View source for Testwiki:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 70

{{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}}

== Non-admins moving pages with no Talk redirect ==

Pretty-much in the title: what would you think if non-admins could move pages without leaving a talk page redirect? Maybe the software could check for inbound links to the talk page and not present that option if they exist. The vast majority of talk pages have no incoming links, and the ones that do probably shouldn't be moved. The article/page would still leave a redirect, so no harm done. ▫ '''[[User:JohnnyMrNinja|<span style="color:#202040;">Johnny</span><span style="color:#204040;">Mr</span><span style="color:#206040;">Nin</span><span style="color:#204040;">ja</span>]]''' 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:I think that's a dreadful idea. Only admins should be allowed to do anything. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 06:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

:"move pages without leaving a talk page redirect"... how often is that a good idea? And [[WP:CSD#G8]] makes cleanup of the occasional case easy. Changing the software is always hassle, you need to make a pretty good case to stand a chance of it happening. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 08:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Merits aside, I think this is technically problematic as "not leaving a redirect behind" is currently achieved using the <code>delete</code> tool, which would have to be split or otherwise tinkered with a lot to isolate this particular implementation from the ability to delete other pages. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color: black;"><font face="New York">Skomorokh</font></span>]] 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
: No, "not leaving a redirect behind" is achieved by unchecking the "Leave a redirect behind" checkbox on the move form or using the <code>noredirect</code> parameter in an API action=move query. This is available to users with the <code>suppressredirect</code> right (currently bots and admins). [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

== Warning sign on [[Mediawiki:Signupend]] ==

Hello,

I just wrote a proposal about removing some of the more off-putting things on one page in the account creation. The discussion can use [[Wikipedia:MediaWiki_messages#Warning_sign_on_Mediawiki:Signupend|your input]]. Best wishes//[[User:Hannibal|Hannibal]] ([[User talk:Hannibal|talk]]) 14:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
:After receiving only positive feedback on my proposal, I edited [[Mediawiki:Signupend]] to create a shorter second page in the account creation process, which I hope seem a little bit friendlier now. All the relevant information is just one click away. Assuming that newcomers like the shorter version, this may actually increase the number of new accounts slightly. We will have some results on that shortly on [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Results this page]. (If you have an account on the Toolserver, please help out with that.)
:Best wishes//[[User:Hannibal|Hannibal]] ([[User talk:Hannibal|talk]]) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
== Tag team ==

A large number of WP articles now have maintenance tags, many of which are years old. In some cases the issues have been fixed, in others not. In some cases the person adding the tag acted in good faith with rationale on the Talk page, in others it's a drive-by or agenda account whose sole problem is that the article reflects [[WP:NPOV]] instead of [[WP:TRUTH]].

Proposals:
# That tags over 1 year old be removed by a bot.
# That tags over 1 month old and with no active discussion be targeted for manual removal.

It is clear to me that newbies do not feel they have the right to remove tags. Issues not actively being fixed, and where the editor identifying the issue cannot be arsed to make a case, should simply be closed - as is the case with any trouble ticket system. I think that's the way to view tags: as trouble tickets. In every system I've encountered, "no response from originator" is solid grounds for closing.

I'd exempt [[WP:BLP]] articles; tags on these over a month old should result in listing at [[WP:BLPN]] and loud klaxons and flashing lights.

Lets pick up after ourselves. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 01:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

* '''Strong Oppose''' - Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. These tags for the most part represent things which ahve problems. An example of backlogs being worked on would be the [[WP:UBLPR|Unreferenced BLP Rescue]] wikiproject has done a great job at cutting down the backlog on unreferenced BLPs, there are now fewer than 11,000 compared to the 50,000+ that we had 2 years ago. The {{tl|fact}} category is down to ~267k from ~312k. So clearly things are [[meta:Eventualism|eventually]] being fixed. Having a bot remove tags simply because we aren't keeping up fast enough doesn't fix the problem, they ARE useful for at least tracking what needs to be done. --[[User:nn123645|nn123645]] ([[User talk:nn123645|talk]]) 02:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' in Guy's original form I must strongly oppose the proposal, but I think there is a germ of a good idea here. The problem of old tags is certainly real; the trouble is that "old" is not very adequately measured by the passage of time, and "activity" is too hard to quantify for the wide range of high and low activity pages on Wikipedia. We could certainly try and find ways to prod editors to ensure that there is a ''current'' rationale for tags, and a bot would figure in that somewhere, but doing this in a way that doesn't clear out tags that shouldn't be is not going to be easy. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 17:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Oppose''' as nn123645 said, "Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away." Many of these tags are for serious issues, such as articles not having sources. There are people that work on these things, however they only work so quickly. Also, if a problem persists the tag should not be removed no matter what, period. Whether it's by bots, newbies, or experienced users, removing a tag without fixing the problem is not acceptable, period. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="FCD116">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 21:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per nn123645. Even if people aren't actually fixing some of the problems, these provide useful statistics and many tags warn readers about potential reliability issues. Why should people be required to start a discussion for things that are often blindingly obvious? If an article has no sources, that's not something that needs explanation. I agree with Rd232 though, there are probably a lot of articles that are mistagged due to the problem being fixed. A bot could, for example, find all pages with citation templates or multiple external links that are tagged as having no sources, but a human would still need to do the final check. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 22:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support'''. Maintenance tags are, as currently implemented, a blight on Wikiepdia. JzG spells out several of the problems perfectly. To be clear though, what I support here is the removal, or change in practice, in the use of [[:Category:Cleanup templates]] (for the most part). I think that inline templates are very useful, it's the more general "cleanup this article" template that is problematic.<br>Realistically though, we're not going to get rid of them. My idea for quite some time now has been to move these templates onto the article talk pages. That would get the "nastygram" aspect of the message box out of the reader's faces (especially since these tings are normally the very first thing someone sees when they go to an article). Putting them on talk pages would allow for the continued categorization and tracking of pages, as well. More importantly though, it seems obvious to me that if the message is left on the talk page then that would encourage those adding the tags to ''say something'' in order to describe the problem.<br/>—&nbsp;[[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 23:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''.  First, with reference to Ohms law's comment, see [[WP:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages]].  The point is that we actually ''want'' them to be "in the face" of the readers.  One, we want to warn them if what they're seeing may have problems (so that they may be more wary about relying on it), and, second, we want to encourage them to try to help fixing it.  The only way to fix these tags is for a human to go through and actually fix the problems, or, at least, identify that there is no actual problem.  That's actually the goal of things like the current [[Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs|Great Backlog Drive]] or similar drives run by other wikiprojects. I can tell you, just because a tag isn't old doesn't mean it's valid.  I'm working in a category with tags from 2007, one which requires a substantial amount of effort to fix, but I can tell you that in every case except for 2 or 3, the tags were fully valid and substantially problematic.  [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 07:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
*:''You'' want them to be "in the readers face". Myself and others certainly don't (admittedly, this seems to be a minority point of view). There's no "we" here; people with your viewpoint 'win' on this issue more because of inertia then any real consensus.<br/>—&nbsp;[[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 20:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' both, but especially #1, per everyone above. Removing a legitimately placed tag is like taping over a "check engine" light on your car instead of getting the engine checked. ''Wrongly'' placed tags can and should be removed, but a bot isn't going to know the difference. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 17:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As nn123645 said, "Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away." This would be defeating the purpose of tags, wouldn't it? <span style="white-space:nowrap">[[User:Guoguo12|<font color="green">Guoguo12</font>]][[User talk:Guoguo12|<font color="blue" size="1">'''''--Talk--'''''</font>&nbsp;]]</span> 21:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' The goal of maintenance templates is to identify the problems. Removing these templates without addressing the problem is counter-productive. [[User:Armbrust|<span style="color:#082567;">Armbrust</span>]] [[User talk:Armbrust|<sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVII</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Armbrust|<sub style="color:#008000;">Undertaker 19–0</sub>]] 19:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - though I hate to see articles plastered with tags they are important pointers to problems that have been identified that need to be investigated further and fixed before removal. Unfortunately I cannot see how a BOT can check out if the problem has been fixed or not, apart from possibly dead-links. May be we could encourage WikiProjects to use the clean-up listings more and continue have specific tag drives to clear out the older tags. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' What if there is still the problem?  ~~'''Awsome''' [[User:ebe123|EBE123]]~~([[User_talk:Ebe123|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]) 23:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' tags tell us what is wrong with an article. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color:green;">My Talk</span>]]  17:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' - the proposal  defeats the entire purpose of having  a tagging  system - unless instead of removing  the tags we delete the articles...

== Deny automated recognition ==

You may be interested in my user essay [[User:Yaris678/Deny automated recognition]].  It recommends a tweak to how the various automated and semi-automated anti-vandal tools should work.  [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:I've seen some vandals that were obviously trying to earn warnings, but I usually start at uw2 and will skip right to a uw4 if it looks like it's gonna be a vandalism only account.  However, most of the IP vandals I see are people just testing the waters, and they get scared when "some admin" (apparently only admins can give warnings?) "threatens to ban them" with the standard warning templates.  Though I do agree that it is a problem that if I give a uw4 at the end of the month, ClueBot starts off with a uw1 in just a few hours, but I also see that behavior in human editors. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 21:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

== Fair use upload bot ==

Please see [[:commons:Commons:Village_pump#Proposal:_Fair_use_upload_bot]] for my proposal for a bot that would re-upload images that are deleted on Commons but in use on En to En as candidates for fair use. Please comment there. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 12:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

== Use of Abuse Filters for enforcement of bans (including ArbCom bans) ==

I emailed ArbCom about this (because I thought since it would be an ArbCom ban, it was ArbCom's decision) and they said that I should make the proposal to the community. Basically, the proposal is: I was thinking: people occasionally don't listen to ArbCom or community bans, and end up editing pages or topics they are banned from; sometimes with full knowledge, in which case they might create lots of drama and hinder editing, or a complete accident, where their claims sometimes can't be believed, even when they're true. Then I thought of a way to 'block' users from pages in certain categories or pages etc: the abuse filter. The abuse filter can be used (as said in an IRC discussion) to prevent users from editing certain pages by preventing the edit if a certain user tries to edit a certain page, and I believe this would be useful to prevent users from deliberately going past bans and causing disruption, or banned users accidentally editing pages they are banned from editing and being punished for their mistake. That's my proposal. {{smiley|:P}} --'''[[User talk:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: red">1</span><span style="color: blue">2</span><span style="color: green">3</span>]][[User:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: green">Hedgehog</span>]][[Special:Contributions/123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: green">4</span><span style="color: blue">5</span><span style="color: red">6</span>]]''' : <span style="color: yellow">'''''[http://toolserver.org/~acc Create an account!]'''''</span> 20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:I suppose this could be useful for specific page bans, but in my experience topic ban violations are less often a matter of (to make up an example) "He was banned from Scientology articles and edited [[scientology]]!" than of "He was banned from Scientology articles and edited [article of someone marginally related to scientology which may or may not be covered by the ban and which needs ANI drama to determine if it is]." For that reason, having a software solution isn't going to help with most topic bans except in the most obvious of cases. Not necessarily a reason to not pursue it; just saying it may not be as useful as it sounds at first blush. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::(ec) Agreed. Editing restrictions are normally so broad that they cannot be usefully implemented in software, see e.g. [[WP:TBAN]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Hmm, maybe there are areas where it would be impractical, or impossible to implement, but in areas where it is possible to implement, it may provide benefits. --'''[[User talk:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: red">1</span><span style="color: blue">2</span><span style="color: green">3</span>]][[User:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: green">Hedgehog</span>]][[Special:Contributions/123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: green">4</span><span style="color: blue">5</span><span style="color: red">6</span>]]''' : <span style="color: yellow">'''''[http://toolserver.org/~acc Create an account!]'''''</span> 20:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::I think you can ban users from editing articles that are in specific categories, and lots of categories carry the same topics as those that are commonly topic-banned (if you get what I mean). And in my opinion, this would be useful, as no-one wants to be blocked for an accident, or unnecessary drama created by a user editing a page they are banned from and causing problems. --'''[[User talk:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: red">1</span><span style="color: blue">2</span><span style="color: green">3</span>]][[User:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: green">Hedgehog</span>]][[Special:Contributions/123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: green">4</span><span style="color: blue">5</span><span style="color: red">6</span>]]''' : <span style="color: yellow">'''''[http://toolserver.org/~acc Create an account!]'''''</span> 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:The server cannot have too many filters and some useful filters were disabled in the past simply because they were not triggered often enough. So a filter ''for just one user'' is not going to be created. By the way, another possible solution is to remind users about topic bans through their own common.js. — [[user:Alex Smotrov|AlexSm]] 20:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be a good idea for a filter for the reason's given by Alex, but a '''bot''' would be easier (reports edits made in the topic). We can keep a section of monobook.js which gives them a nice "do not edit please please please" banner on the relevant pages, so that they don't accidentally edit.
== Revolutionizing Peer review and the accademic Process through wiki: Involving the Professors and digitizing academia ==

I propose we, wikipedia, begin to create appeal for PhD.

I propose the following

Wiki registration divide members up according to discipline of major and level of education (Elementary, Middle, Highschool,Undergrad Freshman+Sophmore, Undergrad Junior and senior, master candidate, master, PhD. Candidate, TA,)then...

Instructor	2	Board Eligible
50-75 hours of teaching per year

Assistant Clinical Professor	8	High degree of clinical competence, 
50-75 hours of teaching per year

Associate Clinical Professor	6	
 
Clinical Professor	- -	Evaluations - Excellent teaching, 
50-75 hours of teaching per year

Emeritus	- -	Reserved for highest rank - distinguished record of UCSF teaching and clinical competence.


I proposed based on academic rank no level can edit the information placed by a supperior accademic title, and can only be altered by one of a higher or equal rank,

However, the issue is when a piece of information becomes out dated event though a professor said it is true and no one can change it. I would propose that any Graduate can question the point made by a professor and opon reaching a certain boundary it should be checked by a staff of PhD.'s hired or open sourced through wikipedia.

Also I propose anyone can hypothesize, while also a process of philosophical building can occur in the mind and words of anyone, as such anyone can propose theory (Following this same rank system mentioned above), however I propose only a graduate can choose to breath life into the idea and perform appropriate scientific experiments that will move the idea from philosophy to theory.

I believe this would revolutionize accademia giving professors access to a vast sea of ideas while establishing an interactive process of peer review which is constantly being refined by the masses.
I believe this would increase education, reseach, wealth, knowledge and the condition of man.

Finally I propose we establish a section for every discipline with a subsection for every theory and its associated subsets until the fact level. I believe that this would enable man to revolutionize the peer review process making responces between professors instant and furthermore breaking peer review down from massive 30 page essays of 6 months of independent thought to thought by thought constant refinement.

Tell me what you think and please add and edit as you see fit!
You can reach me at <redacted> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mcl10002|Mcl10002]] ([[User talk:Mcl10002|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mcl10002|contribs]]) 10:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Anyone signing up can claim to be a Nobel Prize winner, but how do you propose to verify the claims provided by a registrant? Your ideas may have some merit for an academic [[:m:Wikidea|Wikidea]] (see also http://academia.wikia.com/), but not for an encyclopedia. I don't know if you are familiar with academia, but it is a battleground of ideas, and you don't want this battle to be fought out on the pages of an encyclopedia. And trust me, there are plenty of professors who are also kooks. If a professor replaces verifiable information by unverifiable self-glorifying content, ''anyone'' should be able to revert that. Academic qualifications are not required, or even particularly helpful, for being able to contribute to a good article on a topic like, say, ''[[The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask]]''. Finally, the title [[Emeritus]] doesn't mean more than that some geezer managed to get old without being kicked out of academia. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 12:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated-->
:: You may also want to review [[Essjay controversy]]; the failed proposal [[Wikipedia:Credentials (proposal)]] and its [[Wikipedia talk:Credentials (proposal)|talk page]]; competing essays [[Wikipedia:Credentials are irrelevant]], [[Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials]], and [[Wikipedia:Credentials matter]]; [[Wikipedia:Expert editors]]; and [[Wikipedia:Expert retention]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 13:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:I've known brilliant physics professors who couldn't program the time on their [[VCR]]. Having a degree in one field does not mean you know anything about unrelated fields. And, as Anomie points out, every field has its quacks. Simply put, what you're proposing won't work for Wikipedia. It ''might'' work as its own service, but I doubt it. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::In addition to all of the above concerns, which are correct, proposals that restrict editing in some hierarchical way are incompatible with [[:meta:Founding principles]] and therefore will not be realized. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Citizendium works on similar principles. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

== Automatically redirect CamcelCase ==

I usually have this issue when it comes to Wiki<u>P</u>roject redirects, but have had it elsewhere. It becomes really annoying when I am confused for a while as to why my link is [[redlinked]]. I usually try several other things before it dawns on me it was an issue of CamelCase formatting. I realize that this could cause issues when 2 items conflict and one is spelled with CamcelCase and the other isn't, but I think we already do something similar with [[plurals]].[[User:Jinnai|<span style="color:#00F;">陣</span>]][[User talk:Jinnai|<span style="color:#0AF;">内</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|<sub><span style="color:#0FA;">'''Jinnai'''</span></sub>]] 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:If capitalization differences are autoredirected, then it becomes impossible to create distinct articles should one be evenetually needed under two capitalization schemes.  For example, [[sat]] is a redirect page to a disambiguation page, while [[SAT]] is the college admissions test.  If the redirecting was handled automatically, it would be impossible to distinguish between these two usages.  There are likely many more examples.  Instead, what you should do is create redirectes manually as needed.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 05:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::I would think the software should be able to be updated to check for the lack of an existing article under the exact name if typed in and ''only then'' redirect.[[User:Jinnai|<span style="color:#00F;">陣</span>]][[User talk:Jinnai|<span style="color:#0AF;">内</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|<sub><span style="color:#0FA;">'''Jinnai'''</span></sub>]] 22:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Since it already does this with first letters of the title, I would think it'd be possible as well. [[User:Melodia|♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫]] ([[User talk:Melodia|talk]]) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:I could imagine a search function similar to Google's that asks, when you are searching for '[[dinasore]]', say, responds with "Did you mean '[[dinosaur]]'?" That should also resolve '[[New York times]]' and '[[CamcelCase]]'. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 22:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::That would be useful, although I think it should auto redirect and ask the question then because I'd think most of the time the answer would be yes and it involves less clicking for the user.[[User:Jinnai|<span style="color:#00F;">陣</span>]][[User talk:Jinnai|<span style="color:#0AF;">内</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|<sub><span style="color:#0FA;">'''Jinnai'''</span></sub>]] 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

== Wikibets ==

Anyone want to start a page where users place bets on things like sporting events, elections, or really anything. We would be betting work on Wikipedia. Example:

:Superbowl:
::Person A Offer: 20 new page patrols says the Greenbacks win next season
::Person B: I accept

:Music:
::Person A Offer: Getting any article of the other person's choice to good article status. I'm betting that Justin Bieber's next single doesn't even break the top 40.
::Person B: His next single will make it to the top 20, I'm accepting this bet. My article will cardiovascular system.
::Person A:Damn, nobody wants to touch that article!

Some wikifun to pass the time and hopefully get some work done. Thoughts?[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, you are not going to be immortalised in [[WP:NOT]] with such a poor proposal. That page is only meant for things that might with some plausibility be expected to fit here, or that a lot of people think should be allowed. Try again. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 21:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

::I lol'd Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist [[user_talk:hpelgrift|Say Herro]] 22:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

::That is pretty harsh Adler considering the proposal could just be an add on to our current bounty boards.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'll bet you 15 [[WP:FS|featured sounds]] that your wikibet proposal is not accepted.  [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|soliloquize]]</small></sup> 23:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I like the enthusiasm! Unfortunately though I don't think it will be accepted :( , so I decline your bet. Maybe I will just make bets with random users...[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 06:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::SW, if you mean that you're going to upload FS quality sounds, I'll pay in barnstars. If you're the performer, I'll pay in ''custom made'' barnstars. How's that? [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 06:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Can I have a barnstar too? What's that worth in Jew gold? (Also, what is it? Seriously). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist [[user_talk:hpelgrift|Say Herro]] 06:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:Right... Jew gold. Go be racist somewhere else please, there's no place for that here. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 06:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::As a Jew I reserve the right to make [[Jewish_humor#Self-hating|self-depricating jokes]] as it is part of our contemporary culture, especially that memorable one from South Park. Please check my [[User:Hpelgrift|userpage]] where I put that bit of my heritage ([[Ashkenazi Jewish]]). Also relax mate, it's the net (though being the net I can see how you'd make that mistake what with the rampant anti-Semitism elsewhere on it). ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist [[user_talk:hpelgrift|Say Herro]] 06:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Eh, your comment wasn't appropriate, but I suppose I overreacted. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 06:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Nah, despite my reaction, it's good to see people stand up for us now and then. Jewish humor is rarely appropriate, mate. ;) (We came up with most of the holocaust jokes) Though I suppose if my username were more clickable then you could have just clicked there and seen my background etc. Another reason to change it. On the issue of race in Judaism btw, I recommend checking out [[:Category:Jewish_ethnic_groups]], we come in many different flavours, but are genetically related (except one group, which I forget). So what was a barnstar again? What do they do for you? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie [[user_talk:hpelgrift|Say Herro]] 07:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::You are mistaken, and Sven Manguard did not overreact. Wikipedia is connected to the Internet but different procedures apply here, and crass commentary is not permitted. It can take quite a long time and lot of argument, but eventually people who repeatedly make comments such as yours are persuaded to do it elsewhere. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
<strike>::::Oh will you relax, lol, such outward hostility like that can dissuade one from editing all together as it makes them feel unwelcome. Are other groups not allowed to make self-depricating comments in talk pages as well or does it just apply to us? I am curious, how is it handled when it does come up (in practice, not in theory)? I will take the approach that as you feel offended by it, I will not make self-depricating jokes on the encyclopedia, but I do still consider it to be an important part of our culture, and so I feel nothing wrong whatsoever about it. [[Flinders Petrie|Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie]] [[user_talk:Flinders Petrie|Say Shalom!]] 17:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)</strike> Edit: alright, now that I am a bit more chill about this, and can look at it without the distraction of being offended, let me analyse it as an anthropologist. I think this is an instance of common cultural and (in my case) professional practice coming up against Wikipedian cultural practice and rules. So as an anthropologist I must of course conclude that the best approach to take is to adapt to the cultural practice of the Wikipedians so as not to cause further offence to them (and I know you're probably thinking I am talking about you guys like natives, etc, but the same applies if you're in France or elsewhere). So that is what I will do. Though might I suggest in the future this sort of thing be approached with a gentler hand? What starts and argument is two or more people approaching something in an angry manner rather than one person being calm, polite and friendly and dealing with it in that manner. Remember the old saying "you win more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." You do that until friendliness no longer works and then simply bring the banhammer. No one can blame you if you failed, but odds are that being friendly diffuses the situation. Anyway, about this bet thing, I oppose.
*'''Oppose''' I just don't like the idea of turning Wikipedia into an e-Casino, even if there is no actual money involved. [[Flinders Petrie|Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie]] [[user_talk:Flinders Petrie|Say Shalom!]] 17:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
* There's [[Wikipedia:Last topic pool]] -- [[User:Uzma Gamal|Uzma Gamal]] ([[User talk:Uzma Gamal|talk]]) 00:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This might be a fun thing to have on a completely separate website..... [[User:Wabbott9|Wabbott9]] ([[User talk:Wabbott9|talk]]) 01:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

== Undo button for text editing ==

Alright, maybe I'm missing something, but I am not sure why (to my knowledge) there is no undo button for those times when you accidentally hit Crtl+A while writing something. Just happened to me before. I see no option for undo, and it's not in the perennial proposals or in the old proposals afaik. So why don't we have an undo button exactly? Oh and redo too I suppose. If there are none without the toolbox thingees then I propose that an undo and redo button be added. [[Flinders Petrie|Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie]] [[user_talk:Flinders Petrie|Say Shalom!]] 17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:What editor are you using, and what effect does Ctrl+A while editing have for you? I use the browser edit box, and there Ctrl+A has the effect of "Select All"; I also have Undo and Redo with their key shortcuts in the Edit menu. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 18:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:From a technical standpoint, I'm not sure how readily that functionality can be added to the interface; the edit window itself is just a text box in my browser, and I don't know if an external button can send it an 'undo'.  For a user, undo should be available with the shortcut Ctrl-Z, and redo is Ctrl-Y.  You can also right-click the text box and select 'Undo' or 'Redo' from the menu that appears. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::Did you intend to start this thread at [[WP:VPT]] instead of here?  [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|confabulate]]</small></sup> 23:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Hmm, didn't see that section, so guess I did. I'm using the plain old vanilla editor. And now that I tried the buttons CTRL-Z and CTRL-Y, it did have the undo and redo effect even though I cannot see the buttons indicated. That'll do. =p [[Flinders Petrie|Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie]] [[user_talk:Flinders Petrie|Say Shalom!]] 18:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

== Proposing a new "sister project"? ==

Is there a standard procedure for proposing a new "sister project" (Wiktionary, Wikiquote, WikiBooks, WikeSource, WikiNews, and a number of others are "sister projects" of Wikipedia, run by the Wikimedia Foundation)?  I've created [http://www.wikimedia.org this proposal], but I don't know if that's the sort of proposal being sought there, and as far as I know, no one's noticed it.  What would be the best way to inform online communities of the proposal and invite participation?  (Besides maybe a brief notice on the talk pages of interested WikiProjects?)
: 
Briefly the idea is this: Web sites like rate-my-prof (or whatever its called) are for soundbites only; they do not welcome serious substantive discussion.  They have extremely small limits on lengths of comments and don't want to change that.  I'd like to have a forum devoted to the same topic, differing from those in that it would allow and encourage serious discussion. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 23:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:I don't believe this is something that the Wikimedia Foundation would be interested in. All of the current projects revolve around making knowledge more accessible, an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a collection of primary source documents, a collection of multimedia files. Your idea seems more along the lines of a social network or a forum on living people. I would personally not support such an idea being created under the WMF banner. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 04:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:You may want to check out the [[strategy:|Strategy wiki]], it's a place where you can make these kinds of proposals. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<span style="font-size:x-large;">&oelig;</span>]][[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 08:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Without considering the merits of the proposal, Wikimedia does have a page for proposing new projects at [[meta:Proposals for new projects]].  [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 08:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
== Testing new account creation processes ==

During the next couple of weeks, there will be some [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Testing_content testing on the account creation process]. I and the others who are working on this of course aim to disturb the normal routines as little as possible, but as we have seen (see [[WP:AN]] for more details), there can be some unforseen side effects. If that is the case in the future, you are welcome to help out. I have created [[User:SvHannibal/Welcomecreation|this workspace]], so that everything is transparent. If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact me through my talk page (but remember that I am on GMT+1 time), or through email (which you can find on my user page). I apologize in advance for any problems this may cause and hope that many people jump and create their own versions so that we have many new alternatives to test.

