This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Any news on the hand-coding t-shirts, Okeyes? -- Tomtomn00 ( talk • contributions) 15:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It went red.. So was it moved to somewhere else or deleted? Will it be restored? → TheSpecialUser Talk Contributions* 05:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
«We have an extensive browser testing regime I can get you details on if you so desire; we don't support all browsers, no, because we find Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer 3 aren't widely used. We do support all major browsers, and test through a heck of a lot of different versions and OS permutations.» (you at [1]).
«"This Is A Tool Icon" on the with Beacon Hill article» (at [2])
Good to see extensive browser testing works like a charm...
I know, no testing can filter everything, but you also know that and were an arrogant idiot. - Nabla ( talk) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
And if one still needed proof... I happened to come here today... well, I (again) admitted some of my mistakes so, maybe, finally, you would admitted to not being 100% perfect yourself. So, did you? No way! Also I read, bellow that you " have 71 Good Articles, 196 Did You Knows and 20 pieces of featured content." (your quote, my bold, my link). Yes, sir. You are an idiot, an arrogant editor, and a very good example of what is wrong in social interaction within WP. And that gets you a job in WMF?!
My watchlist is now being flooded by your changes on the user talk pages I'm watching, maybe a site note would be better then flooding en Wiki with messages on user talk pages. Bidgee ( talk) 13:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the conversation above is that good. Sorry. Anyway, I didn't receive the thing on my talk page, could you send one? -- Thine Antique Pen ( talk • contributions) 14:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
See email. -- Thine Antique Pen ( talk • contributions) 23:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Wifione Message 16:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Oliver,
You must have used some kind of script or something, because you gave me my AFT5 newsletter thing on a redirect page: diff. I'll fix it, but I just wanted to let you know. :D Jesse V. ( talk) 08:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You made this edit on a redirect page. I assume you were using a bot? In any case, I undid it but you may want to place it on User talk:Deathlasersonline. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Oliver, I noticed that you said that the WMF could open the tool to 10% of the articles? I'm assuming that's still random, but I was wondering if there's a chance that I could request that Folding@home be added to the list. The feedback from the tool would help me improve the article further. It wasn't clear to me from your message when full-scale deployment was going to happen. Jesse V. ( talk) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Why are versions other than the most current of the AFT still active on Wikipedia? Jason Quinn ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm really liking all these user-friendly improvements, but clarification:
I do realize a formal policy for use of the feature is premature, but some clarifications probably need to be made to the supporting pages for now - happy to critique/contribute to said pages if my meddling is welcome :) sonia ( talk) 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As you can see above, Tomtomn00 has changed his name. Please change the address list that generated this edit. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia Page Not Showing Up in Google or Bing Search. – Allen4 names ( IPv6 contributions) 04:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I created Barry Stuppler in my userspace. Articles that get created in the userspace and are later moved to the article space don't get patrolled. That is because the software doesn't list them at Special:NewPages. In general, the better an article that I create is, the more likely it is to be created in my userspace. For example Ole J. Finstad isn't indexed, while Charles W. Gillam is. I think this issue is major enough that the process should be rolled back until a solution can be created. Barry Stuppler should be a did you know in a couple of days, it would be ridiculous for the article to be noindexed. The relevant RFC is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX just for ease of access. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you think about adding some kind of banner/warn on MediaWiki:newpages-summary, which is displayed on top of Special:NewPages? I think this would make people who are not aware of the new Special:NewPagesFeed to notice it easily. Helder 19:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
What's the status on the rollback? Has it occurred yet? Barry Stuppler is still noindexed as are the other articles I mentioned. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I left you a response at BN. I hope this helps. Sorry for not responding sooner. - jc37 16:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I went to Special:NewPagesFeed and decided to sort from the oldest unreviewed articles. I was surprised to find that the first article was Pale of Settlement from 2003. Interestingly, if you view the source for that page, you will find "robots" content="noindex,nofollow". It still appears in a google search, so I don't know if the tag is really doing anything for articles like that. I just thought I'd let you know so you can do with the information what you wish. I didn't click review so you have a chance to view the source if you wish. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Is giberish i.e. hjkhfdsurubvcknchrhyty or all caps, a hideable offense or should it be flagged as abuse? Dan653 ( talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you let me know how I can access and use the new NPF tool? I've been away from Wikipedia for a while but as I will be in the USA next week perhaps I ought to have a look at it. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
You did a headdesk at RfX proposal. You did another headdesk at NPF. I'm worried about your health. Have any headaches, dizziness, nausea or eyesight problems? You should seek help for a concussion. You should also get a padded desk. Boy, I thought WMF big-wigs had a laid-back and easy job. Oooh, you should headdesk one of your minions instead. Bgwhite ( talk) 01:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think that this is incorrect. I believe that "shite" is Hiberno-English, not Anglo-Welsh. Thanks! ⇒ T A P 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there anyway to search for a users feedback? Dan653 ( talk) 19:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I left a note at User talk:Steven (WMF)#Since you appear to know how to do the meta testing... but I thought I'd ping you as well and get your thoughts since I see that you are back. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For answering all of our comments, questions, and proposals on new MediaWiki features with humor. David 1217 What I've done 04:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
AFTv5 is a game changer. This will do tons for keeping editors engaged. Thanks so much for contributing.
