Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Od Mishehu (talk | contribs) →Cross-wiki vandalism: resolved |
|||
Line 385: | Line 385: | ||
== Request to relax article restriction on [[Kosovo]] == |
== Request to relax article restriction on [[Kosovo]] == |
||
{{archive top|Relaxed to 1RR/day. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♥</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♦</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♣</font>]] ♠ 12:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)}} |
|||
As an article-level restriction imposed by admin [[User:Nishkid64]] under discretionary sanctions back in 2009, the [[Kosovo]] article has been under a uniquely strict revert limitation of one revert ''per week'' for several years. During the last few days, a major overhaul of the article began, due to a consensus decision to merge the two top-level Kosovo articles back into one (formerly [[Kosovo (region)]] and [[Republic of Kosovo]]). The necessary reshuffling of material and related adjustments have obviously led to some more active editing on the article than would occur during normal maintenance. |
As an article-level restriction imposed by admin [[User:Nishkid64]] under discretionary sanctions back in 2009, the [[Kosovo]] article has been under a uniquely strict revert limitation of one revert ''per week'' for several years. During the last few days, a major overhaul of the article began, due to a consensus decision to merge the two top-level Kosovo articles back into one (formerly [[Kosovo (region)]] and [[Republic of Kosovo]]). The necessary reshuffling of material and related adjustments have obviously led to some more active editing on the article than would occur during normal maintenance. |
||
Line 397: | Line 397: | ||
* The proposal seems reasonable to me, although I'm not very familiar with the article and its editing history. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
* The proposal seems reasonable to me, although I'm not very familiar with the article and its editing history. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
* '''Support''' - reduce to 1RR/day, subject to restoring the 1RR/week if trouble starts up again. 1RR/week is a draconian step, which should only be taken if absolutely necessary anbd reduced every so often to ensure that it still is necessary. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
* '''Support''' - reduce to 1RR/day, subject to restoring the 1RR/week if trouble starts up again. 1RR/week is a draconian step, which should only be taken if absolutely necessary anbd reduced every so often to ensure that it still is necessary. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
== slight problem == |
== slight problem == |
Revision as of 12:28, 30 May 2014
Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 84 days ago on 9 August 2024)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 7 September 2024) Survey responses have died down in past couple of weeks. CNC (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPathtalk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 62 days ago on 1 September 2024) Discussion has become inactive and I'd like a third party opinion of the concensus. Adriazeri (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 28 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 157 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 192 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 2 October 2024) Discussion has slowed after 30 days; needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor please. Muzilon (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Category pages will be movable soon
Effective May 22nd, category pages will become movable. Although members of the category will still have to be fixed manually, the revision history of the description page can be preserved when renaming categories. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. Is there more info on this? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's bugzilla:5451, bugzilla:28569, and gerrit:111096. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be better if the new right move-categorypages was restricted to admins; the linked page says it will be available to all users. Currently, categories are moved only through WP:CFD, and the page which instructs the bots to do this (WP:Categories for discussion/Working) has been full-protected since 2007. Allowing any editor to move the category pages (without a corresponding ability to fix the category entries) risks causing havoc :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree - should be restricted to admins. DexDor (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that all editors can already cut-and-pasmove category pages. All this would do is let them bring the category page's history with it. It wouldn't let them perform mass recategorizations. Because of this, I don't see a need to restrict the right, but if there's consensus to, I will prepare a configuration change request. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, they can cut-and-paste, but not many do, because experienced editors know that cut-and-paste is deprecated. Removing that barrier will increase the number of c+p moves of categories. I do think it should be admin-only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- So at the moment only inexperienced editors get the "right" (through taboo) to move categories? Extending to experiecned editors sounds good. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
- (Sigh). Inexperienced editors do all sort of things they shouldn't do; that does not mean that they have a right to do them. It just means that we don't WP:BITE them too hard while they learn the ropes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- So at the moment only inexperienced editors get the "right" (through taboo) to move categories? Extending to experiecned editors sounds good. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
- Sure, they can cut-and-paste, but not many do, because experienced editors know that cut-and-paste is deprecated. Removing that barrier will increase the number of c+p moves of categories. I do think it should be admin-only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe a separate group for this; it wouldn't be suitable for inexperienced editors, or for all administrators, but could be useful for editors involved in categorisation but not interested in adminship, or who would fail RFA for reasons such as lack of article writing or AFD experience (similarly, "suppressredirect" could be useful for experienced editors involved in reviewing articles for creation or new page patrol). Peter James (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe. We'd need broad consensus for that though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's "assigned to user and sysop by default" - will that be the default here or will it not be assigned to any group here without consensus? Peter James (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- It will be assigned to user and sysop here unless we get consensus to change it. (The move right is still needed as well, so you'll need to be autoconfirmed to move categories even though the "user" group has the move-categorypages right.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's "assigned to user and sysop by default" - will that be the default here or will it not be assigned to any group here without consensus? Peter James (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe. We'd need broad consensus for that though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
gerrit:111096 mentions a category-move-redirect-override
option. Will it be implemented here? - Eureka Lott 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. It's already set up at MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks. Would it make sense to add {{R from move}} there? - Eureka Lott 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think so. We don't do that for category redirects now, and it's not a "real" redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- No reason not to - maybe display or categorise them differently with a new template "Category redirect from move" or added parameters based on namespace detection. Peter James (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe we could add a move=1 parameter to Template:Category redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's probably better, if it will only be used on pages containing that template. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe we could add a move=1 parameter to Template:Category redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- No reason not to - maybe display or categorise them differently with a new template "Category redirect from move" or added parameters based on namespace detection. Peter James (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think so. We don't do that for category redirects now, and it's not a "real" redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks. Would it make sense to add {{R from move}} there? - Eureka Lott 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with BHG: this needs to either be an 'Admins Only' right, or something along the lines of the 'Template Editor' special right - and if it's the latter it needs to be the former until the "broad consensus for that" is achieved. As it is, this is going to allow the sockvandtrolls to willy-nilly move categories about; we shouldn't wait until we see Category:Presidents of the Royal Statistical Society renamed to Category:Crap to acknowledge that is is otherwise going to happen. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- How is this any different than what the (autoconfirmed) sockvandtrolls can do to articles, templates, user pages, and anything except categories and files today? Also, the damage would be no worse than if they copied and pasted the description to the "new" name and replaced the old description with a redirect, which they can do anyway. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Jackmcbarn different from what they can do today, because editors know that copy-paste moves are not accepted, so most are reluctant to do it. Adding a move button makes it appear legit.
Different from articles in several ways: a) categories pages are rarely edited, so they are on very few watchlists; b) moving an article affects that article, but moving a category page can wreck the navigation system for many articles.
Different from templates, because high-visibility templates are routinely protected, whereas categories are not.
Please, Jack, there are probably only a dozen or two editors who routinely monitor large swathes of the category system. Bushranger and I are both amongst that number, and we are both alarmed about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Jackmcbarn different from what they can do today, because editors know that copy-paste moves are not accepted, so most are reluctant to do it. Adding a move button makes it appear legit.
- How is this any different than what the (autoconfirmed) sockvandtrolls can do to articles, templates, user pages, and anything except categories and files today? Also, the damage would be no worse than if they copied and pasted the description to the "new" name and replaced the old description with a redirect, which they can do anyway. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've submitted bugzilla:65221 and gerrit:132947. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jackmcbarn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Note that it's been decided that with the new discussion here, we don't have a clear enough consensus to make the change. See the bug for more details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jackmcbarn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've submitted bugzilla:65221 and gerrit:132947. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if anyone wants to play with this to see exactly how it works, it's live now at http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/ (note that accounts aren't shared between here and there). Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the new right should be admin only - instead it would probably make sense to be admins & trusted users. That is, admins should have it by default, and admins should then be able to turn it on for trusted users who ask for it, and take it away upon misuse or complaint. That scheme seems to work OK for other rights. If moving cats is a particularly sensitive area, then the bar for who gets it should be set fairly high. BMK (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Going to agree with BMK because this opens to more issues and some really difficult headaches if anyone wanted to be malicious. A minimal dose of caution until the ramifications, exploitation and countermeasures are better understood is not a bad thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Going to disagree here. Moving categories is essentially bypassing WP:CFD where renaming categories is discussed. Moving categories should only occur after a CFD discussion has been closed. The reason why this step is essential is, unlike articles, categories do not stand alone, they exist in a hierarchy, with parent categories and child categories. Changing a category name might seem like a good idea but if there is already a category system where the categories are named "X of Y", it doesn't make sense to change one category's name to "Y's X". In a CFD discussion, the context of the proposed renames, mergers and deletions is looked at as no categories exist in isolation (or if they do, they shouldn't be!).
- What I'm unclear of is how "moving" is different from "renaming", both of which change the title of a category and retain the edit history. And with a rename, it is not necessary to go and change the category names on all of the category contents. Liz Read! Talk! 12:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- When CfD renames a category, they move the description page (today by cut-and-paste), and then use bots to recategorize all members of the old category into the new one. The only difference is that the move (of the description page) will be normal. The bots will still have to do the recategorization to finish the rename. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Are the bots programmed to handle this configuration? –xenotalk 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Right - but if someone renames a category and neglects to kick off the bots, then hundreds or maybe thousands of articles could have redlinks and/or soft-redirects (which require an extra click) at the bottom of the page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Xeno: It looks like the bots will need to be updated. I've posted a link to here on their operators' talk pages. @Obiwankenobi: The redlinks are a legitimate concern, but the soft-redirect issue could happen anyway, so I'm not as worried about it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Jack, can you give an example of what would happen if I were to move Category:Living people to Category:Dying people? What would we see on all of the 600,000 biographies in this category immediately after it was moved? Would there be a redlink, or a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category? Also, what happens if you attempt to rename it to a category name that already exists? I love the idea of saving history of a category instead of copy/paste renames, but I'm just not sure it's a tool random editors should have - making it a permission one could apply for would make more sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Obiwankenobi: On the articles, nothing would change at all. It would be a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category (which looks exactly the same from articles). The soft-redirected category would still retain all of its members, so readers would just see a confusing message in place of the description, and everything else would be normal (and a vandal could cause that even without this functionality). If you tried to move a category over an already-existing one, it would fail just like trying to move an article over an already-existing one would. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Jack. I think that's problematic - as BHG points out, there are categories that are applied to hundreds or thousands of articles, whereas the category itself may only be watched by a few editors. This provides too much opportunity for large-scale troublesome moves - or even incorrect/undiscussed moves of categories. I believe that bots regularly clean up soft-redirected categories and move articles automatically, correct - that means someone could do an incorrect category move and then a bot would actually move the articles, which editors may ignore since they usually trust bot edits more.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- In light of the way the bots (and category move system in general) are currently setup, I think it would be best if a staged approach were used to roll out this new functionality. –xenotalk 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Jack. I think that's problematic - as BHG points out, there are categories that are applied to hundreds or thousands of articles, whereas the category itself may only be watched by a few editors. This provides too much opportunity for large-scale troublesome moves - or even incorrect/undiscussed moves of categories. I believe that bots regularly clean up soft-redirected categories and move articles automatically, correct - that means someone could do an incorrect category move and then a bot would actually move the articles, which editors may ignore since they usually trust bot edits more.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Obiwankenobi: On the articles, nothing would change at all. It would be a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category (which looks exactly the same from articles). The soft-redirected category would still retain all of its members, so readers would just see a confusing message in place of the description, and everything else would be normal (and a vandal could cause that even without this functionality). If you tried to move a category over an already-existing one, it would fail just like trying to move an article over an already-existing one would. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Jack, can you give an example of what would happen if I were to move Category:Living people to Category:Dying people? What would we see on all of the 600,000 biographies in this category immediately after it was moved? Would there be a redlink, or a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category? Also, what happens if you attempt to rename it to a category name that already exists? I love the idea of saving history of a category instead of copy/paste renames, but I'm just not sure it's a tool random editors should have - making it a permission one could apply for would make more sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Xeno: It looks like the bots will need to be updated. I've posted a link to here on their operators' talk pages. @Obiwankenobi: The redlinks are a legitimate concern, but the soft-redirect issue could happen anyway, so I'm not as worried about it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Right - but if someone renames a category and neglects to kick off the bots, then hundreds or maybe thousands of articles could have redlinks and/or soft-redirects (which require an extra click) at the bottom of the page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Are the bots programmed to handle this configuration? –xenotalk 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- When CfD renames a category, they move the description page (today by cut-and-paste), and then use bots to recategorize all members of the old category into the new one. The only difference is that the move (of the description page) will be normal. The bots will still have to do the recategorization to finish the rename. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The rollout won't break anything. The bots can be updated at any time to use the new move method, and until they are, everything will keep working as it always has. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
There is one effect of leaving soft redirects that hasn't been mentioned yet - normal users won't be able to revert category moves. If we left a normal redirect then it could be reverted by any autoconfirmed user - providing no-one else edits the page in the meantime - but moves leaving behind a soft redirect will only be revertable by admins. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 16:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- (Of course, this won't matter if/when Jackmcbarn's patch goes through, as then only admins will be able move categories anyway.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'll also agree with BHG that this should be restricted to admins. Once the tool is in place and understood, then there may be a need to review the CFD guidelines to see what if anything needs to be changed. It would also be nice to create a permission list so the bots can do the moves. This should at some point be expanded to additional users. But that would require an approval process. Not even sure where to start on that. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- It would probably be fine to include the permission with 'administrator', 'bot', 'bureaucrat'. at the outset. And then expand to other userrights as necessary. –xenotalk 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm still concerned about this, even if this tool is restricted to admins or permissions granted to a few experienced editors. Right now, we have two processes, a) speedy renames and b) CFD. If ANYONE objects to a speedy rename, the editor proposing the rename is directed to file a CFD proposal. Let's say, it's a category call "U.S. Interstate Highways in Virginia". If it goes to a CFD discussion, the creator of the category is notified, the relevant WikiProject is notified, there are notices sorted to other, interested WikiProjects so they can all participate in the discussion over whether the rename is a good idea. This might be a cumbersome process, but it allows ordinary editors who are experienced in editing in the category area to weigh in with their opinions. Some of these discussions get heated (like the one concerning Category:Pseudoscientists) and the result is "no consensus".
