them is the bigger challenge. Automated systems have been rejected repeatedly (Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use_a_bot_to_welcome_new_users). I like to leave the subject-specific {{subst:MedWelcome-anon}} on pages when I see unregistered users doing good work at medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk

  ) 18:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• So, this is pretty much what I'd like to get at with
  task force? (Shameless self-promotion!) Maryana (WMF) (talk
  ) 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mhmm. I fully support that testing. Great idea. I recently (due to posts here and there on these subjects) found {{

Welcome-to-Wikipedia}} (at this time more suited to welcoming than thanking and account holders than IPs. But the style is great) and am very impressed indeed. I asked Magister Scienta (the creator) to add another feature and he added it almost immediately! I strongly suggest its use and support. What I originally wanted to propose here is a WMF drive to suggest encouraging IP users (whether shared or not) to create accounts by thanking them for their edits (where good) in much the same way we are encouraged to warn vandals. As I stated somewhere above: I have seen multiple times suggestions to warn but very rarely (if ever) seen suggestions to thank. I'd like to see more suggestions to encourage and assist than to deter and dissist (couldn't resist (did it again!) the rhyme). fg^t_c

01:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on my own version of the welcome template I mentioned above. Just mentioning it. User:Fred Gandt/sandbox/templates/Welcome fg^t_c 07:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gee, didn't I just read about something called "WikiLove"? Some folks don't like it because it makes Wikipedia too much like Facebook or some online time sink like that. I don't think we need a guideline to get people to use it, do we? -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Autocompletion for links/templates in editbox

I would like to propose a new gadget that I've developed in Hebrew Wikipedia which allows auto completion for links and templates in the edit box. The gadget determines when the editor adds text such as double [, or double {, and suggests links or templates the same way the search box does. It does it only when the position of the cursor is in scope of link or template. The gadget already works in Hebrew Wikipedia, where it gain many positive feedbacks. If installed here, it could improve the edit experience in English Wikipedia too. As a gadget, any user can select by himself/herself to use it. The code is in he:MediaWiki:Gadget-autocomplete.js (it doesn't require any internationalization - so it can be used as is). ערן (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Any opinion? You can try it by adding

mw.loader.load('http://bits.wikimedia.org/he.wikipedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=he&modules=ext.gadget.autocomplete');

to Special:MyPage/common.js. Eran (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Change "citation needed" to "please add a citation"

Snow close. There is a clear consensus against this proposal. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review

02:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We've all seen, and most of us have used, templates like {{

CN}}, which cause the wording^{citation needed} to be added after an unreferenced fact. It's a Wikipedia totem; some of us even have it on T-shirts. However, I propose to change it to ^{please add a citation}

, for three reasons:

1. it's far less abrupt, and thus friendlier to the editor, perhaps a newbie, who added a fact in good faith
2. it's a call-to-action, not a criticism
3. we're asking editors to do something for us; we should say please

Though it's a few characters longer (which could be reduced by dropping the "a"; or even reducing to please cite), I think that's outweighed by the benefits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

“Please add a citation” would be too long, but “please cite” would be OK. (On the other hand, I sometimes temporarily put a citation needed tag on statements I add myself, if I cannot provide a precise citation straight away because I'm not home or something; if the tag read “please cite” instead, adding it in such a situation would make me feel a bad person.

 

20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think it's an improvement. "Citation needed" isn't particularly abrupt or critical, it's just indicating that the article is incomplete and something needs to be done. I think it's good to promote a skeptical tone when things are uncited, especially as the public has grown more confident in the encyclopedia's reliability. The threshold for verifiability has gone up, not down, in the last five years or so. Our GAs and FAs are more tightly scrutinized than ever. To me, "Citation needed" has become a trademark meaning "This could be false". Everyone gets it. "Please cite" implies that it's true and the paperwork just needs to be filled out. That's the wrong mentality, especially compared to WP:V. —Designate (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Designate. Citation Needed is one of the most iconic things to come out of Wikipedia. In addition, He hit the nail on the head about the assumed meanings of CN and please cite --Guerillero | My Talk 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Then again, Jimbo would probably say that if you do not think that “it's true and the paperwork just needs to be filled out” then you should delete it altogether, not tag it.