Erik Zachte (
talk) 14:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I just granted you the reviewer right. (I presume you'll find it necessary in the tasks you're working on.) If you would like it removed, let me know.
Also, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer has been re-activated, as you can see.
In regards to our discussion of rollbacker, I'll be filing a bugzilla request about this shortly.
Obviously, please feel free to share any thoughts/concerns/questions. - jc37 15:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Bug 38040
|
---|
Recently several additional user-rights were added to the Rollbacker user-group. (See Special:ListGroupRights.) This was done in relation to the poll at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Archive2#Request_for_Comment. (There were apparently 15 total commenters.) I believe that this was of course well-meant. However, the poll in question is by it's nature a "local consensus". To quote: Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others." What was the wider community consensus in this case? Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback - The over-all poll is located at Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll with the very lengthy discussion on several sub-pages and talk pages, including Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback This was (as you can read) a very contentious discussion. And gained consensus specifically because the user-right group only contained one user-right. (Something similar could be said concerning several other single-user-right user groups given out by administrators.) While I firmly believe that consensus can change, I believe that a recent poll of 15 editors should probably not undo one of over 450 editors. In addition, even in this recent poll, it was suggested that the reviewer user group (a package of several user-rights which also "mark edits") be used for this, rather than rollbacker. And it could be suggested that the poll itself was not clear about this (even the nominator appeared to not be sure about this.) I understand being enthusiastic about the upcoming roll-out, but as you can see here Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Granted_local_rights_to_WMF_staff (another well-intended, enthusiastic project - which appears to be taking community concerns very seriously, and is working on resolving the related issues), the community would appear to jealously protect their right to approve such things. And subsequent to this, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer has been re-activated, and people are already requesting the reviewer user-right in preparation for this. So there is also no "need" for rollbacker to have these extra rights, (except the understandable want to have a broader editor base of those who have these rights). So anyway, I'm requesting that these "extra-user-rights" be removed from rollbacker until a clearer (and broader) community discussion may be had. As an aside to this issue, autoconfirmed and rollbacker were given:
However, reviewer was not. This appears to be an oversight, rather than intentional. So I would also ask that this be fixed and assigned to reviewer. Thank you for your time, jc37 |
I hope this helps. -
jc37 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed rationale :).
So, there seem to be two sort of spheres of debate here. The first is whether or not there was consensus and if so, whether it overrules the other (older) decision. the admin who closed the discussion certainly felt there was consensus; he actually stated that "With a few exceptions, everyone seemed reasonably satisfied with letting users with some permissions below administrator hide feedback....There is a strong consensus for that group to be rollbackers", so this is the part of the RfC with the strongest support. The participants in the RfC also seemed satisfied with the outcome, and clearly felt it was a valid conversation to be having or they wouldn't have participated :). So really it comes down to "can consensus from this group of people overrule an older decision".
My opinion? It can. The example used in the "wider consensus" principle is wikiprojects, deciding that notability policies don't apply to them. This speaks volumes to me; it doesn't say that you can't alter consensus unless you have more participants than in the discussion that set it (this would be silly; if I fail RfA with 200 participants and then pass with 130, is it invalid? Have I not proved consensus wrong?), merely that it is inappropriate to claim consensus from a discussion or body that contains very limited groups of editors. You can't have a wikiproject throw out the notability policy, because it's a conversation the wider community should be having, not just those interested in (say) subterranean basket-weaving :P.