The idea that any admin could bypass this discussion process and move any category they choose, is very disruptive to the system that exists. As BHG states, there are a small number of editors who focus on categories and the chances that these moves would be seen by others is very small so there would be, in effect, no oversight. This isn't meant to be a judgment of administrators, just that the structure of categories on Wikipedia is quite different from other areas (like main space, talk pages, user pages, Wikipages, FAs, etc.). Editors have received blocks because of their lack of competency in creating or editing categories because bad edits to a category have a potentially greater impact than an edit to an article.
The only way I can see this tool being effectively used is after the outcome of a CFD, if the decision is to rename, a move can be done instead. Otherwise, editors can simply ask an admin or editor with the permission to make the move and skip over the discussion part. The admin may be uninvolved but it is very likely that the editor requesting the move is involved and there could be even more editors who would contest the move.
I really understand that this tool was created to make editors/admins lives easier, not more complicated, but I see an uptick in activity at Wikipedia:Move review unless this tool is thoughtfully and carefully rolled out. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Alternate userright proposal I propose renaming "templateeditor" into "trusted maintainer" and merge this userright into that bundle. Could also merge reviewer and account creator into it as well, just throwing the options out there. A trusted maintainer would be a perfect userright for gnoming work.--v/r - TP 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think if it was this simple for "trusted maintainer" to move a category, they will just do so without checking to see how their move impacts related categories. I think when an editor has a right, they might be cautious using it at first, but soon are likely to trust their instinct or judgment instead of actually checking to see if the move makes sense from the category hierarchical structure that exists for that subject. It's crucial not to consider a category in isolation from other categories, they are part of a system. But I've had my say and will let others weigh in. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of bundling, personally, especially with the userrights that don't have much process attached for requesting them. We lose any ability to differentiate between them, as far as requirements go; someone who just wants to be able to review pending changes to articles isn't going to necessarily have the skills to be a template editor, but because we've (hypothetically) bundled them, we can't just give one without the other, and so we have to deny them for no real reason.
As far as the actual catmover right itself goes, I don't really see any reason to restrict it; while it's certainly true that maliciously moving a cat description page can affect many articles, it will only affect them by proxy (i.e. the cleanup is still limited to just that one cat description page; you don't need to go through and fix it for each of those thousands of articles), and it only affects them in an extremely minor way; most likely, no readers would even notice. On the whole, I don't think the potential for damage is particularly higher than pagemover, which might only affect one article, but will do it in a much more visible way (and there are articles that are just as unwatched as categories, of course). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think there's also the question of norms. Pages can be moved by anyone in most cases, but it would be rather daft to move Ireland to Ireland (island) unless you have a death wish - a norm, and indeed a set of community agreed sanctions, has made individual editors moving such pages verboten. We could do the same with category moves - unless the category was created by yourself, or the move is to correct a typographical error, no matter what your role you should not move it, but rather seek consensus for the move at CFD or speedy CFD. A log of category moves could be reviewed to ensure that people weren't abusing this. Thus, in spite of what userrights we attach, we may also create a community norm that says, in general, categories should only rarely be moved without discussion - which would be a more restrictive rule than that which covers articles currently.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of bundling, personally, especially with the userrights that don't have much process attached for requesting them. We lose any ability to differentiate between them, as far as requirements go; someone who just wants to be able to review pending changes to articles isn't going to necessarily have the skills to be a template editor, but because we've (hypothetically) bundled them, we can't just give one without the other, and so we have to deny them for no real reason.
- I think if it was this simple for "trusted maintainer" to move a category, they will just do so without checking to see how their move impacts related categories. I think when an editor has a right, they might be cautious using it at first, but soon are likely to trust their instinct or judgment instead of actually checking to see if the move makes sense from the category hierarchical structure that exists for that subject. It's crucial not to consider a category in isolation from other categories, they are part of a system. But I've had my say and will let others weigh in. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think that moving category pages will be useful for multiple reasons – keeping the category history visible, and being able to trace the new name more easily given the old one – but IMHO it should be restricted to admins. I can't think of any gain from making it available to others. (Writing as an editor who became an admin mainly to help with closing CFDs.) – Fayenatic London 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- So yet another user "right" that administrators want to keep to themselves? Soon it will only be admins who are allowed to edit anything. Eric Corbett 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Eric Corbett: No, Eric, it's a new tools which is not initially being rolled out to non-admins. No editor is losing any ability to do anything they can do now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Not yet, no. But my fundamental objection is to the accretion of user rights to admins without any assessment of whether they have any idea of how to edit templates, for instance. I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about this self-evident truth here however, in the camp of the enemy. Eric Corbett 02:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, users currently do not have this right. There is already a process to move categories and that is in place for several reasons. So the comments here simply are saying we need to install this feature in a way that supports the existing guidelines. If and when that process is changed, then the rights could be extended. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kind of misses the point. While WMF is trying "make it as easy as possible to contribute knowledge" -- as evidenced by the fact by default the right goes to users -- the admin community is trying to decide a priori, without any evidence, that it should be restricted. Meanwhile, in the thread above I pointed out about 36 hours ago that our existing categorization of Pseudoscientists / Paranormal investigators -> James Randi is a WP:BLP, but admins here seem more interesting in haggling about this, and the Cfd and the blah blah blah whatever, than actually fixing the encyclopedia. (I've attempted to do so at Category:Paranormal investigators). NE Ent 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @NE Ent: Same question for you as for Green Giant below. Why do you want to give editors a tool to perform a task which they are not supposed to perform anyway?
How would this help anyone? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @NE Ent: Same question for you as for Green Giant below. Why do you want to give editors a tool to perform a task which they are not supposed to perform anyway?
- (edit conflict) Not yet, no. But my fundamental objection is to the accretion of user rights to admins without any assessment of whether they have any idea of how to edit templates, for instance. I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about this self-evident truth here however, in the camp of the enemy. Eric Corbett 02:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Eric Corbett: No, Eric, it's a new tools which is not initially being rolled out to non-admins. No editor is losing any ability to do anything they can do now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- So yet another user "right" that administrators want to keep to themselves? Soon it will only be admins who are allowed to edit anything. Eric Corbett 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, this is why non-admins need to be on WP:AN -- there's zero justification for admins deciding something like without getting input from the rest of the community. NE Ent 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support a wider group for this right. The best venue for this would have been the Village Pump, but seeing as the discussion is already underway there is no point moving it now. I can see two camps forming, one side would like to restrict this to a small number of trusted users, the other to keep it open to a wider group. Personally I think it is a significant new right and it will see many simmering disputes spill over, particularly real world issues like the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, the current Russia-Ukraine problems etc. If we open this new right to a wide group of editors, it will cause chaos because people will engage in POVish edit wars just like they do with article names and content. However, it isn't beneficial to Wikipedia if the right is resticted to just admins, because then it will be no different to the existing mechanism at WP:CFD/WP:CFDS i.e. you propose a rename and if approved it gets done by an admin/bot. The above idea of merging it into template editors and renaming that group has some merit but it begs the question of "why limit it to just that group?". I think the most beneficial route will be to add it to the widest possible group of trusted users i.e. admins, autopatrolled, file mover, reviewer, rollback and template editor groups. That would help build more confidence in each others abilities compared to the snarl-match taking place here. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- While it could be a useful tool for users other than admins to have, I am opposed to adding the right to groups like Autopatrolled, file mover etc. as Green Giant suggested. Rollbackers (such as myself) often will have no clue about category maintenance, and it should neither be assigned to thousands of users who could misuse it (in good or bad faith) nor should category knowledge be a requirement to attain rollback. I would support a user group such as category mover, to be assigned like file mover to users experienced in category maintenance who can demonstrate their need for the tool by having demonstrated understanding and activity at WP:CFD. BethNaught (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- BethNaught, I would support a new user group just for this right but my point was that all of these groups are effectively trusted users until they give a reason not to be trusted. It makes no sense to reserve it just for admins when really categories are a content-building activity. The obvious solution to vandalism would be protection in the same way articles can be protected. Green Giant (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see where you are coming from, and on further consideration I don't believe there would be any danger in assigning the right to already trusted user groups. I guess I'm just the sort of person who likes to keep unrelated things separate. Given that categories are content building, I would therefore be happy for the right to be assigned to autopatrolled users (and perhaps template editors), but the other groups you mentioned are more about maintenance, which makes them a bit distant for me. BethNaught (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Green Giant: Moving categories is not a WP:BOLD issue, and has never been in the 8 years I have edited Wikipedia. They should be moved only after a discussion at WP:CFD, or (for a few speedy criteria) after listing at WP:CFD/S. That's not because of any technical restrictions; it's because changes to categories affect many articles, so prior consensus is required before renaming or depopulating any existing category.
- Giving this tool to admins will not allow them to go moving categories around without prior consensus. It will merely allow them to implement CFD decisions; but the vast majority of CFD decisions are implemented by bots, so in practice this is a tool which will be used 95% of the time by bots.
- Please can you explain why exactly you want a wider group of editors to be given a tool to do something which they aren't supposed to do anyway, because of its ramifications? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl:, the essence of this debate is whether the right should be just for admins (which is unlikely to gain consensus) or should anyone else be allowed it. The sheer fact that the issue is being discussed here rather than at the village pump is perhaps a sign of the times. I disagree with just giving it to admins and template editors, because it has precious little to do with just templates and affects everything we do. You mentioned WP:BOLD as not involving moving categories but in fact it encourages caution for all non-article namespaces, not just categories. [[WP::BOLD#Category_namespace]] in particular says "if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns categories for living people), propose changes at Categories for discussion". That doesn't mean that every category change needs to go to CFD, just the controversial ones. Like you yourself say further down, what if someone creates a category with a spelling error? It has happened to me sometimes. Wouldn't it be easier to just be able to move the category in a matter of seconds, rather than listing it at Categories for discussion/Speedy, where requests sometimes take days depending on the admins workload. Certainly I agree that this right shouldn't be handed out like candy to just any auto-confirmed editor, but equally let's not restrict this solely to admins. Beth's idea of a separate user group is the best way to go. The two most trusted groups after admins would be filemovers (373) and template editors (75 excluding two bots) (although at least 23 are also file movers), so why not have a third similar group? Let it be granted by an admin at requests for permissions if an applicant meets reasonably stringent criteria. Green Giant (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Green Giant: I am not implacably opposed to the idea of a special group like the one you mentioned, tho I do question whether its utility for the very small number of legitimate uses outweighs the risk that it becomes a way of bypassing the consensus-forming process at CFD. I think it would be great to have a wider discussion about this.
But the immediate issue facing us is that the categ-move facility will be rolled out on 22 May, only 8 days. As set up, it will be available to all auto-confirmed users; as patched by Jack, it would be available to admins only. So we have a choice about what happens next: roll it out to a more limited set than you would like, and discuss extending it, or roll it out to a much wider set. The option of holding off pending consensus is not on the table.
Woukdn't it be much better to start with the more limited change, and then consider the wider change? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)- I agree that initially it should be just admins because of the absurdly short notice (or lack of) by the developers. However, call me a pessimist but where would we raise the issue of extending the right to non-admins? Certainly not here and the village pump proposals board is just a talking shop where any decent idea winds up in the archives somewhere. Once the dust settles, it is highly unlikely any proposals to extend the right will be successful. As an aside, I note that apart from Jack, very little effort seems to have gone into raising the issue over at Meta, because this affects every project, not just en-wiki. Having had a quick look through several other village pumps/cafes, I don't think I've seen any discussions outside of en-wiki and commons. Additionally, is there any chance of someone archiving some of the older posts because this board is absurdly large right now (getting close to 500k). Green Giant (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Green Giant: I am not implacably opposed to the idea of a special group like the one you mentioned, tho I do question whether its utility for the very small number of legitimate uses outweighs the risk that it becomes a way of bypassing the consensus-forming process at CFD. I think it would be great to have a wider discussion about this.
- @BrownHairedGirl:, the essence of this debate is whether the right should be just for admins (which is unlikely to gain consensus) or should anyone else be allowed it. The sheer fact that the issue is being discussed here rather than at the village pump is perhaps a sign of the times. I disagree with just giving it to admins and template editors, because it has precious little to do with just templates and affects everything we do. You mentioned WP:BOLD as not involving moving categories but in fact it encourages caution for all non-article namespaces, not just categories. [[WP::BOLD#Category_namespace]] in particular says "if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns categories for living people), propose changes at Categories for discussion". That doesn't mean that every category change needs to go to CFD, just the controversial ones. Like you yourself say further down, what if someone creates a category with a spelling error? It has happened to me sometimes. Wouldn't it be easier to just be able to move the category in a matter of seconds, rather than listing it at Categories for discussion/Speedy, where requests sometimes take days depending on the admins workload. Certainly I agree that this right shouldn't be handed out like candy to just any auto-confirmed editor, but equally let's not restrict this solely to admins. Beth's idea of a separate user group is the best way to go. The two most trusted groups after admins would be filemovers (373) and template editors (75 excluding two bots) (although at least 23 are also file movers), so why not have a third similar group? Let it be granted by an admin at requests for permissions if an applicant meets reasonably stringent criteria. Green Giant (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see where you are coming from, and on further consideration I don't believe there would be any danger in assigning the right to already trusted user groups. I guess I'm just the sort of person who likes to keep unrelated things separate. Given that categories are content building, I would therefore be happy for the right to be assigned to autopatrolled users (and perhaps template editors), but the other groups you mentioned are more about maintenance, which makes them a bit distant for me. BethNaught (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems like my words of caution aren't having an impact on the discussion. So, my final comment is a straight-forward request:If you make this tool available, whether just to admins or to a wider group, please maintain a log of category moves so that there can be some record. Right now, we have CFD that acts as an archive one can refer to but if any admin can move a category, without providing any reason at all, there should at least be a log of these moves so that the community is aware of these changes. As BHG has stated, few editors have category pages on their Watchlist, there are tens of thousands of categories that exist and it is likely that category moves will go unnoticed if there isn't a log recording them. It should also record the name of the editor making the move so that any questions can be directed to them. Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- They will be logged. See [1]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Category moves: this is looking bad
A reply above by @Jackmcbarn: says "it's been decided that with the new discussion here, we don't have a clear enough consensus to make the change". The bug link is bugzilla:65221.
So it seems that what is now happening is that the new feature will be rolled out on 22 May, with no restrictions on its use. For all the reasons set out above, that is very bad news, because this new tool could be used to create serious damage to the category system, which could be enormously time-consuming to repair. A moved article affects one article; but a moved category can affect hundreds of articles. If an editor moves Category:French people to Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, a soft redirect will be left behind, and the bots will then recategorise all the articles. This is wide open to exploitation, and it the vulnerability it causes should be fully assessed before such wide deployment.