 

21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I like the idea of a warmer, less officious reading template, I have to oppose this idea. "Citation needed" tells any reader exactly what they need to know: "The statement nearby is not cited". It implies nothing and cannot be misinterpreted. It is remarkably unambiguous considering it can be read at least two ways: Either as a suggestion to try to find a reference or as a note that the statement may not be very reliable (while still not blatantly unreliable). Although I like fluffy, warm cuddles and smilies, I think they have their place. Their place is not in encyclopaedic articles. There we need to be unbiased to the point of cold and hard. However I would support changing the title (in the html sense (hovertext (cringe))) to something more inexperience friendly. Maybe "Another editor has noted that some statements preceding this notice are currently not verifiable via an appropriate citation. You can help Wikipedia by adding one if you like.". This would provide extra encouragement to interested but inexperienced users while implying neither that the info is wrong or right but just that there is no way to tell yet. Something like that anyway. Summary: Keep the current "Citation needed" text but update the hovertext. fg^t_c 06:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• An interesting idea and certainly worth considering. I find Designate's counter-argument persuasive though and agree with Fred_Gandt that hovertext would be a good compromise. Uniplex (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose The tag ^{[citation needed]} just means that, well, citation is needed. I do not perceive a critical tone, nor is it "unfriendly," it only implies that Wikipedia entries must be backed by a verifiable source. I would, however, be in favor of the "please cite" tag, simply because it is more concise. Tarheel95 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• I do not see any need for this proposal. It's a solution looking for a problem. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• • We already have a problem: we're recruiting, and keeping, insufficient new editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's fine. In some ways, it is more polite - "citation needed" just acknowledges that it needs improving - by anyone - whereas the 'please cite' thing is asking a person who is reading an article to take action - so you'd be changing it from "here's something that should be fixed" to "fix this". Current wording is perfectly clear; it's even become iconic.  Chzz  ►  17:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  ^ This. Also, "please add a citation" would look awful silly in print. –xeno^talk 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Templates can be made to emit different text in print, to on-screen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Citation needed" serves as a direct warning to the reader that the tagged text is unsupported by a source and may or may not be accurate. I think changing the text to "please add a citation" (or similar) introduces a subtle, misleading implication that the tagged text is correct and just needs a source added to it. 28bytes (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as Chzz says, it is iconic. But also the harder edge is appropriate. The tone we want is not "it would be awfully nice if someone put in some justification for this statment"; it is more like "if someone doesn't come up with some evidence, this statement could be deleted by anyone." {{cn}} isn't really a request; it's a demand. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "…isn't really a request; it's a demand"quite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion It would be possible and perhaps beneficial to either extend the function of {{
  Cn-span}} or create an new similar template with extra functionality. The extension I propose would need to be software supported and would automatically search the history of the article to establish who added the questionable claim, then add to their talk page a message asking that the claim be cited. One possible problem would be establishing who is responsible for the present claim (bearing in mind that it may have mutated by multiple edits). Although we can do this manually, the claim may have been made years ago and (I have tried in the past) can be very hard to find. I could go on but will instead respond to comments on this suggestion if appropriate instead. fg^t_c
  02:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the original suggestion per Chzz. Oppose Fred Gandt's proposal because ideally, people place citation needed tags because they don't have the resources avalible to do the citations themselves. Bouncing the message back to them asking them to do it is counterproductive.
  Wha?
  08:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: If User:A adds "The thing is red because it is filled with magical pixie dust" and some time later User:B wraps it in {{

Cn-span}} (or something like it), User:A gets a message asking "You stated blah at blah. This statement has been called into question. Could you please provide a citation?". If User:A doesn't know of any reference for their statement (we have cause for general concern) they simply do nothing. If User:A added the template themselves (at the same time they added the statement or later) nothing would happen (no message sent). Although, if users are in the habit of adding statements they cannot cite and justifying them by adding a cite-needed-template, perhaps what should happen is that the software disallows the addition in the first place. fg^t_c

09:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no reliable way to detect which user added original material; they could have copied, reworded, trimmed, corrected, etc. existing material and revision parser would be none the wiser. Also there is no requirement to add the citation right there and then (