This isn't to say small or limited groups of the community can't set policy or decide consensus (AfD is proof of this), merely that when the wider community has spoken on a subject, it should be the wider community that later speaks up and says "we've changed our mind". It's about wideness of participation across demographic lines, not just numbers. And that's what this RfC had; participation across demographic lines. I see admins, non-admins, even an ex-arbitrator participating, many of whom hadn't previously been involved in the conversation, in a decision that was advertised as widely as possible through newsletters, portals and as an RfC. That's a wider consensus.
Now. We could still apply the older RfC (on rollbacker) in 2008, but it was a completely different time, and the actual support for the implicit argument that rollbackers shouldn't have other abilities is unclear; there was no closing statement by the administrators who concluded there was consensus to say "and this is what people's motivations seemed to be". In a way, that's indicative of the issue with applying that RfC - it comes from a different time, different circumstances, with different community conventions.
The effort administrators put into the Pending Changes RfC close only a few weeks ago shows that software changes and the duties of admins when deciding consensus in relation to them is treated very differently these days. I don't think it particularly helpful to apply a decision that is old, unclear and (at best) implicit, and policy would seem to agree; "consensus can change" says quite clearly that "matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before" (italics mine).
That's what we've got here; new arguments and circumstances. That RfC is from 2008, was clearly closed under very different circumstances from those that would be considered conventional today, and since it was passed a lot of things have changed. AFT5 didn't exist back then, and neither did anything entirely analogous to it, so it wasn't a tool that users would have been able to consider. The demographics of the community were certainly different (we wouldn't be working on the editor engagement projects if they'd remained the same!) and, all in all, we're dealing with a completely different place. I appreciate and am grateful that both of us are, in our own way, attempting to protect the right of the community to have a voice in software decisions, but for the reasons outlined above, I'm going to have to ask the developers to deny this request.
If you feel strongly enough about this to want this changed, there's only one requirement - hold a new Request for Comment. If you open up a new discussion over whether or not these rights should be included in the rollbacker usergroup, and it concludes that they shouldn't, I'll abide by it and ask my managers to do the same...subject to technical requirements or limitations I'm too much of a dumbass to understand :P. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 02:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Time (being the healer of all things) has gone by.
I have a question. My presumption in the above (why I felt it foolish for me to argue with you) is that this is applying to the decision. Am I mistaken? - jc37 00:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Why have you been reverting my recommended guidelines for monitors? I was being bold, and maybe you should assume good faith. This has helped somebody who was confused about AFT5. Now what the heck does feature spam have to do with my tips? I was simply sharing good advice. I hope you understand a bit more about what I was doing now, and you should really assume good faith, because I can't assume you're doing anything to my contribs but destroying them. -- J (t) 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, sir. I have two stories.
Short story: It would be easier for me to respond to a user without featuring or hiding a comment, so that there is a sense of two-way communication. Sounds like a forum, but it's seriously easier, because I don't like posting on people's talk pages. -- J (t) 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Long story: I regularly maintain Temple Run, and when I saw it had AFT5 enabled on it, I was real happy. What made me real upset was that there were anonymous users complaining about Wikipedia's lack of piracy links, one stating they couldn't find the release date (which is right on the infobox). Now, since I wrote the book about hiding comments, I couldn't really hide that comment (or else risk being called a hypocrite) and I'd be forced to write on their talk page that the release date was August 5, 2011 for iOS and March 27, 2012 for Android. This is really, really annoying. If AFT5 included a feature to respond to users (instead of just thumbing down responses), it would be 100 times more helpful than the current version. AFT5 replaced the starring system with words, so why can't responses be words too?