I think it's a mistake to read the discussion above as no consensus for restricting this to admins only ... but there is also no consensus to roll this out without a restriction in place.
There are only 9 days until the planned rollout, which is too soon for an RFC to conclude. So it seems that the technical people are just going to impose this new tool as a fait accompli, without giving the community time to assess whether it wants it, and whether access to it should be restricted. Is that correct?
I it is correct, then the techies are about to impose a huge vulnerability, despite the warnings :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- What's to stop a vandal today from creating Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys with some random text, and replacing the contents of Category:French people with {{Category redirect|Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys}}? That would also cause the bots to miscategorize everything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, note that Parent5446 questioned including the option to restrict this functionality at all ("Just wondering: why would you need a separate permission to move category pages? I mean it's not an expensive or destructive operation or anything like that.") Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree fully with BHG, this potentially powerful tool should be restricted to admins only. GiantSnowman 18:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with Jack: the potential destructive power of this tool doesn't actually lie in any function of the tool itself; it lies in the naivety of the bots that handle category redirects. restricting the use of the tool would be treating the symptom, not the cause, and as a general principle, we shouldn't be restricting permissions any more than is necessary. Perhaps we should think about a better way for the bots to work, instead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever the solution(s), they should be discussed before the tool is deployed. What we face now is its imposition before the community has fully assessed its impact, despite a significant number of experienced editors expressing concerns. That's appalling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this definitely required more, detailed discussion before being thrust upon us. GiantSnowman 18:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Think of this, please: The editors who put their hours into WP:CFD are saying that this is a bad idea to implement without restrictions and this whole process is being rushed. This tool has not been created because those involved in category renaming asked for it. Editors who know the ramifications of sloppy or whimsical category moves, made without consensus, are saying, "This will not work out well." Why is their experience being discounted? Can you imagine telling the folks who work on the main page that any admin could make an article a featured article? Or, say, let's just eliminate WP:AFD discussions and let's just let admins delete whatever articles they feel don't "fit" within Wikipedia? Of course, there would be objections from the editors who know these areas well and work on maintaining some standards and fairness about the process. This tool would bypass all discussion by regular editors on whether these moves are a wise idea. The impact of this on WikiProjects alone could involve a massive clean-up.
- I don't mean to sound alarmist, it's just that this tool throws out a long-standing consensus process at Wikipedia in one swift move. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this definitely required more, detailed discussion before being thrust upon us. GiantSnowman 18:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever the solution(s), they should be discussed before the tool is deployed. What we face now is its imposition before the community has fully assessed its impact, despite a significant number of experienced editors expressing concerns. That's appalling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with Jack: the potential destructive power of this tool doesn't actually lie in any function of the tool itself; it lies in the naivety of the bots that handle category redirects. restricting the use of the tool would be treating the symptom, not the cause, and as a general principle, we shouldn't be restricting permissions any more than is necessary. Perhaps we should think about a better way for the bots to work, instead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree fully with BHG, this potentially powerful tool should be restricted to admins only. GiantSnowman 18:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: notes the bugzilla post ("Just wondering: why would you need a separate permission to move category pages? I mean it's not an expensive or destructive operation or anything like that.") That has been answered repeatedly in this thread, but it seems that some editors prefer to keep this as a technical discussion on bugzilla, rather than joining in the community discussion here.
This discussion-forking is no way to reach consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- That wasn't discussion-forking. That was an old post (posted February 3rd), while I was writing the code for the functionality. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that, Jack. But we still need this functionality to held back until there is a consensus on how to deploy it. Please can you or someone else with access to bugzilla make that request? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The sysadmins definitely won't go for that. The best thing that there's chance of consensus of in time is to make it admin-only, but even that doesn't look likely. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Jack, I'm not sure what you mean there. Do you mean no chance that the sysadmins will agree to holding it back? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- How can this be true? How can the introduction of a new tool be forced on the Wikipedia community without considering the impact it will have or listening to the community's concerns? This is really crazy, Jackmcbarn! Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- If there were consensus here to make it admin-only, they'd be fine with that. Since we're divided, they're not going to change anything yet. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- How can this be true? How can the introduction of a new tool be forced on the Wikipedia community without considering the impact it will have or listening to the community's concerns? This is really crazy, Jackmcbarn! Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Jack, I'm not sure what you mean there. Do you mean no chance that the sysadmins will agree to holding it back? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The sysadmins definitely won't go for that. The best thing that there's chance of consensus of in time is to make it admin-only, but even that doesn't look likely. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that, Jack. But we still need this functionality to held back until there is a consensus on how to deploy it. Please can you or someone else with access to bugzilla make that request? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- No need to rush Jack, I think you make a fair point - it is possible that someone could replicate the move functionality through a copy/paste + creation of a redirect, and then the bots will stupidly comply and categorize everyone as a cheese-eating surrender monkey. However, there is a certain element of security-through-obscurity here - most rookie spammers may not know about the full mechanics of a successful category move, whereas now it will become accessible in one click. As a developer, I'm sure you know the difference between one click and three in an interface can be massive. Nothing prevents people from doing copy/paste moves in article space, but we still restrict page moves for some users and even have the ability to lock page moves, with good reason - as such moves can be disruptive. More importantly, you have to understand the context of categories - which those of us who work in this space are well familiar with - if category moves were permitted by anyone, or even by people who had demonstrated X or Y, I'm still not convinced they should be using such powers - indeed if someone did this today, and tried to rename a category from Category:Bill Clinton to Category:William Jefferson Clinton using the redirect trick, it would be rejected and reverted and that person would be told to go to CFD. We have only one case right now where a regular editor can determine the name of a category, and that is at creation time - once that category is created, any changes need to be discussed. It's a bit burdensome, but it also avoids a lot of trouble - we already have a great difficulty in managing the flood of new categories - if we also had to be worried that users were changing existing category names willy nilly in the same way they move articles around - especially given that so few people watch categories - that could cause potential chaos and massive inconsistency that may only be discovered years after the fact. At CFD we regularly come across categories that are so brain dead it is painful, and sometimes these have been laying around for years before anyone noticed them. I think if this is rolled out, even just to admins, the admins should NOT use this tool unless there is an obvious typo, or unless there is consensus at a discussion somewhere. As a different example, Brownhairedgirl as admin has the right to delete categories right now, she could go and ice Category:Living people if she felt up to it, but she *won't*, she won't even delete obviously bad categories (unless they are blatant spam or violating of BLP), instead she will bring them to discussion and let the community decide. It's just the way CFD works, and by putting this tool in the hands of everyone, you are bypassing the whole CFD process. There's a certain stability that comes with categories and a need for consistency; knowing that a given tree won't be gutted or destroyed or renamed without some oversight and more than one pair of eyes is key. Categorization is tricky and category names are quite different beasts than article names, so we shouldn't treat them the same. I'm saying this as a user, not an admin, and while I think it's reasonable to consider adding permissions for certain non-admins to do such moves, there need to be strong norms around when any such moves can be performed, and I can think of very few cases where even an admin should move a category without discussion (unlike article titles, which can be moved much more freely). If it needs to roll out right away, fine, but restrict it to admins, and let the community discuss greater permissions and attendant norms in the meantime.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with all that Obi has written. The only situation in which I as an admin move a category without discussion is when it is one that I have newly created, per WP:C2E. As an admin, I would use this new tool in only three situations: 1) to implement a speedy move of a categ I had newly created; 2) to implement a speedy move after unopposed listing at WP:CFD/S, 3) to implement the result of a full WP:CFD discussion. In practice, I would very rarely do either of the 2 or 3, because in nearly all cases it is much easier an to let the bot do the work; the bot also makes fewer mistakes and logs its actions consistently.
So if it is used properly, this new tool will overwhelmingly be used by the bots. That raises the option of making it a bot-only right. I would be quite happy with that, it might allay some concerns about accretion of admin powers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with all that Obi has written. The only situation in which I as an admin move a category without discussion is when it is one that I have newly created, per WP:C2E. As an admin, I would use this new tool in only three situations: 1) to implement a speedy move of a categ I had newly created; 2) to implement a speedy move after unopposed listing at WP:CFD/S, 3) to implement the result of a full WP:CFD discussion. In practice, I would very rarely do either of the 2 or 3, because in nearly all cases it is much easier an to let the bot do the work; the bot also makes fewer mistakes and logs its actions consistently.
I think that having a discussion proposing limiting something to admins should be on WP:VPP not in the admin secret hidey-hole club treehouse basement. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
- these actions are already limited to admins by longstanding consensus. Editors, nor admins, are not allowed to rename a category except in a very small set of circumstances, and if someone did rename through copy/paste they would be reverted. This tool simply makes it easier. I want to address a point Liz made above, which is that no-one asked for this feature - on that I disagree, the ability to move categories and thus keep their history has long been requested and I'm very glad we'll have it as we'll be able to see the whole history of a category including renames which previously we couldn't, so thanks to the devs for making this happen - however we have existing norms that any such moves happen at CFD or CFD/S, and giving users permissions to do this while skipping those venues throws out longstanding consensus. Since there seems to be a push to roll this out we must remember en wiki is not the only one affected, and there may be other patches that need to roll at the same time so I see no reason to block the rollout, just a suggestion that permissions be limited - for now- and then we can in parallel have a deeper discussion about who else should have these permissions and when, if ever, users should be allowed to use them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Obiwankenobi: What you're suggesting is basically what they said no to. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Who exactly is "they"?
- Why is the default assumption that a powerful new tool should be handed to everyone, without a consensus to do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- "They" are probably the sysadmins, and the default assumption was that category moving is no more powerful than page moving, so it should be distributed to the same users that pagemove is. And to be fair, they're not wrong from their perspective; it's only the bots that make it powerful here, not the tool itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Correct on both accounts, Writ Keeper. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Writ Keeper: @Jackmcbarn: I disagree strongly with that default assumption, because a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different.
- But I am even more concerned about the apparent determination to ignore the huge weight of evidence in this discussion that those who do the greatest amount of work with categories foresee huge problems arising from wide deployment of this tool. When a theoretical perspective about a tool discounts the practical effects of its deployment, we are in trouble. Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now?
- The bots do valuable job of fixing the minor errors in categorisation which would otherwise leave category entries pointing to redirects. This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl:
"a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different."
The only reason that's the case is because of our bots. From the developers' perspective, our bots aren't a reason to change the software.Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now?
The reason category pages were immovable for a long time is because they wanted to avoid confusing users by letting them think they were moving the category when they were in fact only moving its description page.This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless.
As I pointed out before, vandals can abuse the bots by cut-and-paste moving a category, and the bots will do just as much damage that way. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)- @Jackmcbarn: It's not just because of the bots. The bots add an extra layer of vulnerability, but don't let them obscure the underlying difference, which is why we have the bots.
If I move an article or a template or a Wikipedia page, a link to the old title takes me via a redirect to the page as it was; the only change is to the title, but in every other respect the page looks the same. That is not the case with a category, where we don't use hard redirects. If I have the tools and the inclination to move a category page, then when I visit the old title I do not see what I would have seen before the move. I see the same list of pages, but not the parent categories, the explanatory text, the table of contents etc. If I follow the soft redirect, I see the Toc, parent categs etc ... but not the list of pages. The bots exist to bridge that gap.
Once again, the consequences of this are well understood by the editors who regularly participate at CFD, and all of those CFD regulars who have posted here (including non-admins) agree that this tool should be restricted. It is frustrating to find that all expertise is being ignored :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Jackmcbarn: It's not just because of the bots. The bots add an extra layer of vulnerability, but don't let them obscure the underlying difference, which is why we have the bots.
- @BrownHairedGirl:
- Correct on both accounts, Writ Keeper. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- "They" are probably the sysadmins, and the default assumption was that category moving is no more powerful than page moving, so it should be distributed to the same users that pagemove is. And to be fair, they're not wrong from their perspective; it's only the bots that make it powerful here, not the tool itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Obiwankenobi: What you're suggesting is basically what they said no to. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- these actions are already limited to admins by longstanding consensus. Editors, nor admins, are not allowed to rename a category except in a very small set of circumstances, and if someone did rename through copy/paste they would be reverted. This tool simply makes it easier. I want to address a point Liz made above, which is that no-one asked for this feature - on that I disagree, the ability to move categories and thus keep their history has long been requested and I'm very glad we'll have it as we'll be able to see the whole history of a category including renames which previously we couldn't, so thanks to the devs for making this happen - however we have existing norms that any such moves happen at CFD or CFD/S, and giving users permissions to do this while skipping those venues throws out longstanding consensus. Since there seems to be a push to roll this out we must remember en wiki is not the only one affected, and there may be other patches that need to roll at the same time so I see no reason to block the rollout, just a suggestion that permissions be limited - for now- and then we can in parallel have a deeper discussion about who else should have these permissions and when, if ever, users should be allowed to use them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think this is a great new possibility. I am not an admin, and one time I was very active on Cfd and many times wanted to be able to move categories.
- Nevertheless, I am strongly convinced it is a really bad idea to implement this feature and not restrict it to a small group of users. I foresee a big mess and serious disruption from all kinds of impetuous and/or tendentious editors, as well as vandals. I think that either this should not be implemented at this time, or restricted to admins until such time as a broader discussion establishes which other users may be allowed access to this feature.
- I strongly agree with BrownHairedGirl and disagree with Jackmcbarn: developers have no right to implement a feature while there is no consensus who should have access to it, unless it is restricted to the largest cross-section everybody agrees upon, which in this case is admins. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Debresser: Actually, they do. Developers aren't bound by community consensus. If we establish a consensus to restrict the tool, they'll restrict it, but they don't have to do anything now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm reminded of the scene in Raiders of the Lost ark - "our top men are on it?" "Who?" "Top... Men." The arrival of a new permission implicitly indicates to the user that this is an acceptable action to take - but we have no policy around user-led category moves. It's almost as if 'delete' were added to all editors toolboxes without the attendant training and infrastructure for its use. As has already been noted, on en.wp, no regular user has ever had the right to move a category, and now it will show up their menu as a new toy to play with. This is a bad idea, and I disagree that the sysadmin's position is reasonable since rollout of an IT system change must take account of the local technological (eg bots) and social (eg norms) context. That wasn't done here. I'm sure they are acting in good faith but I would also be surprised if this was the only wiki where regular users weren't permitted to muck about renaming categories, etc. we don't need to establish a new consensus here that only admins can move categories, this is LONG standing precedent and we have policy documentation and years of evidence to prove it, so if this must roll plz restrict to admins as that aligns with the current consensus of who can actually move categories today. The fact that a few editors here are grumbling does nothing to upend that long standing consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's a lot of actions that are technically permitted but aren't allowed by our rules, like sticking editors on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions unilaterally. Any misuse of this tool is a social problem, not a technological one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Jackmcbarn: Wikipedia has technical barriers to many other social problems, such as a bar on IPs creating pages, and on non-admins deleting pages, and on editors using rollback without first seeking permission.