TALK

09:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting forbidding additions if not cited. I suggested that additions accompanied by cite templates could be disallowed. However that suggestion should not be taken out of context (by "context" I mean when using this suggested (not proposed) new template). I agree that disallowing additions where not referenced is an extremely bad idea. My point was that users adding material they cannot cite is 1/2 or more of the reason we need these templates in the first place. The software could easily find who added the text originally. In fact it would be far easier for software to do it than us. The diffs we see are generated by the software and (I am happy to learn otherwise) while the diffs are being calculated the very info needed to provide the OP would be uncovered. If a statement has mutated by such a great degree (by repeated edit) that its levenshtein difference is greater than n, the template could simply abort its secondary objective (to post a request to the OP). However, this was just some thinking out loud. Maybe something for the future. fg^t_c 11:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I misread that. But the fact that software cannot easily find who added what is still true. It will have too many false positives, and it is not as simple as comparing 2 strings. If I copy some content from one article to another (like an AfD closed as "merge"), how will the software detect that? How will it detect vandalism or reversions? How would it detect context change versus non-context change? And most importantly, how would it detect that something needs citing in the first place (basic fact, lead, captions, quotes, etc.)? For example, Cluebot (which is much more useful) was opposed unless it has almost negligible false positive rate. For reference,

TALK

11:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I truly do not know. You raise points I cannot begin to answer. I simply have not got the technical knowledge or skill. An aside: "WikiBlame" is an awful name for a tool to find OPs. Why must everything be someone's fault? Thanks for the interest. fg^t_c 11:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose to the proposed wording. There may be some hypothetical better wording, but I doubt it. Per Chzz, though not because it is iconic, but because "this needs citation" is subtly different from "would you cite this, please?". —  
  TALK
  09:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The information is more for readers than editors and warns that an editor thinks a citation is needed. I see no need for please any more than I need in the name of Allah or thanks to the thoughts of Chairman Mao before everything.
  Dmcq (talk
  ) 12:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's clear my suggestion is not popular. What about the proposed change to the HTML title attribute? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any point. I've never noticed that there was a title attribute. If I wanted to know more I'd click on it, not hover. —Designate (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The suggested title text as worded sounds pretty good, if perhaps a bit long. Maybe it'd help to simply extend the current title text with: ". You can help Wikipedia by adding an appropriate citation." I'm not sure what all browsers support its display on hover, though, nor what happens to long texts. And I'll just mention here that it's always kind of bugged me that the reason parameter didn't show up on hover; I have to open up an edit window and find the template to read it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Example: Hover over me fg^t_c 00:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. I think that's too long. Maybe: Something shorter

I remember that some browsers truncate long title texts, and on some browsers they only last a couple of seconds and there's no way to get them back short of reloading the page, but that was a while ago and I'm not sure whether any browser version still in common use does that.

 

16:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The text "citation needed" indicates the present state, quite correctly. But I'm not a traditionalist about this: I think we need fewer superscript annoyances for unlogged-in readers, not more. I've long wished for a reduction of visual impact: shortening to "unsourced"^[unsourced], possibly "citation?"^[citation?] or even "source?"^[source?] or the
  Cn-span}} - that's cool. --Lexein (talk
  ) 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A bullet proof method for making large corporations donate funds to Wikipedia

The described method encourages large corporations donate funds to Wikipedia.

Display Wikipedia utilization and donation meters at the banner with message from Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales. The utilization meter has a few bars, each one representing visits per month by large companies employees. The donation meter has a few bars, showing the largest donations of the ongoing fund raising campaign.

Here are the examples of the meters visualization:

Wikipedia usage meter
Wikipedia funds contribution meter

I can provide software for this. It is very simple.

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpkmtv (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Tracking vists rather than edits is probably a bad idea - and will companies really welcome publicing how much their employees are (a) slacking off in works time or (b) making company sponsored POV edits.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand. This method is bullet proof!! But yeah, seriously, why would a company want to advertise their employees viewing habits? In any case, selling ad space for company logos is fail city. 31.31.75.216 (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Slacking off"? In the knowledge economy WP should properly be seen as a tool contributing to productivity. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tool apprenticeship

Please see my proposed alternative to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship at Wikipedia:Tool apprenticeship. Here's the summary:

In tool apprenticeship, a user who has an immediate practical need for a particular administrator tool or tools, such as deletion or protection, makes a request to receive that tool. Provided the user is in good standing and has a need, they receive the tool on a trial basis for a limited period (weeks to months). When this period expires, the tool is automatically revoked.

After or shortly before the end of their trial, the user can file a request to retain the tool permanently, based on their performance during the trial period, which will be granted if the user substantially used the tool and exercised good judgement. If the request is denied, the user will be given extensive feedback on their usage and may (if their misuse was not too egregious) have the opportunity for another trial period. Over time, a user who performs a variety of tasks may acquire many tools, giving them similar status to current administrators.