Oh, and by the way, I intend to start testing [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Testing_content/Landing_page/Options_version version nr 3] in about 10 hours. You may edit that page up until that moment. Thanks for your patience.//[[User:SvHannibal|SvHannibal]] ([[User talk:SvHannibal|talk]]) 00:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:In my opinion this is a great idea. I think that it would also be a good idea to provide this information to those whose accounts were made at the ACC interface.. perhaps a little blurb on the response email for requested closed as created? [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 03:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::Well, when ACC-created users login for the first time, they see the shiny "New messages" bar and they read the normal welcome template. The welcoming bot was down for some time last year, so the messages didn;t get out, but I;m quite sure they do now. *checks . Yep. They do. Oh, and the idea is wonderful!. I might try to create my own version... [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 12:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
*FYI: Now [[Mediawiki:Welcomecreation|test nr 3]] is up and running. Let me know if there are any problems.//[[User:SvHannibal|SvHannibal]] ([[User talk:SvHannibal|talk]]) 12:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
*And now test nr 4 is going on.//[[User:SvHannibal|SvHannibal]] ([[User talk:SvHannibal|talk]]) 23:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
*I just started [[Mediawiki:Welcomecreation|test nr 5]].//[[User:Hannibal|Hannibal]] ([[User talk:Hannibal|talk]]) 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC) PS. If you are curious about the results, you can have a sneak peak [[:outreach:Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Results|here]].
*I just started test version nr 6. //[[User:Hannibal|Hannibal]] ([[User talk:Hannibal|talk]]) 12:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
*Me again. Test version nr 7 is on now.//[[User:Hannibal|Hannibal]] ([[User talk:Hannibal|talk]]) 16:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
*Test nr 8 is running from today.//[[User:Hannibal|Hannibal]] ([[User talk:Hannibal|talk]]) 22:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

== Automatically welcoming new users ==

The [[Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee|Welcoming committee]] has a huge task, to try and introduce new editors to the basic aspects of the wiki once they make a contribution.

My proposal would be to use bots to automatically leave a message with registered users once they make their first edit into the project namespace. Regardless of wither this is a positive or negative edit, I think a simple message could be generated to neutrally present the five pillars, some basic links to editing, and a handful of other useful links. This would in turn automatically show users the broader aspects of the community and perhaps lead them to make more constructive and focused edits. More specific welcoming messages could be used if the first edit is to a user page, a talk page, and so forth.

This would not negate the use of the Welcoming Committee, they could still provide a more specific and human welcome. But for the most part, their basic duty could just as easily and more accurately be performed by automation. Thoughts? --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 06:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:This is a [[Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Use_a_bot_to_welcome_new_users|Perennial proposal]] ;) -- [[User:OlEnglish|<span style="font-size:x-large;">&oelig;</span>]][[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 08:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:See also [[User talk:Hannibal/Welcomecreation#Use the user's talk page for confirmation]] (a proposal intended as an alternative to the confirmation page for newly registering accounts) prompted by the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#New Accounts all creating the same page|hubbub]] caused by outreach experiments adding a preloaded inputbox "Create your user page" on experimental versions of the confirmation page. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 15:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
::Ah bummer, sometimes a good idea is just the same old unpopular idea. --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 16:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:::One unusual aspect of this perennial is that some of our sister projects have successfully implemented it, Commons has been doing it [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WereSpielChequers&oldid=22067250 for years]. What we don't know is whether the advantage of welcoming those newbies who currently get ignored offsets the disadvantage of giving an impersonal welcome to those newbies who would otherwise have received a personal one. I did make a proposal some time ago to try and achieve the best of both worlds by using a bot to welcome all the newbies who were still unwelcomed a week after their first edit - [[:strategy:Proposal:Welcome all useful new users, if necessary by a bot]]. Perhaps now would be a good time to refloat that idea? ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 01:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I think that sounds like a great idea. I'll definitely expand on my thoughts if there's another proposal. Seems like a bot welcome is better than no welcome any day of the week. At least a welcome template tells newbies where to get help and answers to their questions- whereas an "unwelcomed" newbie will have no clue where to go for this. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 02:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Maybe welcoming the people who fall through the cracks might be a good idea, after a week they're probably not goingto get noticed by anyone. More generally tho, how personal are the welcomes from the Welcoming Committee? Is pasting a template on a talk page really a personal welcome? Certainly humans can give more appropriate welcoming messages, like if the user makes an nonconstructive edit, but for general editing advice and policies, I think a bot would do just as good or better. --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 04:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Exactly what I was thinking. How impersonal is a bot compared to a human when all it does is paste the exact same welcoming template a human would? Another point to consider is that if an [[WP:ACC|account creator]] has the option enabled a welcome template is automatically placed on any account they is create. This is ''on Wikipedia''. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 05:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Just for the record: it's much more important to have a welcome template on commons to inform the user how to proceed within the context of the many different languages. This is not an issue here. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|talk]]) 05:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I welcome a lot of newbies, but I almost always use one of four options on friendly: ''The plate of cookies'', ''welcome your first article didn't meet guidelines'', ''welcome IP vandal'' and ''welcome vandal''. Two of those are tailored level 1 warnings and a third is almost a warning - so I fit the usual pattern of personalised relevant info for problem users but an impersonal welcome for our best newbies. Occasionally I will tailor it by adding a relevant wikiproject to the message. Maybe we need an easier way to do that? Or maybe we could get the bot make their message personal by mentioning  some wikiprojects that are relevant to the articles they edit? If we want to reverse the trend of fewer editors joining us, then personalising the welcome message would be sensible. Better still we need an analysis done of the hundreds of thousands of users welcomed and the welcomes they've been given so that we can identify which welcome messages work best and encourage their use. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 10:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::I did some counting.
:::::Of the last 1000 user creations of February, 461 had one or more contributions. Of those 461, 278 (60%) had no talk page yet.
:::::Of the last 1000 of January, 356 had at least one contribution. Of those, 166 (47%) had no talk page.
:::::I think that means that half the users who did more than only register received no welcoming message.
:::::Here is a simple experiment. For a couple of days, we send randomly about half the new users an automated welcome message. For the other half, business as usual – maybe someone welcomes them personally, maybe no one does. (Whether someone does or does not gets an automated message should not be really random but be decided in a way that can easily be repeated afterwards, such as whether the user name has an even or odd length.) Then we check say two months later if there is a difference in activity between the two groups. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I think that's a great idea. If we determine which method best increases the number of return users then it would help us move forward. --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 01:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:From a pragmatic point of view, I would oppose this.  Redlinked talk pages can be a good cue for vandal fighting and sock-hunting.  Seeing redlinked talk pages for people with precocious knowledge of Wikipedia is a very useful cue to investigate further.  If we bluelinked every talk page as soon as someone edited, it would make it somewhat harder to track these sorts of issues.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 04:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::[[Special:Log/newusers]] shows both links to talk and contribs. Checking for vandalism involves actually looking at user contributions, and the only useful information you can glean from redlinked talk pages is that no one has chastised them yet. If this proposal were put into place, it might take an extra click (or mouse hover depending on your setup), but I think the potential of increased return users would far outweigh this small negative. --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 06:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Oh, it was a small (but very real) concern.  I am quite experienced enough to know how to root out problematic users.  I was just noting the lamentation of the loss of one small tool that does help find socks rather easily, should this proposal be accepted.  In other words, yes, I know quite well the limitations of ''relying'' on the redlinked talk page as the ''sole'' method of finding socks.  Still, its a handy tool at times, and I would miss it if we bluelinked every talk page the second an account went active.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 06:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I understand your perspective, and it is a legitimate concern. --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 07:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue which really arises because of the flaw in [[MediaWiki:Welcomecreation]]: it disappears and can't easily be found again. The solution was proposed as {{phab|23318}}: essentially, turn it into a dismissable message shown on new users' talk pages, which isn't an actual talk page posting and doesn't turn the redlink blue. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 14:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*I hadn't been aware of the sock spotting  advantage to redlinked talkpages. However that would not be affected if we set the bot to welcome people who still had redlinked talkpages one week after their first edit. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 18:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
* I '''oppose''' welcoming users on their first edit with a boilerplate message. First off, personally I don't think that boilerplate welcome messages help with anything at all. People recognise it instantly as an automated message. I for one wouldn't care for an automated message on my talkpage. Ideally I'd say leave a personal message on a talkpage after about 5 edits, to show the newcomers that they are free to experiment and make mistakes, and people aren't watching on their fingers with every step and mistake. Then, if they still haven't been welcomed after about 20 edits, leave a boilerplate message (and hang our collective heads in shame). I know this is a lot more labour intensive than templating. Still, I believe that welcoming one newbie properly should be chosen over welcoming 20 with a template. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] ([[User talk:Martijn Hoekstra|talk]]) 21:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*By the way, I would very much welcome metrics of newbie retention on editors templated newbies verses non-templated numbers. I can have all the ideas I want on the effectiveness of template/boilerplate messages, but without any numbers it's anyones guess really. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] ([[User talk:Martijn Hoekstra|talk]]) 22:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
===Proposal to run a test session===
I think the test method outlined by [[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] would give us the most neutral way of determining which method of welcoming functions better. Taking a test group of new editors and automatically welcoming them when they make their first edit, and then a control group where regular methods of welcoming occur. Using a few thousand accounts for each group would reduce the chance of number skewing.

The bot welcoming message would be simple, it would only include neutral information about content policy, MOS, how to interact with users/talk pages and how to get involved with the community. Just short and simple. Then after several months, we analyze the results. Thoughts? --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 15:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
:I'd support a test,  though it needs to be 7 days after their first edit not immediately, and in that case the control group should be unwelcomed users not manually welcomed ones. We also need to test the efficacy of various welcome messages. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 18:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
::I'd support a trial, either of immediate welcoming or welcoming after a week. Personally I find the red links useful for identifying users who might need more basic explanations in discussions, but I would quickly change my view if there were evidence that a bot welcome increased retention.--[[User:Physics is all gnomes|Physics is all gnomes]] ([[User talk:Physics is all gnomes|talk]]) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

===Things I, as a newbie, would have liked to have seen when I was "welcomed"===
This is my first visit to the village pump. After a year or more of considering the possibility, I did my first edit on 23 February and since then have been enjoying populating a very small corner of the Wikipedia world (Jewish musicians, poets, actors, etc involved in cabaret in Warsaw between the World Wars) using a few Yiddish reference books I've been reading and some amazing Polish savants who post inter-war tangos on Youtube! 

Feedback for the old-timers: I found the Wikipedia interface incredibly intimidating. It's austere and verrrry nerdy and obscure. It took me a while to even SEE the "edit this page" tab - at first I thought I could only edit the reference list, not the article itself. Also, I couldn't figure out for a couple days HOW to make my references show up in a reference list. 

I needed (still do need) a list of formatting rules close at hand - I still look some of them up by GOOGLING wikipedia to see, for instance, how to format a "redirect." I know there is a cheat sheet but I can't remember how to find it. I am overwhelmed by all the acronyms. I stuck it out because I was curious, but it wasn't easy. I'm surprised and pleased to see so many people here caring about there being new editors - and I did receive a "welcome" note - but really what you need is to see this interface through my eyes (or any other newbies). It doesn't work like any forum or other user-content-generated site I've ever been involved with. And now I will remember to add my four tildes. [[User:Jane Peppler|Jane Peppler]] ([[User talk:Jane Peppler|talk]]) 03:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:Truly this is a testament of great courage and tenacity. Hearing your comment about learning how to make a ref show up is a very common problem I see new users having when I—very rarely— patrol new pages. Perhaps more effort should be made to direct new users towards the help button on the left hand side of Wikipedia, or to use the "first article" creator, or to look at the tutorial.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 04:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::One of the biggest problems with referencing is that there is no standard.  We have our citation templates, but not only do some people (including veteran editors) not use them, but there are different ways of using them, such as [[WP:LDR|list defined references]] vs. ordinary inline references.  Some use {{tl|Sfn}}, others use {{tl|Harvnb}}, and many simply create footnotes manually.  Some "References" sections have "Literature cited" subsections and use footnotes, others don't.  And if you try to discuss standardizing it across all Wikiprojects, expect to see people charge at you with pitchforks and torches... or just ignore you completely.  Personally, I hope the new editing interface is released relatively soon, and I especially hope it handles references for us in a clean, efficient manner.  But one of the biggest things I think we need for new users is a better interface to policies, like [[WP:MOS]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], etc., as well as other things like [[WP:ASSESS]].  It needs to be super simple, easy to find, easy to read, but providing links to more detailed explanations for when the general overview is insufficient.  As it stands, these important pages are long and difficult to read, and I doubt few editors have read them completely. –&nbsp;'''[[User:Visionholder|<span style="color:darkgreen">VisionHolder</span>]] «[[User talk:Visionholder|<span style="color:olive">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]»''' 05:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Re refs: There should be a "cheat sheet" which includes the suggestion that new users (or anyone, really) is welcome to insert a reference by simply entering the plain text in brackets. A wikignome will format it in due course. What is needed is a simple suggestion about what information should be entered, and the order, with a couple of examples.
:::Re new editing interface: The rich text editor at wikia.com is ghastly. Management and newbies love the ''idea'' of it ("look, there's a bold button just like on my word processor"), but the only things the clever editor can do are the dead easy things (bold, italics, and perhaps one or two other things since the last time I tried, months ago). The stuff which is tricky in wikitext is ghastly or impossible in a clever editor. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Dear Visionholder: I visited those acronym links of yours (WP:MOS etc) and nearly fainted. Though I am a ''cum laude'' graduate of Yale University and read very long books quite happily, I find the formatting and tone (if not the content) of those pages so dense that they immediately fall into the ''life is too short'' category. You would have to hold a flame to my foot to make me read them. [[User:Jane Peppler|Jane Peppler]] ([[User talk:Jane Peppler|talk]]) 12:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Hi, [[User:Jane Peppler|Jane Peppler]]. I can remember being intimated by the interface, the tools and the WP:bureaucratese of the policies and guidelines. I've attempted an advice page at [[User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors]], which tries to write in simple English, to concentrate on useful tools and techniques, and to summarise the main policies and guidelines and link to pages where editor can get advice on the main policies and guidelines. But I'm aware that I'm very probably assuming too much - apart from WP, I've been using Windows since 1992. If anyone can identify problems or omissions, or suggest improvements, please comment at [[User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors]]. --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

== Automating submissions for Autopatrol right ==

In an effort to reduce the burden at [[WP:NPP]], several people have undertaken a large project to review and grant autopatrol rights to users that qualify for them. Over the last 2 months, about [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 1|2,500 users have been reviewed]] and about 1,000 users have been granted the right so far. The task has been laborious and I would like to get one or more bots to help with the effort. Before making a bot request, I want to get input from the community to see if we want to do this. Do we want to do this?

If we decide to do this, I think much of the effort could be automated. We already have a script/bot that is generating [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege|reports of possible qualified users]]. This is the general idea — only users that would ''easily qualify'' for the autopatrol right would be automatically submitted for review.
#The existing script/bot would be left "as is" to generate reports
#One or more bots would remove users from the list using defined criteria
#Users that remained on the list would be submitted to [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled]] by a bot over a series of days rather than having seperate lists as we have now.
The bots could remove users from the list using several defined criteria;
*Users that have been declined recently
*Users that have copyright violations in their recent talk page history (certain messages from [[User:CorenSearchBot|CorenSearchBot]]}
*Users that have created unreferenced BLPs in their recent talk page history (certain messages from [[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]]}
*Users that are currently blocked
Note that this is completely different than users requesting the right. This would be specifically defined to find users that would ''easily qualify'' for the right. Any input is greatly appreciated. - [[User:Hydroxonium|Hydroxonium]] ([[User talk:Hydroxonium|talk]]) 13:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:As one of the people who has been appointing Autopatrollers, I would add that the most important filter that the current bot reports lack is that the editors need to have created articles recently. The current bot just identifies people who have created sufficient articles to qualify, but many have been inactive for years. It is only worth assessing candidates who still create articles. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 13:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::If the bot is just weeding out candidates who qualify on numbers but not on other things, leaving those who are eligible for review by admins, I think this would be helpful. I would suggest that it only remove ''indefinitely'' blocked users and it would be good if it could remove anyone who hasn't created a new article in, say, two months. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]]  14:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I think that's all good. No copyvios, no unreferenced BLPs, no indefinitely blocked users, no users recently declined. Indefinite is the requirement here in that if someone happens to be on a 1-hour block while the bot goes round, they'd be excluded under your criteria. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::::If the bot was running a weekly report then you could keep it simple by excluding blocked users. If they happened to miss one week's report because of a 24 hour block the next week would include them. It would also be sensible to exclude those currently displaying a retired template on their userpage. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 15:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::And the {{tl|Not around}} template. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<span style="font-size:x-large;">&oelig;</span>]][[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 15:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::If we can exclude authors who haven't recently created articles then all the {{tl|Not around}} ones will be excluded. If we can't do that then the report will be almost unusable as we have already picked off most of the active ones in the recent trawl. So unless we can screen out those who haven't created an article in the last couple of months then I doubt if there will be any value in running the report till nearly Xmas. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 16:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Would it make sense to check for deleted article creations? For example, if the editor has created a couple hundred stubs, but half of them have been quickly A7'ed, that might suggest that having NPPs continue to patrol their creations would be a good idea. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 17:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Minor remark. The generated list is based on the count of created articles that are not redirects, but this also includes articles in the count that were ''created'' as a redirect, but were later changed (usually not by the creator) to a normal article. I assume that that is not intentional. In practice this may not be a big deal. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 21:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:I would also suggest looking at the List of Wikipedians by number of edits [[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits|here]] for those that may qualify. I would also recommend excluding from the list anyone with Admin Rights (the permission would be inherent in their admin powers) and anyone with a Retired template. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::The current prospect list excludes admins and Autopatrollers and yes any new list needs to continue to do that. I'm not convinced it is worth assessing editors who have high edit counts but don't create articles, the reason why we flag users as Autopatrolled is as a white list for newpage patrol. If someone has done fifty thousand useful edits but never created a new article then they would get Autopatrolled flag as part of the admin package if they passed RFA. But there is no reason to spend time checking their contributions otherwise - and no history of creating articles would mean it was more difficult to predict whether any future articles they created might merit deletion. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 13:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:Sorry, latecomer to  this discussion. Per 28Bytes, and there are editors who mass create stubs - some of them are socks (or reformed socks and still  creating  stubs). What  experience has been gained on  this by the admins who  have been according  the right?--[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 10:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 

===Need help with time frames===
Thanks for all the great input everybody. This is what the search currently does.
*Finds users on en.wiki who have created 50+ non-redirect articles
*Remove users that are Admins, Autopatrolled or Bots
*Remove users that are less than 6 months old
*Remove users whose last edit was more than 30 days ago
These are new suggestions
*Remove users who are indef blocked (or any block, they'll get picked up on the next run)
*Remove users that are {{tl|retired}} or {{tl|not around}}
These suggestions need timeframes
*Remove users that have been declined in the last (30? 60?) days
*Remove users whose last new article was more than (30? 60? 90?) days ago
*Remove users that have copyright violations on their talk page within the last (??) days
*Remove users that have unreferenced BLPs on their talk page within the last (??) days
*Remove users that have deleted articles in the last (??) days
Any help for suggested lengths of time is greatly appreciated. Thanks very much. - '''''[[User:Hydroxonium|Hydroxonium]]''''' ([[User talk:Hydroxonium|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Hydroxonium|C]]•<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&amp;limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V]</span>) 08:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
== Classification, Quality and Authorship ==

Let me start by saying how amazing the Wikipedia is.  Given the disparity of views and how difficult human nature is it is amazing that the Wikipedia works at all.

I wonder if it would have been better to have different classes of pages within the one wikipedia.

Quality
* Draft.
* Mad ramblings of uniformed amateur. ;)
* Original work (new ideas etc).
* Expert.
* Reviewed for accuracy.
* Reviewed for unbiased and referenced.
* Reviewed for readability.
* Core document.

Classification
* Encyclopedia entry (a page describing a comprehensive list of final results and facts relating to a subject).
* Encyclopedia summary entry (a page describing a summary of key results and facts, to allow quick understanding of a subject).
* Derivation (a page showing how results are derived).
* Rigorous proof (a page showing a rigorous proof.  Bias is towards accuracy, not readability).
* Teaching Page (a page showing a lesson or lessons to allowing the understanding of an area.  An ordered series of lessons designed to allow understanding of a subject).
* Research Paper (allow actual research papers to be published on the wiki).

Authorship
* Designated author (or co-authors)
* Expert authorship only (authors must have established expertise in field)
* General authorship

I think this could open the Wikipedia up and allow a broader range of content.
[[User:Thepigdog|Thepigdog]] ([[User talk:Thepigdog|talk]]) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:Please see [[WP:PILLARS]] and [[WP:ENC]] [[User:Melodia|♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫]] ([[User talk:Melodia|talk]]) 04:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:{{xt|"Allow actual research papers to be published on the wiki"}} -- [[WP:NOR|Never]] [[WP:V|going]] [[WP:NPOV|to]] [[WP:RS|happen]]. This is a proposal which would fundamentally alter the structure of Wikipedia, as such such a system would probably need to be implmented as a new project. --[[User:nn123645|nn123645]] ([[User talk:nn123645|talk]]) 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::Also, [[WP:OWN]]. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small> [[User:Kayau/guestbook|evil]] </small> 15:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, "original works" and "experts only" will not happen because of [[WP:5P]]. There are already a number of systems that classify articles by quality or deficiencies, too. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 20:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Most of the above types of material can be posted on Wikinfo, while Citizendium has an expert approval system. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking Wikipedians to give up principles that have worked well for them.  I am asking that these principles be assigned to a class.  That class is good.  It has worked well for Wikipedia.

I am suggesting that something major has been inspired by Wikipedia. An idea that human knowledge may be available online, in a form that anyone can add to in a spirit of mutual co-operation.

The other Wikipedia sites will never work because there is no organising principle that co-ordinates them or gives them validity.  

The Wikipedia is what people want, the encyclopedia of unbiased verifiable facts.  But these facts should be backed by other material within the same database.  How wonderful it would be to click on a theorem in the wikipedia and go to the derivation or proof.  The proof belongs to a different class.  But it two is subject to the same open review as the result.

External links will always suffer from linkrot.  And the external links are not open to the same review as in the Wikipedia community.

If you dont do this the Wikipedia will increasingly become a conservative element in society.  A repository of safe ideas verifiable by out of date sources.  If you expand the wikipedia gradually by adding in new classes the Wikipedia will be come a co-ordinated library of human knowledge.