Thank you. Also, apologies about my anger about the guidelines I put up. I saw your response and it no longer makes me think you were a WMF contractor with no experience with WP policy. -- J (t) 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Luke (Talk) 02:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I just noticed Wikipedia:New Pages Feed. Is there a similar feed for recent changes with review function (independent of "pending changes"?). -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys
Sorry for the delay; I'm just on my way home from Wikimania now :). I should land in London at about 9am BST Tuesday, and be home to Cardiff before the US west coast wakes up (albeit only just). Once that happens, I'm going to work through the discussion backlog and start forwarding things to the relevant staffers as fast as possible :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if you know this, but some of the messages you left used PAGENAME when BASEPAGENAME might work better (or just using subst:PAGENAME). I found this out when archiving my talk page and noticing this. The edit I noticed that used BASEPAGENAME was this one. Though I now feel guilty I didn't take part in that survey! Carcharoth ( talk) 04:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
So, I think this issue should be considered when we reinstate the noindexing of unpatrolled pages. It seems to affect their google search rankings, which I believe to be one of Wikipedia's biggest assets. Do a google search for Barry Stuppler, instead of the top 3, he appears at the bottom of the search. I did notice that the source for my page shows noindex, but does not also say nofollow. Could we modify it so that the pages had "noindex, follow" rather than "noindex, nofollow" and would that solve the problem? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Oliver, hope you aren't entirely jetlagged. Is it possible to add AFT5 to individual articles? I wanted to see what people think of South American dreadnought race. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Okeyes, per the dicussion on WT:AFT5 a couple of us have written user warnings, would you be able to take a look and let us know what you think and what we need to do next (ie is there anything official you need to do; do we need to talk to WikiProject User Warnings, etc). The warning templates we've come up with are at User:Callanecc/sandbox/AFT5 (the associated talk page has some stuff as well). Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you know if there are any plans to create a system where editors can be notified of feedback to watched pages? I would love to read the feedback if it exists, but don't have time to go through all of the articles. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
So, I haven't issued a warning or anything along that line, because I really don't know how to deal with this. Jeffwang left feedback for Justin Bieber here and featured his own post. I'm sure that is unacceptable and unfeatured it, especially since it was soapboxing and an issue better left for the talk page. Any thoughts or am I in the wrong here? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Oliver, I know there was a discussion about this on WT:AFT5 so I thought I'd leave a comment here. I found a blank piece of feedback which had been marked as helpful by the tool. See Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Pacific Islands Forum/169739. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It’s dangerous to go alone! Take this!
heather walls (
talk) 05:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thanks for helping with my issue over at WP:AFT5. Your help is greatly appreciated. -- Luke (Talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
I've seen a few posts of random characters today. Should I hide them? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC).
Hey dude, sorry to keep bothering you with this (I don't know who else to go to). That merch still hasn't arrived, months down the line. If you prefer I can speak to you on Skype (not right now). I've not even had an email from the merch team. Cheers, Osarius Talk 23:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
;) Osarius Talk 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Puffin Let's talk! 13:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Is there a way of filtering out (un)registered users' feedback? And what about leaving a note to registered users once their feedback has been resolved? ツ benzband ( talk) 09:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I have absolutely no recollection at all of having seen you around anywhere in the conference venue. I do know that several people mentioned to you on my behalf that I was looking forward to meeting you. I was at the GWU including the hackathons and the unconference from 09:00 to at 18:30 every day. Most of the time in the Ballroom or the food room as I felt that personal contact was a higher priority than attending a lot of presentations. FWIW, travelling to DC and back from Thailand via NYC both ways, and the accommodation, was also no joke, and not entirely inexpensive. I call that commitment. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you given any thought to creating an option in the new pages feed for articles to appear only if they are x minutes old? This could help with any biting issues. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Oliver! How do you refresh Special: ArticleFeedbackv5 to show the latest feedback? Thanks, Electric Catfish 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
Hi!
I saw this coment and though you might be interested on this tool: CatWatch. Best regards, Helder 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw your discussion with Kudpung here. Re. the Wikipedia user interface, I have a few brief suggestions for simple and easy-to-implement improvements. Would you be interested in seeing a summary?
For example, Wikipedia's search defaults have long since been abandoned by Google—Google seems to have concluded that it's more productive to offer users a choice of search results (title plus snippet) rather than forcing a jump to a keyword match or article title.