- There is an existing technical barrier to category moves. You are entitled to the view that the barrier shouldn't exist, but a change requires a community consensus rather than a unilateral imposition by the devs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's a lot of actions that are technically permitted but aren't allowed by our rules, like sticking editors on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions unilaterally. Any misuse of this tool is a social problem, not a technological one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
No consensus
Last I recall, Devs don't implement something unless there is consensus to do so. Doubt that? Go have a look at how long it took for Rollback to be implemented for anyone besides admins. (Including several discussions.)
So the standard SOP afaik, is that they add a new tool to admins (user-right group: sysop), and IF THERE IS CONSENSUS, then that tool may be allowed to a broader user-group (whether to an existing group like autoconfirmed, or a new one like how rollbacker or template editor were created after a consensual discussion).
So if we follow the past model, then this ability should be given to admins if the Devs so deem, and a consensual discussion would be required before granting it to a larger userbase than that.
If someone else has a different view of wikipedia history or policy, I'm all ears, but as far as I know, that's how things have been done for some time.
And note, this is a functionality that I have been wanting to see for some time. I have never liked that we do cut-n-paste moves when implementing a category move. (I seem to recall that once-upon-a-time we could move category pages IF we removed all the category members first. But that was deprecated in some update in the long past.)
And yes, category moves can be done boldly, but due to the large number of page changes to the category members which is sometimes needed, WP:CFD is the typical venue for discussing a category move.
What I think is not being understood by those who are not regularly involved with categories is that the name of the category is much more important than the name of an article (for example). If you read over WP:CAT, you may note that the name is often the only way to determine inclusion criteria for article membership in a category. And as well, as the main purpose for categories is navigation, category names need to be clear.
And categories do not allow for referencing, so they rely on the references of the member articles. So category names NEED to be neutral, unbiased.
And now couple this with the fact that categories tend to be the most unwatched pages, and you have a recipe for disaster here waiting to happen.
And so if you look at the discussion above, you may notice that those who are active in CFD are the ones who are most concerned about this. As they are obviously the ones who not only presumably know and understand category policy, but also are the ones who regularly deal with implementation, and further, who regularly have to deal with cleaning up the messes of well-meaning (and sometimes not-so-well-meaning) category editors.
I'm still waiting for a way to block hotcat and twinkle from malfeasant editors for these and other reasons. There are several editors whose prolific category creation continually create a lot of work and headaches for those at CFD. And if this is implemented, this will be a huge mess.
This simply should be a separate user-right, just like template editor. And the community needs to come to consensus on who should have this right and how it should be granted.
This is the way we've been doing these things, there is no reason to not do this in this case as well. - jc37 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll give you a different view of Wikipedia history and policy:
- Anyone can edit. The default state is that anyone can do anything, unless we specifically find that it's necessary to restrict that. For those who weren't around and haven't heard the stories, it was originally the case that anyone could delete pages. It used to be that non-autoconfirmed users could move pages. We've restricted a few processes in response to real problems, but we have generally avoided doing so merely for speculative problems.
- We don't preëmptively protect anything—much less entire namespaces!—based on some editor's speculation that there might be vandalism (vandalism, that to judge from the above comments, will simultaneously affect huge numbers of articles and also be completely invisible because nobody's watching the cat pages). The system of protecting after a concrete problem has been demonstrated seems to be working pretty well for today's featured article, so I don't really see why Category:France really needs to be handled any differently, and I certainly don't see why we should protect thousands and thousands of them just because there might be a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: This is not about creating a new protection; it is about the devs imposing the removal of a protection which already exists.
The risk of not just of vandalism, but of good faith actions where editors don't understand the consequences, in a namespace where pages are rarely watched. With so few watchers, who is going to monitor the hundreds of thousands of category pages for any problems which might occur?
Unilateral bold moving of categories is something which editors should not be doing anyway. We have a well-established consensus-forming process at WP:CFD, and a speedy one for uncontroversial actions at WP:CFD/S. Why create a tool to bypass these processes? And why on earth is being implemented with out a consensus to do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)- This discussion is about creating new protection. Previously, deficient technical design prevented people from doing what they should have been able to do from the beginning. The technical problem is being fixed. Now we should be going back to the normal default for this community: anyone can edit.
- As for "without a consensus", there are 800+ WMF wikis, and many, many thousands of MediaWiki installations all over the world. Fixing this bug affects thousands of communities. The views of some people at just one of them should not prevent everyone else in the world from having the bug fixed. (Personally, I'm quite looking forward to this for use at a private wiki; it will enable me to clean up a minor mess left by someone else without having to agree to an admin bit there.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is not about the other 800+ Wikis; it is about en.wikipedia, which isn any case is by far the largest wikimedia project.
- Whether you regard the existing setup as a bug or a feature, it is one which has defined how categories are maintained. There are a significant number of editors who do have posted here to say that the "fix" poses significant problems for em.wp procedures, which is that in the case of category moving, the normal default is not for editors to act unilaterally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: This is not about creating a new protection; it is about the devs imposing the removal of a protection which already exists.
I thought I'd chime in here as a non-administrator. Currently the consensus-established policy is that regular editors should not move categories (via copy-paste or any other method). I don't see the point in giving every editor access to a tool that policy forbids them to use. The burden of establishing consensus is on those changing the status quo, and without consensus the status quo should be maintained. Therefore, the rights to use this tool should either be limited to administrators and bots (who are implicitly trusted enough not to use them to circumvent policy) or not given to any user groups until consensus is established to do so. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, the current "policy" is that copy-paste "moves", no matter what the page, violate the CC-BY-SA license, and that, as a result of cat pages being developed separately, and therefore having strange limitations, no other method of moving is possible for non-admins. There is no "consensus-established policy" (I notice that you have provided no link to this alleged policy) that says that it's a bad idea for non-admins to be able to move category pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:WhatamIdoing, your first sentence is very wrong. WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves (how-to guide) briefly describes why splitting the page history should be avoided and links to WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline). WP:CWW is satisfied as long as attribution is given. Consider these recent creations by User:Cydebot to implement moves. Each edit summary contains a list of authors' usernames, as described by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution and WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history (essay). Any auto-confirmed user could have created the pages, and any user could have written the required edit summaries. Deletion is more likely to cause problems, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Category:Female astronauts was deleted, but the deletion seems unnecessary, as it was recreated containing {{Category redirect}}. Category:Women astronauts's creation has a problem in its edit summary: the trailing ellipsis indicates truncation. There are three possible users, and none is simply "Lysos". At least one user is not attributed properly. Any user with a copy of the history – contents not required – could repair it by using the tips at WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Another non-admin (and former CFD regular) in favour of great caution here. I'd be very happy for the right to be admin-only, & might be pursuaded for a very small group of others to be given it. But as I understand it, this will make things easier, and there is no vast backlog for CFD-agreed moves anyway, so I'd wait to see if there is a problem before trying to solve it. Agree with User:BrownHairedGirl all the way. User:WhatamIdoing is completely missing several points: nobody watches the category pages mainly because they are very rarely edited. But many people use the categories all the time. Anybody who has spent any time at CFD will have seen many manic/enthusiastic nuisance category creators and won't doubt for a second that if they could move categories they certainly would. The whole point about categories is that they are connected up to other categories in structures that have often been the subject of protracted and fierce discussion, which can often only be traced through "what links here" - there isn't even a record of CFD debates on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I favor great caution, too. I also favor not assuming that our editors can't handle this, especially once a few "hot button" categories get move-protected.
I've got a bunch of cat pages on my watchlist, but you're missing the practical point: if the cat gets moved and every single article in that cat gets an edit to place it in the new category name, then one move could turn up on watchlists for dozens or even hundreds of pages. That means that cat moves are likely to be far more noticeable than regular page moves, even if absolutely zero people are watching the cat page itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I favor great caution, too. I also favor not assuming that our editors can't handle this, especially once a few "hot button" categories get move-protected.
- Comment. I am in general agreement with those who have written above in favour of caution: User:BrownHairedGirl, Johnbod, and others. Yes, I'm an admin, and yes, I close a lot of discussions at WP:CFD. Users could try to argue that I'm just trying to protect the "sphere" where I do a lot of admin work, but really that's not my concern at all. (Frankly, I would love for the load at CFD to be lightened, but I'm afraid this would NOT accomplish it. Quite the opposite, I'm guessing!) My concerns have been well set out by the others above. I do think it is telling that those who tend to be more involved in category editing and organizations are the ones pushing for caution, whether or not those editors are admins. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Just a note that there is a vote going on about this same issue at the Commons ...some of the same concerns being voiced. I didn't realize that this feature change would affect all of Wikimedia. Liz Read! Talk! 14:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, as I and other people said last week, this change affects 800+ wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation plus many thousands of non-WMF wikis, both public and private. This bug fix is really not about the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Only admins to move categories? Really?
With the massive backlogs that exist at other admin-esque pages, isn't this over-kill? If users can move pages, then why not categories too? I doubt many people will even be aware they can move categories straight away. Leave it as it's planned to be, and if it all goes tits-up, round my house with your pitchforks and effigies. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose we can write an admin-bot to move-protect all categories (or, perhaps, all categories over 1-3 days old). Or, alternatively, disable all the category-rename-handling bots until they are also programmed to revert improper moves, rather than follow them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts, giving all editors, including overenthusiastic newbies with idiosyncratic ideas about categorization (example), this facility is likely to increase the workload on those who repair disruption to categorization and hence make backlogs worse. I'd support move-protecting all (reader-side) categories more than a few days old. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Lugnuts is correct though that this doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to just admins. There should probably be a CategoryMover user right added as well. Though I assume that this has already been suggested somewhere in this long discussion. Resolute 16:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts, giving all editors, including overenthusiastic newbies with idiosyncratic ideas about categorization (example), this facility is likely to increase the workload on those who repair disruption to categorization and hence make backlogs worse. I'd support move-protecting all (reader-side) categories more than a few days old. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how attractive a vandalism target category moves would be, but it should be simple enough to disable them for non-admins by adding a <moveonly> entry for the Category: prefix to the title blacklist. That's a bit of a hack, of course, and would only work if Category: pages can only be moved to other titles in the Category: namespace (can they?), but it might be worth considering as a stop-gap while a broader consensus is figured out for who should ultimately be able to perform these moves. 28bytes (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just noting that that would also allow template editors and account creators to move pages as well as they both have the tboverride userright. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, good point. 28bytes (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not necessarily a bad thing or reason not to add it to the blacklist, just a note that there will be an unintended consequence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. 28bytes (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not necessarily a bad thing or reason not to add it to the blacklist, just a note that there will be an unintended consequence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, good point. 28bytes (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Going live
This is going live in a little over 24 hours. It's now clear that consensus has not been established here to restrict this functionality. Also, note that this has already gone live on Commons, and there haven't been any disasters there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, what is patently clear is that Wikipedia is far more popular than Commons, and that there will be a disaster here. This entire thing has been cocked-up from the very beginning. GiantSnowman 16:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- No. What is clear is that there is no consensus for the devs to change how individual wikis run things! This is simply another example where the foundation and the devs let us know how little they respect the editors on the wikis. Consensus is fine as long as it agrees with the foundation. Anything else can simply be ignored! This is simply not an acceptable attitude. Exactly who on this wiki gave you the omnipotent power to tell us to change our established consensus? Maybe you need to run a class on how to respect consensus? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Too narrow of a community base here
I propose an official RfC be started on this topic in the village pump as I'm sure there are many non-admin users (who refuse to come to the administrators' noticeboard as they may feel this is a toxic sewer in which nothing overly productive is accomplished). This discussion needs to be opened to the entire community. Until such a time as it is offered to the rest of the community (not that they couldn't come here, they shouldn't have to), I strongly oppose this proposal. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- You don't propose that an RfC be started. If you want to start an RfC, just start it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Technical 13 has made a point, although a little belatedly. This thread didn't start out as a proposal, it just gradually developed into one. Also, being an admin doesn't necessarily correspond with competence in working with categories; whenever I make an effort to categorize pages, I either don't find anything on the list that I want, or, if I do, someone comes along shortly and changes it, so I won't be moving any categories. However, what we have here is a new action that up until now no one could do. It makes sense to start using it among a smaller group at first. If the rollout is coming shortly, I would hate to see it held up, or released without any restriction at all because of lack of consensus. Why not limit the moves to admins for now, and then after a month or two start an RfC, as T13 suggests, about how and to what extent permissions can be extended? By then people will have worked with the process, and there should be some opinions from the folks at WP:WikiProject Categories about whether and how much this access would help them in their work, and those involved may have come up with some ideas of how to implement it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: Because the restriction is a software setting, and the people capable of changing it won't do so unless we get consensus beforehand. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I assumed as much. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)Which is totally backwards. We have guideline and process in place with community support. Now the developers want to change that without needing approval. That is wrong in so many ways. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: Because the restriction is a software setting, and the people capable of changing it won't do so unless we get consensus beforehand. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Technical 13 has made a point, although a little belatedly. This thread didn't start out as a proposal, it just gradually developed into one. Also, being an admin doesn't necessarily correspond with competence in working with categories; whenever I make an effort to categorize pages, I either don't find anything on the list that I want, or, if I do, someone comes along shortly and changes it, so I won't be moving any categories. However, what we have here is a new action that up until now no one could do. It makes sense to start using it among a smaller group at first. If the rollout is coming shortly, I would hate to see it held up, or released without any restriction at all because of lack of consensus. Why not limit the moves to admins for now, and then after a month or two start an RfC, as T13 suggests, about how and to what extent permissions can be extended? By then people will have worked with the process, and there should be some opinions from the folks at WP:WikiProject Categories about whether and how much this access would help them in their work, and those involved may have come up with some ideas of how to implement it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
And this is EXACTLY why this was a horrible idea...