The choice is yours.  I understand the spirit of the age is against me.  And encyclopedia of established facts fits well within that age.  If you expand the Wikipaedia by creating new classes you will create something amazing.  If you dont do this you will have lost an opportunity. [[User:Thepigdog|Thepigdog]] ([[User talk:Thepigdog|talk]]) 05:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== Proposed liberty on essays ==

<small>(NOTE: The following was moved from [[Wikipedia:Proposed liberty on essays]]. -- [[User:Uzma Gamal|Uzma Gamal]] ([[User talk:Uzma Gamal|talk]]) 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC))</small>:  The '''Proposed liberty on essays''' is a [[Wikipedia]] proposal that would let people have POV essays that don't have to do with Wikipedia. Well, we have userboxes that often have a POV and userboxes are often short. It would be healthier for the brain because then we can read more and thus our brains don't become mush. -- [[User:SomeDudeWithAUserName|SomeDudeWithAUserName]] 21:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*I'm not supporting or opposing the proposal, but I feel that the word 'liberty' is not accurate in this case. Such a change will change the scope of userspace completely. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small> [[User:Kayau/guestbook|evil]] </small> 14:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
: Obviously not, we are not a general discussion forum. If it is not related to building an encyclopedia it doesn't belong here. POV userboxes are already evil, but are tolerated because they are relatively harmless. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*[[WP:NOTESSAY]], [[WP:NOTOPINION]], [[WP:NOTBLOG]]. 'Nuff said. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*I am definitely against anything like this. There's enough rubbish discussion forums on the web without turning Wikipedia into another one. And that essay can be moved to userspace after this discussion is ended. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
== attachments ==

How about for admins, for incidents, they can attach a [[PDF]] Doc of the incident and after other admins can download it?  PDFs are able to be uploaded to wikipedia.  ~~'''Awsome''' [[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 22:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:What kind of incidents are you referring to? <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

::Any type. ~~'''Awsome''' [[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 15:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Why? '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 13:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== Wikignome image ==

I am a gnome - on my page I have the gnome userbox - it looks from a distance like a black and white image of a vagina - do I need to see a psychiatrist, an optician, or should the image be improved? [[User:markdask|<font face="verdana" color="#00AA11">'''Mark'''</font>]]<small>[[User talk:markdask|<font color="F0A804"><sup>'''Dask'''</sup></font>]]</small> 19:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
: Well, you may need to see a psychiatrist or an optician anyway, but not because of what you see in that image. IMHO it doesn't look like a gnome at first glance. (Maybe not a vagina either, but I had to stare long & hard to see it was a small person peaking around a tree & wearing a pointed hat.) FWIW, I vote that you Wikignomes find a better image; you guys deserve it. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 06:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Featured disambiguation ==

We now have Featured articles, Featured lists, Featured pictures, Featured sounds, Featured portals, and Featured topics. The effort and skill to create a great disambiguation page is along the lines of lists and topics (and the up and coming Featured books). -- [[User:Uzma Gamal|Uzma Gamal]] ([[User talk:Uzma Gamal|talk]]) 05:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:I don't think DAB pages are of sufficient interest, artistic and creative scope to  be considered for featured pages. They  belong  more to  the meta side of the encyclopdia. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 05:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:It is also impossible to come up with criteria for them. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small> [[User:Kayau/guestbook|evil]] </small> 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Not for two weeks yet... [[User:Melodia|♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫]] ([[User talk:Melodia|talk]]) 06:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:DABs are just a practical interface necessity to the working of the encyclopedia, due to the limitations of identifying subjects by title alone. They don't actually represent content, or at least in general they aren't supposed to. Only content should be "featured", not interface elements. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 06:52, 20 Mar 2011 (UTC)</font>

:We already tried [[Wikipedia:Featured redirect]]... didn't go so well. <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',sans-serif"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</span>]] ([[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">talk</span>]]) — </span> 17:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

: I agree that we should not have "featured" disambiguation pages, but I think we should have "good" disambiguation pages, to the extent that a disambig page addressing a large number of possible meanings can be shown to have thorough coverage and conform in every respect to [[WP:MOSDAB]]. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:tan;">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
== Qualification for being a reviewer ==

My proposal is that no editor ought to be allowed to review an article at a level that they themselves haven't reached. In other words, if you haven't written a [[WP:GA|good article]] or a [[WP:FA|featured article]] then you have no demonstrated expertise to review someone else's [[WP:GAN|GAN]] or [[WP:FAC|FAC]]. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 03:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:Is there an actual problem this solution is designed to resolve?  Lack of reviewers is a problem that has plagued Wikipedia for years.  Creating artificial barriers to willing volunteers will simply exasperate the existing lack of supply.  Additionally, FAC has a reputation for being rather cliquish in nature.  Implementing a restriction that only existing members of the FA club are able to comment on the worthiness of others efforts will simply compound this widely held perception and breed animosity to the FA process. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 03:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::No, of course there's no problem, everything's just hunky-dory, my mistake. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 03:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:I personally would oppose this, but only because I can't write a good article to save my life. It doesn't mean that I don't have a literary skill set, I'm just better at reviewing than writing. Seriously read one of my books and you would agree. That said, I agree with Allen3 on many points. Any input is better than no input, IMHO. Who 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC) sorry my sig got scrubbed. [[User:Who|Who]] ([[User talk:Who|talk]]) 05:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::I oppose this, not because I don't think there's a problem, but because I think your solution needs adjustment. Not everyone is an excellent writer, but that does not mean that they don't know what to look for in conducting reviews. Instead of mandating that everyone produce content in order to review content at that level, why not mandate that new reviewers get mentored into full reviewer status. Case in point: In my [[Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/GA1|first and only GA review]], I asked an experienced reviewer to check my work. I got some things right, but I also missed a bunch. In the end, it went rather well, everything got caught and fixed, and I learned a lot about what to look for. If I decided to continue to do reviews, I would have continued to ask for guidance until I performed a review where the second reviewer did not see anything that I missed. It might have taken three or four or five tries, but in the end there would be two competent reviewers instead of one. Perhaps training is a better option, as it both includes those that make for good reviewers but bad writers and excludes those that make good writers but bad reviewers. Thoughts? [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="FCD116">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 07:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 
:::Indeed, people may know how something should be done without being able to do it themselves. Otherwise, we wouldn't have, well, critics in general. [[User:Melodia|♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫]] ([[User talk:Melodia|talk]]) 07:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:you can't vote for president until you've been one ;) [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 08:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This would discourage/forbid editors who may be experts or have access to good sources who don't happen to have got an article to GA/FA from commenting at all - surely this would make for a poorer quality review and poorer articles.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I've done quite a few FA reviews [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nico Ditch|including at least one to an article that Malleus submitted]], and don't even have a Good Article to my name, so I suppose I'm a fairly extreme example of the sort of reviewer that this proposal seeks to weed out. As you'd expect I think this sort of rule is unnecessary and unhelpful, but I suppose I would say that wouldn't I. I'm especially not convinced that FAC reviewing should only be done by FA writers, as this is a collaborative process with multiple reviewers and FA delegates who can judge the reviews and ignore unhelpful ones.  I accept that GA is somewhat different because one reviewer can pass or fail an article. But if it helps keep the peace, I will avoid reviewing further articles by Malleus Fatuorum, ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
*I have a hard time believing that doing this would be anything less than ''detrimental'' to the GA/FA review process. Second, I don't see how writing a GA/FA makes you more competent to ''review'' GANs/FACs. Who would say when "you've written a GA"? Nominating a good looking article and fixing minor mistakes brought up doesn't automatically make you competent to review GAs, and ''never'' doing this doesn't mean you're ''incompetent''. Third, the "you can't comment on it unless you've been there" sentiment simply valid. Fourth, I don't see a problem that needs fixing. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
**second point is a good one. it's not always clear who gets how much credit for writing an article. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Support'''.  Of course.  We don't need more unqualified reviewers.  We need more qualified ones.  It's hard enough dealing with qualified ones, but throwing poor quality into the process reduces efficiency, not increases it.  

Doing a good review in some ways requires even MORE perspective than doing a good article.  Ideally we'd have some superstud New Yorker editor figure.  But failing that, an article writer is much better than someone who can't or won't write articles.  If someone doesn't have the capability (or desire) to write an article, I don't want the review.  

I've been unimpressed by the reviews from people who haven't done an article.  They don't have an overall vision, they don't 
spell out their crits, they don't have any sympathy or understanding of the author.  They seem to play the RFA power game of playing with the support/oppose to drive personal views on style choices, rather than making reccs on things where a choice is allowed.  I've actually twice (in a short go) seen very malicious behavior from reviewers who had not done an article.

Only other thing is would add that we should do quid pro quo (require reviews) as DYK does.  I'd MUCH rather have an enforced review from someone who writes featured content (he's going to give a good review, he's already shown that by writing articles that he can compose his thoughts) than have a review from someone who is intimidated by actually...well writing an article (which after all is the unit of work product from the reader [customer] point of view).  And I'd be more likely to do the reviews and be more interested in the process, if it was a part of the civic duty, than if it's some ad hoc thing with Sandy whining about how no one does reviews or isn't nice enough to reviewers.

And I actually agree that the places (well FA really) are kind of clubby.  But I don't think inviting Randy from Boise is the answer.  The answer is getting ALL of the populaton of FA writers to do reviews, not just a small number.

[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 14:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

===Improving review processes===
Moving beyond the original proposal, which hasn't had any support, there is a real issue motivating that proposal. Now I would have thought more emphasis on collaboration would be the way to go, to ensure that (for GA) reviews don't rest ''solely'' on the shoulders of a single editor who might not be qualified enough. Get a minimum of 2 or 3, and on average it should be OK. Alternatively, and more in line with the original proposal, get the relevant community (FA/GA) to approve reviewers, based on some defined standard in which contributing FAs/GAs would feature as providing lots of credit, but not be required (necessary credit for approval can be reached without that). We could also consider ways to make reviewers more accountable, with a clear list of review contributions. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 08:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:I think there is a case for doing something close to this at GA where currently a sole review by any editor other than the article creator can include promoting the article to GA status. At FA we have FA delegates who close FAC discussions, perhaps GA needs a similar role but with the added responsibility that they can promote as GA an article that they have reviewed, and even where they are the sole reviewer. This would mean that any editor could still review at either GA or FAC, but only someone who has been trusted to do so by the community could close a discussion and decide whether or not to promote an article. So a single review could still lead to a GA being promoted or not, but only if a "GA delegate" did the review or made the call based on another editors review.  As an aside, I'm not convinced that either reviewer or delegate is the best title for this. [[WP:Reviewer]] is already in use and I think delegate is a title that we have given a very different wiki meaning to its real world meaning. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 15:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
::GA nominations can sit for ''months'' awaiting a review from a single editor. How long would they sit waiting for a ''second'' or ''third'' editor to review them? Or, in the case of the alternative option, how much longer would they sit waiting for a "GA delegate" to promote them? The great thing about the current system is that GAs can either be reassessed by the community or by a single editor and delisted at any time. GA reviewing is a ''much'' more massive operation than FA reviewing, hence it naturally needs to be quicker, more flexible, etc. While a good idea in theory, I don't see how it could work ''practically''. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 17:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
:::"How long would they sit waiting for a ''second'' or ''third'' editor to review them?" - depends. Additional reviewers would be able to draw on the work of the first, and contributing to an existing review discussion is less daunting than taking lead (and often sole) responsibility. So paradoxically, you might get more people move into reviewing, if you can create a clear path for reviewing baby steps through contributing to reviews led by an experienced reviewer. Besides which, waiting months for a competent reviewer isn't a problem per se ([[WP:DEADLINE]]); far better than having people pitch in who aren't really interested and risk the review being too superficial. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Would this slow the process down? Well that depends on the proportion of the current GA reviews that are done by people who would merit "GA delegate" status. If the bulk of the GA reviews are already done by people who are already at the standard to do a GA review on their own, then my proposal should not greatly impact waiting time, and as RD232 pointed out it might even speed it up, both for the reason RD232 gave and also as it could encourage reviews from people like myself who check some but not all aspects of articles. But also there is no deadline, better to get something like this right than have them done to a schedule. Though it would be important to appoint all the suitably active and accurate reviewers as GA delegates. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 19:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Well, that pretty much answered my concerns. At the same time, while we have no deadline, ''backlogs'' are bad. ''Excessive waiting'' is bad. I wouldn't like see the GAN backlog get any more overblown due to waiting time when most reviewers are perfectly competent already. If process wouldn't be affected too much, it's definitely something I'd support. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 01:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
=== The other direction ===
Personally, I'm all for going in the complete opposite direction, here. We should just mark the whole GA/FA process historical and forget about it. Regardless of original intents (which, I believe, were good), the reality of the current GA/FA ecosystem is that it consists of an insular group of people who seek to provide ego boosts to themselves and others associated with the group. I, for one, will not be a part of it.
<br>I don't expect that my opinion here will be popular, of course. As a matter of fact, I expect it to be largely ignored. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think that it's still important to state. People such as myself generally avoid those of you involved with GA/FA due to your collectively prickly nature (in the area concerned with the GA/FA process, at least). I ''have'' done some MOS work, and may contribute to parts of the MOS again, at some point in the future. Unfortunately though, the FA/GA process has become a rather exclusive and, as I said above, insular group (dare I say elitist?). I simply feel that it is the antithesis of what Wikipedia should aspire to, so I have no real motivation to enable it. I know that I'm not alone in basically ignoring the whole system (which, interestingly, is easy to do. Happily.). Regards<br/>—&nbsp;[[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:* You're not alone, although I would go further and include at least some of the most vocal the MOS regulars in that assessment. Many MOS-related discussions are simply impossible to contribute to due to a certain group of users, and enough MOS "guidelines" seem to be decided on and then enforced as if policy by small insular groups that when I hear about a new MOS prescription decided on without any community discussion I just chalk it up as par for the course. I too just try to ignore them whenever possible. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 15:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I think it helps the articles to have people concentrate on individual ones to try and bring them up to a good standard. I definitely would not discourage that. And as to stopping people doing a review who hadn't themselves done work to that level, hasn't anyone heard of film critics? Do you really want to get rid of such opinions? Do you expect artists for instance to work in a vacuum with no feedback? [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 15:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Whether V = IR is being cynical or serious, they make a very, very good point. A large number of people who "write GAs" tend to view themselves as vested contributors who increase in value with each {{icon|GA}} icon they add to the top of their userpage. They then presume to look down on people who haven't done GAs. This commonly manifests itself as an oppose in an RfA or the like. It's really quite nauseating. While doing away with GAs entirely is...one option... a more practical option perhaps would be to do away with "keeping score" when it comes to GAs. This probably wouldn't be a successful community proposal either, but people who track GAs as if it were a game certainly tend to be a problem. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 01:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:*While I tend to agree about what the processes have turned into (not to mention the constantly tightening standards, especially with FA), I see them as more of a necessary evil. Being able to put a little icon on your userpage or seeing your work on the main page for a day provides a little more incentive for people to improve our existing articles, which we desperately need. They may be insular groups, but they're insular groups going around and improving articles; I can't really complain that much about it. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 19:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

:* Hear, hear!!! ''the reality of the current GA/FA ecosystem is that it consists of an insular group of people who seek to provide ego boosts to themselves and others associated with the group. I, for one, will not be a part of it.'' Articles should just be rated '''A - B - C - start - stub''', with clearly-defined criteria for each, and any established editor should have the freedom to assign a grade. I have no interest whatsoever in any of the FA/GA nonsense, which seems to me to be related to the Cult of Administratorship, in which I also refuse to participate. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 01:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I've heard a few iffy things about GA, and worse things about FA, however the criticism I hear the most is that there exists a group of reviewers who will fail the reviewed item because there are problems in it, fixable problems, and yet even though it would be easy for those problems to be fixed by the reviewer, the reviewer does not 'see it as their problem' to do so. In the worst cases, reviewers will say 'you failed criteria X' and not even make themselves available for clarification, let alone assistance. I saw this recently in a Featured Sounds review, and the reviewer actually said as much, that reviewers review and that it should have been right before being put up for review <small>(Mind you mentioning FS is a tad off topic, but still illustrates the point which I've seen in GA and heard about in FA)</small>. Now I agree with the second part, to a point, things should be in as good a shape as possible before being reviewed, but at the same time, there needs to be a recognition that things won't be perfect going in, and more importantly than that, there needs to be an attitude shift. I would go as far as to say that '''any reviewer that is unwilling to help fix the problems he spots should be barred from reviewing.''' I'm not saying that reviewers need to help rewrite articles or fix up articles that were clearly not ready to be submitted, but the fail and run attitude I've seen at GA and heard about at FA needs to end, and it needs to end now. More than a textbook sized MOS or the learning curve required to write top quality material, the biggest, most discouraging factor hampering these processes is getting a drive by panning. If a user's first GA review ends up like that, I doubt that user will be back for seconds. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 19:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

===Online testing of FA/GA reviewers===
I have another proposal for improving FA/GA reviews - subjecting reviewers to a short 10 question open-book online quiz to make sure they have read the criteria.  Anyone who passes the quiz would have a bit set in their signon record and they would be eligible to review FA and GA candidate articles.  We are facing a large problem with criteria creep.  Some people who are reviewing DYK-suggested articles treat the process as if it were a GA review of the article. Other reviewers give GA nominated articles an FA level review, etc.  The plan could be implemented by designing a panel of 25 multiple choice questions that would be selected at random and presented to the test-taker one at a time with an explanation of why each answer selected was right or wrong.  The test-taker would only advance to the next question if he answered the prior one correctly, and the bit would be awarded after 10 correct answers in a row.

At present, there is no guarantee that the reviewers understand their role or the criteria.  This proposal would give FA/GA reviewers a sense of being "certified" and would lead to better reviews. [[User:Racepacket|Racepacket]] ([[User talk:Racepacket|talk]]) 15:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

*I'm just going to go ahead and disagree with all of the above. Instruction creep would scare away GA/FA reviewers when we have few already. Those complaining about it being "cliquish" I have not seen myself, but making requirements and restrictions seems like it would exacerbate such a problem if it does exist by making more difficult to get in. Similarly, who would design and review these "tests"? If someone disagrees with the GA process then they should point out what they disagree with their and try to fix that problem.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