Although it would be easy to offer (as an option) guidance to new users— like incrementally improved landing pages for people who don't find a match in search, and are told that they can create an article, or people who click on a red link—Wikipedia editors seem fatalistic about trying to get this implemented, and maybe people on WikiMedia are not interested in testing usability or using web analytics and A/B tests. LittleBen ( talk) 05:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Any news on the hand-coding t-shirts, Okeyes? -- Tomtomn00 ( talk • contributions) 15:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It went red.. So was it moved to somewhere else or deleted? Will it be restored? → TheSpecialUser Talk Contributions* 05:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
«We have an extensive browser testing regime I can get you details on if you so desire; we don't support all browsers, no, because we find Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer 3 aren't widely used. We do support all major browsers, and test through a heck of a lot of different versions and OS permutations.» (you at [1]).
«"This Is A Tool Icon" on the with Beacon Hill article» (at [2])
Good to see extensive browser testing works like a charm...
I know, no testing can filter everything, but you also know that and were an arrogant idiot. - Nabla ( talk) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
And if one still needed proof... I happened to come here today... well, I (again) admitted some of my mistakes so, maybe, finally, you would admitted to not being 100% perfect yourself. So, did you? No way! Also I read, bellow that you " have 71 Good Articles, 196 Did You Knows and 20 pieces of featured content." (your quote, my bold, my link). Yes, sir. You are an idiot, an arrogant editor, and a very good example of what is wrong in social interaction within WP. And that gets you a job in WMF?!
My watchlist is now being flooded by your changes on the user talk pages I'm watching, maybe a site note would be better then flooding en Wiki with messages on user talk pages. Bidgee ( talk) 13:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the conversation above is that good. Sorry. Anyway, I didn't receive the thing on my talk page, could you send one? -- Thine Antique Pen ( talk • contributions) 14:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
See email. -- Thine Antique Pen ( talk • contributions) 23:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Wifione Message 16:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Oliver,
You must have used some kind of script or something, because you gave me my AFT5 newsletter thing on a redirect page: diff. I'll fix it, but I just wanted to let you know. :D Jesse V. ( talk) 08:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You made this edit on a redirect page. I assume you were using a bot? In any case, I undid it but you may want to place it on User talk:Deathlasersonline. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Oliver, I noticed that you said that the WMF could open the tool to 10% of the articles? I'm assuming that's still random, but I was wondering if there's a chance that I could request that Folding@home be added to the list. The feedback from the tool would help me improve the article further. It wasn't clear to me from your message when full-scale deployment was going to happen. Jesse V. ( talk) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Why are versions other than the most current of the AFT still active on Wikipedia? Jason Quinn ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm really liking all these user-friendly improvements, but clarification:
I do realize a formal policy for use of the feature is premature, but some clarifications probably need to be made to the supporting pages for now - happy to critique/contribute to said pages if my meddling is welcome :) sonia ( talk) 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As you can see above, Tomtomn00 has changed his name. Please change the address list that generated this edit. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia Page Not Showing Up in Google or Bing Search. – Allen4 names ( IPv6 contributions) 04:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I created Barry Stuppler in my userspace. Articles that get created in the userspace and are later moved to the article space don't get patrolled. That is because the software doesn't list them at Special:NewPages. In general, the better an article that I create is, the more likely it is to be created in my userspace. For example Ole J. Finstad isn't indexed, while Charles W. Gillam is. I think this issue is major enough that the process should be rolled back until a solution can be created. Barry Stuppler should be a did you know in a couple of days, it would be ridiculous for the article to be noindexed. The relevant RFC is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX just for ease of access. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you think about adding some kind of banner/warn on MediaWiki:newpages-summary, which is displayed on top of Special:NewPages? I think this would make people who are not aware of the new Special:NewPagesFeed to notice it easily. Helder 19:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
What's the status on the rollback? Has it occurred yet? Barry Stuppler is still noindexed as are the other articles I mentioned. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I left you a response at BN. I hope this helps. Sorry for not responding sooner. - jc37 16:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I went to Special:NewPagesFeed and decided to sort from the oldest unreviewed articles. I was surprised to find that the first article was Pale of Settlement from 2003. Interestingly, if you view the source for that page, you will find "robots" content="noindex,nofollow". It still appears in a google search, so I don't know if the tag is really doing anything for articles like that. I just thought I'd let you know so you can do with the information what you wish. I didn't click review so you have a chance to view the source if you wish. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Is giberish i.e. hjkhfdsurubvcknchrhyty or all caps, a hideable offense or should it be flagged as abuse? Dan653 ( talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you let me know how I can access and use the new NPF tool? I've been away from Wikipedia for a while but as I will be in the USA next week perhaps I ought to have a look at it. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
You did a headdesk at RfX proposal. You did another headdesk at NPF. I'm worried about your health. Have any headaches, dizziness, nausea or eyesight problems? You should seek help for a concussion. You should also get a padded desk. Boy, I thought WMF big-wigs had a laid-back and easy job. Oooh, you should headdesk one of your minions instead. Bgwhite ( talk) 01:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think that this is incorrect. I believe that "shite" is Hiberno-English, not Anglo-Welsh. Thanks! ⇒ T A P 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there anyway to search for a users feedback? Dan653 ( talk) 19:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I left a note at User talk:Steven (WMF)#Since you appear to know how to do the meta testing... but I thought I'd ping you as well and get your thoughts since I see that you are back. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For answering all of our comments, questions, and proposals on new MediaWiki features with humor. David 1217 What I've done 04:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
AFTv5 is a game changer. This will do tons for keeping editors engaged. Thanks so much for contributing.