To centralize discussion, please leave comments and feedback on the proposal's talk page (Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship). Both objections and suggestions for changes or extensions are welcome, but please read over the whole thing first including the anticipated objections. Thank you! (crossposted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship) Dcoetzee 11:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal namespace

I have started a RFC on the purpose of the Portal namespace, which I believe to be useless. You may view it here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Aplications homebrew for Wikipedia

Request to homebrew programmers to create free applications for Wikipedia allowing to get free Wikipedia to a greater number of people over the world. 88.27.143.215 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Participation in anti-SOPA and anti-PIPA protests by blacking out the Wikipedia logo for one day (TOMORROW, NOV. 16th)

Moot. Today is already 19 November. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 04:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For those who may be unaware, two bills are moving swiftly through Congress that could drastically affect the open Internet. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and The PROTECT-IP Act (PIPA) have give the Government the ability to remove sites that host user generated content from the DNS registry unless those sites can show that they are doing enough to prevent the uploading of pirated materials. Essentially, these bills put censorship in the hands of major corporations, and could potentially force new technology start-ups out of business.

Many security experts have also voiced concern about the way the DNS blocking system works, warning that it could severely undermine security measures in place. Although the bills would more directly affect UGC-heavy sites like YouTube, Twitter, and Tumblr, tech law experts like TechDirt and the EFF think that the wording of the bills and existing legal precedent could affect non-infringing sites like Wikipedia. These bills completely throw DMCA-exemptions out the window, and the Fair Use defense would be both risky and costly, and could be ready for a vote BEFORE THANKSGIVING.

The most puzzling piece of this story is the chance that both of these bills have to pass. According to many insiders, there isn't a whole ton of opposition to either PIPA or SOPA within either The House or The Senate. Obviously there have been detractors, but the bills only need majorities to pass, and at last count, there is more than majority support for both bills. The Internet needs to create an all-out response to these bills, one that both informs every U.S user about the bills' existence and puts them in very quick and easy contact with their Congresspeople.

We are a tech policy advocacy group named Fight for the Future (http://fightforthefuture.org) working with The EFF, The Free Software Foundation, Public Knowledge, Demand Progress, Participatory Politics Foundation, and Creative Commons on a campagin called American Censorship Day. The first part of the campaign will take place tomorrow (November 16th) and will ask participants to install a small piece of HTML code that will effectively block out participating sites logos with a black bar and superimpose a link over the black bar that will bring users to a site where they can learn more about SOPA and PIPA and easily contact their Congresspeople with a simple form.

We've got a number of large sites participating - Boing Boing, HypeMachine, and Reddit have all agreed to black out their logos. We are hoping Wikipedia would be willing to do the same. We actually spoke to Erik Moeller about participating, and although he said he would be happy to support in other ways, that we would have to ask the Wikipedians themselves if we could black out the Wikipedia logo tomorrow (or perhaps sometime in the near future - more on that later).

Obviously we are short on time, and recognize that less-than-24 hours is PROBABLY not enough time to for Wikipedia users to come to a consensus on this. However, if you could discuss this proposal ASAP, maybe we could have Wikipedia participating sometime later in the day. If Wikipedians reject this proposal, we would love to possibly work with you all on some form of action in the near future. From what we've heard, the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bills have set it on a track to pass by the end of the year, and (as mentioned above) they are looking to get a vote on the House floor BEFORE Thanksgiving.

If you'd like to read more about SOPA, PIPA, the campaign, or the foundations behind it, please visit http://americancensorship.org. If you have any questions, I will be monitoring this proposal all day, and will do my best to respond in a timely manner. Thank you for the consideration. - DouglasSchatz (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