== Time limits on adminship ==

{{archive top|result=Obviously going nowhere as proposed. Suggest the OP re-write it as a "term-limit" proposal or "reconfirmation" proposal. Forced time-off for admins really won't work, for the many reasons listed below. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)}}
I propose that adminship be granted for a period of three years only. An editor must also wait three years between adminships. All existing admins that have been admins for longer than three years lose that status (but may reapply for adminship in three years). 
I think this proposal is a good idea because:
# It reduces admin burnout
# It reduces factions of admins persisting for any length of time
# It reduces the special status of adminship - admins really are just the same as other editors, they only temporarily serve in a higher capacity
# It ensures a renewal process in the admin pool
# It helps prevent WP rules and policies from becoming too byzantine. Very long term admins will know all the existing WP rules inside and out and naturally attempt to extend them to cover every eventuality. Short term admins will seek a smaller ruleset. 
--[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 12:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:I think limiting terms is a good idea, but I think there will be a lot of resistance from long time admins, especially those who use a lot of admin specific tools to do their day to day work here. --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 13:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::In that case, the newest admins should sign up for the policy. It will increase their influence, and improve their ability to implement new ideas. I suspect that people being people, some of the long-time admins have become warlords of a sort with entrenched factions? I pulled the "three year" period off the top of my head. Is there a way to work out a time limit that would eliminate the oldest (say) 40% of admins? --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 13:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I think a set time limit is a very good idea, I would even advocate reducing it to 2 years. However, I'm not sure about a long gap in between though, perhaps they could re-appply immediatly for a vote of confidence. More importantly still, I would like to see editors having to show a 2 year commitment to the project before being able to  become admins in the first place - I think this would reduce a great many of the problems which are caused by Admims being unaware of policy and common sense. [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giacomo]] [[User_talk:GiacomoReturned|Returned]]  13:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:This proposal isn't practical. [[WP:RFA]] created 117 new admins in 2009 and 75 in 2010. If we carry on promoting people at the same rate as last year then by the end of 2011 this proposal would mean that we would have about 270 admins. Since we currently have 1,780 (780 of them active) this would probably result in huge backlogs in admin-related tasks. ''[[User:Hut 8.5|<b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b>]]'' 13:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::In order to assess partiality. It would e a good idea if those commenting on this stated if they were themselves admins. I am not. [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giacomo]] [[User_talk:GiacomoReturned|Returned]]  13:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I'm an admin, and I think ''some'' time limit on adminship would be a good idea. 3 years sounds fine, although it would be good to know how many reconfirmation RfA's we'd have in that case (how many users that were made an admin three years ago are still active as an admin today?). A mandatory pause of three years sounds problematic for the reasons Hut 8.5 outlined above. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Well, I'm still as active as an admin as I was three years ago; even more, since the number of admins working copyright cleanup queues has declined. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}As an admin, I'm tentatively in favor of time limits, but opposed to a 3-year break in service. A month without the tools would be sufficient to see if you think you still need them enough to jump back in the meat grinder... --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 13:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}x2 Assuming we maintain a pool of around 1000 active admins we would have one reconfirmations/RFAs per day on average with a 3 year time period, which is less than RFA handled in 2007. Should be doable. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::I would suggest a large cohort of existing admins would mean that less and less people get granted adminship as time goes on. Newer admins will encourage newer users. With a time limit, we do not need to vet admin candidates as much, since there is a built-in limit to their power.
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=10000&group=sysop&creationSort=1 This link] shows the 1780 admins, 40% of 1780 = 712, and admin # 712 was created Nov 2004. So we could set the time limit at '''SIX''' years and still retire the 40% longest serving admins. 
::Reconfirmation isn't required, I think the link I provided can be used to work out which admins are auto-retired. --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 13:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Your link gives the date that the username was created.  It doesn't tell you anything about when adminship was achieved, other than that it has to be more recently than that.  [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 13:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::::60% of 1780 is 1068. 818 people were promoted to administrator in 2007 or later, and there were 353 promotions in 2006, so if you wanted to retain 60% of the admin corps the time would have to be at least four-five years. Of course not all these people are still administrators so the limit might have to be set back even further. At this stage the proposal isn't going to be very good at tackling burnout, because if you're going to experience burnout it's probably going to happen less than five years after becoming an administrator. ''[[User:Hut 8.5|<b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b>]]'' 14:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:Two of the above reasons have nothing to do with being an admins: factions of users, and byzantine rulesets.  Both happen with experienced ''users'', and admins that are abusing their rights to enforce these when it is counter to consensus is not appropriate.  Admin burnout can be dealt with on a voluntary basis, though I could support periods where as less-strict remedies for burnout is to deny an admin their admin status for a month or so.
:To me, it is the lack of admins in various areas that need regular admining that put the task to only one or two dedicated volunteers that is an issue; that persists today.  Any process along the lines of the above will cause these processes to break (we can't force admins to work on specific tasks so we can't necessarily replace the dedicated volunteers). --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-size:x-small;">ASEM</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:With the health of our community being as fragile as it is right now, I think that experienced admins are a resource that we won't be able to replace if we desysop all of them. If people want to serve the community long term as an admin, why not let them? Arbcom, though imperfect, can remove serious problem admins. (I am an admin myself, though I rarely use the tools)--[[User:Danaman5|Danaman5]] ([[User talk:Danaman5|talk]]) 13:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::With a regular reconfirmation of adminship, say, every 3-5 years, admins could serve as long as they (and the community) want to. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 14:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Reconfirmation is possible, but this proposal specifically is talking about a forced break between terms.  And to extend what the original idea is, reconfirmation likely would not fix any of the mentioned problems with an "old boys" network (as they pile on their "support retention" to a reconfirmation) --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-size:x-small;">ASEM</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::::This process will just create a lot of unneeded bucrocreacy. In most cases the reconfirmation of good admins will have a huge supporting result, making it unneeded to go through it in the first place. It may be better to leave reconfirmation processes for cases when there's really a strong and specific reason to propose it. [[User:MBelgrano|MBelgrano]] ([[User talk:MBelgrano|talk]]) 14:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:The issue is that, of the 700+ admins which are "active", all but maybe a few dozen never show up as being "problematic".  In other words, this is a case of taking 95% of the admins and making them jump through some silly burocratic hoop merely to catch the 5% that cause problems.  Why not just come up with a better procedure of addressing the 5% of the problems directly, and let the other 95% do their job... For the record, I am an admin, have been for many years, and if anyone wants me to give up my tools for any specific action I have taken, feel free to raise the issue specifically about me.  However, there is no need to tar the entire corps of administrators because I screw up.  Deal with the individual on the individual basis, not on the group.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*I'm an admin, and this idea has a lot of problems. It fails to consider that what is controversial and damning at RfA is not necessarily what is inappropriate. If, for example, I close a difficult AfD, I will undoubtedly piss off one side whatever happens. This is inevitable. The impact of turning adminship into an eternal popularity contest is that "difficult" decisions, those requiring judgment calls, will be avoided. However, I like the theoretical basis for it, and personally I'm not going to stop closing things just because I have the chance of being shouted at for it. As such, I hereby announce that I will stand for adminship again, precisely two years after my successful RfA. If it goes well, it'll reassure those people worried (me included) that such a system would have a chilling effect on our admins. If it doesn't, the fireworks display will be damned fantastic :P. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 16:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
* I'm not sure that time limitations solve anything. There needs to be an efficient recall mechanism whereby serious errors of judgment or abusive behavior can be reviewed, defenses mounted, and votes of confidence taken. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Oppose:''' Personally, I think that mandatory reconfirmation after 3 years is a bit too short. It'll cause unnecessary trouble for our existing admins. Concerning admin burnout, this would not solve the problem. As Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, this would be against the goals of the project.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] ([[User talk:Jasper Deng|talk]]) 17:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*Most of our admins were appointed more than three years ago, so to desysop them and put them on a three year break from adminship would be an irresponsible action that would mean attack pages sat around for longer and vandals could do more vandalism before they were blocked. I'm one of the 346 admins appointed in [[User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month|the three years up to the beginning of this month]], but don't imagine this would leave you with 346 admins, as many of those 346 have already gone. On current trends we won't appoint half as many admins this March as the 22 who were appointed in March 2008 and who on this proposal would be about to stand down for three years, so the number of active admins would not only be slashed but would quickly slide further under this proposal. If you want to introduce term limits first fix the problems at RFA and start appointing more admins than we lose. We currently have only 12 admins who started editing in the last 24 months, the challenge at RFA is how do we persuade those who joined us in 2008, 2009 and early 2010 to volunteer for adminship. Discussion of term limits is at best a distraction from that. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 17:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*I would agree with a 4 year term of adminship. I think that taking three years off could cause good editors to loose interest in the project. Maybe 8 months off. [[User:Inka 888|<span style="color:#00ff00;"><big>''I''</big>n<big>''k''</big>a</span>]][[User talk:Inka 888|<sup style="color:black;">'''''8'''8'''8'''''</sup>]] 07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
----
This is clearly listed at [[WP:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators]]. [[User:Mono|Mono]] ([[User:Mono/t|talk]])  17:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''I'm an admin, and I think periodic reconfirmation would be a good idea, as would be some period between terms of adminship. "Elected for life" sounds like a tinpot dictator, although in a kinder light it might be viewed as being like a US federal judge, who can serve until he dies, resigns, or is impeached for bad behavior. I have seen many admins desysopped for bad behavior. The proposal is flawed: Three years off after three years service is too long, and would slash too severely the pool  of hardworking volunteers which keep this project from turning into Uncyclopedia, full of vandalism, spam, and agenda editing. I could agree with a 4 or 5 year reconfirmation, or a 3 or 6 month timeout after 4 years with the option of reapplying. Then the folks at [[WP:RFA]] would not just be speculating about whether the applicant would properly wield the mop, and could look at performance versus promises about what admin activities would be done. Stepping away from the keyboard for a while and experiencing real life might be good for some admins (and other editors) who are glued to the keyboard 50 hours per week. Some of the anger aimed at admins in various forums is, in fact, from agenda editors who want to ignore the principles of Wikipedia and use it for their own purposes, without hindrance, don't want to be hindered in their flaming and personal attacks on other editors. (Speeders would prefer fewer traffic cops: after being a cop for three years, the cop should take 3 years off). Slashing the ranks of active admins, and making sure they are fairly inexperienced, would make it easier to make Wikipedia say what they want it to say, regardless of reliable sourcing, verifiability, neutral point of view, or undue weight. I expect that a variety of agenda editors would try to vote out any good faith admin who had thwarted their desires, even if it was done in full accord with policies and guidelines. More participation on [[WP:RFA]] from the general community would be needed to keep a cabal from voting out the good guys, broadly defined. The shiny buttons an admin gets do not confer any special privilege in regular editing that I have noted. After 3 years as an admin, I do not detect any special "power" when engaged in regular editing activities such as AFD debates, and regularly endure  personal attacks from editors who have different views and who do not agree with  [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]].  [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 18:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::I think comparison with a federal judgeship is probably taking our role a bit too seriously.  ''Most'' jobs are pretty stable unless the company goes out of business or you screw up repeatedly and/or egregiously.  (It's not like admins are paid; there's no incentive for Wikipedia to lay us off to reduce costs or bust our union.)  Janitors, grocery store clerks, garbage collectors, bus drivers, mailmen, truckers, gardeners &mdash; they've ''all'' got a job for life, at least as long as the work needs to be done. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 18:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::There is such a thing as periodic corporate downsizing, where they lay off a fraction of the workers, chosen more or less randomly. A "job for life" might have been more typical in the 1950's than today. I see a great many people who lost their jobs in favor of a new hire who was younger, fresh of of school, and happy to work for lower pay. Granted volunteers here work for "no pay" but to make up for it they get unlimited abuse from agenda warriors. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I see adminship as more akin to a driving licence. You can lose it if you break the rules, but otherwise you go on till you are old enough to start needing medicals (I gather that the US and some other countries charge annual renewal fees, but does any country make everyone resit their test?). Term limits are needed for politicians, trustees and in our case Arbcom members, basically anyone whose role is to make policy as opposed to implementing it. Term limits are inappropriate as long as admins are wielding the mop in accordance with policies that the whole community makes. If policy making or banning decisions became an admin only matter then there would be a case for term limits. Refresher courses or training modules for different parts of the mop are a different matter, they probably would be a useful innovation.  ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 19:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' (are we voting?) - I'm an admin with lots of outside interests. Health breaks are natural and needed, but an enforced 3-year break is unworkable, as per Hut 8.5 above, and will probably cause some of the best sysops to walk away. - Now, of course, if we could be sure that the vandals were taking a 3-year break too, then it might be worth a second thought... [[User:Icairns|Ian Cairns]] ([[User talk:Icairns|talk]]) 18:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Perhaps a "matching service," so that one agenda warrior or vandal takes a 3 year break along with an admin? Nah, the admins are outnumbered 100 to one, and the other side has a drawer full of socks [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 19:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' There is already an admin shortage, the last thing we need is an automatic, mindless process which further lowers the admin count by forcibly desysopping experienced admins who are perfectly willing and able to perform admin duties.  [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#5a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|squeal]]</small></sup> 18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'm not an admin, and I was heavily involved with [[Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC]], which (speaking of perennial proposals) please see, if you haven't before. I dislike the idea of a three year gap before reapplying, for the reasons given by others. I also dislike the idea of only applying it to new administrators, since (a few of the) older administrators are usually the ones for which this issue arises. I ''like'' the idea of making RfA more reversible than it currently is. I like that a lot. In fact, I think it's inevitable. But as noted above, making the many conscientious administrators jump through this hoop is an inefficient (at best) way to accomplish that, just to weed out a tiny subpopulation, and it has no chance of getting consensus anyway. I think we will need to find a way to more efficiently place administrators who lose the community's trust in front of ArbCom, without putting all administrators there. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' One of the reasons RfA is such an ordeal is that adminship is a life appointment, so people are looking for the tiniest indication of unsuitability in candidates. I'll bet an adult beverage of your choice that a lot more candidates would be approved if we knew bad admins would naturally age out of the system. At present almost the only way to get rid of admins is if they firebomb the server farm and GOATSE the main page. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 20:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''comment''': Currently, surplus of administrators, or even surplus of "burned out" administrators (I am not sure how that category is defined), is not among wikipedias problems. Are admin cliques a problem? If they are I don't see this proposal helping that - three years is plenty of time to join or form a clique. As for complicated rules - admins don't make the rules, the community does. I don't see what process would lead to rules becoming simplified if this proposal was enacted. To me it looks like a bad solution looking for a problem. The real problem people are worried about is how to make admins more responsible and easier to remove - this is of course best adressed by enacting rules that serve that purpose, for example an easier process of desysopping (e.g. through rfC/U) - although even that might mean that less people would want to become admins.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 20:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' per [[WP:BROKE]]. This proposal would turn our current admin shortage into a devastating drought, which the community will no doubt fail to compensate for by loosening RfA standards. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 20:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' If someone is a good admin, why should they lose the ability to help others and have to wait another three years (remember, Wikipedia's only 10 years old, so that is a long time) to be able to assist again? Also, if you get rid of the required waiting period between RfAs, what is the point of a three-year term? One or two years might make slightly more sense, but three is seems weird. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*The 3-year forced non-adminship part of this proposal is ridiculous and counterproductive; it would significantly deplete the admin corps, which is absolutely what we don't need as the size of the project continues to increase. Periodic admin reconfirmation makes sense though. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*As noted, this is a perrenial proposal, and as always, the question remains whether the consequences of such a plan outweigh the supposed benefits.  The last proposal was built far more solidly than this, and it failed pretty easily.  I don't expect this will work either.  Truth is, if there was an expiry date on my adminship, I simply wouldn't waste the time looking for a reconfirmation.  The tools, when I use them, are useful for page maintenence and quick blocking of vandals.  If I gave up the bit, that is work that would fall to a smaller cadre of admins, who would likely face burn out at a much faster rate.  So of the five arguments presented, I'd say 1 and 4 are patently false, and this proposal would actually make both problems worse.  5 I think is unproveable, 3 depends on the editor.  I think most of the people constantly clamoring for term limits find the position far more glamourous than I do.  2 would happen, of course, but the question is whether that is actually a problem in need of repair.  And if it is a problem, all it takes is one admin to make an action.  non-admins can just as easily comment and help build consensus, even on AN/ANI, so nothing is solved this way. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 23:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*I agree with Resolute. Given the choice between going through RFA again or just not doing the few admin tasks that I do anymore, I'd choose the latter. Personally, I think this would make the "special status" issue much worse. If it's not a special status, why does it need additional rules about keeping it and why should people have to repeatedly go through a long, stressful process just to maintain the status quo? The real way to fix that issue is to make it easier to remove bad admins and lower the standards at RFA. Being an admin is not significantly more difficult or more dangerous than it was when I got the bit in 2007 (we can't even crash the site by deleting the sandbox anymore) but standards have continuously increased. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 04:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As noted above, the effect would be to make the good 95% of admins jump through hoops over the actions of the 5% (or less, IMHO)—and those are admins who should be addressed more frequently than at the end of their term.<br>For disclosure's sake, yes, I'm an admin. No, I'm not listed as open to recall. However, I've taken a break or two in the past from admin tasks, and it's been in part because of concerns raised by fellow admins or veteran users about how I was using the tools. I stepped back, cleared my head, re-read the rules, and when I was ready eased back into the task.<br>I'm a referee off-wiki, and there are procedures in place there to deal with errors made in games. It never happened to me, but I know crews who've had to go in and review game tapes sent in by coaches to the association and had to explain why a call was(n't) made, and I know crews who've gotten suspended over there errors. If we need to restructure the procedures with admins, that's the route to go: sit down the admins who are making the bad calls, but don't take the mop away from those using it well. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 05:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I'd oppose mandatory removal of the bit. Why should a good admin lose the bit just due to a time period running out? Even if I didn't have a problem with that, why on EARTH shouldn't they be allowed to re-apply immediately?! I've suggested a reconfirmation process below, which I'm expecting to get blown out of the water due to the perennial status of it. If burnout is an issue, perhaps there should be a system where X admins/editors can get to suggest a 1-month break for an admin, which then is enforced by the removal the bit for that period? I can think of a situation where that would have been useful in very recent history... [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 09:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''250% opposed''' I can't see this working. RFA (you know what I mean) is a big page with '''''just 3 requests''''', so if former admins and admin hopefuls are mixed together on the page, then I can see people with slow Internet/computers waiting to the end of time for the page to load. And if the page swells with this idea if it goes ahead, it may not load at all. There is no way to make RFA smaller, just get a faster Internet/computer. I also add Metropolitan90's and a litany of other users thoughts. Just chuck this idea in the bin. It must never be remembered, only mourned as this idea fails as consensus dwindles. --'''''<sup>[[User:The Master of Mayhem|<font color="maroon">The Master</font>]]</sup> <sub>[[User talk:The Master of Mayhem|<font color="green">of Mayhem</font>]]</sub>''''' 09:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. We have a declining number of admins - sending good experienced ones away for a forced break is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. There might be some merit in some sort of review/reconfirmation in case they're doing a poor job, but most are doing just fine and forcing every one to go for a new RfA is not a good idea - we're trying to attract more admins here, not chase them away. And re: "''In that case, the newest admins should sign up for the policy. It will increase their influence, and improve their ability to implement new ideas''" - I'm a new admin, but I didn't do it for influence. And admin has got nothing to do with news ideas - anyone in the community can come up with new ideas any time they want. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' : We already have trouble with backlogs, and admins are needed pretty much everywhere. I'm not an admin myself (and don't want to be one in the near future), but I think that we should keep out admins. [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 11:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*I '''oppose''' this specific proposal with the mandatory three-year break, but '''support''' the general idea of admins needing to go through periodic re-election.  Standards for admins now are so much more restrictive that those who passed the 2004-5 process can't be said to have gone through anything that we would now understand as an RFA.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 12:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As a non-admin, I have concerns about re-confirmations. Long-term admins are at least as much an advantage to the project (through consistency, institutional memory, and ability) as they can be a detriment. The problems come in our most difficult areas of adjudication. What admin is going to make difficult decisions in the face of aggravating their "constituency" to the point that they stand a very real chance of being denied another term? While I do believe that the loss of adminship is one of the least substantial actions the community can impose (considering interaction bans, blocks, site bans, etc. to be far worse restrictions) for actions that are non-constructive to the project, I have not yet seen a practical manner of implementing a reconfirmation process. Administrators in this project do not sit as a group and set policy, nor do they have much in the way of an authoritative role in process. They are not elected representatives in the democratic sense. As an example, a regular editor providing a [[WP:3O|third opinion]] tends to carry as much weight as an admin doing the same. Policies, guidelines, and consensus itself are created by editors who far outnumber admins. As such, I do not see that "re-election" really serves a substantial purpose. A community-based de-adminship process that does not require going to ArbCom would be far more effective in removing those few admins who have shown themselves to be problems in the general consensus of the community at large. The elimination of [[WP:NBD]] and the recognition that ''ALL'' actions by an admin, and not just those involving the use of admin tools, are "admin actions" would contribute greatly to the needs of the community in demonstrating a loss of support in a particular administrator. Reconfirmation would be a bureaucratic nightmare, and the limited number of members of the community who would bother to participate would probably make such an action a farce in terms of determining actual consensus for retaining admin rights. '''[[User:JimMillerJr|<span style="color:green">Jim Miller</span>]]''' <sup> [[Special:Contributions/JimMillerJr|See me]] | [[User talk:JimMillerJr|Touch me]]</sup> 19:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

===So if three years is crazy what would be a good number===
I get the feeling there is some support to give admins a bit of a break, and clearly three years is too long. What about a much shorter period of perhaps three months? It is not overly long and would give admins a chance to reevaluate things from the outside once again. And what if this was a voluntary program to sign up for? Consider it a like a periodical sabbatical. --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 04:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I get much the opposite view. A few relatively new non-admins and one noted anti-establisment figure support this, the vast majority, now and historically, do not. There are things I support, such as making it easier to desysop admins who frequently break policy, (however the process would have to have safeguards against personal grudges and vendettas taking the form of desysops,) however I think that the idea of fixed time limits is an absurdly bad idea. If you want adminship and the RfA atmosphere to improve, you need to make adminship easier to gain, but also easier to lose. That will make it less of a zero-sum game. However the vast majority of admins do good work on a consistent basis, and imposing time limits on that work will hurt the project. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 04:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Sven - easier to gain and easier to lose really ''is'' the best rubric, but unfortunately that's extremely unlikely.  Rule #1 of power is that ''no one'' ever gives it up willingly once they have it (except for the few saints among us, and burnout cases), and unfortunately the project has been naive about the RfA and desysopping procedures, so that now becoming an admin is torturous and removing an admin is all but impossible.  

::If you wanted something interesting that might stand a ghost of a chance of success, suggest an admin lottery: one person a week (chosen at random from the group of editors who meet some minimum standards) is granted adminship no questions asked.  they can refuse, in which case someone else is chosen, but otherwise they're in. That would add 52 new admins a year - enough constant fresh blood to shake up the establishment, but not so much that the newbies overwhelm the old guard.  Very Roman republic, that...  {{=)}} --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 06:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Certainly a new idea, but I think it would end poorly. What happens when we give an admin that has issues with behaving civilly to others the mop? How do we decide if he should be excluded? Perhaps a better option is that we turn the system upside down: That every editor that hasn't been blocked in 18 months (ignoring blocks that were overturned as a bad block) becomes an admin ''unless'' the community decides that they don't deserve it. A reverse RfA if you will. That has it's risks too, but I think that it would be better than something random. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 06:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: 18 months is too tiny for anyone to even consider this proposal, three-four years is better, though still I feel it isn't a good idea. Admins have quite a lot of power (and they carry around some respect, too... most people listen to admins). That's why we thoroughly vet them with RfAs. [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 11:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Eh, I think the 'who hasn't had a block' condition is just a wide invitation to gamesmanship.  For instance, my block record sucks, but all except for one of my blocks were entirely undeserved (the result of science editors trying to game me because they think I'm a fringe editor - dorks!).  But how am I supposed to argue that in any meaningful way?

:::::The 'random admin' thing has two advantages: 
:::::#it would insert people as admins who might be too shy or scared to run the AfD gauntlet but would otherwise make excellent admins.
:::::#it would give an incentive to improve the desysopping procedures (so long as adminship is seen as a powerful privilege admins will always fight against regularizing desysopping, but start throwing in wild cards and we'll start getting a few bad apples, and then we'll ''have'' to create a consistent process for desysopping just to get rid of them).
:::::sometimes the only cure for systematic problems is to stir the pot - add random elements and force the system to adapt.  --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 16:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Don't we already have a voluntary process, [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall]], which handles this more efficiently than a term limit does? —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 04:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Admins that misuse their powers certainly wouldn't sign up to that voluntary process, wouldn't they? --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 08:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not gonna happen, ever. I've read all this stuff many times before in different variations. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 04:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I am an admin and have been one for over three years, and I agree with Jayron32's comments above. If an admin is doing a good job, there is no reason to take adminship away from them, particularly given that there is no maximum limit on the number of admins. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 07:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Completely opposed''' to this for a litany of reasons that have already been covered. [[User:Strikerforce|Strikerforce]] ([[User talk:Strikerforce|talk]]) 07:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*3 months of non-adminship sounds like a good idea to me. There'll still be enough admins to do what needs to be done, after all. The sad thing is that, thanks to Wikipedia's consensus system, even if just a third of our admins are power hungry and oppose any and all means to take away their toys, these proposals will never get anywhere. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 08:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*If we have so many admins to do what needs to be done, why can't I get people to help out in a sustained way with copyright cleanup even when I advertise? :( ([[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive210#Help_wanted:_Copyright_work|1]]; [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive220#Help_wanted:_Copyright_problems_board|2]], for example.) One or two people pitch in for a while, but then they fall away as real life interferes or the tedium of the job overwhelms them. Of the four "copyright admins" (that is, people dedicated to the work on a sustained basis) that I can think of promoted in the past three years, three of them have vastly declined their participation levels ([http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=MLauba&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toon05]; [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Theleftorium&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia]). People don't seem to be lining up to replace them. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*A short break that admins can voluntarily sign up to? We already have that - they can just take a Wikibreak like everyone else. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Non-admin comment'''. This proposal seems to once again highlight the perceived problems caused by rogue admins. I do not dispute that there are bad admins, but these are usually ones that have not signed up for recall, and usually use all means (such as bullying, lawyering) to hang on to their tools. So we must treat the underlying cause, and re-evaluate the mechanism for de-sysopping. I do not believe systematic retirement after three years is the answer, nor is the three-year fallow desirable for the smooth operation for our project because it will potentially cut our admin staff by half, with the most dramatic effect being in the first year of operation. This is the wrong medicine for the patient, and risks doing harm. An alternative could be to '''make the recall mandatory''' rather than voluntary. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt 'kristen itc';text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

===Annual/Biennial Re-confirmation===
I was thinking about this on my way home from work yesterday, completely unrelated to this thread which I only saw this morning. I think one of the major reasons that RfA is "broken" is that there is a common belief that it is too hard to get administrators out. I was trying to work out if there was a way to re-confirm the administrators. What I propose is a process where "Once every *time period*, administrators would submit themselves for community review, where the community could offer feedback and most importantly !vote on whether they should retain the mop. The voters should be *editors in good standing*, and if the !vote is below *arbitrary limit*, then the administrator would lose the bit". 

Now, I think the idea is good in principle, but the three items in question should be discussed. I was thinking a *time period* of 1 or 2 years (if we did 1 year, we'd have around 6 a day... that's possibly to much), *editors in good standing* should be editors with say over 100 edits (to prevent people registerring in order to get someone out), and the *arbitrary limit* I was thinking at around 50%. Definitely not as high as RfA, but if less than 50% of the community think you are doing a good job, I don't accept that "Someone has to make the tough decisions" is a good excuse. I wouldn't be averse to putting in a leeway of say, 20% for crat judgement either. Above 60% mostly retain the bit, below 40% mostly lose the bit. For the record, I am not an admin, but if I were I would be looking at something like this for my recall procedure. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 09:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Periodic review (of active admins) may be helpful, in the sense of an [[WP:Editor Review|Editor Review]]. Re-confirmation is too much work for too little benefit and too much risk of detriment to admins taking tough decisions. Admins are not elected representatives (in theory everyone could be an admin...), and they don't need to be re-elected; sufficient opportunity for desysopping when appropriate is quite enough. And to come back to the Review element: if there is no immediate risk of desysopping attached, it'll be reasonably open, honest and productive. If there is such a risk, it becomes a trial, with the admin being charged with Being A Bad Admin (chief witnesses: anyone they've ever acted against, fairly or not). Really, I think we should institute such a Review, because the demonstrated usefulness of that would reduce the frequency with which this perennial bad idea of Reconfirmation comes up. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

::The last thing I'd want is a trial, and I was trying to avoid that by setting the bar to a point where it is more a review. But I also think this "job for life" thing is causing RfA to be regarded as a "gauntlet". Admins do drift off, burnout, exhaustion, whatever - leaving a much smaller admin corps. If there was a review process which could involve a de-sysop, I think that people would be less harsh at RfA. I could be wrong of course [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 16:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Setting the bar low wouldn't work, it would still be the same dynamics if immediate desysopping was on the table. Remember, a really bad review would be a wakeup call to the admin, and otherwise lay a basis for future desysopping if problematic behaviour continued. Besides, overall RFC/Us are more effective in this area than people credit, particularly as a wakeup call, which is part of what makes me think we should look at Reviews first. And apart from anything else, Reconfirmation is a perennial proposal which isn't going to get anywhere, so best not to waste energy on that anyway. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I have in the past proposed incorporating Editor Review as a preliminary stage in RFA, so that candidates have a better idea of likely reception and what they can do to improve (if necessary) before getting to the more hardcore voting stage. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:::How about this. We get a strong consensus from users here that we want an attitude change regarding desysoping. I would be behind a proposal that does not involve term limits or reconfirmation but would say "All admins, irregardless of their stated position on recall, are eligible for a desysoping procedure when a consensus of uninvolved users determines that they have made an egregious error or show a pattern of consistent error in admin related tasks." The proposal would have to put that bar in a high enough place that this doesn't become a tool for vendettas or content wars, but low enough that if an admin does screw up, there's a viable last resort system for correcting the issue that's more accessible and less extreme that ArbCom. Even if it never get's used, the mere presence of such a system would, I think, make RfA a bit less nasty and admins a bit more honest. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I approve of that idea. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::The problem is that admins are expected to learn from their mistakes, with review via ANI and sometimes RFC/U. Anything more contentious needs the formality and neutrality of something like ArbCom - and we already have one of those. About the only thing I can see being useful is making it easier to refer admins to ArbCom for review, with possible outcomes including a reconfirmation RFA or even outright desysopping (also rejection of the request for review, and of course any censoring, sanctioning or advisory motions that might emerge from the review). Whatever the outcome, it would be properly justified after careful consideration by neutral parties. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::''"Learn from their mistakes"'''? I don't think that the way it is. In order to become an admin, one has to be perfect, after that, one can safely ignore any criticism short of murder in the real world. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 20:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::One can also claim to have "the trust of the community" while admitting that you would never get through another RfA because you've had to take "some hard decisions". Dishonest doesn't even get close. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::My point exactly. I disagreed with a block that an admin made and left them a message on their talk page. 3 days later, the admin was still plodding along, the message was ignored (though is still there), the block had expired. I'm not one to take it to [[WP:ANI]] (one incident, and I disagreed with the length, not the block itself) so basically that is going to be totally ignored for all time. I've got the admin's talk page watchlisted, there has been no further incidents, so as far as I'm concerned he/she appears to be a good admin in general - but that doesn't mean that a feedback process wouldn't help them. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' - I am open to six year terms or such, but we already have horrendous backlogs in many urgent areas of admin work - from WP:AfD to CAT:CSD - and this proposal will make it much worse.  I have written many times that I am open to recall. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