...because we get crap like this as a result. This breaks the moving bot, and it's the wrong kind of redirect! Category redirects do not work this way. This needs to be stopped, now, on an emergency basis before this spreads and completely breaks the category system. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, the wrong redirect type was because of a latent coding bug. Since Callanecc uses a language other than en here (I presume en-GB), it checked the redirect override text in the wrong language. I've prepared a fix for this at gerrit:135178. In the meantime, this can be fixed by creating MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-GB with the same contents as MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, you fix it by stopping the ability to move categories now. GiantSnowman 07:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've created MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-gb and MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-ca (note that "gb" and "ca" are lower case, not upper case). That will fix the problem for editors who have their language set to some form of English. Editors using more exotic languages probably won't cause too much of a problem before Jackmcbarn's patch is deployed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- The real fix is now live here (early because of a SWAT deploy). @Mr. Stradivarius: Can you delete MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-gb and MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-ca under G6 now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: Jack doesn't even have that power, but on the other hand you do. Have fun. Legoktm (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've created MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-gb and MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-ca (note that "gb" and "ca" are lower case, not upper case). That will fix the problem for editors who have their language set to some form of English. Editors using more exotic languages probably won't cause too much of a problem before Jackmcbarn's patch is deployed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, you fix it by stopping the ability to move categories now. GiantSnowman 07:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
All categories that have been moved so far
Extended content
|
---|
+----------------+------------------+---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | log_timestamp | log_user_text | log_namespace | log_title | log_params | log_comment | +----------------+------------------+---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 20140523035006 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Trịnh_Lords | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Trịnh lords";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | To match capitalisation of main article [[Trịnh lords]] | | 20140523055212 | Markhurd | 14 | L’Oréal-UNESCO_Awards_for_Women_in_Science_laureates | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:62:"Category:L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science laureates";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Non-smart quote, same as articles | | 20140523193330 | ThaddeusB | 14 | Numerologist | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Numerologists";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | plural | | 20140523195731 | Lugnuts | 14 | Slough_Council_elections | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:41:"Category:Slough Borough Council elections";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140524014351 | Callanecc | 14 | User:Callanecc/test | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:User:Callanecc/testmoved";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140524020612 | Callanecc | 14 | Pseudoscientists | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:35:"Category:Advocates of pseudoscience";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | History merge | | 20140524020614 | Ktr101 | 14 | Former_Essential_Air_Service | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:Former Essential Air Service airports";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | It should be under this name, since it makes no sense under the old one. | | 20140524021620 | Callanecc | 14 | Nguyễn_Lords | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Nguyễn lords";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | [[WP:C2C]], [[Special:Permalink/605527865#Current_nominations|requested]] at [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140524021628 | Callanecc | 14 | Mandarins_of_the_Nguyễn_Lords | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:40:"Category:Mandarins of the Nguyễn lords";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | [[WP:C2C]], [[Special:Permalink/605527865#Current_nominations|requested]] at [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140524082057 | Mr. Stradivarius | 14 | Test_category | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Test category 2";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | test the new category move function - will delete in a second | | 20140524125353 | Oncenawhile | 14 | Demographic_history_by_country | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:49:"Category:Demographic history by country or region";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Expanding to include region articles, given this category currently covers both | | 20140524143445 | Woz2 | 14 | Software_companies_based_in_Estonia | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:Software companies of Estonia";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Consistancy | | 20140524223857 | BrownHairedGirl | 14 | Demographic_history_by_country_or_region | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:39:"Category:Demographic history by country";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | revert bold move. Please take it to [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140525020447 | Mitch Ames | 14 | Heritage_Hotels_by_country | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:35:"Category:Heritage hotels by country";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Capitalisation | | 20140525083343 | Robbo128 | 14 | Nova_Entertainment | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:27:"Category:NOVA Entertainment";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140525163151 | Vin09 | 14 | Lists_of_cities_in_India | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:32:"Category:List of cities in India";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | spelling correction | | 20140525184622 | Editor2020 | 14 | Early_Hebrew_Christians | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:32:"Category:Early Jewish Christians";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Makes more sense. Corresponds with usage of other categories | | 20140526000820 | Editor2020 | 14 | Judeo-Christian_polemics | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:34:"Category:Jewish-Christian polemics";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | not judeo-christian, i.e. ethics and beliefs common to both | | 20140526012059 | BrownHairedGirl | 14 | List_of_cities_in_India | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:Lists of cities in India";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | revert bold move. Please take it to [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140526012333 | Warrenjs1 | 14 | Plastics_trade_unions | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:41:"Category:Plastics and rubber trade unions";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140526050543 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Historical_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:History stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge (no pun intended) | | 20140526051035 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Academic-bio-stub | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:Academic biography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526051240 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Computer_Specialist_Stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:34:"Category:Computer specialist stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526051426 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Cayman_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:29:"Category:Cayman Islands stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526051751 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Geologic_feature_of_the_Solar_System_not_on_Earth_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:27:"Category:Astrogeology stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526052010 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Business_bio_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:Business biography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526150242 | GeorgeLouis | 14 | Conservatism_articles_needing_infoboxes | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:48:"Category:Conservatism articles without infoboxes";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Infoboxes are not required; therefore they are not "needed." | | 20140526170343 | PatGallacher | 14 | MEPs_for_the_Republic_of_Ireland_2014-2019 | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:53:"Category:MEPs for the Republic of Ireland 2014–2019";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | normal pattern | | 20140526173534 | PatGallacher | 14 | Elections_in_2019 | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:2019 elections";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | normal | | 20140526183058 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Northern-Ireland-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:31:"Category:Northern Ireland stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526183450 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Haiti-stub_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:Haiti stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526183739 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Typography_stub | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:25:"Category:Typography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526183836 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Typography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140526184113 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Nigeria_related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Nigeria stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526194030 | Rich Farmbrough | 14 | Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_Whitehouse_website | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:75:"Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the White House website";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140526231935 | Lgcsmasamiya | 14 | Bavaria_Party_politicians | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:36:"Category:Members of the Bayernpartei";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | redirect to a proper name | | 20140527055800 | Filastin | 14 | Irish_republicans_imprisoned_on_charges_of_terrorism | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:91:"Category:Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of alleged terrorism by the United Kingdom";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | This is a highly dubious category. I believe in its removal, but would prefer its accuracy in title until a debate has been had. | | 20140527060853 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Adelaide-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Adelaide stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061122 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Adelaide_suburb_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:Adelaide geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061332 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Canberra_suburb_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:53:"Category:Australian Capital Territory geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061701 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Canberra-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:43:"Category:Australian Capital Territory stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061828 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Historical_Fiction_book_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:Historical fiction book stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061911 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Historical_fiction_book_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140527061948 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Historical_fiction_book_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140527062136 | Od Mishehu | 14 | UK_geography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:39:"Category:United Kingdom geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527062357 | Od Mishehu | 14 | US_geography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:United States geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527062651 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Liberal_related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:25:"Category:Liberalism stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527062902 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Football_(soccer)_player_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:42:"Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527062931 | DoctorKubla | 14 | List_of_Unidentified_Shipwrecks_in_Australian_Waters | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:52:"List of unidentified shipwrecks in Australian waters";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | This is a list article, not a category. | | 20140527062949 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Football_(soccer)_biography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140527123456 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Afghanistan-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:26:"Category:Afghanistan stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527123639 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Party_related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:30:"Category:Political party stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527123852 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Female-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Feminism stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124203 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Melbourne-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Melbourne stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124350 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Melbourne_suburb_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:34:"Category:Melbourne geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124500 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Sydney_suburb_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:31:"Category:Sydney geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124619 | Od Mishehu | 14 | United_States_television_programme_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:47:"Category:United States television program stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124758 | Od Mishehu | 14 | United_States_football_club_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:40:"Category:United States soccer club stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527125652 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Serbia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Serbia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527130016 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Buddhism-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Buddhism stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527130211 | Od Mishehu | 14 | RAF_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:30:"Category:Royal Air Force stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527130333 | Od Mishehu | 14 | California_County_Routes_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:California county route stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | historey merge | | 20140527130424 | Od Mishehu | 14 | California_county_route_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140527130610 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Catalonia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Catalonia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | hsitory merge | | 20140527130742 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Gibraltar-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Gibraltar stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527130909 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Fungi_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Fungus stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527131315 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Scotland-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Scotland stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527131619 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Computer_file_system_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:31:"Category:Computer storage stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527152808 | Jackmcbarn | 14 | Id1f03240c203f32a12953f49a075cfd5c25f0f31 | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:56:"Category:Id1f03240c203f32a12953f49a075cfd5c25f0f31 moved";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140527161156 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Macao_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:Macau stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527161432 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Netherlands-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:26:"Category:Netherlands stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527162419 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Faroe_Islands-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:28:"Category:Faroe Islands stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527162746 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Slovenia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Slovenia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527162918 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Georgia_politician_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:Georgia (U.S. state) politician stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527163331 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Environmental_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:26:"Category:Environment stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | history merge | | 20140527163711 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Energy_development_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Energy stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527163913 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Greenland-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Greenland stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527164353 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Texas_stub | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:Texas stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527164708 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Ice_hockey_player_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:35:"Category:Ice hockey biography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527164901 | Od Mishehu | 14 | U.S._newspaper_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:United States newspaper stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165053 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Maritime_Provinces_geography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:45:"Category:Prince Edward Island geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165252 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Central_America-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:30:"Category:Central America stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165432 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Canadian_newspaper_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:31:"Category:Canada newspaper stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165612 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Theologist_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:25:"Category:Theologian stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165857 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Africa-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Africa stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527170048 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Albania-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Albania stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | +----------------+------------------+---------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
For reference (sorry about the horrible formatting). Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note that I've submitted gerrit:135283 and gerrit:135284, which will allow both Special:Log and the API to be used to filter log entries by namespace, so in the future, queries won't have to be ran manually to see this kind of information. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- So so far the error rate is about 10% based on reversals without an extensive review. Not a good beginning. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Patrollers can look here for real-time patrolling - all category moves which don't supress a redirect (only admins, bots and 'crats can supress it) leave an edit there. This doesn't, however, give us information about reversed moves, moves where the redirect was subsequently deleted, or where some user removed the template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- So so far the error rate is about 10% based on reversals without an extensive review. Not a good beginning. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just updated the above list. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- FYI, almost all of mine (all excepot the first, I think) are actually history merges. Now that we can fix these, I've started to work on doing it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
A list as of the end of Jack's, without the end of my history merges, can be found at User:Od Mishehu/cat moves in a more readable format - including marking non-admins in bold. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
So one coder is better than the foundation?
I have to say that I am utterly shocked by this.
When the foundation wanted to implement something (schools, etc.) and the community wasn't happy about it, the foundation started an RfC, the community had its say, and the implementation went forward per the community.
But in this case, since User:Jackmcbarn wants it, and since User:Jackmcbarn coded it, we the community have no say and this one coder bringing it to other coders trumps the community?
Is this really how things work now?
This is not hyperbolic hysterionics. This is a sincere question. And one I think may need to be posed to the Foundation.
Somehow, I just don't think this situation meets the exception listed here: Wikipedia:Consensus#Decisions_not_subject_to_consensus_of_editors - jc37 02:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I submitted the patch. The developers accepted it. The default behavior is to allow anyone to move categories (because that's what's appropriate for new installations of MediaWiki, and in fact the developers questioned why it was even possible to restrict it), so that's what it was introduced with here. If we get consensus here, the sysadmins will be more than happy to restrict it, but we don't have that yet. Also, note that I did request they restrict it here initially, but they denied that due to lack of consensus. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to have a different picture of MediaWiki development, that's not really how it works. It's an open source project that anyone can submit patches for, and those that are of good quality get accepted. The "English Wikipedia community" does not control MediaWiki development. We've wanted native category redirects and moving for YEARS now, and Jack took the initiative to get the first step out of the way. Having a bot move categories is a broken system that we really need to get rid of. Legoktm (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please take a moment and read Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_25#Revising_the_user_rights_for_the_Education_Program_extension.
- If the foundation deemed that it should ask a community, why is this situation any different? Read some of those statements there, including by several long standing Wikipedians and at least one Arb at the time.
- If you want to fix the system, have an rfc for implementation, learn implementation details from those who do the work in the trenches. Just doing something for IWANTIT reasons, without even looking over the details is bad implementation, even if we weren't a consensus following community.
- You've had nearly every closer from CFD tell you that this is asinine. At what point does the mindless runaway train get stopped to consider repercussions as noted by those of us who actually use the system? - jc37 04:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I read it. That was a WMF employee asking about changing some of enwp's userrights, which a completely different subject IMO. That scenario wanted local crats to manage rights for a WMF-run program (as I understand it).
- You still seem to be confused about the English Wikipedia community versus the MediaWiki community. They do have a lot of overlap, but are definitely not the same. MediaWiki has different procedures for accepting new patches and features, and a RfC on enwp is definitely not one of them. This feature change does affect enwp, yes, but it also affects every single site that runs MediaWiki, which happens to include 800+ WMF wikis. The needs of WMF wikis are usually taken in to account, and in this case an extra userright is required to move category pages, allowing for easy per-wiki customization. I haven't actually read any comments that this feature is a bad idea. MediaWiki also ships with sane defaults, so it makes sense to give that right to any user who can normally move pages. If enwp wants to change that, that's fine, but some sort of discussion needs to come out with a consensus to do so. I haven't seen anything like that in this thread yet. Legoktm (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, because English Wikipedia is nothing special, just one Wikipedia among many others, just as important as any other of the 800+ WMF websites. Certainly it's not the flagship of the system or anything like that. BMK (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be curious to find out: when you take the number of edits, or editors, or users, or page views, or whatever metric you want for the 799+ other sites, it is more than the number of edits, or editors, or users, or page views or whatever for English Wikipedia? BMK (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, because English Wikipedia is nothing special, just one Wikipedia among many others, just as important as any other of the 800+ WMF websites. Certainly it's not the flagship of the system or anything like that. BMK (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Legoktm, trying to be dismissive because you want this, doesn't make your comments valid. This is merely a userright that's being added too. And if you try to suggest that moving categories is just like moving anything else, I'll point you at the file mover right, and while we're talking doing actions in namespaces, I'll also point you to the template editor user-right.