Erik Zachte (
talk) 14:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I just granted you the reviewer right. (I presume you'll find it necessary in the tasks you're working on.) If you would like it removed, let me know.
Also, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer has been re-activated, as you can see.
In regards to our discussion of rollbacker, I'll be filing a bugzilla request about this shortly.
Obviously, please feel free to share any thoughts/concerns/questions. - jc37 15:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Bug 38040
|
---|
Recently several additional user-rights were added to the Rollbacker user-group. (See Special:ListGroupRights.) This was done in relation to the poll at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Archive2#Request_for_Comment. (There were apparently 15 total commenters.) I believe that this was of course well-meant. However, the poll in question is by it's nature a "local consensus". To quote: Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others." What was the wider community consensus in this case? Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback - The over-all poll is located at Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll with the very lengthy discussion on several sub-pages and talk pages, including Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback This was (as you can read) a very contentious discussion. And gained consensus specifically because the user-right group only contained one user-right. (Something similar could be said concerning several other single-user-right user groups given out by administrators.) While I firmly believe that consensus can change, I believe that a recent poll of 15 editors should probably not undo one of over 450 editors. In addition, even in this recent poll, it was suggested that the reviewer user group (a package of several user-rights which also "mark edits") be used for this, rather than rollbacker. And it could be suggested that the poll itself was not clear about this (even the nominator appeared to not be sure about this.) I understand being enthusiastic about the upcoming roll-out, but as you can see here Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Granted_local_rights_to_WMF_staff (another well-intended, enthusiastic project - which appears to be taking community concerns very seriously, and is working on resolving the related issues), the community would appear to jealously protect their right to approve such things. And subsequent to this, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer has been re-activated, and people are already requesting the reviewer user-right in preparation for this. So there is also no "need" for rollbacker to have these extra rights, (except the understandable want to have a broader editor base of those who have these rights). So anyway, I'm requesting that these "extra-user-rights" be removed from rollbacker until a clearer (and broader) community discussion may be had. As an aside to this issue, autoconfirmed and rollbacker were given:
However, reviewer was not. This appears to be an oversight, rather than intentional. So I would also ask that this be fixed and assigned to reviewer. Thank you for your time, jc37 |
I hope this helps. -
jc37 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed rationale :).
So, there seem to be two sort of spheres of debate here. The first is whether or not there was consensus and if so, whether it overrules the other (older) decision. the admin who closed the discussion certainly felt there was consensus; he actually stated that "With a few exceptions, everyone seemed reasonably satisfied with letting users with some permissions below administrator hide feedback....There is a strong consensus for that group to be rollbackers", so this is the part of the RfC with the strongest support. The participants in the RfC also seemed satisfied with the outcome, and clearly felt it was a valid conversation to be having or they wouldn't have participated :). So really it comes down to "can consensus from this group of people overrule an older decision".
My opinion? It can. The example used in the "wider consensus" principle is wikiprojects, deciding that notability policies don't apply to them. This speaks volumes to me; it doesn't say that you can't alter consensus unless you have more participants than in the discussion that set it (this would be silly; if I fail RfA with 200 participants and then pass with 130, is it invalid? Have I not proved consensus wrong?), merely that it is inappropriate to claim consensus from a discussion or body that contains very limited groups of editors. You can't have a wikiproject throw out the notability policy, because it's a conversation the wider community should be having, not just those interested in (say) subterranean basket-weaving :P.