*It's obviously a good idea, just as the enforced break of three years suggested above is equally obviously too long. But even more obviously, none of these proposals have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting past the self-interested entrenched positions so evident here. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 18:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*:"It's obviously a good idea" - it is? [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] <small>([[User talk:ErikHaugen|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/ErikHaugen|contribs]])</small> 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*::I don't think it's obviously a bad one, as I wouldn't have suggested it. Malleus is right though, the people who actually discuss these ideas most fervently are generally the same people who have an interest in them not happening. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 20:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': I'd have to oppose this too, not so much that it's a bad idea (I think it has merit), but that it's addressing the wrong problem. The problem, I think, is that admins are insufficiently answerable to the content creators they serve. I think what we need is an easier, community-based, admin recall process - and ideas like this, while possibly good, <s>detract</s> distract us from that -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' What we need is a way to remove the tools from admins that don't use them correctly, not a means of pestering admins that do their job correctly just to make them jump through some hoops.  As I said above, the problem isn't the vast majority of admins who don't create problems.  Its the small handful that do.  I support efforts to remove the tools from admins that don't use them right.  But I think that forcing all admins, including the hundreds that do nothing wrong ever, just to catch the 10 or 12 that may need to give up the tools, is wrong-headed.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
**Ten or twelve? I could name you at least 30 or 40, which is a substantial proportion of the active administrators as oppsed to the headline number. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 19:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
***Oh, we all understand your position, Malleus.  We know that you believe that 100% of all admins are instantly corrupt and worthless the moment they accept a nomination for an RFA (and quite interestingly without any actual evidence on an individual level, person for person).  It makes it quite easy to ignore your statements on these matters because they are so obviously without merit.  Which is a shame really, because I think that in some cases you often have valid points.  However, your presense in arguements which would otherwise help fix the situation with real problematic admins instantly ruins them, if only because of your position in opposition to a specific administrator in indistinguishable against your unfounded, baseless and nonspecific prejudice against the administrator corps in general.  Again, what it really hurts is that, once you show up with the same tired arguements, it ruins any chance to remove actual problems because it poisons the well; people who would otherwise be able to rationally consider removing an administrator who needs to be removed will just stay away lest they be associated with you.  Thanks a bunch.  Keep it up, and we'll never ever get any real reform towards having a respectable administrator corps.  After I finish typing this, I'm going to mail myself an email with your highly predictable response, before you even write it to me, so as to prove how predictable and tired your behavior in these matters is.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 21:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
****You very evidently ''don't'' understand, so I fail to see why you might want to pretend that you do. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
****Whether Malleus is right or wrong on the numbers, there should be a way for individuals to express such concerns and have them looked at by the community. (And I've never seen Malleus suggesting anything like the suggestion that "''100% of all admins are instantly corrupt and worthless the moment they accept a nomination for an RFA''", so you really should not malign him like that) -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 21:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*****Indeed I've never said anything like that, no matter how many times Jayron32 tries to convince himself and others that I have. What I have said repeatedly is that the ''system'' is corrupt, a view that I find it difficult to believe that any rational person would disagree with. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Let's focus on a recall process instead. If there's a problematic sysop why do we have to wait up to a year or whatever to deal with it? Why go through all the trouble of a "reconfirmation" RfA if nobody has any concerns about the admin? [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] <small>([[User talk:ErikHaugen|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/ErikHaugen|contribs]])</small> 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*:I understand the general thinking and why the proposal has no chance of getting through - but my answer would be feedback and confirmation that you're doing a good job. The bar to desysop was intentionally set so low that there had to be a significant problem with the admin, but the feedback would be helpful. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 20:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*I've got the same answer for just about everything that comes up at WT:RFA: I have no objection if people want to experiment.  If someone wants me or any other admin to run for reconfirmation so we can see what that looks like, then fine.  My guess, based on the recalls we've had so far, is that most people will be disappointed with the results, for a variety of reasons.  But if a significant number of Wikipedians think it's worth trying, then let's have a look and see what happens. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 20:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' as per [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]], [[User:ErikHaugen|Erik Haugen]], and [[User:Sven Manguard|Sven]]. Most  admins I  know and who  are active divide their time between admin tasks and content building/page repairing/policy making. Submitting their work  to  review after a fixed period would only  invite opposes from  people who  have had their pages deleted or who  have been blocked. Adding  a time limit  to  tenure  would also add to  the reasons why  so  few good editors are coming  forward to  run  for office.  After my own recent RfA I  would not  expect  to  go  through  it again, and If I had thought  for a moment  that  I  would have to  do  it again or take a forced break, I wouldn't  have bothered wanting  the mop. 'Time' feels different  for different  people; I've been on  Wikipedia for five years already, two very  active,  which  demonstrates that  I  was in  no  hurry  to  get  the bit. Now I've just got it,  three years is is one heck  of  short  time for people of my  age. Let's not forget also that many  of our admins are very capable young  people who are still at school or college, and Real Life can  get in  the way for a few years. They  may  want  to  return to  sysoping when the pressures of school or college life are over. I'm an admin open  to  recall, and I  think  we should be looking  more into  that  direction  than  introducing  proposals for probationary  periods or reducing  admin tenure. It can often take three years as an admin to gain the experience and the trust to  become a bureaucrat. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 09:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

===Time-based solutions don't work===	
If I'm hearing it right, the perceived problem is that "adminship is for life", and that it's too hard to get rid of those that are perceived as "bad admins". The proposals above focus on either forcibly desysopping admins after a certain period of time, or forcibly putting them through another mini-RfA every year, or something along those lines. None of these time-based solutions work. If an admin is doing a good job, and is willing to continue doing a good job for 20 years, then desysopping them for no other reason than "a certain amount of time has passed" is shooting us in the foot and throwing a good admin into the trash. Forcing a good admin to go through a mini-RfA every year is also an unnecessary burden on the admin and on the community. Getting through RfA once is stressful enough, having to go through that process again every year would be borderline unbearable. The problem is with "bad admins", not with "good admins", so any proposed solution should only affect the bad admins and leave the good admins alone. If the problem is that it's too hard to get rid of bad admins, then the proposal should focus on creating a mechanism for desysopping an admin when there is an overwhelming community consensus to do so. Or, the proposal should focus on making [[WP:AOR]] more enforceable. Any solution that involves mandatory events for all admins at specified time intervals is too cumbersome, bureaucratic, and places an unnecessary burden on admins who are busy enough doing a great job (i.e. the vast majority of them).  I'd suggest this thread gets closed and you go back to the drawing board.  [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|gossip]]</small></sup> 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:I concur, but I'm wondering if something more simple might work. For example, we could say that that a new minted admin has a term of 3-4 years, and after that time, they stand at RFA again or the bit's removed, but only once (this to weed out admins who are gung ho, but lose steam, or who deviate from the path of truth and beauty sooner rather than later). And we work on a better recall system for the bad admins that have passed that bar. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]])</span> 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:That's to ignore the possibility that a corrupt system (adminship for life) leads to corrupt and unaccountable behaviour, which in my view is where we find ourselves today. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::It doesn't ignore that possibility, it just recognizes that a minority of admins will become corrupt as a result of the "adminship for life" system, and therefore the solution should only affect the minority that have become corrupt, not the ones who haven't done anything wrong.  It's the whole hatchet vs. scalpel thing.  [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|speak]]</small></sup> 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::So your excuse for a corrupt system is that it hasn't yet corrupted everyone? Well-designed systems have checks and balances, not a "let's wait until someone goes crazy" mentality. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::That's not even what it is; I'm all for ''"let's wait until someone screws up"'' &mdash; the current situation, however, is rather ''"let's find excuses for anyone who does screw up and sing kumbaya."'' Again, admins can practically do whatever they want, everyone knows it, and that's the problem. Once you're an admin, it is basically a courtesy of yours to give a damn. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 23:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 
To trow any crazy idea in the fray, one of the main concerns about RFA is that it is currently very, very hard to pass which causes a massive reduction in the number of successful candidates (and I assume candidates in general). How about we do something like:
* 75-80+% support => full adminship
* 55-65+% support => temp adminship for 3 months
* less => fail.
A temp admin could do RFA again in three months and either get full adminship, get a second temp run or get demoted. The focus in the second RFA should be on his/her actions in those 3 months. I am pretty sure something like this has been suggested before, but I dunno what would be problems with it. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 23:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:It has been proposed, yeah. The problem I see with this is that those three months aren't very useful to judge a potential admin. The temp admin will know that he'll be scrutinized very closely, after all, so he'll be on his very best behaviour. Only once he gets full adminship he'd be himself, for better or worse. So you can just as well give him full adminship from the start. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:"There is a problem, but this is not the ideal solution, so let's do nothing." That's the impression I get from a lot of the comments above. It's true, this isn't an ideal solution, but I sure as hell don't see a better one being proposed. As for the proposal, we could do it the other way around. Adminship will be automatically granted every year unless a significant number of users protest. That way, all the admins that do their work won't have to do anything at all to keep their adminship. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 23:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Not a particularly bad idea, but it has no more chance of success than any other idea that's been floated only to be shot down the entrenched admin corps. The only solution to this impasse is to unbundle the admin tools and to make it easier to add or remove those tools. This fiction that we have a trusted cadre of users just because they managed (once) to get through a popularity contest is simply that, a fiction. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 23:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

::I think this last notion is also an interesting option. I wonder if we could configure a set of "admin lite" tools, for lack of a better word, each with a particular orientation (vandal control, for example). But I have no conception of how difficult that would be in practice. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]])</span> 00:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I do: impossible in the current "admins have been through an RfA and are therefore trusted forever with everything, even those things that didn't exist when they were elected" environment. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Ha! I wasn't thinking of the political layer of the OSI model, but rather the technical aspects of breaking out what is often described as a bit into multiple bits. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]])</span> 01:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::I'm sure it would be trivial. Just as I'm sure that it'll never happen while the admins rule the roost. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 04:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

::Unbundling is something I would support, and have done several times at [[WT:RfA]], but it always gets shot down -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks for that, that answers a good question I did not know I had. Ok, different tack, I think Malleus has a good point in regard to balance of powers. Would it make sense to pursue establishing a way to recall admins that does not rely on admins to make the judgement? That is to say, could we make a new category of editors, who cannot be admins, must have a reasonable number of edits (say 2500) including a good percentage of wp talk pages, and granted the bit in a process the same as the admin bit is granted? Perhaps establish a minimum quorum for recalling an admin, and have it not be a !vote and require 60%-40% for a decision as to whether or not to take up a vote when a recall is proposed and to determine if a recall is justified? Does that tickle anyone's fancy? <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]])</span> 01:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

===In the name of Jimbo!===
I just read through the entire text above. Consensus sits (fairly) squarely against it, for various reasons, not the least being that there is already a shortage of administrators. Now discussion is drifting back towards unbundling, and temporary adminship, which really doesn't seem to be directly related to the three years proposal. While I am against it for many of the reasons above, I think that this discussion either needs to truly redirect itself at some targeted proposals, or refocus on what was presented and what can be changed in the original proposal to make it viable. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/NativeForeigner|Contribs]]</sub> 03:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:What evidence do you have that there's a shortage of administrators? My experience has been that there's a damn sight too many. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::None. Just parroting the feelings voiced above. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/NativeForeigner|Contribs]]</sub> 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::I seem to remember reading about the shortage in the Signpost. I think it was covering a potential or impending shortage, but I don't recall clearly. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 07:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If we are to assume that a growing number of users and articles needs a growing number of active admins, then we definitely have an admin shortage. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 07:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::We have a declining number of active admins, and the longterm trend is steadily downwards. Whether or not there is currently a shortage depends on how you measure needs and backlogs. But I would prefer a measured reponse to the situation now, rather than a panic mass recruitment exercise the first time AIV is unattended long enough for a vandal to continue vandalising several articles a minute for half an hour after being reported to AIV. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 17:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Other Wikis ===
I understand from [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:March_2011_Update#Cabal_nature_of_long-term_editors_and_admins_7527 this discussion thread] now ongoing as part of [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update the March 2011 update on Strategic Planning at WikiMedia] that the Swedish wikipedia currently has one year terms for admins, reportedly with successful results. Could we learn from what might work elsewhere and apply lessons learned here? Perhaps [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LA2 Lars Aronsson], who made the observation there would weigh in here? (I'll ask him) [[User:Glane23|<span style="font-family:Bauhaus 93; color:blue; font-size:small;">Geoff</span>]] [[User talk:Glane23|<sup style="color:blue;">''Who, me?'' </sup>]] 22:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment.''' I'm not an administrator anywhere and have no opinion in this matter. The Swedish Wikipedia in January-February 2006 introduced a one-year time limit on adminship. As far as I know, it has worked just fine for five full years now. The policy is now mentioned in [[:sv:Wikipedia:Administratörer#Förordnandetid]] but was originally a page of its own [http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tidsbegr%C3%A4nsade_administrat%C3%B6rskap&redirect=no where you can still trace the history and discussion] (which, of course, are entirely in Swedish). --[[User:LA2|LA2]] ([[User talk:LA2|talk]]) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Keep in mind that the Swedish Wikipedia also has half of ''the ratio'' of admins to articles that we do.  They have 97 admins for 390,408 articles, a ratio of 1 admin for every 4025 articles.  We have 1 admin for every 2014 articles.  If we had the same ratio as them, we'd have about 891 admins instead of the 1,781 we have today.  [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|confer]]</small></sup> 23:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::The ratio of admins to articles is irrelevant, and simply demonstrates what an over-inflated view administrators have of their own importance. The overwhelming majority of vandalism is dealt with by the (untrusted) troops on the ground. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Um, that's because reverting vandals doesn't require admin tools.  What's your point?  [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|confess]]</small></sup> 04:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*'''Bad math.''' If en.wp had an annual renewal, it would lose some of those 1781 admins, who aren't active and wouldn't bother to be reelected, so the ratios would become more similar. The lower Swedish ratio is in part the result of having annual renominations for five years. --[[User:LA2|LA2]] ([[User talk:LA2|talk]]) 00:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Quite possibly a significant number are dead, which puts the lie to the "admin for life" idea; it's actually "admin for all eternity". [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Ha, good point ... I feel enshrined. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 03:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: "admin for all eternity" - that's actually what it says on [[Great Pyramid of Giza|the pyramid I built]]. You wondered what it was for? It is in fact a giant [[WP:BARNSTAR|barnstar]] I gave myself, for being patient enough to wait thousands of years for Wikipedia to be invented. Well hey, when you've got eternity, you need to be patient. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 13:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Proposer comment ("This is not a admin reconfirmation proposal") ===
* This is not a admin reconfirmation proposal. The crucial part is that admins are forced to take a break from being an admin for a period of time. I am happy to compromise on the timeframes, so that ''"Adminship be granted for a period of X years. An editor must also wait Y years between adminships".'' The value for X could be as high as 10, the value for Y could be as low as 1. I think the periods should be measured in years, not months, however.
* Just to cement my claim that this is not a reconfirmation proposal, I'm happy for admins to be automatically reinstated after Y years (though I'd prefer them to go through RfA again).
* While a lot of people are understandably focused on "rogue admins", this proposal is really about '''governance''' and '''renewal'''. This proposal suggests de-sysoping admins for a period of time ''even if they are doing a good job'', for various reasons.
* Despite their self-image of some, admins are not simply normal editors with extra widgets. Because of the [[WP:RFA]] process, admins wield political power, and normal editors will usually call in an admin to personally mediate disputes in the first instance.
* Some admins have claimed that there are not enough admins. Patently untrue. The [[WP:RFA]] process is currently rejecting applicants at a rate of 50% or more. If WP were really desperate for admins, it would not have the luxury of rejecting so many applications, nor the time to be so exhaustive in vetting candidates.
* '''Given the tens of millions of people on the internet, the millions of wikipedia users, and the hundreds of thousands of active WP editors, it is not reasonable to assert that there are only 1800 or so suitable to be admins.''' The only reason that there are not enough admins is because the current system keeps people out of joining their ranks. This is not surprising, and not even a necessarily bad thing. As more people join the admin cohort, it is natural for the cohort to keep raising the barrier to entry (the counterintuitive aspect of this is that new admins are more likely much better admins than older ones!).
* The issue of '''governance''' is that the group of wikipedia leaders, who wield political power, should not be granted that political power indefinitely. Not because of "fairness" or "democracy", but out of the simple fact that if the group of admins is largely static, the website will inevitable end up tailored to the desires of that group, rather than appealing to the community at large.
* The issue of '''renewal''' is that with a largely static adminship, the website will be much less able to adapt and cope with changing circumstances in the future.
* <big>'''We have an encyclopedia here where articles are changing every second, yet we grant adminship for eternity. It makes no sense whatever.'''</big>
--[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 08:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Apologies, the reconfirmation thing was my fault, an idea I put forward later on which I considered similar to your idea and worth mentioning. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 08:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:The root of your idea seems to be that admins get "political power" from being admins. But they don't (they're not elected representatives), they get "political power" (such as it is) from (a) being the sort of highly experienced and non-divisive[ish] editors able to get through RFA and (b) having (via RFA) the demonstrated trust of the community to wield powerful tools. As a result, taking an enforced break from adminship will have no effect, since the trust has not been withdrawn: only desysopping on grounds of untrustworthiness will have an effect. Besides which, admins have no more say in any of the "political" processes (of policy writing, enforcement and reform) than anyone else ''qua'' admin. The problem is rather one of numbers: the sort of people who get heavily involved in those over a longer period are very often the sort who will either become admins (becoming involved before RFA), or are admins already (becoming involved after). PS your remark of "a largely static adminship" is in any case highly debatable; especially on a 3-5 year time scale, there's actually a lot of churn in ''active'' admins. PPS given the perennial confusion between admins and elected representatives, I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't be done with it and have some, empowered to develop policy proposals with something like the deliberation process of ArbCom and put the proposals to the community. At least it would reduce the scale issues perennially experienced in developing big policy changes. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 09:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::But what actually is the point of a forced break? What actually is it supposed to achieve? It seems to me to me to be just trying to cosmetically address the "Admin is for life" issue but completely missing the reasons why that is considered a problem -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 12:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Your proposal works on the presumption that admins will actually remain active during the term you proscribe and will fill in the necessary tasks. I've put a lot of thought into this, because I am an admin of over three years standing, and I needed to ensure that I'm not protesting out of some self-interest. I don't think I am; I'm sure some others will disagree. :) That said: however many admins there may be, there are ''not'' enough admins working in the area I work (text based copyright cleanup); as I demonstrated above, of the four text-focused copyright admins that I know who were promoted within the last three years, three of them are either participating much less or virutally gone. Cut and paste repair, too, is a tedious and complicated task. [[User:Anthony Appleyard]] has been steadily working on this task for almost five years. He is one of very few admins who bother to do so. Anthony has been an administrator since December 2006. What benefit to the project could it possibly be to remove him from this task, which he attends to so well, for any length of time? I have myself long thought that there should be an easier process to review and remove admins who are unsuited to the tasks or who go off the rails. But universal forced breaks will only pull qualified people away from tasks which they are willing to undertake. The ''only'' way that I can imagine it would work is if we created some kind of draft system to ''require'' our new admin volunteers to take on the tasks that are then abandoned, rather than allowing them to work where they want to...and that seems like a whole separate recipe for disaster. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Those are great examples - forcing you and Anthony Appleyard out of the job for a while would be a disaster. The "admin for life" issue is only a problem for bad admins, not for good productive ones. You wouldn't, for example, force all doctors out of their jobs at regular intervals as a way to address medical malpractice - you'd have a process for addressing bad docs without harming the good ones. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 13:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*It goes a lot further than that Boing!, under this scheme, only 1 of the top 10 admins by [[User:JamesR/AdminStats|administrator actions]] (who are not bots and are still admins) would be remain an admin. These administrators are doing lots of uncontroversial work, not causing any issues, not showing signs of burnout or political gain (to the best of my knowledge). Desysoping would clearly harm the encyclopedia and I'm unsure of the benefit? [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 13:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Oh wow, yes, that would not be good. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 15:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:*''The WP:RFA process is currently rejecting applicants at a rate of 50% or more. If WP were really desperate for admins, it would not have the luxury of rejecting so many'' - RFA is generally accepted to be a broken process. There is a huge disconnect between how things work at RFA and the needs of the rest of the project.
:*''the hundreds of thousands of active WP editors'' - If you define "active" as "has made an edit in the last month" perhaps. But most of those people wouldn't even qualify for rollbacker. There are only 11,000 users who have averaged at least 1 edit per day in the last 30 days. Fewer than 7,000 have averaged 2 edits and only 5,000 have averaged 3.
:*''the group of wikipedia leaders, who wield political power'' - Wikipedia works on consensus. When it comes to policy discussions, admins in general hold no more weight than any other user. As Rd232 noted, any power they have comes from their experience and trust, not their user rights.
:*''As more people join the admin cohort, it is natural for the cohort to keep raising the barrier to entry'' - Have you actually looked at RFA before making these comments? Most of the voters are not admins. Looking at a recent unsuccessful RFA, almost 80% of the voters were non-admins. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:*''We have an encyclopedia here where articles are changing every second, yet we grant adminship for eternity. It makes no sense whatever.'' - Regardless of whether it makes sense, that's a nonsensical reason why it might not. One of those has nothing to do with the other. How does someone adding information to an article create a reason for someone else to take a break from something different?
:*Also, to put those "active editor" numbers in a little perspective, of the 1143 admins who made at least one edit in the past 30 days, the average admin made 11-12 edits per day. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 22:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*Re: "''The WP:RFA process is currently rejecting applicants at a rate of 50% or more. If WP were really desperate for admins, it would not have the luxury of rejecting so many applications''". That does not follow. There are actually very few marginal RfAs, and the vast majority of the rejected applicants are nowhere near ready for admin, no matter how bad a shortage might exist - they might make good candidates some day in the future, but they're obvious NOTNOW and SNOW results. Rejecting them is not a luxury, it's a necessity. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 15:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Maybe a better example for RFA being broken is how hard it is to persuade candidates that fit the RFA expectations to even run. Once quality candidates get to RFA, they're almost always treated well... but the reputation of the place makes getting them to go harder than a 16 seed beating a 1. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Yep, I definitely agree with that - there must be a lot of great candidates out there who are just too intimidated to run -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*Especially due to the clarification above I'd oppose such an implementation. You kick all the experienced people out of a job that they have done (as a whole) well, and leave less experienced admins, like me, to do their jobs. Sure I could try to substitute Moonriddengirl at copyright concerns, but I wouldn't do as  good a job, and Moonridden girl would still probably have more authority than me (in the eyes of the community ) if it turned into a conflict. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/NativeForeigner|Contribs]]</sub> 04:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
**Without Moonriddengirl, the Foundation would probably be sued or at the least receive twice as many DMCA takedown notices... she's kind of awesome. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 08:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

*So this whole thing is a really bad idea. If I take five controversial actions in __ years (whatever the limit would be), I'd be screwed in any reconfirmation because you and I both know there will be people who will (1) dig them up and (2) disagree with the action I took. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 08:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Pending changes RFC ==

I know, everyone is sick of it. We're almost done. Phase three, the review/recommend phase is now up. It is a questionnaire you can fill out with any reply you want, without having to argue or read fifty thousand words before participating. We ''really'' want users who haven't yet participated to join in in this phase, along with everyone who participated in the first two phases. The more responses we get, the clearer consensus will (hopefully) be. It will only take a few minutes of your time so fill one out whenever you have a moment. Thanks! [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:Given past experience would it be safe to assume that if this questionnaire does not produce the Right Answer<sup>TM</sup> there will be yet more rounds of RFCs and trials and questionnaires? [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 19:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:If you ''really'' want users who haven't yet participated to join in in this phase then you need to provide a link when you invite them. I'm too busy trying to fix articles to spend my time looking for where this discussion might be. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
::There seems to be some confusion over whether Phase 3 is ready to go: meanwhile we're in limbo with Phases 1 & 2 archived and Phase 3 "pending". Here's the link anyway [[WP:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011]]  [[User:Contains Mild Peril|Contains Mild Peril]] ([[User talk:Contains Mild Peril|talk]]) 11:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::[[WP:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011]] is alive again with a proposal to remove pending changes protection from all articles in the short-term. Further phases are still under discussion. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]]&nbsp;([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 13:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

== Stop using cookies to log in to Wikipedia ==

Lately, when ever I have tried to log in to Wikipedia, I have had the message that some people have reported trouble logging in. This had not affected me at all until tonight, when I got the message that Wikipedia uses [[cookies]] to log in, and with cookies disabled, I had to enable them and try again. Well, my guess is that explains why people have reported trouble logging in (I was not sure how to enable cookies on this [[laptop]] -  I use [[Google Chrome]] as my default browser, but I logged in tonight on [[Apple Safari]] when I did not get the same message.  I know this is a proposal which should really go to technical proposals, but I don't feel knowledgeable enough about [[information technology]] to post it there, and also, I guess that more people read this feature than the proposals there - so, since this proposal could affect all Wikipedians, I am posting it here. My proposal is this - can we please stop using [[cookies]] to log in? I am prepared to be shot down by some one more computer-savvy than me, but I just thought I would pop the question! Thank you in advance for any help on this one - it just occurred to me that if we stopped using cookies to log in, a lot of people would cease to complain about having trouble logging in. [[User:ACEOREVIVED|ACEOREVIVED]] ([[User talk:ACEOREVIVED|talk]]) 00:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:Even when I have cookies enabled, I get this message sometimes. My fix is to just try again =P. Otherwise its probably a 1.17 bug.  [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::<small>This thread belongs  [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)|here]]. I've kept [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Stop_using_cookies_to_log_in_to_Wikipedia|a small section]] there. </small> [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 01:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:::The session cookie is the mechanism used to maintain the login context. Without it, users would not be able to make any edits as a logged in user. The browser has to provide something with every edit to identify the logged in user and the only mechanism available to do that is the cookie. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]]&nbsp;([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 01:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've removed the VPT thread for that reason. [[HTTP cookie|Cookies]] are the only way Wikipedia knows what browser is what. If you don't supply a cookie, you'd have to enter your password on every edit. Session cookies are required to log in to log in to any site anywhere on the Internet (unless they use something esoteric like flash cookies, but let's not...). [[User:Prodego|<span style="color:darkgreen;">''Prodego''</span>]] [[User talk:Prodego|<sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk</sup>]] 04:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:In-URL [[session ID]]s are the only alternative to cookies that I know of. They result in fuglier URLs, have worse privacy implications, and wouldn't persist across browser sessions like cookies do. Cookies are so widely used and required that I don't think adding support for another mechanism would be worth the trouble or help any significant amount of users. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 04:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason I posted the VPT thread was to ask why the bug is occurring at all. I'm posting at bugzilla. [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 12:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:[[bugzilla:28201]] [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 12:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
== Random Article ==