- The reason we have RfCs on such things is so that all the details can be noted. issues worked out etc. I really think this was more a case of coders on some other website deciding they didn't want to go through the process of getting community input and just decided unilaterally. "Oh it'll be fine" are commonly also known as "famous last words". And now when it's clear that this was not supported as implemented, there's all sorts of attempts at dismissive wikilawyering.
- But whatever, clearly you are not someone who is listening to the community in this, so no worries, clearly the next step is to petition the foundation, and see what their thoughts are. While I'm at it, I think I'll drop a few notes at arbcom, not for them as a committee (as I don't know if this is under their purview), but merely as a large swath of Wikipedians voted that they trusted their judgement. I'd be curious as to what they would think of this.
- Or to put in another way, I think it's time this discussion grew beyond the confines of WP:AN.
- Thanks for helping me come to that understanding.
- If anyone else has thoughts on who should be made aware of this, please feel free. As this is being discussed on a noticeboard, a neutral notice concerning this discussion would presumably be considered appropriate canvassing. - jc37 06:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- My intention wasn't be dismissive, sorry if I came across that way. The file-mover userright was initially not given to all users due to performance issues (which still exist unfortunately), not because of an RfC or the enwp community's requests, which is why it was initially given to administrators only. The template editor userright applies to all namespaces, so I'm not sure what your point is about that.
- Sure, but RfC's are usually for major changes to software (take a look at mw:RfC if you want an idea of what I mean), which this really wasn't. Imagine if every single new feature to MediaWiki had to go through an enwp RfC ;)
- It's a bit rude for you to say that I'm not listening to "the community" given that I am just a part of this community as you are. And had I been not listening, I wouldn't have even bothered to comment here. Legoktm (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- P.S.: WP:BLAMEWHEEL says it's ArbCom's fault anyways.
- Haven't looked at blamewheel in a while, thanks for the smile : )
- I think what people are trying to tell you is that this is a major change. Do you remember the several RfCs that it took before giving rollback out? I believe the initial proposal from coders was to give it to every user (I think there are still some out there who feel that way : ) - But due to multiple RfCs now it's a user-right given by admins. Some coders (among others) may not have liked that, but we're a community of more than the coders.
- Personally, I think we'd be better with this as a user right given out, rather than automatically to all users.
- And yes, in the past, the default almost always was to dump new abilities on the admins first. not because they were better than anyone else, but just because they were (presumably) trusted editors who wouldn't intentionally misuse the ability. then once the admins had tested the abilities out, then it could be discussed whether to broaden things to a large group (autoconfirmed, all users, etc.)
- A nice middle ground would be to make this admin grantable, that way, it's still (presumably) in the hands of (presumably) trustworthy editors, without restricting to admins alone.
- But as it stands, this has been done and decided arbitrarily by a (oh does, the evil cabal) small group on another wiki, without even bothering to even ask for the insight of those of us who currently implement these things, much less the broader community.
- And so, no intention to be rude, I'm merely looking at how it looks so far. And yes, a person can be a fellow Wikipedian and still appear to not be listening to the Wikipedian community. That said, thank you for taking the time to comment here.
- I'm trying to decide from here which action to take. I'd like to hope that those who made this decision elsewhere would read this thread and realise that the implementation needs to be changed/fixed. But I'm not seeing evidence of that so far. And so, I guess the next step is as I noted above, let's get other (presumably) trusted Wikipedians aware of this, and the wmf too, as potentially this affects multiple wikimedia wikis. - jc37 20:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Request to relax article restriction on Kosovo
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As an article-level restriction imposed by admin User:Nishkid64 under discretionary sanctions back in 2009, the Kosovo article has been under a uniquely strict revert limitation of one revert per week for several years. During the last few days, a major overhaul of the article began, due to a consensus decision to merge the two top-level Kosovo articles back into one (formerly Kosovo (region) and Republic of Kosovo). The necessary reshuffling of material and related adjustments have obviously led to some more active editing on the article than would occur during normal maintenance.
I find that, under these circumstances, the revert limitation in its current draconian form is stifling natural development of the article. What we are seeing currently is normal, healthy editing. This of course always carries the potential for normal editorial disagreement on some matters, which may lead to the need for reverts in the course of the routine productive tinkering that is part of the normal editing process. A 1rv/week limitation puts an undue brake on this productive process. I therefore propose that the limitation should be provisionally lifted or relaxed, let's say in favour of a more standard 1rv/day one.
Since Nishkid has been barely active for the last year or so, I'm taking this straight here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please post a cross-notice of this discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. As long as there are eyes on it to prevent any nonsense developing. --John (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- There should be no problem reducing the restriction from 1RR per week (which is uncommon and hard for all parties to remember) down to 1RR/day which admins are used to enforcing and is easy to explain. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- The proposal seems reasonable to me, although I'm not very familiar with the article and its editing history. Sandstein 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support - reduce to 1RR/day, subject to restoring the 1RR/week if trouble starts up again. 1RR/week is a draconian step, which should only be taken if absolutely necessary anbd reduced every so often to ensure that it still is necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
slight problem
Could an admin please have a look at edits by user:Baldymart? Seems to have a fascist taste to it.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- What do fascists taste like? Chicken?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think you may have meant to file this at AN/I as this board, I believe, is for reporting administration. Of course I could be wrong. Also, you need to notify the editor that your began this discussion so I have notified them for you.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Since I am a German national I do not find that funny at all.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you are going to make a claim like that, please provide diffs. Don't ask us to filter through all his edits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- If one finds that carriers of the so called “Knights cross & Oak Leaves “ notable personalties I should think yes – check his edits. But if Wikipedia wants to support this so be it.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crucible where we demand those of opposing political beliefs to change their ways or stop editing. Bias is something we all face, but this filing lacks substance and seems to be a personal attack. Why would you say that being German, you didn't find that funny? I am half Italian and thought it was hilarious. Lighten up.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Without comment on the individuals he added, note that Charles Manson is notable, as is Hannibal Lecter and James Earl Ray. Neutrality means that notability is decided by sources, not by our opinion of the morality of the individual that sources are covering. So if it is that he is adding names to organizations you despise, we can't help you. If there is more substance to the complaint, then please share it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in today's world it's probably easier to achieve Wiki-notability by being a bad person than it is by leading a upstanding upright moral life, since the former gets lots of face time in the media, while the latter is lucky to get a one-shot mention on some program about "everyday heroes", if that. BMK (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
In the removal of the Max Schäfer from the Famous people section of the Karlsruhe article, Catflap08 signed it "not exactly notable". If Max Schäfer isn't notable, then why has he got a Wikipedia article? Sorry Catflap08, but I'm afraid you're not allowed to air-brush history to your personal view, and talking about fascism doesn't make you a fascist. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Guess thats the way it is then that wikipedia offers some a platform to worhip their heroes. At least that person is not mentioned in the German wikipedia --- none appart form the English it appears. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Also just because there is an article on a soldier of a facist regime does that make him famous? could one have some references that support his fame? streets named after him buildings etc? Any mentioning of him elsewhere? Hm not likely--Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note that "fame" is not the criteria for having a Wikipedia article, nor is "infamy" a criteria for not having one. The criteria is WP:NOTABILITY. BMK (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone may become notable by receiving "a well-known and significant award or honor", and this is generally taken to include soldiers who have been awarded their nation's highest honor for gallantry. I marvel that you automatically assume the worst about anyone who fought for Germany during the Nazi period, as if everyone in the German military were a war criminal. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Catflap08 I didn't realize this would course a problem with your good self. I listed the holders of the Knights Cross as I study military history of the second world war. I have listed them as notable people in the respective towns as they are holders of their country's highest award for bravery we do the same in England for the holders the Victoria Cross. In my opinion brave men both, as a former member of the Royal Air Force I am certainly not a fascist sir user:Baldymart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldymart (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- The VC is one parallel example, as is the Medal of Honor for the US; their laureates are considered notable because of the medal, and the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (with or without oak leaves) should be treated likewise. Anyway, we don't have philosophical or political requirements for editing; fascists editing non-disruptively are permitted to participate here. Fascism has historically been a major perspective (otherwise we wouldn't talk about it nowadays), and this writeup (an elderly version of the WP:NPOV policy) puts it well. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note that this medal wasn't only given for bravery, but also for "successful military leadership". Being a successful SS colonel is not really comparable to being a VC cross winner for bravery, and comparing them like this seems rather offensive towards really brave soldiers. This doesn't mean that the colonel (or any winner of the award) isn't notable of course, but the above discussion has some inaccuracies (like "I have listed them as notable people in the respective towns as they are holders of their country's highest award for bravery", which is an error by omission) and may not really be helpful to answer someone who is already upset by our equal treatment of nazis. Yes, he should have an article, but no, (judging from the article) he is not morally comparable to a Victoria Cross winner and has not received his award for extreme battlefield bravery, but for being a successful SS colonel, which is "somewhat" less admirable and innocent than being simply a brave soldier. Fram (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- The VC is one parallel example, as is the Medal of Honor for the US; their laureates are considered notable because of the medal, and the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (with or without oak leaves) should be treated likewise. Anyway, we don't have philosophical or political requirements for editing; fascists editing non-disruptively are permitted to participate here. Fascism has historically been a major perspective (otherwise we wouldn't talk about it nowadays), and this writeup (an elderly version of the WP:NPOV policy) puts it well. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Catflap08 I didn't realize this would course a problem with your good self. I listed the holders of the Knights Cross as I study military history of the second world war. I have listed them as notable people in the respective towns as they are holders of their country's highest award for bravery we do the same in England for the holders the Victoria Cross. In my opinion brave men both, as a former member of the Royal Air Force I am certainly not a fascist sir user:Baldymart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldymart (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Sign up nagging
Where can I give Wikipedia appropriately polite feedback about the insufferable "Sign Up" nagging? Either go ahead and disable IP editing, or don't. But please, for the love of god, don't punish people for making edits when those people have zero, absolutely zero interest in registering an account, because otherwise they would simply do so whenever they want to. --85.197.12.42 (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know. But I know Okeyes (WMF) uploaded the nagging / polite privacy warning, so they may be able to direct you to the appropriate venue. NE Ent 23:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. --85.197.12.42 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to stop the nagging, sign up and make an account. BMK (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- That is borderline offensive. Please carefully read through my comments before insulting me like that. To summarize briefly: If WMF wants to disable IP editing, fine. But to leave it open, only to deliberately annoy constructive contributors who simply prefer to not have a registered account? That's just appalling practice and will only alienate even more people. --84.44.195.210 (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Borderline offensive"? Grow up. BMK (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- That is borderline offensive. Please carefully read through my comments before insulting me like that. To summarize briefly: If WMF wants to disable IP editing, fine. But to leave it open, only to deliberately annoy constructive contributors who simply prefer to not have a registered account? That's just appalling practice and will only alienate even more people. --84.44.195.210 (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to stop the nagging, sign up and make an account. BMK (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. --85.197.12.42 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, this is User:Steven (WMF)'s team. See [2] for more info. Legoktm (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this is our work. This is a short (about a week long) test, where we're comparing a couple different ways to encourage anonymous editors to register. If you want to get a new version (or maybe none at all), you can simply clear your cookies. Sorry for any annoyance in the meantime. I realize that there are anonymous editors who repeatedly contribute with a full understanding of the tradeoffs. Our version is aimed more at new or very casual anonymous editors, who may not understand what the benefits are to registering. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, this is User:Steven (WMF)'s team. See [2] for more info. Legoktm (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Deletion request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To any admin. I posted personal email addresses by error. Please delete the post permanently. Thanks in advance.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've RevDel'd the offending diffs and raised this issue to Oversighters. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 14:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Userfication of deleted and salted content