EDIT - I neglected to mention that we tomorrow (the 16th) because the House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on SOPA tomorrow at 10a.m (http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_11162011.html). There are 5 witnesses giving testimony FOR SOPA and only 1 against. We want American Censorship Day to be the Internet's voice in those hearings. We were also wondering if it would be possible to mention American Censorship Day as an "In The News Item" with a link to the Wikipedia articles on either PIPA or SOPA. I'd like to apologize in advance for not being aware of the process those articles are chosen by. DouglasSchatz (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• "In The News" is only for newsworthy updates to articles, so while I support your cause, it would be inappropriate to put there. --Golbez (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, thank you for clarifying. DouglasSchatz (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• I support this idea. Keeping the internet stable and free is an important goal and necessary for the development of Wikipedia. These bills would very much enable content owners to disrupt Wikipedia operations e.g. if any user makes a mistake in uploading a file, or by interpreting fair use mor narrow than we (or even a judge). I don't know if its plausible to get a consensus in time, but we should try. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: (edit conflict) I'd love to see the trainloads of copyright infringing videos on YouTube dealt with as they should be, but it would certainly not be good if these bills negatively affected Wikipedia. Regards, —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 22:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC).
• Support - Anything we can do to stop these bills in their tracks is worthwhile. - Denimadept (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia which cherishes a
  Neutral Point of View, which it will sacrifice by this sort of political stunt - what next - adverts for people's favoured candidates for political office?Nigel Ish (talk
  ) 22:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Didn't seem to deter the Italians. And you're confusing "neutral" for "no". We can be neutral and still fight against things that would damage us. --Golbez (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose however worthy we should not be seen to support any cause and particularly linking to a campaign group is a not a good idea. MilborneOne (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, the link will lead to http://americancesnorship.org, but a significantly large form will be placed on the upper right hand side that will allow users to contact their representatives. AmericanCensorship is paid for by FFTF, but designed and written by all of the organizations I listed in my original post. DouglasSchatz (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • A lot of wikipedia users are outside the United States so really they have no "representive" so it would have little use for most readers.MilborneOne (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Politics has no place here accept as the topic of articles. The idea to protest is noble but the integrity of Wikipedia cannot be given up for any one cause. As Nigel Ish said "what next?" fg 22:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Isn't the mere location of WMF servers in the United States a political decision? Were they in most other countries our abilities here would be vastly curtailed. --Golbez (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note that the Wikimedia Foundation is sharing the concerns about this bill and supports the "American Censorship Day" campaign. The WMF legal department considers the bill a serious threat to the future of Wikipedia. We will soon publish a blog post about this and are looking into participating in the blackout campaign with the site logo of https://blog.wikimedia.org/ , while leaving the decision to the community whether to participate with en.wikipedia.org.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The blog post is now at http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/15/wikimedia-supports-american-censorship-day/ . Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. Expansionist legislation which could result in takedowns of either Wikipedia servers or reliable sources upon which Wikipedia articles depend, is serious enough to rise to the level of institutional response, futile though it might be. IMHO, the logo blackout should persist until the legislation is defeated: one day is not enough. --Lexein (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, people who are saying we need to stay out of politics need to realize the servers are in the United States for a reason, and these laws would work to negate that advantage. --Golbez (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest A top banner clearly linking to an article here and then on to or directly to
  WP:NPV would be maintained. An article is of course appropriate and can contain multiple sources and external links of dynamic and historic value. Then let Wikinews be the vanguard. Not only can WP not be accused of losing sight of one of its most important principles (NPV) but WikiMedia also get to plug their other project. Perhaps something along these lines could be worked out (baring in mind the stated urgency). fg
  23:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • thanks for this suggestion. I've passed it on to our contacts at the WMF, and we will see if we can work out something there. However, I'd love to keep having this discussion so that we have options for actions in the upcoming weeks. DouglasSchatz (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a banner linking to Wikinews. It's obvious Wikipedia should not be routinely endorsing political movements, but this is a large domestic threat directly related to Wikipedia's ability to operate. The goal of both this site and the Wikimedia Foundation is the free exchange of information, and that requires a free-market approach that is clearly being threatened. We should alert people. —Designate (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• A Wikimedia blog post is now at http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/15/wikimedia-supports-american-censorship-day/ Copy/pasted to draw possible missed attention. fg 01:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Allowing the government to have an expansion on its existing internet control is dangerous, and wikipedia can not be constrained! Jab843 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose while I myself am against the bill I do not think that it is appropriate for us to abuse our role as an encyclopedia to promote any political agenda. We are a publisher of fact, not a political pressure group. (Furthermore to this, the bill is mostly irrelevant to our readership outside of the US). However, Douglas, I do wish you the best of luck in your work in raising awareness about the bill. Best regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - blatant violation of
  WP:NPOV.Jasper Deng (talk)
  02:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the original proposal, per others. I'm still undecided on fg's suggestion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: The en wikipedia is not restricted to nor the property of any single country. Unlike the Italian wp recently (which is fairly strongly aligned with Italy-the-country) despite some appearances to the contrary en doesn't equal USA. I support the concept, but not the practice here. --AlisonW (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia should defend itself from what could endanger it. And compared to what it.wiki did, this is practically trivial.
   