This isn't to say small or limited groups of the community can't set policy or decide consensus (AfD is proof of this), merely that when the wider community has spoken on a subject, it should be the wider community that later speaks up and says "we've changed our mind". It's about wideness of participation across demographic lines, not just numbers. And that's what this RfC had; participation across demographic lines. I see admins, non-admins, even an ex-arbitrator participating, many of whom hadn't previously been involved in the conversation, in a decision that was advertised as widely as possible through newsletters, portals and as an RfC. That's a wider consensus.
Now. We could still apply the older RfC (on rollbacker) in 2008, but it was a completely different time, and the actual support for the implicit argument that rollbackers shouldn't have other abilities is unclear; there was no closing statement by the administrators who concluded there was consensus to say "and this is what people's motivations seemed to be". In a way, that's indicative of the issue with applying that RfC - it comes from a different time, different circumstances, with different community conventions.
The effort administrators put into the Pending Changes RfC close only a few weeks ago shows that software changes and the duties of admins when deciding consensus in relation to them is treated very differently these days. I don't think it particularly helpful to apply a decision that is old, unclear and (at best) implicit, and policy would seem to agree; "consensus can change" says quite clearly that "matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before" (italics mine).
That's what we've got here; new arguments and circumstances. That RfC is from 2008, was clearly closed under very different circumstances from those that would be considered conventional today, and since it was passed a lot of things have changed. AFT5 didn't exist back then, and neither did anything entirely analogous to it, so it wasn't a tool that users would have been able to consider. The demographics of the community were certainly different (we wouldn't be working on the editor engagement projects if they'd remained the same!) and, all in all, we're dealing with a completely different place. I appreciate and am grateful that both of us are, in our own way, attempting to protect the right of the community to have a voice in software decisions, but for the reasons outlined above, I'm going to have to ask the developers to deny this request.
If you feel strongly enough about this to want this changed, there's only one requirement - hold a new Request for Comment. If you open up a new discussion over whether or not these rights should be included in the rollbacker usergroup, and it concludes that they shouldn't, I'll abide by it and ask my managers to do the same...subject to technical requirements or limitations I'm too much of a dumbass to understand :P. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 02:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Time (being the healer of all things) has gone by.
I have a question. My presumption in the above (why I felt it foolish for me to argue with you) is that this is applying to the decision. Am I mistaken? - jc37 00:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Why have you been reverting my recommended guidelines for monitors? I was being bold, and maybe you should assume good faith. This has helped somebody who was confused about AFT5. Now what the heck does feature spam have to do with my tips? I was simply sharing good advice. I hope you understand a bit more about what I was doing now, and you should really assume good faith, because I can't assume you're doing anything to my contribs but destroying them. -- J (t) 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, sir. I have two stories.
Short story: It would be easier for me to respond to a user without featuring or hiding a comment, so that there is a sense of two-way communication. Sounds like a forum, but it's seriously easier, because I don't like posting on people's talk pages. -- J (t) 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Long story: I regularly maintain Temple Run, and when I saw it had AFT5 enabled on it, I was real happy. What made me real upset was that there were anonymous users complaining about Wikipedia's lack of piracy links, one stating they couldn't find the release date (which is right on the infobox). Now, since I wrote the book about hiding comments, I couldn't really hide that comment (or else risk being called a hypocrite) and I'd be forced to write on their talk page that the release date was August 5, 2011 for iOS and March 27, 2012 for Android. This is really, really annoying. If AFT5 included a feature to respond to users (instead of just thumbing down responses), it would be 100 times more helpful than the current version. AFT5 replaced the starring system with words, so why can't responses be words too?
