Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/To do

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NPP HomeAfC HomeReform listCurationCuration help (video)Page feedTemplatesReviewers


Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/To do Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Work group Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Work group list
Main page To do Work group Work group list

Priorities

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

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

Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements.

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

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

NOTE: 'No.8 No Index until patrolled was rolled out on Thursday and is operational. If you come across any bug, please report them.

Please choose another item for your list.

Kudpung:

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

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

Jim Carter: No Index until patrolled.

  1. 9. Pages moved to mainspace from other namespaces
  2. 7. Recreation
  3. 19. Patrolling the patrollers
  4. 21. Granular CSD
  5. 16. Decline CSD
  6. 3. Feed symbols
  7. 9 Pagemoves
  8. 15. Jumpback
  9. 3. Feed symbols
  10. 6. Welcome messages.

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

Jbhunley:

  1. 19 Patrolling the Patrollers
  2. 7 Recreations
  3. 22 Adding stub tags and categories
  4. 21 More Granular CSD + Multiple per DGG
  5. 23 Notability criteria This seems to have been done. 6 Welcome message
  6. 3 Feed symbols
  7. 12 User filters: Articles tagged for deletion
  8. 16 Decline CSD
  9. 9 Pagemoves
  10. 15 Jumpback

-- JbhTalk 15:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 05:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG

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

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

ONUnicorn:

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

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter:

  1. 2. Redirects
  2. 6. Welcome message
  3. 7. Recreations
  4. 19. Patroling the patrolers
  5. 27. Tag for hist merge

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

DatGuy:

  1. 2. Redirects
  2. 5. Very short article
  3. 21. More granular CSD A7 criteria as per Twinkle
  4. 6. Welcome message
  5. 14. wikiprojects
  6. 17. Tag bombing with some minor revisions
  7. 19. Patrolling the patrollers
  8. 24. Tool for moving to draftspace

--Dat GuyTalkContribs 05:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67:

  1. 9. Pages moved to mainspace from other namespaces
  2. 24. Tool for moving to draftspace
  3. 21. More granular CSD A7 criteria as per Twinkle
  4. 2. Redirects
  5. 7. Recreations
  6. 10. Articles by previously warned editors
  7. 16. Decline CSD
  8. 23. Notability criteria
  9. 27 Tag for hist merge
  10. 5. Very short article

-- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of horses:

  1. 19. Patrolling the patrollers
  2. 7. Recreations
  3. 12. Articles tagged for deletion
  4. 10. Articles by previously warned editors
  5. 16. Declining CSD tags
  6. 14. Wikiprojects
  7. 11. Patrolled by twinkle
  8. 2. Redirects
  9. 5. Very short article
  10. 6. Welcome message

-- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 23:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FoCuSandLeArN: I honestly can't even choose a top 20 from the list of tools; they'd all be terrific additions! My most urgent concert would have to be "No Index until patrolled" - although I gather this is already being addressed. I would support any priorities list that's agreed upon at this venue and set forth as a lobbying recourse. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13:

  1. 9. Pages moved to mainspace from other namespaces
  2. 7. Recreations
  3. 20. Build autopatrol nomination into the tool
  4. 16. Decline CSD
  5. 6. Welcome message
  6. 10. Articles by previously warned editors
  7. 29. Filter by experienced editor
  8. 4. Notifications: new icon
  9. 19. Patrolling the patrolers
  10. 15. Jumpback

~ Rob13Talk 14:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jcc:

  1. 6. Welcome message
  2. 10. Articles by previously warned editors
  3. 20. Build autopatrol nomination into the tool
  4. 5. Very short article
  5. 11. Patrolled by Twinkle
  6. 19. Patrolling the patrolers
  7. 7. Recreations

~ jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi24517:

  1. 11. Patrolled by Twinkle
  2. 19. Patrolling the patrollers
  3. 6 Welcome message
  4. 16 Declining CSD tags
  5. 7 Recreations
  6. 5 Very short article
  7. 14 Wikiprojects
  8. 2 Redirects
  9. 10 Articles by previously warned editors.
  10. 22 Adding stub tags

Yoshi24517Chat Online 02:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esquivalience

  1. 19. Patrolling the patrollers
  2. 20. Build autopatrol nomination into the tool
  3. 28. Special:NewPagesFeed
  4. 4. Notifications: new icon
  5. 5. Very short article

Esquivalience (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note about patrolling the patrollers

MusikAnimal and Samtar have created a tool that can be seen here. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...That is not working as intended. It is showing the Patrol log, not the Page Curation log. The Patrol log description is erroneous when it says, "Only newly created pages can be marked as patrolled. This is done via a link at the bottom of the new page." The pages that come up in the patrol log include pages under pending changes protection. Looking at the results for me, virtually none of the new page patrolling I have done is reflected in that; only the pending changes reviewing. The new page patrolling shows up in the page curation log. That said, if I do use the [Mark this page as patrolled] link at the bottom rather than the page curation toolbar, that shows up in the patrol log. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there is less information in the tool than if you simply pull up a user's curation log. Patrolling the patrollers means, to me, to be able to look at outcomes over time. CSD, PROD, AFD tagged and whether declined. Whether others added more tags or changed tags. Articles that were reviewed but later deleted and why ie it is more OK for a reviewed article tagged for notability to be later deleted than for one to be deleted as a copyvio or attack page. JbhTalk 21:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what's been said above. Also, for autopatrolled people like myself, the list pretty much shows all the articles I've created. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it really matters because after the nd ofthis month users who are not in the Page Reviewer group will not be able to click on the 'mark this page as reviewed/patrolled'. Anyone not using patrolling pages through a recognise channel already, wont get the newsletter so they'll be left wondering what's happened.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACTRIAL

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

Place a request at Phabricator without any further ado

  • Support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. JbhTalk 22:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited 05:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support, hoping that the second shot works. — Esquivalience (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Worth asking for, but don't expect anything. MER-C 05:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We should also inform the WMF that this will be implemented via the abuse filter if they fail to act. The WMF doesn't want another publicized clash with editors, and we don't want a hack-y fix. If it's clear this is happening no matter what, maybe they'll act. ~ Rob13Talk 07:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – this needs to get done, and I'd prefer a permanent "fix" rather than an edit filer (though that'd be my backup). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a waste of time, I don't see the WMF doing this. BethNaught (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Neutral Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The less we need to depend on the WMF the better. We can run it for 6 months and if it works then either leave it in place or, if the filter causes too much load, ask the WMF to make something. JbhTalk 22:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also support other any potintially better methods than the abuse filter per Esquivalience. My main point is that it should be implemented by en.wp rather than dealing with WMF. JbhTalk 03:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Using JavaScript or the title blacklist would inform newcomers immediately rather than after the fact. Otherwise, iff Phabricator doesn't work, then we do this Plan B. — Esquivalience (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using JavaScript. The abuse filter is a suboptimal solution for the reason mentioned above. We should avoid dealing with the WMF, they have a proven track record of naive idealism and a very poor awareness of the situation on the front lines. MER-C 05:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if the WMF remains obstructionist to the wishes of the community. ~ Rob13Talk 07:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – as above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support, most likely as a temporary tide-slower before the phab fix is implemented. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title blacklist would be my preferred initial solution. BethNaught (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Oppose Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- the RfC should also be on doing it via the abuse filter method, though I have absolutely no clue as to the technical intricacies required for this to happen. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jcc: I'm two months late, but technically-speaking, this is very simple. Check if a user is autoconfirmed. If no, check if the old size (which is a variable available for edit filters) is zero. If yes, disallow. Otherwise, no action. We can choose what to show the editors as far as the warning goes when their edit is disallowed, so we can direct them to the Article Wizard. We might have to do a little playing around with the Article Wizard so they don't just try to go back to creating a mainspace article again. ~ Rob13Talk 21:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We already had an RfC. JbhTalk 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, especially with the obsession with watchlist notices, prompting more trolls to crash the RfC. — Esquivalience (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and which sadly is indeed so true. We've certainly seen it at RfA since the Good Faith changes were made in January, and on most other serious RfCs since. The original RfC was one of the largest in Wikipedia history and had an overwhelming consensus. I don't think such a consensus would change, particularly if all the 500+ participants were (quite legally) canvassed. Even some members of the WMF staff are now very discretely intimidating that the former employee(s) who so offensively rejected it were wrong. Unfortunately our civility policy does not extend to external orojects such as Bugzilla or Phabricator. The fact that the WMF already changed its so called (nowhere documented) founding principle in 2005 in order to restrict article creation to registered users demonstrates that the project is organinc and as needs arise can indeed be changed again. Even DGG who originally opposed ACTRIAL, is beginning to believe we now have no options but to implement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not support ACTRIAL, partly because the requirements are too minimal to do much good and partly because of the negative effect on editathons, , though I probably won't make an effort to improve it. I do support having all new editors diverted to Draft space, and ia don't se how this can be done without the WMF. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, this is what ACTRIAL proposed, all creations by new users to be channeled thru the Article Wizard. Even the modifications to templates, the Wizard, and the user interface had been prepared. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A full RFC isn't necessary, just an informal check. This has enough drama potential such that whoever implements this should be prepared to go to arbitration. MER-C 05:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting observation MER-C but as I understand it, the committee has no official mandate to interpret, invent, or implement any jurisdiction on community opinions or events that may conflict with Foundation opinion that is not anchored in policy. Similar restrictions on article creation rights have already been implemented by the Foundation itself, thus proving that Wikipedia is organic and that new measures can be introduced as and when they become necessary (this is not to be confused with the introduction of unnecessary bureaucracy). Thoughts?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly agree with Kudpung here. It would be an egregious overstep of the boundaries of the arbitration policy if ArbCom interfered with this sort of thing when the community has already held a large RfC and shown consensus for it. An informal check of consensus to ensure the WMF has as little ground to stand on as possible if/when they decide to start a pissing match may be a good idea, but I don't think we should be concerned about arbitration in the least. ~ Rob13Talk 21:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – I don't think it's necessary, though a new RfC with 500+ "support" votes might catch the WMF's attention that this issue never died. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unlikely to go anywhere. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I appreciate the frustration of NPPers, a 5½-year old consensus on such a controversial issue is stale. BethNaught (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC/To_do"