I have read through [[WP:PEREN]] and as far as I can tell this issue haunt been directly proposed yet. I have also searched through the archives of the pump and again as far as I can tell this issue has never been directly addressed.<br> I believe that there needs to be a way to tag something to not show up if you press the random article button on the side bar. I am saying this mostly for the point of censorship, I am not saying that the article be removed I am just saying make it so a 5 year old on Wikipedia can't hit the random article button and get something inappropriate for his age. I understand there are ways to go into setting to dis able pictures showing up but to do that you would have to know that the picture was on there in the first place.<span style="background-color: #0080FF">[[User:Adwiii|<sub style="color:#FFFFFF;"> @ d \/\/ | | |</sub>]][[User talk:Adwiii|<sup style="color:#FFFFFF;">Talk</sup>]] </span> 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
: [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. I am also willing to bet my left kidney that 99.999% of all children visiting "inappropriate" pages on wikipedia do so because they actually searched for a specific term rather than with random article. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 12:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::I'm also willing to bet a child has a better chance at winning the lottery than they do at landing on an inappropriate page instead of some obscure stub article.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 17:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Every time I click on the "Random article" button, I get an unreferenced stub of questionable notability on some random person/band/town in India with a population of 19. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 18:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::There is an ongoing discussion on adding content control features; see [[meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content: Part Two]], especially the section User-Controlled Viewing Options. ---'''''—&nbsp;[[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850&nbsp;(Ed)</span>]]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;</span>'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850|''talk'']]</sup> 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::I did one time land on an article that would be inappropriate.  Well for children.  ~~'''Awsome''' [[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::I understand that most of the time people don't end up on on, I am just saying it is possible.<span style="background-color: #0080FF">[[User:Adwiii|<sub style="color:#FFFFFF;"> @ d \/\/ | | |</sub>]][[User talk:Adwiii|<sup style="color:#FFFFFF;">Talk</sup>]] </span> 21:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::There is a 1/141,167,095,653,376 chance that a child types in pedophilia by hitting random keys. Clearly we cannot prevent any possible way that a child could randomly access inappropriate content.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 21:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::::That's not what I mean, I think that you need to be able to tag an article to not show up if you click the random article button on the sidebar.<span style="background-color: #0080FF">[[User:Adwiii|<sub style="color:#FFFFFF;"> @ d \/\/ | | |</sub>]][[User talk:Adwiii|<sup style="color:#FFFFFF;">Talk</sup>]] </span> 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


::::::::: If - and i don't think we should restrict it at all - we put any restrictions they should be based either on date of creation (5+ days old to give chance for some stability), ranked at least start-class or list-class by one wikiproject (this would exclude stubs and articles completely outside wikiprojects) or give weighted priority to the average importance classifications (should they exist). Of course the latter changes the dynamic and its no longer truly random, but weighted mean towards encyclopedic importance.[[User:Jinnai|<span style="color:#00F;">陣</span>]][[User talk:Jinnai|<span style="color:#0AF;">内</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|<sub><span style="color:#0FA;">'''Jinnai'''</span></sub>]] 06:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} Well, I suppose that would work, although I would personally object to that because that is how I find many of the articles I try to help out since there are so many "bad" or stub articles out there.<span style="background-color: #0080FF">[[User:Adwiii|<sub style="color:#FFFFFF;"> @ d \/\/ | | |</sub>]][[User talk:Adwiii|<sup style="color:#FFFFFF;">Talk</sup>]] </span> 14:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:A paper and ink encyclopedia wouldn't have any mechanism for preventing this; any "inappropriate" material a child could come across would likely be discussed in a scientific or neutral way rather than in a pornographic or otherwise inflammatory sense; I don't think any significant harm would come from a child viewing an article on Wikipedia other than that they may learn something their parents--and other significant adults--wouldn't have expected, been prepared, for them to know, especially when factoring in the likelihood of coming across such a potentially "harmful" article by using ''Random article''. Wikimedia has the board outline for controversial issues [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content here]. I think it would be beneficial to review it if considering a specific policy. Lord Arador 01:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== Project/Category for math markuping? ==

I'm not sure if this already exists, but a quick check didn't reveal anything interesting. I'd like to propose a framework for wider use of the <nowiki><math></nowiki> LaTeX syntax. By this, I mean:
* A cleanup template for marking articles which have non-LaTex math ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spherical_tokamak&oldid=408611334#Stability_within_the_ST like this old rvn])
* A category for the same
* (maybe) A WikiProject for inserting/maintaining the math

I've seen quite a few pages which have normal text math, which makes it hard to understand and doesn't look as nice (compare the above example with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spherical_tokamak&oldid=408621008#Stability_within_the_ST rvn where I've replaced the math], and [[Spherical_tokamak#Stability_within_the_ST|The slightly meatier current revision]]).<BR />
Any comments? Thanks, [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 11:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

:[[WP:MOSMATH]] and [[Help:Math]] deals with that. I would be against extensively changing inline maths to Latex as it can make the formatting look nasty, you can't always depend on \textstyle. You can get the same fonts using the {{tl|math}} template for inline maths, e.g. see [[argument (complex analysis)]] which uses that and a couple of other templates. For <nowiki><math></nowiki> there is some work to try and give better support using javascript rather than MathML in Wikipedia, see [[WT:WPM#MathJax update]] which should hopefully remove some of the problems with it eventually. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::Yeah, but is there a category for pages with inline math (and maybe a template for those pages where latex would help)? People doing cleanup in this area can choose to change to latex at their own discretion. [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 08:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:The TeX-to-HTML is badly broken (e.g. <math>-1</math>, <math>1-1</math>—there oughtn't to be a space after the first minus sign), and it has been that way for as long as I can remember, making me doubt that it'll be ''ever'' fixed. I normally prefer regular wikitext/HTML, using &lt;math&gt; tags only for indented equations, where I usually try to force the PNG rendering. --[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 17:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

== Note pad ==

What would be the support for adding a "note pad", where you could enter plain text (it would not have any wiki formatting, images, or anything). Basically, it would be a private little "TODO list" or whatever the editor wanted to use it for. As an idea for design, click on "Edit raw watchlist". Each editor would get ~10kb of space to use. (This may be amended to each editor with more than 100 edits to save disk space as 13,000,000 users each with 10kb = 130gb.) [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 20:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:[http://eiximenis.wikimedia.org Here] (WP stuff only, please). Otherwise, use Google Docs. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 21:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
== Force edit summary usage for new users until they're autoconfirmed ==

I don't expect to get much support for this one. But I want to propose it anyway. I often see new accounts make big bold edits without leaving edit summaries, and I assume good faith of course, but I still ''don't know why'' they boldly removed that certain paragraph or sentence, or changed that date or statistic, or whatever. I don't know how many times I've had to leave an extended message on new users' talk pages explaining why they need to use edit summaries. Better to get them in the habit early, then once they get autoconfirmed they can have the option to turn it off. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<span style="font-size:x-large;">&oelig;</span>]][[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 09:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
: I like it, can we set a trial to test this out? I think use of edit summaries would reduce the number of good faith edits reverted as vandalism. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 09:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
:Agreed. I've often reverted silent deletions due to lack of an edit summary (they're indistinguishable from vandalism or POV-zealotry). Occasionally I've inferred "lack of references" as the reason and not reverted, but requiring an edit summary would significantly help in distinguishing nonconstructive deletions from good-faith ones. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 09:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
:[[WP:PEREN#Automatically prompt for missing edit summary]]. (But I'm not sure I agree with the “[r]easons for previous rejection”: after all even most e-mail clients warn you if you're trying to sent a message with an empty subject line.) --[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 11:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Do we have evidence that this is even a true perennial proposal? It seems to have been added back in 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals&diff=prev&oldid=74752324], but has it ever been the subject of discussions? '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 12:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
::: What about turning on the prompt gadget by default? '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small> [[User:Kayau/guestbook|evil]] </small> 12:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Right. The gadget is already there, but only registered users can turn it on in their preferences setting. If turned on, an attempted save of a summary-less edit does initially not succeed but instead displays a conspicuous warning banner: "'''Reminder''': You have not provided an edit summary. If you click Save again, your edit will be saved without one." (See it at [[:MediaWiki:Missingsummary]].) Unregistered users and most new users don't get to see this, as it is turned off by default. Although enabling this by default is not exactly ''forcing'' unconfirmed users to use edit summaries, it most definitely will help encourage them to do so. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 14:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

::::: Could we change the text to something like "'''Reminder''': You have not provided an edit summary. Edit summaries help other users understand the intention of your edits. Please enter one before click Save again, or your edit will be saved without one."? I am afraid the default text is not really helpfull to a newbie and is more seen as annoying. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 14:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I've put this proposal up at [[Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages#Proposed change for MediaWiki:Missingsummary]]. Please discuss it there. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 23:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

::::I'm definitely all for trying to get people to put in edit summaries and I haven't the foggiest why ips aren't prompted to do so. It should be like that by default. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I really dislike this proposal. What are the new users supposed to do say they are for instance, just trying to get a piece of wiki code to work, or making minor edits. Forcing them to write a summary of everything they do seems like a hassle for new users.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would weakly support a dismissible reminder for anons and new users (weakly because of AerobicFox's concerns), but I would oppose forcing users to provide one. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 17:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had other users ask me how to leave an edit summary before, so I do suspect that many just can't see the bar right above the "save page" button.  How about we just move the edit summary above the edit box, make it some obnoxious color, and render "[[Help:Edit summary|Edit summary]] <small>(Briefly describe the changes you have made)</small>" as "<big>[[Help:Edit summary|Edit summary]] (Briefly describe the changes you have made)</big>" and/or (along Mr. Z-man's suggestion) if they try to save a page without putting an edit summary, a prompt comes up saying "are you sure you don't want other editors to understand what you're doing?" [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
:If you use an obnoxious colour then the message could use the same colour so they can easily spot where the place to insert a summary. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I would oppose compulsary edit summaries. The last thing we need is another hoop for new users to jump through before they can edit. Support a reminder, which would leave it firmly in their hands while still encouraging them to use the tool and educating them about its use. Interesting to note that of the eleven of us involved in this discussion, only four used edit summaries on the first edit, and none on all of the first ten ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Cybercobra] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=A.+di+M.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Lambiam] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Dmcq] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=OlEnglish] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Yoenit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Mr.Z-man] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Kayau] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=AerobicFox] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Ian.thomson] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Alzarian16]). Would it be right for us to force new users to do something that we failed to? [[User:Alzarian16|Alzarian16]] ([[User talk:Alzarian16|talk]]) 13:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Support the default reminder in article space for non auto-confirmed users. It's no great imposition and should reduce misunderstandings and possible summary reverts due to misjudging new editor's intentions, particularly if edit is not well formulated. It should also serve to highlight intentional disruption. [[User:RashersTierney|RashersTierney]] ([[User talk:RashersTierney|talk]]) 13:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. As Alzarian helpfully pointed out this is not something we should hassle newbies about. I would be more tolerant of something along the lines of "congratulations on your 100th edit, may we now introduce you to the idea of the edit summary", but as for newbies I'm much more concerned about getting them to tell us their source. DE wiki has a referencing prompt and I would like that to be trialled here. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 14:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The last thing we need are more barriers, especially those requiring a degree of technical aptitude, to new editors contributing. Would not object to a dismissible prompt after 20 or so edits though along the lines of the comments by MuZemike and WSC above. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color: black;"><font face="New York">Skomorokh</font></span>]] 18:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Much as I appreciate that this proposal was made with good intentions, I for one would quite strongly oppose it. Many newcomers to Wikipedia probably are just getting the hang of editing it, and are not even at the stage of thinking about edit summaries. My guess is that, every day, there are probably numerous edits which lack an edit summary which are perfectly good  edits. This proposal does have shades of the perennial proposal (which seems unlikely to work - ever) of only allowing logged in registered users to edit Wikipedia. People who are new to Wikipedia are probably learning how to edit it before doing edit summaries - after all, one must crawl before one can walk. [[User:ACEOREVIVED|ACEOREVIVED]] ([[User talk:ACEOREVIVED|talk]]) 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:Well it seems to me the point is to help OTHERS recognize those good faith edits. The question of if newbies will be turned off by the summeries more than they are currently by their good faith edits being reverted (I've even seen plenty of seemingly good faith edits directly called vandalism...at least with an edit summery it's easy to tell if the reverter is in the wrong) [[User:Melodia|♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫]] ([[User talk:Melodia|talk]]) 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose mandatory edit summaries, support default reminders. ACEOREVIVED said it best - "one must crawl before one can walk". Let's not give newbies more hoops to jump through by forcing them to write an edit summary before their edits can go through, but rather let's encourage them to provide summaries with friendly reminders and a brief explanation of the benefits of providing summaries. Aside from discouraging participation from new users, another potential drawback to requiring edit summaries is that some - who don't care to be bothered with providing a summary  but want to see their edit(s) materialize - may be tempted to write nonsensical gibberish or some kind of wisecrack in the summary space just to satisfy the "write something" requirement. And, of course, such summaries would unhelpful and counterproductive, as they would likely seen by patrollers as a sign of vandalism when this may not be the case at all. No, better to focus on ways to more effectively ''encourage'' edit summaries. The ideas proposed above by Yoenit and Ian.thomson are very good ones that should be given strong consideration.--[[User:JayJasper|JayJasper]] ([[User talk:JayJasper|talk]]) 03:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

JayJasper, thank you for your comment. Your comment about another difficulty here being that if we force people to write an edit summary, they might start writing nonsense is well taken - I had not thought about that, but it is an excellent point! [[User:ACEOREVIVED|ACEOREVIVED]] ([[User talk:ACEOREVIVED|talk]]) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that a prompt for, but not enforced edit summary, is a brilliant idea.  I have a terrible history of not giving edit summaries, and have only recently discovered the pref where I could ask for a prompt!  Since when, I've begun to get into the habit without having to be prompted.  [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]]) 05:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

== Rename accounts blocked due to username violations and username blacklist ==

I am proposing that a user who was blocked due to a username policy violation should have the account renamed. Even if a username gets blocked in the current system, it still has some advertisement value if that's the reason, as it's still visible. The renaming should go with a common nomenclature. To prevent the offending username from appearing again, I also propose a blacklist of usernames that will be technically blocked from account registration.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] ([[User talk:Jasper Deng|talk]]) 03:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:A very sensible and useful proposal that should be implemented. The whole point, after all, of blocking accounts for username violations is to to remove them from the view of other users, so why leave them visible even if they are no longer active? I cannot think of a downside or of any potential drawbacks to this proposal. Can anyone else?--[[User:JayJasper|JayJasper]] ([[User talk:JayJasper|talk]]) 04:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

::Strain on the servers, bureaucrat workload, title blacklist, and rename logs, to name a few. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 14:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Almost no one replied to this proposal that I think deserves more attention. I am proposing to rename usernameblock'd accounts with a common nomenclature and a username blacklist to prevent offending usernames from appearing again. Please comment with your ideas on this. The proposal is an earlier Village Pump thread (scroll up please)[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 04:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:[[#Rename_accounts_blocked_due_to_username_violations_and_username_blacklist|Here's a direct link]] for those who, like me, don't like to have to manually trawl thru the threads. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 05:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::Sections merged. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 14:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
*This seems like too much work when the promotional value of such user pages is quite negligible to begin with. What exactly is the renaming scheme you propose? Perhaps making blocked user pages NOINDEX would be easier and about as effective? --[[User:Cybercobra|<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b><span style="color:#FFB521;">cobra</span>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 05:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::For example, we could use USERNAMEDELETED<insert a long hexadecimal # here>. The user accounts would still show up on [[Special:ListUSers]]. NoIndex does not help because generally only Wikipedians look at the user list.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 05:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::The "USERNAMEDELETED" proposal sounds like a simple, practical and effective solution. Having the accounts visible only on Special:ListUsers keeps a record of them for reference should the legitimate need for such arise. More importantly, it virtually eliminates the risk of readers and users inadvertently stumbling upon them while reading or editing WP, thus thwarting any "advertisement value" the offending names might hold by remaining visible in namespace and edit histories.--[[User:JayJasper|JayJasper]] ([[User talk:JayJasper|talk]]) 14:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

*Seems like a lot of work for little benefit. A username on Wikipedia has close to zero value as a promotion technique. Truly ''offensive'' usernames are regularly hidden or renamed, though. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 14:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::That does not seem to be the case, like a user whose username was a blatant attack on [[Barack Obama]]. That account wasn't renamed.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 22:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:::If most of the truly offensive usernames are being hidden or renamed, obviously that's a good thing. But clearly some are being missed, which is presumably the reason Jasper Deng made the proposal. If the proposed plan is too technically cumbersome, might be there a simpler way to ensure that blocked usernames get renamed (or hidden)? Would it be feasible to have a bot periodically scan for blocked names that have not been renamed and remain visible?--[[User:JayJasper|JayJasper]] ([[User talk:JayJasper|talk]]) 23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::::The proposal seems to be not only for offensive usernames (which I agree should be renamed or hidden as appropriate), but for usernames deemed promotional (which I do not think need to be acted on further if they are blocked for the same).  –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 14:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

::I once recently found a highly inappropriate account name; I emailed the bureaucrats (at [[Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats]]), and a few hours later I got an email from one of them saying that the user was renamed and the rename log redacted. (Admins can still see the original name [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RevisionDelete&target=Special%3ALog%2Frenameuser&type=logging&ids=35054124 here] - it isn't bad enough to require oversight-level hiding; if it did, I would have comtacted Oversight, not Bureaucrats). However, most problematic user names don't need this - merely preventing them from insertign their user names into page histories and sigs is enough. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 08:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
::I think that we can trust our bureaucrats to recognise what is and what isn't that bad; if you ever find anything which you think is that bad, just inform the bureaucrats and let them decide. (Note that the bureaucrats  are admins, and can redact the rename logs if necessary, too.) [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 08:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

== French-style talk pages ==

I doubt I'm the first person to bring this up, but it's not in the perennial proposals.  Why, oh, why are we not shading our talk page discussions like they do on French Wikipedia?  I think that making each level of indent a different shade makes it far easier to see who is replying to whom.  You can see an example of this on French Wikipedia's main page's talk page [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_principal here], just scroll down past the information boxes.  —[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:The code is ugly and it breaks a ton of other stuff, anywhere there is a ":". --[[User:Mono|the'''MONO''']] 03:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
::Ugh that is hideous.  I thought the French were supposed to have a good sense of aesthetics.  [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|confabulate]]</small></sup> 04:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::It's probably better than LiquidThreads... [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:{{ec}}Who cares about the aesthetics? Speaking of the general idea rather than the particular design and color scheme used there necessarily, I like it. Some more subtle version of similar shading would help show the flow of discussion on a talk page. Regardless of it looking "hideous" it does seem easier to follow threads there than here. And if someone says LiquidThreads is coming soon so this discussion is moot, I will physically hurt them. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 05:01, 21 Mar 2011 (UTC)</font>

We could try it as a Gadget, if someone is willing to code one which doesn't break too much. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 08:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

::We had a discussion on this a while back. I tried the CSS for a while, but did not see any advantages. ---'''''—&nbsp;[[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850&nbsp;(Ed)</span>]]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;</span>'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850|''talk'']]</sup> 10:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

*I can barely make out the colour (Dell monitor, Firefox browser), but when looking closely I couldn't quite see the advantage. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 10:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:Maybe it would get people to actually use threading again, though. Nowadays people seem to prefer to communicate in bullet points around here. (ec: See above :) ) --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 10:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
::I don't think there's anything wrong with bullets... '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small> [[User:Kayau/guestbook|evil]] </small> 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
We'll have a much better discussion system when LiquidThreads comes out. It's in testing mode (The labs wiki is closed now). It allows you to watch individual threads, and looks better, too. For an example, see [[mw:Project:Current_issues]] (LT is deployed on Mediawiki.org and on the strategy wiki) [[User:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Manish</span><span style="color:green;">''Earth''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Manishearth|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Manishearth|<span style="color:green;">Stalk</span>]]</sup> 13:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:No LQT. Please no. It goes against why I love plain old MediaWiki—no fancy frontend interfaces that complicate everything. It's hard to navigate through individual pages of threads when you don't want to see them in a chat-like interface. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
::Are you kidding? Standard Wikimarkup is complicated for anyone not used to programming or CLI interfaces. I'll be glad when LQT takes over. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 20:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Those of a geekier and/or more experienced disposition could adapt to anything; I'm more concerned about what's easiest for newbies and those daunted by editing wikipedia. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been using this code for months and it is awesome. Absolutely worth changing a few templates that use ":" for; it also has accessibility benefits. I proposed this earlier as well; could we at least make it a gadget? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 15:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:The intended effect could be reached with less obtrusive thin grey vertical lines that you can follow upwards to see which earlier comment a given comment is in response to – if the editor responsible for the later comment has properly followed the indentation conventions, which not everybody always does. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 15:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
::More people would reply correctly if it were more obvious when they did it erroneously, as some graphical cue like this would seem to aid in doing. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 15:45, 21 Mar 2011 (UTC)</font>

:::Previous discussions:
:::* [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_80#CSS for highlighting discussion threads]]
:::* [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_65#Add_projectwide_css_to_highlight_different_posts_in_a_discussion]]
:::The CSS is now at [[User:Gadget850/talkhighlight.css]]. You can test it by importing it to [[Special:MyPage/skin.js]]:

:::{{pre2|<nowiki>importStylesheet('User:Gadget850/talkhighlight.css'); // Linkback: [[User:Gadget850/talkhighlight.css]]</nowiki>}}
:::---'''''—&nbsp;[[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850&nbsp;(Ed)</span>]]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;</span>'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850|''talk'']]</sup> 16:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*It looks very, very nasty. It adds a load of un-necessary HTML to pages. And it's perfectly easy to notice that
*:this line
*::is not as indented as
*:::this line
*even without exciting fancy colours all over the place. <font color="#FFB911">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">duumvirate</span>]]─╢</font> 09:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
*:Huh? doesn't it work by just changing the CSS? --[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 17:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::It's easy to see that one is more indented than the last, sure, but how do to tell who is replying to whom when so many people just make their comment one level more indented than the last comment regardless of to whom they are replying?  Most people don't make a second reply to the same comment the same level of indentation as the first reply because it looks too much like one long paragraph.  —[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 04:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

:I like this, especially for the reason given by Equazcion at 15:45, 21 Mar 2011 (UTC). --[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to me and I am worried that it might make long talk pages even slower to load. Apart from that I don't mind it. Unlike Liquid Threads it's not likely to drive me off Wikipedia if implemented. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 18:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:AFAICT it doesn't change the HTML of the talk pages themselves in any way, it just adds about half a kilobyte of stuff to the (already ginormous) style sheet. --[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 19:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that so many people think that it's ugly, I think it looks alright, although I would be fine with a redesigned version.  I just want it to be more clear who is replying to whom.  To many conversations make each reply one level more indented than the previous comment even when they are not replying to that person's comment.  It would be nice to at least have a gadget that did this.  —[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 04:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

== Username Change ==

Instead of a Username block, we could force a username change.  We do not like force but we Request for that the user changes his/her username.  We block all editing exempt for username change if the user hesitates to change the username himself.  If the user has email, we email the requested username change.  ~~'''Awesome''' [[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 22:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:It'll be hard to do this technically though the idea itself is perfect.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Blocking all edits until the user requests a new name is the whole idea of a username block. I will note that renaming users can only be done by [[wp:Bureaucrats]], it is not something the user can do himself. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::: I don't see why it'd be that hard to do technically. The only table you'd have to update is the users table. It'd be just be a matter of adding another column to the users table or possibly working it in with the block table. @Yoenit that is exactly what the proposal is, to allow users to change their own name if allowed instead of just blocking the user. --[[User:nn123645|nn123645]] ([[User talk:nn123645|talk]]) 01:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::::And if the user just renames themselves to something else inappropriate? I really don't see any significant benefit here over how things currently work. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 05:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*Administrators are ''already'' supposed to give a user where the only issue is the username some leeway and time to change their username ''before'' blocking. Of course, not all administrators are acting appropriately in this regard and may need to be reminded of this (cf. [[Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames]], [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings]]). –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 14:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, there is a category for users needing username change for bureaucrats.  When there is the Username Block template, it will add the category.  Also, the user will indicate the new username.  ~~'''Awesome''' [[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 18:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Not if they decide that they don't want to contribute to a project where they are blocked without warning or without being giving time to respond to a warning about their username (see also [[WP:BITE]]). –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
We will not accept other inappropriate usernames.  We will notify the user of the username policy.
Also, I didn't see admins that especially use the [[Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames]].  I saw it some times, not that much though. 
Oh, the bureaucrats that don't want to contribute wouldn't be changing any usernames at all.  Also, it will be inside [[Wikipedia:Changing username]].  ~~'''Awesome''' [[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 18:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:The username policy was recently clarified on this point.  We still have a few people who haven't gotten the memo (NB that nobody, no matter how determined, can keep up with every policy change on Wikipedia).  In some cases, persistent editors complain to UAA, get told that the name is not a violation, then move on to COIN and demand that the editor be sanctioned, get turned down, and keep going.  These complaints are usually over trivial things, e.g., a username that includes a reference to an [[iPod]] (there are at least half a dozen of these).
:With this policy, the community wants to stop two kinds of abuse:  Direct advertising (think {{red|User:Buy from Microsoft.com today!}} and article ownership (think "but I'm {{red|User:Microsoft's VP of Marketing}}, so I have special inside knowledge of the Truth™, and therefore I don't need to provide reliable sources").  The policy actually hurts us in trying to stop the third kind of abuse:  by requiring generic usernames, we make it harder to spot people with a COI, and therefore they will get less scrutiny for abusing their COI. 
:In general, the goal is to have the fewest number of blocks necessary to stop abuse.  I think we're moving in the right direction, and eventually, as people learn more about the recently clarified standards, practice will even out a bit more.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== Testing on MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount ==