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination) resulted in a salted article. During the extensive editing in which the now-deleted forked article went from the 49K characters of readable prose version of the first AFD to the 33K character version of the second AFD, I added a lot of content (in addition removing a lot, of course). I wanted to check through the deleted article and make sure that the relevant content is in the current main article. I also am interested in becoming a better editor by discussing relevant issues about this fork on some policy and guideline talk pages and it would be helpful to have specifics to discuss. I believe that the history may also contain some information with opinions about the article. For example, I believe a speedy tag was added and declined that I missed. There may be instructive edit summaries and tag explanations to be found in the history. Also, the talk page documented other historical details that might be helpful to have present while discussing policy and guidelines. The long and the short of it is that I am making a userfication request to improve the quality of the encyclopedia by making sure newly found content is properly included in the main article and to become a better editor by understanding policy related to my editing activity. I believe I have offended the closing admin Future Perfect at Sunrise with my candor. Thus, I need some help.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewing admins please note: User:TonyTheTiger has previously used this rationale to recreate his article after an AfD and DRV didn't go his way. He is here to ask the other parent. Please have a quick look at the most recent discussion for details; I won't re-hash here. Once again I apologize to Tony for assuming bad faith but someone who's been editing since 2006 and goes on and on about the number of good articles they've created should already know better. Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ivanvector Why would you tell a lie like this. I have never done such a thing. I have never asked to have an article recreated to investigate policy in my entire career on WP. Why oh why would you make this up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Generally, I dislike when experienced editors ignore consensus, which is what you appeared to me to have done when I came across the second AfD. Normally I would comment and move on, but you got my back up by insulting my edit history, then again by repeatedly accusing myself and others of being canvassed based solely on our common nationality, so my investigation into the article's history was somewhat more thorough. Again, I won't re-hash the details, but you already recreated the article against consensus once, and both your history and your comments indicate that you are a veteran of the deletion process, and searching for those diffs just now shows that you're also quite the veteran of AN/I. As a result, I've been checking your contribs to see if you'd try to do it again, and I think that's exactly what this is. I don't think that you want the article userfied now to hone your understanding at all, frankly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no power to undelete an article and I wouldn't do it in this case if I did, notwithstanding Floq's offer that you should have taken, but if you would like to discuss relevant guidelines on my talk page in general, I'll do my best to respond, but at this point I think you'd be better off asking questions on the talk pages for the guidelines, as I'm not very impressed with you right now. Accusing me of lying is the third personal attack you've thrown at me, and misusing a gendered pronoun as an insult is in especially poor taste. If you learn anything coming out of this I hope it's to consider what effect your comments have on other editors' interactions with you. (Hint: it's not positive) Ivanvector (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ivanvector Why would you tell a lie like this. I have never done such a thing. I have never asked to have an article recreated to investigate policy in my entire career on WP. Why oh why would you make this up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Tell you what, Tony. You say you only want to userfy it in order to look at its history and content. I'll userfy it, then blank it and full protect it. Anything you need to see, you can see by viewing old versions. After a reasonable period (2 weeks?) I'll re-delete it. Deal? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: also, you would have to agree never to try to put that article, or one that is similar, in main space without a successful DRV. No copy-pasting the content anywhere on-wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, you agree not to ask people about tags they may have added or edits they may have made to the article. Or, really, anything except what you said you wanted it for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see a problem here. If TTT really is going to be copying stuff to the main article, then either we need to be sure the content they are copying is uncopyrightable (lacks sufficient creativity or whatever), the copyrighted portions were written entirely by TTT (or someone who has agreed to release their content in to the public domain or under a CC and GFDL compatible licence without attribution requirement), the content is sufficiently rewriten to allay copyright concerns (as if TTT was taking stuff from a copyrighted third party source) or we need to keep the article somewhere, probably not in userspace (the page can remain protected). Also if TTT is going to be copying content and isn't totally sure these apply, they should make sure they follow the appropriate guidelines to ensure the attribution is preserved. This may be a moot point if TTT doesn't find anything useful, but if TTT does, we shouldn't allow any sort of copyvios to occur. Perhaps it will be better if TTT doesn't copy anything if they aren't sure these apply but instead ask again if they find there is something that needs to be copied so we can work out how to manage the attribution. (Ideally we should work out where the article belongs so that TTT can properly link to it when copying content, linking to their user page may be confusing and potentially problematic in the even of a rename, RTV or whatever in the future.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Good thinking, but in fact no such problem exists - all the editing of the content of the fork was done by TTT. Other editors made the odd adjustment to categories, persondata and navboxes etc but the prose was taken from the main article to start with then edited solely by TTT. We will not have to keep a copy of the deleted article around for attribution requirements, in other words. BencherliteTalk 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I really hope we're not about to see excessive bloat introduced to Jabari Parker#High school career, which already stands at 1 extensive sub-section per school year. Tarc (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)FTR, there were no issues with Tony's article other than that it contained nothing but indiscriminate trivia. If Tony intends to add it back to the main article then that will remain an issue. Ivanvector (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see a problem here. If TTT really is going to be copying stuff to the main article, then either we need to be sure the content they are copying is uncopyrightable (lacks sufficient creativity or whatever), the copyrighted portions were written entirely by TTT (or someone who has agreed to release their content in to the public domain or under a CC and GFDL compatible licence without attribution requirement), the content is sufficiently rewriten to allay copyright concerns (as if TTT was taking stuff from a copyrighted third party source) or we need to keep the article somewhere, probably not in userspace (the page can remain protected). Also if TTT is going to be copying content and isn't totally sure these apply, they should make sure they follow the appropriate guidelines to ensure the attribution is preserved. This may be a moot point if TTT doesn't find anything useful, but if TTT does, we shouldn't allow any sort of copyvios to occur. Perhaps it will be better if TTT doesn't copy anything if they aren't sure these apply but instead ask again if they find there is something that needs to be copied so we can work out how to manage the attribution. (Ideally we should work out where the article belongs so that TTT can properly link to it when copying content, linking to their user page may be confusing and potentially problematic in the even of a rename, RTV or whatever in the future.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are so many people to respond to so I will respond in one place. I will agree to restore content to the main article from the fork through talk page discussion. Of course, I may add new content to the article as it arises without talk page discussion. I.e., stuff like draft predictions/results, summer league, contract signing/holdout, etc. I don't think other limits are necessary. I don't think I should agree to any two week limit since a policy page discussion could lead to an interest in an RFC or something. Its not like I have a reputation for ramming a lot of articles in the main space that don't belong. I think you should just assume good faith and if I stray sanction me or whatever. I am not going to put the userfication in main space without some sort of consensus, be it DRV, an RFC or lots of other feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really need you to agree to the two week limit, since I won't need your permission to redelete it. But if you want me to do this, I need confirmation that you aren't going to ask people about actions they took on the article. Maybe some other admin will undelete without this assurance but I won't. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with User:Floquenbeam on this. Tony, you're being offered what you want, with a few extremely reasonable requirements. If you plan on doing the right thing, there isn't any reason you can't follow these simple requests. I believe Floquenbeam is being kind and generous. TLSuda (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- How is that kind and generous. I intend to investigate policy. Who knows what I will learn. Suppose I find something out and want to do and RFC about something. Maybe I will need to point to history. Why is " I'll userfy it, then blank it and full protect it. I'll re-delete it after 2 weeks" what I want. How about after 2 weeks we discuss whether I am still actively investigating policy. Also, could a request a 24 hour warning before redelete. For example, three weeks from now I could still be deep in discussions on what constitutes an end-run recreation vs. a good faith recreation on an MOS talk page on splitting articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, then I decline to do this. Perhaps another admin sees things differently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I recommend that TonyTheTiger agree to Floquenbeam's terms. In the AfD there are hints that TTT is unwilling to accept consensus. If that's what is motivating Floquenbeam's reluctance, it's understandable. In his comments above, Tony implies that he is in the midst of an ongoing crusade and that he will continue this effort in spite of the deletion verdicts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- EdJohnston Do you know that RFCs last 30 days. Suppose I end up in an RFC that is illustrated by the salted page and its history. What good would it do for me if I agree to have it deleted in two weeks no matter what. Why two weeks no matter what? Why not hey TTT says he would like to learn the issues related to this (I think this type of learning is what you refer to as a crusade. I call it learning) by talking with people about policies and guidelines. Let's see what he is learning (what you call crusading) after 2 weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I recommend that TonyTheTiger agree to Floquenbeam's terms. In the AfD there are hints that TTT is unwilling to accept consensus. If that's what is motivating Floquenbeam's reluctance, it's understandable. In his comments above, Tony implies that he is in the midst of an ongoing crusade and that he will continue this effort in spite of the deletion verdicts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, then I decline to do this. Perhaps another admin sees things differently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- How is that kind and generous. I intend to investigate policy. Who knows what I will learn. Suppose I find something out and want to do and RFC about something. Maybe I will need to point to history. Why is " I'll userfy it, then blank it and full protect it. I'll re-delete it after 2 weeks" what I want. How about after 2 weeks we discuss whether I am still actively investigating policy. Also, could a request a 24 hour warning before redelete. For example, three weeks from now I could still be deep in discussions on what constitutes an end-run recreation vs. a good faith recreation on an MOS talk page on splitting articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with User:Floquenbeam on this. Tony, you're being offered what you want, with a few extremely reasonable requirements. If you plan on doing the right thing, there isn't any reason you can't follow these simple requests. I believe Floquenbeam is being kind and generous. TLSuda (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really need you to agree to the two week limit, since I won't need your permission to redelete it. But if you want me to do this, I need confirmation that you aren't going to ask people about actions they took on the article. Maybe some other admin will undelete without this assurance but I won't. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think TonyTheTiger should have taken Floquenbeam up on that offer. Since the article was deleted at AfD and deletion was upheld at DRV, there was no requirement to restore the article in any form. TTT asked to inspect old versions of the article, which Floquenbeam agreed to make possible. Yet somehow this isn't enough. I don't blame people for suspecting the real intent is an end-run around the deletion. I'm reminded of Roald Dahl's short story Parson's Pleasure, which also features a person being denied what he secretly wants by being given what actually asked for. Reyk YO! 06:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is no room for an endrun around deletion the page has been "salted". I want to talk about things on policy/guideline pages and see what I may learn. Everyone knows that there is no telling how long the edits may be relevant to such discussions. Why is everyone against me learning how to be a better editor by learning policy. You would think that is what you want. If you don't want me to learn something from this whole ordeal than just say so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- TTT was given a generous offer, and based on their semi-regular trips here to AN/ANI and their rather flippant response above, they don't seem to understand that the community does have issues with many of their edits. Floq's offer was sincere, and policy-driven. The flippancy and "I've never done anything wrong and obviously never will again" attitude is disheartening to say the least the panda ₯’ 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- How can you call it generous when it will impede my ability to learn policy. We all know that any policy/guideline discussion may last for more than two weeks or may lead to another discussion or an RFC, which will last 30 days. How can anyone interested in helping me to learn from this situation and the policies related to it say they don't want the content and its history to be available for instructive and illustrative reasons until the learning has been had. A generous offer would be something like I will avail the content and its history for instructive and illustrative purposes until relevant discussions have run their course. My desire to learn from the situation is not flippant, it is sincere. What is disheartening about a person interested in learning. DangerousPanda says there is policy-driven reason for a two-week limit. I don't understand this policy. That is another thing I need to learn.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: The sticking point isn't really the 2 week limit; I'm not an idiot, believe it or not, and if there was an ongoing productive discussion I wouldn't sabotage that by deleting the page in the middle of it. However, the discussion needs to be productive, and beneficial to more people than just you. I've become less and less confident that it would be. This interest in "learning policy" is indistinguishable from "I want to continue to argue the merits of the AFD for another month, but this time on policy talk pages". Your refusal to agree not to bug people about tagging or edits they made to the article prior to deletion strengthens that appearance. It is not worth it, helping you learn policy, at the risk of wasting other people's time on an RFC that is actually a thinly disguised AFD#3. I'm not going to be a party to beating a dead horse, especially when others will be dragged into it. So at this point, I'll email you the text of the article and references at the time of deletion if you want, so you can see if there's anything that you can get consensus to add to Jabari Parker, but I'm not going to restore the page to your user space, and my guess (though I could be wrong) is that no one else is going to want to do that either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I was caught up on the the 2 week no matter what issue. I have no intention of debating about tagging edits or other edits. I never refused to consent to this limitation. I don't see those edits as likely relevant to the discussion, although they may be instructive in and of themselves. Given that I have over 8 years of experience on WP and this is the first time I have suffered a deletion that I do not understand the process of its occurrence, I am not sure what I need to inquire about to learn from this. What is odd is that no matter how many times I say that I want to learn from this, no one has asked "How can I help you learn"? Everyone has assumed bad faith and that I want to badger people. This is my first articlespace deletion that I am unable to make sense of and I feel that I do need to learn something. I would appreciate it if rather than assume bad faith, you would attempt to make possible my improvement as an editor and learning as a human being. Anyone who is an admin knows discussions often extend past two weeks and possibly may result in a good faith RFC that lasts 30 days. Two months rather thane two weeks is a reasonable fixed expiry for this issue although I am not sure that a fixed expiry need be set. I just ask that you consider how to foster my ability to learn and grow as a wikipedian from my first article space deletion that I am unable to conceptualize.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I find this case interesting as well. I recall seeing it AfD and I was going to look at the article in depth, but I didn't get around to it before the discussion was over. I read the discussion afterwards and I don't fully understand what happened either (perhaps if I had read it, I would have a better understanding). I think for those interested, understanding what is wrong with articles such as these could be instructive. So, I think we should give TTT's idea a chance, strictly within the limited scope he proposes to use the userfied article. I am One of Many (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- None of the admins who have participated in this discussion seem to be blatantly against granting his request, only that there needs to be reasonable tight reigns on this. If he doesn't want to conform to these requirements, no one has to grant his request. Plain and simple. TLSuda (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- And given his attitude and evasiveness, that seems like exactly the right thing to do, to not grant his request. BMK (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- @TLSuda, I just wanted to say that I see some merit in TTT's request. Whether any admin userfies the article is another matter and I see the concerns. I've been looking through TTT's work and it is very impressive and good. My view is that the risk here is mostly for TTT, since if he doesn't do what he plans to do, no admin would every undelete an article for him in the future.