  18:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support I am speaking only as a contributor to Wikipedia, and not in my role as a programmer at the Wikimedia Foundation. I believe that NPOV is a reason to take a public stance. This proposed law would ensure that some points of view are not represented on Wikipedia. It would be as if the government were removing information from Wikipedia, and then threatening jail time for anyone who dared to revert. It is appropriate for Wikipedia to take a stance on issues that directly threaten our project and our values. -- NeilK (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• MOOT Today's the 16th. I believe the hearing was scheduled to begin at 10:00am so if it's not over, it soon will be. Appropriate or not we missed it. (Not our fault, there was too little time to discuss.) At this point all there is to do is update articles per NPOV, and those who desire can call their reps, write blogs, or do whatever else they're moved to do.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The OP does not set a time limit. They would like us to participate today, even late today, or at some time in the future. I think any action before the bill's actual passage is appropriate. -- NeilK (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I read this request as for today. There's a vague reference to a later date, but to consider that we need details. Date, length of time covered, etc. We missed today, if there's second campaign, someone needs to find out the details and post those.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support per NeilK's arguments, which are entirely correct. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There certainly could be times when we should take a political stand. If we are actually threatened, or if values core to the encyclopedic movement in general are threatened (e.g. repeal of the American 1st Amendment or whatever). I'm dubious that either is the case here, because:
  • It's pretty hard to get legislation enacted in America, what with passing the House, then passing the Senate (with a de-facto 60% requirement to pass), then the President has to agree, then the Supreme Court has to agree if they're asked. So if a bill can do all that, it's probably been hashed out pretty well and is probably agreeable to a broad range of people. American legislators aren't fools (well, mostly not).
  • We haven't had time to study this law and make a considered approach. I suspect polemicism from some quarters and don't necessarily trust them to not be engaging in hyperbole.
    • polemicism from both sides, certainly. Such is the very nature of legislation and law itself. Very respectable layers and policy makers have weighed in on both sides of the issue, and a non-biased consensus won't be reached until it comes before a high court. DouglasSchatz (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If the law really does shut down sites like Wikipedia and so forth, then it will be quickly seen to be obviously wrong and will quickly be rectified.

I'd save our ammo for really serious situations where we're sure what we're doing. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue needs timely action, but it is not hasty or unconsidered either. As mentioned above, the WMF took a very strong stance, and that was certainly vetted by WMF general counsel, Geoff Brigham (I personally pinged him about this several weeks ago and at the time he was still formulating a response.) The WMF is not Wikipedia, but I think that should count for something.

Also, let's be clear -- by your standards we should never do anything on any kind of legal issue, even if proposed legislation actually did shut down Wikipedia! That's a pretty extreme position if you ask me. -- NeilK (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Let your arguements stand on their own. Don't try to distort other peoples opinions.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Im a little late coming to the table but I am also pretty familiar with these bills and they are both bad news for the internet community. If enacted they could very easily use our own BLP and copyright rules against us if it takes to long to remove something we could find ourselves on the banned list. Just imaging if someone put something negative about one of the politicians who wrote or voted for the bill. Then they say hey Wikipedia has all kinds of X content. Pretty soon well be stuck relynig on MSN and Fox for our news. --
  talk
  ) 21:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OP - Hi guys, thank you all for your concern. Today has been very busy, so I haven't had as much time to monitor this discussion as I had hoped. First, I'd like to thank everyone for a great discussion so far, it's wonderful that you've all thoughtfully considered our proposal. One of the users was right, American Censorship Day was intended to coincide with the hearings, but will continue all day today and into the future for as long as participating sites would like to keep the code up. If you guys can come to a consensus AT ALL today, we would still love to see Wikipedia's logo blacked out. American Censorship Day has been a great success, but Wikipedia's participation would push the campaign from "fantastic" to "amazing".

As for some of the users who have questioned whether or not this bill could see passage, it most certainly could. The SOPA's sponsors are trying to railroad it through the House, having introduced it on October 26th and having a hearing today that heard testimony from 5 Hollywood entertainment industry officials and one single Google spokesperson. Testimony from the MPAA included the phrase, "The Internet works fine in countries that censor websites." (this was in response to a question from a Representative questioning the usage of DNS blocking in countries like China, Iran, Libya, etc). The fact that this bill got out of a committee speaks to the fact that, while U.S Congresspeople are some of the brightest and most ambitious people in the country, they are technologically behind the times. It's not as if these Representatives are maliciously trying to attack the Internet, they simply fail to understand the complex mechanisms of The Internet. They are operating with an outdated understanding of how information is transmitted.