Thank you. Also, apologies about my anger about the guidelines I put up. I saw your response and it no longer makes me think you were a WMF contractor with no experience with WP policy. -- J (t) 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Luke (Talk) 02:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I just noticed Wikipedia:New Pages Feed. Is there a similar feed for recent changes with review function (independent of "pending changes"?). -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys
Sorry for the delay; I'm just on my way home from Wikimania now :). I should land in London at about 9am BST Tuesday, and be home to Cardiff before the US west coast wakes up (albeit only just). Once that happens, I'm going to work through the discussion backlog and start forwarding things to the relevant staffers as fast as possible :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if you know this, but some of the messages you left used PAGENAME when BASEPAGENAME might work better (or just using subst:PAGENAME). I found this out when archiving my talk page and noticing this. The edit I noticed that used BASEPAGENAME was this one. Though I now feel guilty I didn't take part in that survey! Carcharoth ( talk) 04:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
So, I think this issue should be considered when we reinstate the noindexing of unpatrolled pages. It seems to affect their google search rankings, which I believe to be one of Wikipedia's biggest assets. Do a google search for Barry Stuppler, instead of the top 3, he appears at the bottom of the search. I did notice that the source for my page shows noindex, but does not also say nofollow. Could we modify it so that the pages had "noindex, follow" rather than "noindex, nofollow" and would that solve the problem? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Oliver, hope you aren't entirely jetlagged. Is it possible to add AFT5 to individual articles? I wanted to see what people think of South American dreadnought race. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Okeyes, per the dicussion on WT:AFT5 a couple of us have written user warnings, would you be able to take a look and let us know what you think and what we need to do next (ie is there anything official you need to do; do we need to talk to WikiProject User Warnings, etc). The warning templates we've come up with are at User:Callanecc/sandbox/AFT5 (the associated talk page has some stuff as well). Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you know if there are any plans to create a system where editors can be notified of feedback to watched pages? I would love to read the feedback if it exists, but don't have time to go through all of the articles. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
So, I haven't issued a warning or anything along that line, because I really don't know how to deal with this. Jeffwang left feedback for Justin Bieber here and featured his own post. I'm sure that is unacceptable and unfeatured it, especially since it was soapboxing and an issue better left for the talk page. Any thoughts or am I in the wrong here? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Oliver, I know there was a discussion about this on WT:AFT5 so I thought I'd leave a comment here. I found a blank piece of feedback which had been marked as helpful by the tool. See Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Pacific Islands Forum/169739. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It’s dangerous to go alone! Take this!
heather walls (
talk) 05:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thanks for helping with my issue over at WP:AFT5. Your help is greatly appreciated. -- Luke (Talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
I've seen a few posts of random characters today. Should I hide them? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC).
Hey dude, sorry to keep bothering you with this (I don't know who else to go to). That merch still hasn't arrived, months down the line. If you prefer I can speak to you on Skype (not right now). I've not even had an email from the merch team. Cheers, Osarius Talk 23:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
;) Osarius Talk 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Puffin Let's talk! 13:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Is there a way of filtering out (un)registered users' feedback? And what about leaving a note to registered users once their feedback has been resolved? ツ benzband ( talk) 09:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I have absolutely no recollection at all of having seen you around anywhere in the conference venue. I do know that several people mentioned to you on my behalf that I was looking forward to meeting you. I was at the GWU including the hackathons and the unconference from 09:00 to at 18:30 every day. Most of the time in the Ballroom or the food room as I felt that personal contact was a higher priority than attending a lot of presentations. FWIW, travelling to DC and back from Thailand via NYC both ways, and the accommodation, was also no joke, and not entirely inexpensive. I call that commitment. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you given any thought to creating an option in the new pages feed for articles to appear only if they are x minutes old? This could help with any biting issues. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Oliver! How do you refresh Special: ArticleFeedbackv5 to show the latest feedback? Thanks, Electric Catfish 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
Hi!
I saw this coment and though you might be interested on this tool: CatWatch. Best regards, Helder 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw your discussion with Kudpung here. Re. the Wikipedia user interface, I have a few brief suggestions for simple and easy-to-implement improvements. Would you be interested in seeing a summary?
For example, Wikipedia's search defaults have long since been abandoned by Google—Google seems to have concluded that it's more productive to offer users a choice of search results (title plus snippet) rather than forcing a jump to a keyword match or article title.
Although it would be easy to offer (as an option) guidance to new users— like incrementally improved landing pages for people who don't find a match in search, and are told that they can create an article, or people who click on a red link—Wikipedia editors seem fatalistic about trying to get this implemented, and maybe people on WikiMedia are not interested in testing usability or using web analytics and A/B tests. LittleBen ( talk) 05:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)