Hello,

As I continue my work with the Account Creation Improvement Project, I have taken a longer look at MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount and its talk page to see how we can improve it. I would like to test a few things, so I wanted to give you a heads up. More information [[MediaWiki_talk:Fancycaptcha-createaccount#Testing_this_page|here]].//[[User:Hannibal|Hannibal]] ([[User talk:Hannibal|talk]]) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
== New CSD group ==

There could be a new type of CSD with is for unremarkable chemicals.  There is tons of them and not that many of them are notable.  So how about making it a new CSD.  ~~[[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]]~~ <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
*Per [[WP:NOTCSD]], notability is (for good reason) ''not'' a criterion for speedy deletion. --<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua;">[[User:Kinu|<strong style="color:blue;">Kinu</strong>]] [[User_talk:Kinu|<sup style="color:red;">''t''</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Kinu|<sub style="color:red;">''c''</sub>]]</span> 21:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
*As a chemistry undergraduate, I actually find that a good number of the chemical articles I need haven't been created yet. As I've slogged through the three years so far of my course, I've found that the articles on niche (but still existent and studied) chemicals that my tutors use in problem sets start to get rather thin on the ground. If anything, Wikipedia needs ''more'' chemical articles. I think most editors probably have their pet "too much of this" category (sportspeople, bands, animal species, villages in Poland) but let's not forget that Wikipedia isn't paper-based; there's plenty of room for everyone's interests. [[User:Brammers|Brammers]] ([[User_talk:Brammers|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brammers|c]]) 11:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
*what they said.<br/>—&nbsp;[[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 18:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
::I'd recommend that you take many of these to individual AfD discussions (probably not more than 20 a day); if most of these end up getting deleted, then discuss this at [[WT:CSD]]. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 08:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
:You might want to visit [[WT:CHEM]], where editors interested in chemicals and chemistry can help sort through the articles, perhaps improving some of the poor ones. They (okay, we:) might also be able to find a pattern to a bunch of the bad ones, so maybe could bulk-nom a bunch. Going the other way, we'd love to have people improve or write new articles on special compounds of interest. If a structure is a particularly good example of a certain set of compounds, or has particular chemical/biological properties worth mentioning in a class, or is an important teaching example of a certain classic reaction, maybe you could help those students in future years find more info here? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 21:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

:There are dozens, if not hundreds, of scientific journals about chemistry and related fields, some with publishing history going back over a hundred years. I would be very surprised to see a chemical compound that we have an article for that doesn't have a journal article covering it. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 01:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

::Why CSD?  Why not [[WP:PROD]]?  Is it hugely important to have it deleted today or tomorrow, rather than next week?  [[WP:There is no deadline]] applies to deletion processes, too.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

== edit summary should be required ==

Making the edit summary a required entry should make ip-edits more useful. [[User:Hpvpp|Hpvpp]] ([[User talk:Hpvpp|talk]]) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:Already being discussed above, see [[#Force edit summary usage for new users until they're autoconfirmed]]  [[User:GB fan|GB fan]] ([[User talk:GB fan|talk]]) 01:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

::Sorry, I should have been clearer.  The change is aimed at '''ip'''-editors so that ''other'' editors can more easily tell if they were in good faith.  See also the post by Melodia Chaconne above which I copy here for convenience.
:::Well it seems to me the point is to help OTHERS recognize those good faith edits. The question of if newbies will be turned off by the summeries more than they are currently by their good faith edits being reverted (I've even seen plenty of seemingly good faith edits directly called vandalism...at least with an edit summery it's easy to tell if the reverter is in the wrong)
::Note the point that newbies (and thus ip's) can be turned off by having their edits reverted. [[User:Hpvpp|Hpvpp]] ([[User talk:Hpvpp|talk]]) 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:This will not make edits by anons "more useful", it will just make vandalism easier to spot. The quality of an edit is not related to the edit summary. Like the other proposal, the real goal is to make things easier for vandalism patrollers at the expense of making learning how to edit even more difficult. The benefit for new users is dubious at best. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 05:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

::Please see [[WP:PEREN]] for the usual list of reasons why this proposal has been previously rejected.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

== Unfree media copyright expiry ==

I've seen a number of nice images disappear because of copyright problems. Nothing wrong with that of course. What I'd like though is for those which are deleted for that reason to be marked with a date when the copyright expires whether it is 3 years 30 or 90 or whatever. And Wikipedia should take care to try and not permanently delete them and revive them when the time is up. I know it will be a different world in 30 years time but even trying to keep them and having a mark on saying when they are okay would make it much easier to make sure they are not used in between and then come back alive at the end. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 12:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:You've already begun a discussion on this on [[WP:VPP]]. Please don't split conversations among different notice boards, as it makes it much more difficult to judge [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
::A question was asked there as an add on to another discussion there. This is the appropriate place to make a proposal, I'm making a proposal now so I would prefer the talk to be here. There was no proposal there and what would be the point of a consensus there? [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay I see at that other place that someone has raised  something that would be a blocker if true. I guess that better be thrashed out before starting on a proposal. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 23:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:My point exactly: don't start a conversation at two places, because it's counter-productive. Wait until the VPP discussion is closed, '''then''' if you have a working proposal, bring it up here. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

== MOS : Flags ==

There seems to be (imo, very dangerous) attempt to wipe away the entire MOS on flag icons by a small number of editors. I think this needs far, far wider attention (with proposals, amendments, discussion, vote, the lot) - and would like to know how the community can be made aware of these changes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#MOS:FLAG ) [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

== Implementing real time new editor assistance into Wikipedia ==

Like everyone else these days, I have been thinking recently about how Wikipedia can solve the problems of editor growth and retention. It struck me that what Wikipedia currently lacks is true, on-wiki real time editing assistance for new editors. I think this is unfortunate, because speaking with someone in real time is usually much more engaging than receiving a template on your talk page, no matter how pleasant. I'm aware of the IRC channels, but many (most?) of the non-professional, non-geeky people we are most trying to attract and retain right now don't use IRC regularly and probably don't even have an IRC client on their computer. There are also things like [[Wikipedia:Editor Assistance]], [[Wikipedia:Help Desk]], and [[Template:Help me]]. However, very new editors are not likely to know about them, and some will not want to bother using them. Real time chat is right there, no setup required, and most people know what it is and how to use it without any specific Wikipedia training.

So, my proposal is that we embed a kind of real time chat room into the MediaWiki software that is exclusively for new editor assistance. To be clear, this is NOT a proposal that Wikipedia become a social network or a forum for general, off topic conversation, both of which I strongly oppose. The chat would need to be moderated in some way with off topic users removed. This proposal also does not suggest that everyone would need to be in this chat and receive messages. Users should have the ability to go invisible or disable the chat function entirely in their preferences. Most likely, only new users and those willing to help them would spend any time in it at all.

I know that I am proposing the addition of a functionality that does not yet exist in MediaWiki. There would obviously be programming to do. However, since many websites have this type of functionality, it seems like it would be possible to create here. I’m just trying to gauge the community’s feeling on pursuing any form of real time communication beyond what we have now, because I think it would bring benefits to community health if implemented correctly.--[[User:Danaman5|Danaman5]] ([[User talk:Danaman5|talk]]) 13:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

:We have that. It's called [irc://freenode/wikipedia-en #wikipedia-en] on [[freenode]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 13:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
:In addition, freenode implements a web-based IRC client, qwebirc ([http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help link]), which is linked from [[WP:HELP]]. [[User:Spitfire|Spitfire]]<sup>[[User talk:Spitfire|Tally-ho!]]</sup> 13:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
::As I said in the proposal above, not everyone uses IRC or even knows what it is. Their computer might not be able to run it without installing additional software, and they might leave before going to [[WP:HELP]]. When I clicked on the link that Headbomb provided just now in Google Chrome, it did not bring me to a chat window. There are quite a few non-technically minded users who will not search for a way to open an IRC channel for a website to which they have not yet become attached. If we want to attract and retain those users, we need something more immediate and more simple. If nothing else, we should make the link to that web based IRC chat page that Spitfire referenced visible on every page.--[[User:Danaman5|Danaman5]] ([[User talk:Danaman5|talk]]) 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
::As he said, IRC is for geeks. Adapting his idea, I think we should have something like ''Reference desk'' to facilitate new users' wiki editing. I remember spending two hours figuring why my first article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binet_equation&oldid=345571644 Binet equation] look so ugly like below, in contrast to other pages
    Binet equation is the orbital equation for central force motion in plane polar coordinates.
    Its form is <math>F=-mh^{2}u^{2}(\frac{d^{2}u}{d\theta ^{2}}+u)</math>( <math>u=\frac{1}{r}</math>,<math>h=\frac{L}{m}</math>)
    It's obvious that when F is an inverse-square force field,the equation will be simplified into a linear ODE ...
::I don't know what kept me trying, but that feeling of helplessness definitely would scare off a lot of other potential editors.--[[User:Netheril96|Netheril96]] ([[User talk:Netheril96|talk]]) 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
:::My concern with a reference desk type idea is that it would require the new user to post a new section on a page somewhere, and they might not find the page or understand how to post on it initially. We have to see things from the perspective of a non-technical user here. I guess what I'm thinking of is a chat functionality that has sort of the style of the [[Gmail]] chat, for those who have used that, in the sense that it is right there floating on the page with you. Simple, immediate, with no searching around or additional expertise necessary. I appreciate this idea, though; a reference desk type page would be a good place to direct people for instruction on more complex features like math syntax, but I think that it should begin with the chat.--[[User:Danaman5|Danaman5]] ([[User talk:Danaman5|talk]]) 14:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
:::My concern with such a chat is that it'd need to be monitored. You just know all the [[4chan|/b-tards]] would swarm it, along with folks looking to argue various fringe-theories and ethnic/cultural debates. It's bad enough trying to keep the trolls off Wikipedia itself. Live chat would be a nightmare. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Many of the people that visit #wikipedia-en-help in search of assistance have never used IRC before. They get there through the numerous webchat links around the help pages. [[User:KFP|KFP]] counted around 40 people getting help in that channel during the last 24 hours (looking through his logs). It's a valuable tool and it is monitored by many, many people (including Freenode staff) so the threat of trolls/spammers isn't something to be worried about too much. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 17:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I've just been informed that this idea is already under consideration. See [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/LiveHelp the Outreach Wiki page]. This looks like a good proposal, but I don't know how much planning or programming has occurred. It's worth publicizing it again here on Wikipedia, so that maybe we can get the ball rolling on it.--[[User:Danaman5|Danaman5]] ([[User talk:Danaman5|talk]]) 02:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
== Change color of redlinks ==

I don't know if this really is the right place to ask this, but I hope it is. Is it possible to change the color of Wikipedias redlinks? I am not proposing making them green or something. However (at least on my screen) the redlinks are hardly distinguishible from unwikilinked words. Blue links are unproblematic, as the contrast is sharper. Also I don't know if it is only an issue of my own display. But if it is not, I would suggest to use a lighter tone of red for the redlinks. [[User:Toshio Yamaguchi|Toshio Yamaguchi]] ([[User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi|talk]]) 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:For most of us they're fairly distinct, since red is a rather bold colour (note that dark red stubs or visited redlinks may not be as distinctively red). You can change the colour of redlinks in your css at [[User:Toshio Yamaguchi/vector.css]] according to the directions at [[Wikipedia:Link_color#Making_links_appear_a_different_color_just_for_you]]. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

== Render Wikipedia in [[ROT13]] by default ==

{{collapse top|April 1 is over.}}
[[File:Ambox humor.svg|thumb|100px|right|This is an April Fool's proposal]]
Alternatively, we could invert lowercase and uppercase.

In ROT13, the first few sentences of [[quark]]
{{blockquote|A '''quark''' is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei. Due to a phenomenon known as ''color confinement'', quarks are never found in isolation; they can only be found within hadrons. For this reason, much of what is known about quarks has been drawn from observations of the hadrons themselves.}}

would read as
{{blockquote|N '''dhnex''' vf na ryrzragnel cnegvpyr naq n shaqnzragny pbafgvghrag bs znggre. Dhnexf pbzovar gb sbez pbzcbfvgr cnegvpyrf pnyyrq unqebaf, gur zbfg fgnoyr bs juvpu ner cebgbaf naq arhgebaf, gur pbzcbaragf bs ngbzvp ahpyrv. Qhr gb n curabzraba xabja nf ''pbybe pbasvarzrag'', dhnexf ner arire sbhaq va vfbyngvba; gurl pna bayl or sbhaq jvguva unqebaf. Sbe guvf ernfba, zhpu bs jung vf xabja nobhg dhnexf unf orra qenja sebz bofreingvbaf bs gur unqebaf gurzfryirf.}}

We could also give the readers the option to combined both ROT13 and inverted casing.

{{blockquote|n '''DHNEX''' VF NA RYRZRAGNEL CNEGVPYR NAQ N SHAQNZRAGNY PBAFGVGHRAG BS ZNGGRE. dHNEXF PBZOVAR GB SBEZ PBZCBFVGR CNEGVPYRF PNYYRQ UNQEBAF, GUR ZBFG FGNOYR BS JUVPU NER CEBGBAF NAQ ARHGEBAF, GUR PBZCBARAG BS NGBZVP AHPYRV. qHR GB N CURABZRABA XABJA NF ''PBYBE PBASVARZRAG'', DHNEXF NER ARIRE SBHAQ VA VFBYNGVBA; GURL PNA BAYL OR SBHAQ JVGUVA UNQEBAF. sBE GUVF ERNFBA, ZHPU BS JUNG VF XABJA NOBHG DHNEXF UNF ORRA QENJA SEBZ BOFREINGVBAF BS GUR UNQEBAF GURZFRYIRF.}}

This feature as been missing from Wikipedia for the longest of times, so to compensate I think we should enable it by default for everyone. It's in fact much better than pending revisions since vandals would probably think they've won, and they would leave us alone. Plus, [[Daniel Brandt]] couldn't complain if he can't read what we write about him. Users who don't like this could send an email to the Wikimedia technical staff to opt-out (or contact them directly in [irc://freenode/wikimedia-tech #wikimedia-tech]). I spoke to a few guys and this wouldn't break vector or monobook.

Consensus should be pretty resounding for this, but since [[WP:PROCESS|process is important]], we should conduct a quick poll for all of today (ending at 23:59, 1 April 2011(UTC)), after which we can file the bugzilla request. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 08:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''', as nominator. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 08:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support first'''. Excellent way to deter vandalism, as they will get confused and leave. Oppose CAPS though; should only enable that for [[Caps_lock#International_Caps_Lock_Day|Caps Lock day]]. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:H3llkn0wz|<span style="color:#BB0000;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:H3llkn0wz|TALK]]</small> 08:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
:*It would only be an option, it would '''not''' be enabled by default. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 08:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for procedural reasons'''. I don't think this proposal is ripe for voting, or even !voting. See [[WP:POLLS]]. You have not addressed what to do with non-standard characters. For example, should "Brontë" become "Oebagë" or "Oebagr̈ "? Neither is really satisfactory. Even worse: what do we do about "α-decay"? [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 08:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
:Well ë would become r̈ yeah. ROT13 the base character and keep the diacritics. α-decay would become ξ-qrpnl (α ROT13 ξ in Greek, and decayROT13 is qrpnl in latin). <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 08:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
::With this clarification, '''strongly oppose'''. The [[Greek alphabet]] has only 24 letters, so we should certainly use ROT12 for the Greek parts of Wikipedia. ROT13 is not self-reversing, which is absolutely critical to safe algorithmic space in our users' brains. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Fhccbeg''', V qba'g haqrefgnaq jul guvf unf abg orra qbar rneyvre --[[User:Asilv|Nfvyi]] ([[User talk:Asilv|gnyx]]) 08:43, 1 Ncevy 2011 (HGP)
*'''Yellow'''.  ROT-13 may actually make ArbCom evidence pages make sense.  I don't think that's a good idea.  I prefer the clusterf*ck model which has served us well so far.  Anyway Rot 13 is for the rotationists, and I'm a stationist.  Down with rotationists.  Always spinning.  We're supposed to supply the ''sum'' of the world's knowledge, not its radial velocity.  Stick to what we have, no matter what.  That's my motto.  (And that's what my motto will stay).   [[User talk:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi|c]]</sup> 08:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' GIXTL FACQN NLUMW
 WVYPK PGNRF MSSOE YMVCR IRLZS GGSCV TUGDH DREGH VAEPM JXDIU OKIHK HSIGY XOCVQ PKSGT BIGGM ZLCAJ KUKJY JLWFN YTQZZ LOZVI WJGXS EHUIZ MFJSJ XUKZI WGLPD SBOSN EBXQE PENBA GIALZ ZJFGQ DBBTO CXZKF GWCAX WJXUQ CBNDB UQQOL NFGZT --[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 10:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support with modification''' a single iteration of a cipher isn't as good as multiple iterations of it - after all, [[DES]] has been replaced with [[3DES]]. Therefore we should use [http://www.mobikom.at/2rot13.pdf 2ROT13] instead of ROT13. I'm pretty sure this will be easier to implement technically, and will still achieve the end result of confusing people. ''[[User:Hut 8.5|<b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b>]]'' 11:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*:I support this modified proposal, and in the spirit of [[WP:BOLD]] have implemented it.-[[User talk:gadfium|<span style="font-family:cursive; color:#808080;">gadfium</span>]] 21:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is, of course, the best idea ever. [[User:Melodia|♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫]] ([[User talk:Melodia|talk]]) 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''—I've been using 128ROT13 in ''all of my communications'' for years; I can't imagine how anyone could possibly ignore a basic requirement for encryption. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{&#123;[[User:Nihiltres|<span style="color:#233D7A;">Nihiltres</span>]]&#124;[[User talk:Nihiltres|talk]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|edits]]&#124;[[WP:03|⚡]]}&#125;</span> 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''', but only for English text. Greek should be rendered in ROT12 and Russian in ROT16{{frac|1|2}}. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 16:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
**Could you give some examples of how Russian should be rendered? --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 01:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' since this is better for us to read. [[User:Frozen Wind|<span style="color:lightblue">'''''Frozen Wind'''''</span>]][[User talk:Frozen Wind|<small>want to be chilly?</small>]] 21:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' since the proposal to use ROT13 was launched on a Friday, which seems like bad karma. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose Support'''. According to a report issued just today, WP does not need this right now, although it is possible that it may be worth considering in the future. The report implies that it may take quite a while for something to be done about this and that it could be years before some action is revisited. Setting aside the countless practical obstacles and the prohibitive expense, WE (Wikipedia Editors) just don't know enough about this to justify the time and expense to move forward at the present time. Editors in nearly every field, including economics, entertainment, pharmocology, Randian philosophy, macrobiotic nutrition, finance, robotics, oncology and animal husbandry concurred with the report. The consensus seems to be that now is not the time and WE are just not ready for this yet. WE may be getting ahead of ourselves by even talking about it. [[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 22:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --but only if I can just mash on my keyboard and pretend its still a translation.--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 22:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== Proposal ==

{{collapse top|April 1 is over}}
[[File:Ambox humor.svg|thumb|100px|This is an April Fool's proposal]]
I propose a weight restriction of {{convert|150|kg}} be placed on all new editors after April 1st, 2011. This weight restriction would include not only clothes, food items, kitchen ware and furniture but also the physical bulk of the named editor. A grace period of 14 days may be granted for weight-loss and/or the sale of goods. Should the editor in question still exceed the presCribed limitations after the 2 week grace period, the account will be transferred to [[Encyclopedia Brittanica]] where bloating is permitted.
*'''support''' as nominator...[[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''—this would greatly reduce Wikipedia's [[momentum|impact]] in the wider world. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{&#123;[[User:Nihiltres|<span style="color:#233D7A;">Nihiltres</span>]]&#124;[[User talk:Nihiltres|talk]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|edits]]&#124;[[WP:03|⚡]]}&#125;</span> 15:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''[[WP:WEIGHT|Too weighty]]. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''support''' because this means that ten pounds isn't too much. I like that. <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, [[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters]] and a clue-bat • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otters want attention]])</sup> 22:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Because weight is a function of gravity and, therefore, one's location, it could have unintended [[WP:Systemic bias|systemic bias]] effects. Though I'm sure, if this were to pass, Wikipedians on the moon would be jumping for joy, and those on Jupiter would be crushed. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== Notice of RFC re trial project which allows any editor to remove new articles from mainspace for incubation ==

See RFC and discussion [[Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Guides/New_pages#Who_can_participate_in_this_project|here]]. Regards, [[User:TransporterMan|'''<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T<font size="1">RANSPORTER</font>M<font size="1">AN</font></font>''']] ([[User talk:TransporterMan#top|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 14:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC) PS: Not an April Fool's gag.
== Fix Wikipedia for new users ==

Regardless of whether it's true or not, the world believes that Wikipedia hates new users. New users see [[WP:NPP]] and [[WP:AFD]] as places to get [[WP:BITE|eaten alive]]. On the other side, the dedicated users at NPP and AFD are overworked and tired of being attacked for doing their job. So why not just fix the damn problem? Just have everything start out in the garbage can.

You could combine [[WP:AFC]] and the [[WP:INCUBATOR]] with NPP and some of AFD. Other Wikipedias are [http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Newbies_Incubator already doing this]. New articles would start out in an AFC area that is out of sight and non-indexed. The role of NPP would change from tagging articles to promoting articles to main space.