SOPA and PIPA are not singular events, they are the culmination of a legislative attack by the entertainment industry that began in 2008 with the leaking of drafts of ACTA. Last year's COICA was PIPA's predecessor, and every time one of these bills comes before Congress, it gets closer and closer to passage. Online industry figureheads like Amazon, Facebook, and numerous Venture Capitol Firms would not be reacting as strongly as they have over the past couple of days if their general counsels did not think these pieces of legislation were legitimate threats to their enterprises.

As for future actions against these pieces of legislation, my wording was left intentionally vague because we're still in the planning stages. However, it sounds like Wikipedians might want to discuss the relationship between neutrality and legislative efforts to control online expression as more drastic attempts are made. As hard as it might be to believe, SOPA and PIPA will not be the last bills that threaten to drastically change how the internet works on a fundamental level. Again, thanks for your continued discussion, I will keep monitoring this. DouglasSchatz (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support NPOV does not exclude us from acting in self-defense, even if we rule out any kind of moral ground, and good vs evil concepts. SOPA threatens our very existence. We need to take a stand. WMF did it. CC did it. EFF did it. Italian Wikipedia did it few weeks ago. I feel ashamed that there is no consensus here to join in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, Wikipedia is not a vehicle nor a weapon for political action. The community has worked hard in trying to establish Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable, neutral source of information and taking sides in matters like this directly undermines that effort. The Wikimedia Foundation is more than welcome to declare their position on matters but Wikipedia itself should not resort to taking sides in any matter, regardless of whether it is in the site's best interests or not. The action of the Italian Wikipedia was also heavily criticised for the same (and other) reasons.
  talk
  ) 23:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support (although I appreciate it is too late now). There's nothing in the way en.wikipedia is organised that prevents us from taking a stand on a particular issue that affects us (or even one that doesn't) if there is community backing for taking such a stand. To be honest, I care less about this particular example than the general principle. The general principle is that we have collective sovereignty unless WMF steps in. --FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. How can readers trust our articles on these bills are NPOV if the encyclopedia declares them "bad evil" bills? What happens when [Politician] endorses this legislation? Does Wikipedia campaign against him/her? Certainly, the logical extension will be that "the bill is a threat to Wikipedia. Politician endorses bill. We can take sides when threats arise to Wikipedia. Therefore, we can take sides against Politician". Silliness. 204.116.109.80 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - even though I fully support the campaign. I don't think it's appropriate for Wiki?edia sites; it opens the doors up to all kinds of righteous campaigns, about all kinds of things around the world - I'm happy with WMF supporting it in principle, but don't think we should actually do anything - and especially at same time we have 'donate' banners - another messing around with the headers is confusing. And, of course, it's not global; a huge number of our readers would have no idea what it's about, and wouldn't care either, because it may well not affect them. It'd set a dangerous prescedent, and it'd be hard to argue that, if we allowed this, we shouldn't allow equally significant protests about similar concerns all over the world.  Chzz  ►  09:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm basically with Chzz. I think the OP has confused the "English Wikipedia" with the non-existent "American Wikipedia". Americans may be the largest group of editors (though still a minority, as I understand it), but people from some 200 different countries regularly edit the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • ... on servers based primarily in the United States. --Golbez (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Uh, well, actually, that's not really relevant, nor necessarily true (unless you actually know the [number of servers/processing power] located in the US compared to the Netherlands (I certainly don't, I don't think it's public knowledge)). What's more relevant is where the WMF is HQ'd, which is indeed the US. However, I'm pretty sure that if the US government decided to censor/restrict access to wikipedia.org or other WMF domains they would relocate (but I have my doubts that the protect IP bill poses any such threat to the WMF). WhatamIdoing's point that the bill is irrelevant to the majority of our readership and that this is a factor in considering whether or not to put up a banner on this site about it still stands unrefuted, and it is far more relevant to this discussion than any remarks about the location of some of the WMF's servers. Your point would be more fitting in a remark relating to the WMF's response (which has been very strong) rather than a discussion such as this, where we are delibrating whether or not it would be appropriate to petition our readership about the issue. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • This shouldn't be a reason to oppose, but they do say what is where most of the time at wikitech:. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: No doing something for 1 country when it's worldwide. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.