- None of the admins who have participated in this discussion seem to be blatantly against granting his request, only that there needs to be reasonable tight reigns on this. If he doesn't want to conform to these requirements, no one has to grant his request. Plain and simple. TLSuda (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I find this case interesting as well. I recall seeing it AfD and I was going to look at the article in depth, but I didn't get around to it before the discussion was over. I read the discussion afterwards and I don't fully understand what happened either (perhaps if I had read it, I would have a better understanding). I think for those interested, understanding what is wrong with articles such as these could be instructive. So, I think we should give TTT's idea a chance, strictly within the limited scope he proposes to use the userfied article. I am One of Many (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I was caught up on the the 2 week no matter what issue. I have no intention of debating about tagging edits or other edits. I never refused to consent to this limitation. I don't see those edits as likely relevant to the discussion, although they may be instructive in and of themselves. Given that I have over 8 years of experience on WP and this is the first time I have suffered a deletion that I do not understand the process of its occurrence, I am not sure what I need to inquire about to learn from this. What is odd is that no matter how many times I say that I want to learn from this, no one has asked "How can I help you learn"? Everyone has assumed bad faith and that I want to badger people. This is my first articlespace deletion that I am unable to make sense of and I feel that I do need to learn something. I would appreciate it if rather than assume bad faith, you would attempt to make possible my improvement as an editor and learning as a human being. Anyone who is an admin knows discussions often extend past two weeks and possibly may result in a good faith RFC that lasts 30 days. Two months rather thane two weeks is a reasonable fixed expiry for this issue although I am not sure that a fixed expiry need be set. I just ask that you consider how to foster my ability to learn and grow as a wikipedian from my first article space deletion that I am unable to conceptualize.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: The sticking point isn't really the 2 week limit; I'm not an idiot, believe it or not, and if there was an ongoing productive discussion I wouldn't sabotage that by deleting the page in the middle of it. However, the discussion needs to be productive, and beneficial to more people than just you. I've become less and less confident that it would be. This interest in "learning policy" is indistinguishable from "I want to continue to argue the merits of the AFD for another month, but this time on policy talk pages". Your refusal to agree not to bug people about tagging or edits they made to the article prior to deletion strengthens that appearance. It is not worth it, helping you learn policy, at the risk of wasting other people's time on an RFC that is actually a thinly disguised AFD#3. I'm not going to be a party to beating a dead horse, especially when others will be dragged into it. So at this point, I'll email you the text of the article and references at the time of deletion if you want, so you can see if there's anything that you can get consensus to add to Jabari Parker, but I'm not going to restore the page to your user space, and my guess (though I could be wrong) is that no one else is going to want to do that either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- How can you call it generous when it will impede my ability to learn policy. We all know that any policy/guideline discussion may last for more than two weeks or may lead to another discussion or an RFC, which will last 30 days. How can anyone interested in helping me to learn from this situation and the policies related to it say they don't want the content and its history to be available for instructive and illustrative reasons until the learning has been had. A generous offer would be something like I will avail the content and its history for instructive and illustrative purposes until relevant discussions have run their course. My desire to learn from the situation is not flippant, it is sincere. What is disheartening about a person interested in learning. DangerousPanda says there is policy-driven reason for a two-week limit. I don't understand this policy. That is another thing I need to learn.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- @BMK I see your point given issues in the past, but I'm struck by his productivity and I wouldn't want to discourage him unless absolutely necessary. I am One of Many (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, in the past the problem has been that TTT needs to be discouraged from certain behaviors. BMK (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I am not sure what you refer to. I've been banned. I've been blocked. I've had articles deleted. I've lost DRVs. I've been in contentious debates. This article has been deleted twice at AFD. There is a lot of debate about the propriety of the second appearance in main space and various processes (AFD, DRV, userfication, mainspace move). Several things you should note. I rarely get involved in reversion wars or content wars (maybe 1 per 50-100,000 edits). What are the risks for WP. I have agreed to only restore content via talk page discussion. I have agreed not to debate edits. The article can't be moved back into mainspace due to salting, AFAIK. Despite lies by folks like Ivanvector above, I continue to claim to have never been confounded by a deletion result before to the point where I am misunderstanding policy/guidelines and need time to properly investigate policy with the content and its history. Floquenbeam's last comment show that he does understsnd my concern that prearranged limitations not obstruct my investigation and any learning that may result. I don't know what policy there is that a 2 week expiry is required. That seems odd due to the nature of policy discussions. Any one such discussion could last that long, lead to another or lead to a process like RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger, I'm guessing you didn't see above where I offered what help I can in reviewing guidelines with you, judging by the fact that you've just pinged me with yet another personal attack. My offer remains open, but please lay off the invective. Ivanvector (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- What types of guidelines do you consider yourself "expert" in? Are there policy/guideline pages that you edit frequently? watch? At this point I have 4 or 5 talk pages in mind for discussion, but haven't been looking that closely at them. I have recreated 12 formerly deleted pages that are now at WP:GA so your point that I have recreated this page needs to be qualified a bit. I am not looking to ram this into article space. From what I can tell (I have not seen the edit history to confirm a declined speedy) at least three admins either reverted their own G4 or declined another editors G4 offer yet a large proportion of the discussants feel like you do that this was just another recreation against consensus. I imagine that there is something to be learned regarding this point. Given that I have 12 GAs that you might call deletion recreations in addition to this case, I want to make sure I understand this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that the community, twice, has said that our encyclopedia (a summary work) should not have an extensively detailed article about a brief period in a person's career, irregardless of sourcing or notability. We are supposed to be treating works at a 60,000 ft level of understanding, providing just enough detail to allow a reader to get a good idea about the topic, and then let them figure out where to go next to learn more. The fact that you have saved 12 articles from deletion to bring them to GA is good, but it's also part of the problem here - the first thing that most do when they are trying to save content at the cusp of deletion that is find every single possible reference and include them somehow within the article to justify the notability. That's fine when notability is the issue, but it also doesn't show any editorial control that we editors to use in writing articles. I remember blocks of this article, during its second AFD, reading effectively a sentence for each game he played at. That's far far far too detailed. And if this is what resulted after splitting out his high school career from his main bio article, then I can see why admins are extremely cautious in restoring the article. In comparison to all those you've saved, the issue here is not notability, but indiscriminate information and that there's simply no way that a page on a small part of a person's career separate from the person's main bio page can reasonably be justified. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Masem, I am not here at AN to debate whether an article on this topic is an impossibility. There are certainly numerous WP:SPLITs on wikipedia based on parts of a subject's career. Admittedly, these are rare for basketball players. It is not clear to me that either AFD closed with the consensus you asserted. One might say the AFD1 consensus was that the SPLIT was an unnecessary redundancy of the main that needed to be trimmed itself and AFD2 was a recreation of the detail in the first without judging the detail of the second. You are in fact correct that most of my GA recreations were cases where proper establishment of notability was the issue. It might be the case that I spend time on WP:N and WP:NSPORTS discussing what makes the subject of SPLITs notable enough to stand alone. Thus, this could be a case of learning the proper assertion of notability. You can tell in the DRV and AFD2, that I attempted to present assertion of the SPLIT being notable based on 1.) the fact his high school career was of interest to as many viewers as many NBA All-Star reserves, drawing the number of pageviews as a Rookie of the Year, 2.) subject of a Sports Illustrated cover story, etc. I am not sure that there has really been a consideration of whether the SPLIT was notable because I don't even know what the relevant considerations for choosing a notable partition of a biographical subject. This may be a subject worth learning about. I don't really know where discussions will lead. I would like to be able to pursue them though because I imagine I will become a more productive editor if I can understand these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's not an issue with notability, though; arguably you had plenty of sources to show the high-school career was notable so it wasn't an issue with notability. Instead, as both AFD1 and 2 spelled out, our purpose as an encyclopedia would never for an article on that detailed portion of a person's career, simply because we are to be a summary work, not an extensively detailed one, and singling out a person's high school career like that, despite how well sourced that could be with every GNG-qualifying source in the world in it, doesn't fly for an encyclopedia. That's why admins are refusing to recreate the content for userification or the like, since we would never would be able to use that content (in addition to the questionable way that you brought the article back after AFD1) --MASEM (t) 15:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Masem, You are getting me bogged down in a DRV type debate here, which is not my point. I would like to investigate policy regarding SPLITS, CSDs, G4, N, NSPORTS, etc. I am not here to have a DRV with you. There are policy issues that I need to get a better understanding of. P.S. if the history is restored, you will note that your objection of sentence for each game (I presented postseason highlights game by game) was valid only for the 49KB version. This was not true of the 33KB version, IIRC. Debating with you is not going to teach me what are the WP proprieties of SPLITTING, with is one of the things I would like to investigate. Do you feel that there is nothing for me to learn about policies such as SPLITS, CSDs, G4, N, NSPORTS, etc.?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't want to get involved with this discussion, but I do have to point one thing out, Tony: I don't find your statement that you didn't find the consensus in AFD2 clear to be all that credible. Eleven people explicitly commented against the very concept of this article and two more implied the same. Only two people - one being yourself - spoke in favour of it. The consensus was undeniably clear, and rehashing your arguments here in AN is not likely to result in an overturn. Resolute 16:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Resolute, Are you saying there is nothing for me to learn from this result other than that people were against this high school split?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, I said only that there is no reason why you should be unclear about what the consensus was. The lessons you take from it are a different issue entirely, and I don't believe they require re-userfication of the deleted article to study. Also, I am aware of this discussion and have been since it was started. You don't need to ping me back to it. I will see your replies. Thanks, Resolute 18:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Resolute, Are you saying there is nothing for me to learn from this result other than that people were against this high school split?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Masem and @Resolute, I may have misinterpreted Tony's intentions, but what interested me in his proposal was the discussion of how in depth we should go into biographies. I know of huge articles with forks that go into great depth for BLPs and they are great articles. Charles Darwin was one of the greatest scientists to ever live and his article contains many forks into all aspects of his life. I think it is great, but if all of the articles related to Darwin on Wikipedia were printed and published it would be multiple volumes. There are probably many proponents of creationism and intelligent design who think this is way too much. The interesting argument that Tony made in the most recent AfD was that a reader of Wikipedia should be able to go into as much depth as they want via forks. We do that with Charles Darwin and some others. If the aim of the discussion were to revisit this issue, it might be worthwhile. But, again, I don't know if that was Tony's main intent. I am One of Many (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's not an issue with notability, though; arguably you had plenty of sources to show the high-school career was notable so it wasn't an issue with notability. Instead, as both AFD1 and 2 spelled out, our purpose as an encyclopedia would never for an article on that detailed portion of a person's career, simply because we are to be a summary work, not an extensively detailed one, and singling out a person's high school career like that, despite how well sourced that could be with every GNG-qualifying source in the world in it, doesn't fly for an encyclopedia. That's why admins are refusing to recreate the content for userification or the like, since we would never would be able to use that content (in addition to the questionable way that you brought the article back after AFD1) --MASEM (t) 15:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Masem, I am not here at AN to debate whether an article on this topic is an impossibility. There are certainly numerous WP:SPLITs on wikipedia based on parts of a subject's career. Admittedly, these are rare for basketball players. It is not clear to me that either AFD closed with the consensus you asserted. One might say the AFD1 consensus was that the SPLIT was an unnecessary redundancy of the main that needed to be trimmed itself and AFD2 was a recreation of the detail in the first without judging the detail of the second. You are in fact correct that most of my GA recreations were cases where proper establishment of notability was the issue. It might be the case that I spend time on WP:N and WP:NSPORTS discussing what makes the subject of SPLITs notable enough to stand alone. Thus, this could be a case of learning the proper assertion of notability. You can tell in the DRV and AFD2, that I attempted to present assertion of the SPLIT being notable based on 1.) the fact his high school career was of interest to as many viewers as many NBA All-Star reserves, drawing the number of pageviews as a Rookie of the Year, 2.) subject of a Sports Illustrated cover story, etc. I am not sure that there has really been a consideration of whether the SPLIT was notable because I don't even know what the relevant considerations for choosing a notable partition of a biographical subject. This may be a subject worth learning about. I don't really know where discussions will lead. I would like to be able to pursue them though because I imagine I will become a more productive editor if I can understand these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that the community, twice, has said that our encyclopedia (a summary work) should not have an extensively detailed article about a brief period in a person's career, irregardless of sourcing or notability. We are supposed to be treating works at a 60,000 ft level of understanding, providing just enough detail to allow a reader to get a good idea about the topic, and then let them figure out where to go next to learn more. The fact that you have saved 12 articles from deletion to bring them to GA is good, but it's also part of the problem here - the first thing that most do when they are trying to save content at the cusp of deletion that is find every single possible reference and include them somehow within the article to justify the notability. That's fine when notability is the issue, but it also doesn't show any editorial control that we editors to use in writing articles. I remember blocks of this article, during its second AFD, reading effectively a sentence for each game he played at. That's far far far too detailed. And if this is what resulted after splitting out his high school career from his main bio article, then I can see why admins are extremely cautious in restoring the article. In comparison to all those you've saved, the issue here is not notability, but indiscriminate information and that there's simply no way that a page on a small part of a person's career separate from the person's main bio page can reasonably be justified. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- What types of guidelines do you consider yourself "expert" in? Are there policy/guideline pages that you edit frequently? watch? At this point I have 4 or 5 talk pages in mind for discussion, but haven't been looking that closely at them. I have recreated 12 formerly deleted pages that are now at WP:GA so your point that I have recreated this page needs to be qualified a bit. I am not looking to ram this into article space. From what I can tell (I have not seen the edit history to confirm a declined speedy) at least three admins either reverted their own G4 or declined another editors G4 offer yet a large proportion of the discussants feel like you do that this was just another recreation against consensus. I imagine that there is something to be learned regarding this point. Given that I have 12 GAs that you might call deletion recreations in addition to this case, I want to make sure I understand this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger, I'm guessing you didn't see above where I offered what help I can in reviewing guidelines with you, judging by the fact that you've just pinged me with yet another personal attack. My offer remains open, but please lay off the invective. Ivanvector (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- @BMK I see your point given issues in the past, but I'm struck by his productivity and I wouldn't want to discourage him unless absolutely necessary. I am One of Many (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't care if Parker's high school article exists or not, but I think the consensus so far has been clearly to not have it. Also, as noted in the first AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career, WP:N says that WP:GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." It seems clear that a spinout is judged on per-case basis, not exclusively based on the number of sources available.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Trooli.fi
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unfear revert by https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4ytt%C3%A4j%C3%A4:Pxos in https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Yll%C3%A4pit%C3%A4jien_ilmoitustaulu&oldid=14070712 May I get en.Wiki notice about this. Removing relevant users comment. All involves about this article: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trooli.fi thanks.Jack007 (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's nothing English Wikipedia admins can do on the other language Wikipedia projects the panda ₯’ 23:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well they could go through the process to become an admin on the other language wiki, so saying there's nothing they can do is technically incorrect. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- And they could also blackmail Jimbo Wales and force him to give over all of his user rights, but regardless of outré suggestions, there's nothing that English Wikipedia admins can do as English Wikipedia admins to solve problems on other language Wikipedias.
But you knew that. BMK (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- And they could also blackmail Jimbo Wales and force him to give over all of his user rights, but regardless of outré suggestions, there's nothing that English Wikipedia admins can do as English Wikipedia admins to solve problems on other language Wikipedias.
- Well they could go through the process to become an admin on the other language wiki, so saying there's nothing they can do is technically incorrect. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is agonizing?
Am I the only who's having IMMENSE trouble with Wikipedia at the moment? Pages take minutes to load, and don't load completely, load in cleartext, and other shenanigans. I tried posting on VPT but it won't even load the page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's working fine for me. Faster than I'm used to actually.--Atlan (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- No troubles here in California. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Somehow I managed to get upwards of 40,000 cookies for this website overnight. Cleared them all and it runs fine. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yikes! I blame Cookie Monster. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Somehow I managed to get upwards of 40,000 cookies for this website overnight. Cleared them all and it runs fine. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- No troubles here in California. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- IIRC, there's a gadget that, under certain circumstances, can generate thousands of cookies. You might want to ask around at WP:VP/T. --Carnildo (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Cross-wiki vandalism
Hi admins, I just blocked a slew of editors (socks and maybe meats) on Casablanca. One of them (or one incarnation) is Totoytr, now indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account; they've also messed around on Commons a bit. Maybe someone who's also a Commons admin can have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Commons admins tend to hang out at Commons, so I've left a note at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
article deletion
Hi. I created this article some time ago. I am asking you guys now to delete it. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you think it should be deleted? Since there are other significant editors than you it can not be deleted under speedy deletion criterion WP:G7. GB fan 23:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you created it is not in itself enough of a reason to give you control over whether or not it is deleted. If you think it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia for some concrete reason, you can ask for people to discuss possibly deleting it through WP:AFD, but I can find no reason to delete the article based on what it says. --Jayron32 00:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)