A bot could periodically go through and delete articles that aren't suitable for main space after some period of time. A note could say ''All articles are deleted after # days if they don't graduate to main space'' so that new users knew where they stood right at the beginning. This would have several benefits.
*New users would be encouraged to learn how to create good articles
*New users would view NPPers as heroes instead of villains
*This would reduce the workload at [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:PROD]]
*This would make Wikipedia seem much more friendly to new users.
From a certain point of view, this is just an expansion of [[WP:AFC]], so I can't really see why anybody would object to this. But being that I'm [[WP:HUMAN|just an IP]], I'm ready for a whole bunch of objections. Here are some suggestions; ''we're not the (fill in the blank) Wikipedia'' and my all time favorite ''we can't have garbage sitting on Wikipedia forever''. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.61.45|64.40.61.45]] ([[User talk:64.40.61.45|talk]]) 17:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:Hi, this issue and possible solutions are actually being discussed right now here: [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#We_need_more_New_Page_Patrollers]]. Come join the discussion :-) --[[User:Physics is all gnomes|Physics is all gnomes]] ([[User talk:Physics is all gnomes|talk]]) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
::As a veteran editor of Wikipedia, I think this proposal is a ''great'' idea. Perhaps even a long overdue one. Indeed, it would encourage more participation from new users as well as improve the quality of their contributions. I will do what I can to help bring the proposal to fruition, as I believe it would bring much benefit to WP, in its content as well as its public image.--[[User:JayJasper|JayJasper]] ([[User talk:JayJasper|talk]]) 17:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Great idea, but most inclusionists will throw a fit about it, so you'll never get the broad support you'd need to get it enacted.  [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|gab]]</small></sup> 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: Do they? so far support has been pretty strong. If combined with a redesign of AFC as described by the IP above it think it has a shot. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 23:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::I consider myself something of an inclusionist, and think it definitely has a shot. It should appeal to inclusionists and deletionists alike, as it would likely reduce the creations of decidedly unencyclopedic articles and increase the number of encyclopedia-worthy content.--[[User:JayJasper|JayJasper]] ([[User talk:JayJasper|talk]]) 04:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I consider myself a deletionist, and one of the reasons I like this proposal is that it would eliminate much of the confrontation that raise the ire of both sides. In a system such as that being proposed, the interactions between inclusionists and deletionists would mostly be collaborative in assisting new editors write quality articles, rather than the "Us vs. Them" nature of AfD. I also feel that this proposal addresses many of my concerns which lead me to adopt deletionist views: the fact that a great number of people think that since we are "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit", that we're inherently unreliable. I strongly feel that the existence, in mainspace, of poor quality articles is a severe detriment to our credibility(for further reading, see [[Meta:Immediatism]]). [[User:RadManCF|RadManCF]]  <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">&#x2622;</span> [[ User_talk:RadManCF|open frequency]] 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 
:Presumably experienced users would not need to go through such a process to create articles. If so, how do you decide when a user is experienced enough that they can just create articles in the main domain? And if users at a certain level do not need to have their articles pass through this process, then does that mean their articles will not be patrolled at all?[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

::I really like this idea!  ("combine [[WP:AFC]] and the [[WP:INCUBATOR]] with NPP and some of AFD.")  I hope to see it refined, more broadly discussed, and one day, implemented.  I believe this would be a much more positive way of expanding Wikipedia coverage of topics over time, with less bad baggage as exists today.  [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 18:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If we make AfC mandatory for all new users then there won't be a need for the Incubator. And we should do that because it promotes helping people write articles without blindly tagging them a minute after creation. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
:Won't AFC need to be patrolled as well though? If new users keep creating stubs, and then abandoning them immediately after then we could end up with a huge backlog of stubs that will never be worked on. Similarly, articles that fundamentally will never have notability would have to be deleted as well. Should we let a new user keep working on an article in AFC if it will never be able to be moved to the mainspace? The problems with speedy deletion and PRODDing of articles by new users would still have to continue.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 23:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
::Obviously, we'll still need a dedicated team of reviewers at AfC (we do now, actually: [[CAT:AFC]] anyone?). I don't see any problem with changing AfC slightly so that all obviously inappropriate articles are deleted after a short time (attack pages immediately, spam after a day or two, non-notable bios after a few days, etc.) and leaving the rest for, say, two months, before they are deleted? As the pages won't be immediately in the mainspace, we can easily give users more time without ravenous patrollers looking to scourge [[Special:NewPages]] of anything less-than-perfect. If the creators are informed of the set times before creation and after their article has been declined, there no be no real problem. (I'm thinking of this as less of an incubation thing and more of a "start your article here and we'll tell you what you need to work on still" proposal; incubation never worked well because people abandoned stuff there and no one from the community helped improve it, and their deletion guidelines were fairly unclear as well.) <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 23:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
:::It won't happen. The project is already chronically short of volunteers in key areas. To assume that there are loads of editors chomping at the bit to expand and source the number of poor articles that are created every day is pie in the sky. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Pie in the sky indeed. As for this comment "ravenous patrollers looking to scourge Special:NewPages of anything less-than-perfect.", do you realize that new page is almost completely handled by two or three users? New page patrollers are extremely overworked and know that if something doesn't get tagged or deleted by them that they will then go unchecked as after awhile all unpatrolled pages loose their unpatrolled status automatically(otherwise their would just be a ridiculous backlog). Most new users just make a stub, and leave. Why not just get volunteers to help new users with their new articles, or force IP's to use the article wizard? Get some people to patrol new pages and add references, correct wiki text, and help out new users, etc.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 04:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Hmmm, the article wizard idea suggested by AerobicFox has merit. Perhaps it would be simpler to require all noncomfirmed users to use the article wizard before creating an article. For that matter, maybe it should be required of ''all'' users before making their first page creation outside of user or talk space. I believe that doing so would accomplish many if not all of the objectives stated by the proposer and would be less cumbersome for all involved.--[[User:JayJasper|JayJasper]] ([[User talk:JayJasper|talk]]) 14:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

: I'd like to see AfD use some nomination templates that are more language neutral. Too many nominations seem spiteful or petty, being based on personal biases or beliefs. These can also violate [[WP:BITE]]. The large majority of nominations can be handled by just a few templates cases.&mdash;[[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

* In the Account Creation Improvement Project, we have [[:outreach:Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Assumptions|made a whole series of assumptions]] about the new users - one of which is that the new users do not know about Wikipedia's rules. We ''could'' force them to use article wizards or other tools, but we should also be looking at ''educating'' the newcomers effectively. Are we doing that now? In one of the Bookshelf Project materials I have contributed to, [[:outreach:Welcome_to_Wikipedia_(Bookshelf)#Create_a_new_article|we recommended that you start every new article with these three elements]]:
:1. Summary of the topic
:2. Reason why the topic is notable
:3. Reference to a credible source about the topic
That is a simple list that almost everyone can understand. But when we show them the full list of things they need to know, including all the policies, the manual of style, the correct way to contact people, wikiformatting, etc, it is for sure a daunting task. And to sort out the super-important from the things that are simply important or trivial, is not something most people have the time to do. But to return to the question at hand: I don't envy those that patrol the new pages, and I have the highest regard for them, so can we help them in some way by making sure that the newcomers at least have a fighting chance of understanding what the important rules are - perhaps when they create their accounts? Let me know - and add your thoughts on the list of assumptions. Best wishes//[[User:Hannibal|Hannibal]] ([[User talk:Hannibal|talk]]) 11:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::Rather than try to teach them to do something difficult, why not encourage them to do something easier? Creating a passable new article is one of the hardest editing tasks. Learning how to do something by reading is slow, boring, and for many people ineffectual. Rather than trying to spoon-feed them every single skill they need at once or distill it down to something that in practice won't actually be that helpful, users should be encouraged to learn the necessary skills in a hand-on way, by editing existing articles. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 13:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedians don't just ''create'' articles. There's lots of other work which new users get involved in - usually within the confines of existing articles. We should bear that in mind. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is a very good idea, and feel that its worth pointing out that, at [[Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow IP editors to create articles|this]] RFC, a number of editors expressed the same sentiment. [[User:RadManCF|RadManCF]]  <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">&#x2622;</span> [[ User_talk:RadManCF|open frequency]] 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
:I do wonder about the point made by Malleus Fatuorum, that there would be shortage of editors available to assist in the operation of the new process. I would think that editors currently working in NPP would be able to repurpose themselves, but I may be wrong. [[User:RadManCF|RadManCF]]  <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">&#x2622;</span> [[ User_talk:RadManCF|open frequency]] 17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Some points to  ponder based on  comments and suggestions in  the above thread:
*Malleus hits the nail  on  the head (again). I  do  a lot  of new page patrolling, and stop to  ad cats, stub tags, move misspelt  page names, check  out  any  dubious refs, check  the edit  history  for previous deletions,  check  the creator for previous blocks and warnings, and put project  banners on  the talk pages. However, I  see myself under no  obligation  whatsoever to  otherwise repair or expand the work  of lazy  editors and mass stub crators who  can't  be bothered to  read even the simplest article creation  instructions.
*A recent  research  has shown that  it  is precisley  new editors who  go straight  for working  at  [[WP:NPP]] with  very  little knowledge and experience, and who  have not  read NPP guidelines or [[WP:DELETION]]. Pages get  tagged that  shouldn't  be, pages get  passed that  shouldn't  be,  and vandal pages, hoaxes, and attack  pages that  should be deleted immeditely get tagged A7 and remain  live for hours until noticed by   more experienced editor or and admin. 
*NPP is the one fundamentally and most  important  aspect  of Wikipedia where the least  experienced users are allowed to  act as article policemen without out  requiring  any  training or the assignment  of a special  right. And that's why  they  do  it.
*The only  NPPrs who  complain  about  criticism are those who  have been repeatedly  requested in  the nicest  possible way   look  at  [[WP:NPP]] and [[WP:CSD]] first, and who still  refuse to slow down and  improve their performance.
*NPP is short staffed because those who  are experienced are busy  patrolling  the work  of the patrollers and rectifying  their mistakes, and looking  for solutions to improve the process.
*I  '''strongly support''' absolutely  any  solution  that  prevents new pages from  going  live immediately, except  those created  by [[WP:Autopatrol|autopatrollers]].
*No  new article is so  urgent it  can't  wait  24  going  live. A great  many  web forums  need the posts authorising  by  a moderator -  why  not  Wikipedia?
[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 01:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

== Protection icons and accessibility ==

{{see also|Template talk:Pp-meta#More accessible protection icons}}
I would like it if for the protection templates, a user changes the images (like the top icons) for [[WP:Accessability]]?

Here's the new images

[[File:Padlock-dash.svg|thumb|50px|Fully protected|left]]
[[File:Padlock-silver-slash.svg|thumb|50px|Semi-protected]]
[[File:Padlock-silver-light-semidelta.svg|thumb|50px|Pending changes protected (level 1)|left]]
[[File:Padlock-orange-fulldelta.svg|thumb|50px|Pending changes protected (level 2)]]
[[File:Padlock-skyblue-plus.svg|thumb|50px|Create protected|left]]
[[File:Padlock-olive-arrow.svg|thumb|50px|Move protected]]
[[File:Padlock-purple-uparrow.svg|thumb|50px|Upload protected|left]]
[[File:Padlock-red-inf.svg|thumb|50px|Permanently protected]]

Here's the links
{{protection templates}}

~~[[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]]~~ <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 22:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''—putting obscure mathematical or abstract symbols onto anyway tiny icons doesn't increase accessibility. <font color="#7026DF">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">constabulary</span>]]─╢</font> 07:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
*:It doesn't decreases it, either; and for some people such symbols, once learned, might be easier to remember than colours. --[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 11:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' - some of them can be useful, as it takes a while to remember the colours. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small> [[User:Kayau/guestbook|evil]] </small> 11:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but the use of the <code>|small=</code>  parameter is very common, and that would look like this:
<gallery widths="20px" heights="25px">
File:Padlock-dash.svg|Full
File:Padlock-silver-slash.svg|Semi
File:Padlock-silver-light-semidelta.svg|PC 1
File:Padlock-orange-fulldelta.svg|PC 2
File:Padlock-skyblue-plus.svg|Create
File:Padlock-olive-arrow.svg|Move
File:Padlock-purple-uparrow.svg|Upload
File:Padlock-red-inf.svg|Perm
</gallery>

Do you really think that the icons would be distinguishable by someone with even mild vision impairment (say, a 50-year-old person who can't find his reading glasses right now)?  I don't.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
:That seems like a silly reason to deny it though. Just because some people won't be able to tell the difference doesn't mean it's not helpful to those who can. As it stands now there's no difference, so for that "50-year-old person who can't find his reading glasses right now" it wouldn't be any different than it is already. [[User:Melodia|♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫]] ([[User talk:Melodia|talk]]) 18:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
::I've just got a 50-year-old person to look at it without his reading glasses right now. The colours are easily distinguishable but the icons are not. If anything, the icons conceal the colour. Nice idea, but introducing complexity to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I just hover over the padlock and see what it links to. [[User:Brammers|Brammers]] ([[User_talk:Brammers|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brammers|c]]) 13:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I'm 68 and recently had interocular lenses installed to get rid of coke-bottle bifocals. For me, the colors obscure the icons. Also, see [[MOS:COLOR]]. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
:Oh, forgot:

**[[MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext]]
:~~[[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]]~~ <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

: Opposed, introduces unneeded complexity and makes icon's less 'visual' recognizable due to their complexity. Protected is protected. Some colors to 'help' distingish protection levels help, but the primary method to help accessibility and usability here is the text accompanying theses icons in in the templates. For the small mode, that text is the 'title' label. Beyond that, these icons are still under an 'attribution' license, which makes them incompatible for 'direct' linking to help pages. Bypassing image description links with link= generally requires PD material on the English Wikipedia. Although, I doubt that the addition of the symbols qualifies for a new substantial copyright claims in these cases, in which case all the icons are PD anyways because they are derived from a PD original. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 14:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

== Can the names of referenced policy pages be expanded when cited? ==

I am a new editor, happy (after reading all the controversies at the Village Pump) that none of my 35 new articles have been deleted! My request: when information is being transmitted via reference to other wikipedia pages (like AFC or those other hundreds of acronyms), that you expand the names so I have some idea of what you're talking about: the pages they point to are densely written and require quite a lot of time to plod through. I do not have the time to memorize all these acronyms though they obviously transmit important information. They are intimidating and strongly support the conviction the outside world has that: Wikipedia is an insiders' club and if you don't know the lingo you don't belong. [[User:Jane Peppler|Jane Peppler]] ([[User talk:Jane Peppler|talk]]) 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

:"''I do not have the time to memorize all these acronyms though they obviously transmit important information''" they are not important if you are not interested in maintaining Wikipedia. If you just want to contribute to the ''content'' of Wikipedia, there is no need to hang out at [[WP:AfD]] and so on, unless of course your own articles are nominated for deletion.--[[User:Netheril96|Netheril96]] ([[User talk:Netheril96|talk]]) 11:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:: She does not mention AFD, but AFC, which stands for [[wp:Articles for Creation]] and is definitely something relevant for new users. They also have a chance of seeing short form for policies such as [[wp:PROD]], [[wp:OR]], [[wp:NOT]], [[wp:N]], [[wp:V]] when receiving feedback on their contributions. In response to Jane: This is recognized problem and most users will not use shortcuts when communicating with new users. I suppose we could make some template to automatically display the full page name when you type in a shortcut (something similar in functionality as {{tl|tl}} is for templates), but it would be a challenge to convince the community of using this exclusively. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 11:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I still dream of the day when we can reduce the number of policies and other project-internal pages to a nice compact, user-friendly manual that will bring new users into the project rather than frighten them off... That day's a long way off, however - every policy and process seems to have its staunch defenders who believe that anything but the most minor changes to it will cause Wikisociety to collapse, and so progress (if it comes at all) is made excrutiatingly slowly.  --[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In theory you could have a bot automatically expand and link standard abbreviations on talk pages to the relevant policy (so eg <tt>WP:AFC</tt> automatically becomes <tt>[[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]]</tt>). As for Yoenit's suggestion - maybe {{tl|w}} could be repurposed for this, so you'd write <tt>{{tlx|1=w|2=AFC}}</tt> to get <tt>[[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]]</tt>. But you'd probably need a bot to go around subst:ing these, or you'd be creating zillions of transclusions (and if you require people to subst: the template, it won't get used). Even that would be more effort to type, because it needs the shift key and finding the pipe character, so might not get much takeup. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 17:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

:Incomprehensibility is why we usually link the shortcuts (at least the first time in a discussion).  No matter the obvious benefits, the fact is that it takes longer to type, say, [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] than it does to type [[WP:MEDRS]], so people simply aren't going to do it very often, especially if they're thinking about a conversation between a couple of people who clearly know what page they're talking about, and forgetting how many hundreds of people might be reading that section.  
:Additionally, if you don't already know what (for example) MEDRS says that's relevant to the discussion in hand, then you need to go read it anyway.  Knowing the title isn't enough.  Advice pages change, and people misremember and misunderstand their contents.  You don't necessarily want to blindly trust that what someone says about the contents of a page (unless it's me ;-) or to guess what it means from the title or shortcut.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
::I don't think you're taking into account how unfriendly that alphabet soup looks to browsers, new editors, and even moderately experienced editors (people do forget or get confused about what abbreviations stand for). At least having the page title makes what's said in that sentence make a certain sense instead of appearing cryptic, and ensuring that the reference ''is'' wikilinked ensures people can click for more details. Hence the issue of how to make this happen more often, eg with a template and/or bot. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 20:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I like how when you put <nowiki>{{cn}} and {{ec}} it expands into {{citation needed}} and {{edit conflict}}</nowiki>. I don't see why that couldn't be done for acronyms. [[Flinders Petrie|Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie]] [[user_talk:Flinders Petrie|Say Shalom!]] 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: Almost of the common shortcuts are already used as (redirects to) templates. For example {{tl|NOT}} is a maintenance template and {{tl|PROD}} leads to the proposed deletion template. We would thus need to rename a lot (100+?) templates or change the shortcuts. Either option seems more trouble then it is worth. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 21:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::That expansion is only done if the bot is editing the article for some other reason, e.g., to date the template.  If you date it by hand (as I almost always do) then the bot leaves it alone. 
:::::The question was about changing talk page comments, not templates in articles, and while it's not a bad idea, I don't think that an analogous bot change is possible. So many editors refer to policies by shortcuts without linking them.  The bot could never distinguish between "I think that word is spelled with a V in the middle, rather than a W" and "I think that sentence contradicts V, which requires sources for that type of statement".  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::: I am pretty sure he was talking about the fact that <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> displays as {{cn}}, rather than bots replacing the actual wikicode. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 22:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::: But people don't usually say "contradicts V", they say "contradicts WP:V". Such uses are surely unique and can be processed by a bot if we think it worth it. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I've seen more editors drop the "WP:" recently.  There are at least ten instances of just "RS" on [[WP:RSN]] at the moment, all unlinked, one of which is additionally lower case.  There are at least sixteen instances of just "V" at [[WT:V]] at the moment, also all unlinked.  WT:V also includes seven instances of just "OR".  There's no way that a bot could distinguish between "I think that violates OR" and "You must choose this OR that".  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

::I am a relatively new user and I personally like being part of AfD, which uses a lot of shortcuts. I appreciate the shortcuts when writing an opinion because my argument is more readable and appears more cogent when I reference, for example, [[WP:ORG]], rather than [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)]], because it's shorter and more to the point. It allows the debate to focus on the policy rather than get lost in a sea of words, especially when citing several of these policy pages. Just like how Wikipedia uses superscript numbers in articles rather than citing the entire source in the text of the article. If you don't know what a shortcut means, simply click on it--or if unlinked then copy paste it into the search bar--and educate yourself. Simply seeing the title doesn't tell you what the policy says and seeing the entire policy name doesn't add to discussions. Participating in AfD, I have made some errors, mostly because I haven't read through an entire policy page or because there was a policy that I didn't know existed, but this is how I've learned about Wikipedia policy. You can't claim to actively participate while simultaneously complaining that the shortcuts make it difficult to join in because you don't have time to read the policy. Contributions without regard to policy or at a minimum recognition that they have importance are often poor in quality. [[User:Lord Arador|Lord Arador]] ([[User talk:Lord Arador|talk]]) 01:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a tip, if you want to know what [[WP:SOUP]] says without clicking, just hover it with your mouse. After a second or two, there should be a tool tip appearing with "[[Wikipedia:You spat in my soup!]]". <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 08:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
:[[WP:Navigation popup]] must be installed for that to work.--[[User:Netheril96|Netheril96]] ([[User talk:Netheril96|talk]]) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
::I don't have that enabled, and it works for me. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
:::It's definitely not a default setting. It could be something in your .js settings or a browser thing. Anyhow, I'd recommend [[WP:POPUPS|navigational popups]] for the OP. It's a great time saver. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 03:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

== Day Protection ==

While at the french wikipedia, I saw some protections of pages of special days (like "St. Patrick's day") because of more vandalism when close to the day.  So I thought that for major days, they are automaticly protected from editing (semi-protected) a couple days before the day, and 2 days after.  ~~[[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]]~~ <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 22:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

:You mean auto-protection annually on that day? That sounds interesting... [[User:Rehman|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:bold; color:darkblue">Reh</span>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 23:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:that would be rather trivial, just need a few parser functions, cascade protection, and a setup page. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant</sup></sub>]] 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:: The technical part is not the problem, but I expect serious resistance to any proposal of preventive protection for these types of pages. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 19:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
:::IMO, there's already a fair amount of "preventive" protection used on articles; the admins just use weak claims of too much vandalism or some other reason from the drop down box. This idea seems useful in the sense that we all know specific holiday pages will be vandalized and need to be protected on their respective dates, but I doubt TheCommunity™ will go for it. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 03:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
== What links here results and links inside templates ==

What links here -functionality creates a list that also shows the links inside templates. Resulting list should only show the link to the template, not the links inside the template. 

For example, the results from [[Västerås]] show[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/V%C3%A4ster%C3%A5s&limit=500] also the links that are inside the 5 templates at the bottom of the page[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4ster%C3%A5s#External_links].

The links inside those 5 templates should not be included in What links here-list. Only the 5 templates should be listed in list, not the 5 x 15 extra useless links inside the 5 templates. What links here should only list those pages that actually have a link in the article text to Västerås-page.

There is a bug report in Bugzilla [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12396], but it is not moving anywhere. It is almost two years old. 

What links here is a important and very useful functionality. Also you could get links that you would never thought to be related to article that you are reading!  --[[User:Pasixxxx|Pasixxxx]] ([[User talk:Pasixxxx|talk]]) 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
:The issue is more that the other links are not "useless" for a number of maintenance tasks, including orphan identification. - [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]]&nbsp;<sup>[''[[Special:Contributions/Jarry1250|Who?]] [[User_talk:Jarry1250|Discuss]].'']</sup> 17:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
::I think a more useful approach is to allow the user to explicitly request that such links not show up - just like the user can currently request that redirects not show up. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'd like to see that as an option, but I agree that if it were the default, it would screw up the orphan-hunting bots.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There could be a workaround to this problem. Links inside the template could be replaced with a link to someother-namespace-page that would redirect to the actual article-namespace article. For example, [[Västerås]] could have a Metapage (or whatever) namespace page [[Metapage:Västerås/redirect]] that would redirect to [[Västerås]]. You could put the [[Metapage:Västerås/redirect]] -link to template, and then user could filter out Metapage namespace. I don't know how the bot stuff would do with this. --[[User:Pasixxxx|Pasixxxx]] ([[User talk:Pasixxxx|talk]]) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you had a Template:Sweden, you could create a page Template:Sweden/Västerås, and in that page do a redirect to [[Västerås]]. There is no need to create a new namespace. All other swedish cities in the fictious template would also have a redirect-page under the Template:Sweden, like Template:Sweden/Stockholm, Template:Sweden/Gothenburg. Links to the redirect-pages would be used in template and What links here-function would work properly. Maybe I will test this somewhere. Or someone could test this. --[[User:Pasixxxx|Pasixxxx]] ([[User talk:Pasixxxx|talk]]) 17:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

== Changing the article creation requirements ==

{{main|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Allow new editors to create articles}}
''Please note:  this is a procedural move.  I moved page here and transcluded it in (in order to keep the edit history intact) so that it would get more broad discussion than on a narrowly focused project page.  Also, the idea properly originated here.  I have not formally taken a position on this issue.  [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 21:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)''

{{Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Allow new editors to create articles}}
== There should be a way for editors to remove all their contributions ==

There should be a button for editors to press that gets rid of all their contributions, leaving the current article chewed up, so when users get mad an threaten to leave Wikipedia, people will take them seriously, because it might have actual consequences. It would also just be a nice option to have.--[[User:WikiDonn|WikiDonn]] ([[User talk:WikiDonn|talk]]) 01:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
:Editors don't own their edits - specifically see "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", and don't have the right to vandalize Wikipedia to make a point. Such a feature would be of no benefit to the project. [[User:Seaphoto|<span style="color:#3333cc;">'''Sea'''</span><span style="color:#330099;">'''photo'''</span>]][[User_talk:Seaphoto|<sup style="color:#3333cc;">Talk</sup>]] 01:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:I'd support this under one condition: that after it removes their contributions, the button blocks the user for vandalism and reverts the removal.  It would save the admins a great deal of effort. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 01:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:April 1 was yesterday. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 14:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:I like Carnildo's modification, but I'd add a requirement that the editor read [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye What good-bye often means in Wikiland] before doing so, so that the user knows why nobody should take these empty threats seriously.  (We ignore here the technical impossibilities; not all changes can be removed automatically.)  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:No. Wikipedia is a [[free content]] encyclopedia; Seaphoto is absolutely correct in that [[Wikipedia:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted|revocation of our licensing is not permitted]]; that is ''not'' subject to community discretion. Moreover, continuously demanding such revocation is a direct challenge to those licenses and is tantamount to a [[WP:NLT|legal threat]] (and hence blockable). –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 02:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

::If people want to leave, they should leave.  This is a volunteer project, and people who want to stop working on articles should just stop working on articles.  Its people who want to grab attention and have a weird compulsion to be noticed that have to "retire" or "leave and let everyone know they are going".  If people really don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore, no one is stopping them from just disappearing and walking away.  There's no impending need to draw attention to walking away, nor is there any need to destroy the work of the encyclopedia just because you don't want to work here anymore... --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 03:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Reading this proposal and the primary reason for it, I cannot help but to think of this image [http://ratcellar.net/orangebox1/DramaLlama.jpg]. Having this put into place would only heighten the drama that occurs when someone threatens to leave (there is enough drama on the internet tyvm). It would also lead to a lot of rash deletions. Imagine if someone was feeling incredibly angry and used this and then afterwards said "what have I done?!" Like Jayron says, if you're going to leave, leave, don't whine about it. When I choose to leave a place I just leave after a short while, no note or anything. [[Flinders Petrie|Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie]] [[user_talk:Flinders Petrie|Say Shalom!]] 02:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"when users get mad an threaten to leave Wikipedia, people will take them seriously" You are proposing a technological fix to a social problem. Reminds me of a guy I knew who was removing his stereo from his wife's car so she shot him in the head. ---'''''—&nbsp;[[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850&nbsp;(Ed)</span>]]<span style="color:darkblue">&nbsp;</span>'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850|''talk'']]</sup> 03:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. There is absolutely no reason to have "when users get mad an threaten to leave Wikipedia, people will take them seriously" to be implemented; this is nothing short of childish behaviour. Not even mentioning the conflicts of any subsequent edits. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:H3llkn0wz|<span style="color:#BB0000;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:H3llkn0wz|TALK]]</small> 10:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)