Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 62

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (idea lab) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (idea lab). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62

Can we consider EC level pending changes?

This is just an idea, and I want to workshop this a bit more, but I think it would be helpful to have pending changes at the extended confirmed level. This could be called "PC2" again (not to be confused with the original PC2) or "PCECP". The idea would be to help enforce WP:ARBECR and similar restrictions where non-extended confirmed users are prohibited from certain topic areas. Under this level, edits by non-extended-confirmed editors would be held for review, while extended confirmed users can approve these edits and thus take responsibility under WP:PROXYING.

I think it would be helpful for pages where (1) parts of the article intersect with a contentious topic, or (2) the article in its entirety intersects with a contentious topic, but not edited frequently. Awesome Aasim 16:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems like it could be useful. It would have to be restricted to infrequently edited pages (likely excluding all current events articles) so as not to overwhelm Pending Changes every time Reuters publishes a new story or an edit war erupts. The big question is: what problem are you trying to solve? Toadspike [Talk] 20:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

There are some contentious topics designated either by ArbCom or the community where only extended confirmed users are allowed to participate. However, admins refuse to protect pages where there isn't enough disruption to justify protection. Although, it should be considered that the XCON restriction applies regardless of whether a page is protected or not.

What PCECP would do is essentially remove fears that there "isn't enough disruption to justify protection" while buffering all non-extended-confirmed contributions so they have to be approved, in line with "non-extended-confirmed can only make edit requests". Templates that are specifically for this case like {{edit protected}} break when the page is not protected. Awesome Aasim 22:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the 500/30 rule is specifically designed to keep newer editors out due to extreme amounts of disruption as a rule. There's a good reason why both of the world's main hot wars (the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian war) are under 500/30. And, as has been brought up repeatedly and bears repeating again, high volumes of edits on a given article contraindicate CRASHlock.

But the biggest stumbling block here is that no consensus exists yet for an extended-confirmed CRASHlock. The last discussion about expanding CRASHlock to higher protection levels predates XCP entirely. There would need to be a formal RfC for this, not VP spitballing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

XCON protection makes sense for high traffic articles, but low traffic articles? If the edit is minor such as fixing spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, there should be no problem. Fixing spelling and grammar is generally outside of contentious topic areas anyway. From WP:ARBECR: On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including ... the use of pending changes.

I probably would set up abuse filters as well to see if a page is in a category that primarily deals with a contentious topic, and then warn and tag the edit in question. Awesome Aasim 16:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Most low-traffic CT articles don't have any protection since they never saw amounts of vandalism necessitating protection. Protection requests that solely rely on arb enforcement and little to no evidence of vandalism get declined. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I see that, but the problem is that a non-XCON edit will get approved on pages that not many people are watching. Pending changes still allows non-XCON users to make these edits, but their edits will need to be approved and they can be reverted if in violation of WP:ARBECR. This is also in line with how pending changes is used on low-traffic articles to monitor (not prevent) disruption. Awesome Aasim 18:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu Most low-traffic CT articles don't have any protection since they never saw amounts of vandalism necessitating protection. Protection requests that solely rely on arb enforcement and little to no evidence of vandalism get declined. Untrue, articles in ECR topics can and are pre-emptively locked. What actually happens is that articles with minimal disruption are usually not brought to WP:RFPP or noticed by a wayward admin. Mach61 19:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Untrue, articles in ECR topics can and are pre-emptively locked.

Could you add an example? There is a long list of declined RFPP requests for arbitration enforcement. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

See this exchange between an admin who refused to protect based on ECR due to a lack of disruption and a (former) admin who explained to them otherwise. Mach61 19:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I get the "can" now. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I've always wondered why pending changes isn't deployed more often. It seems a useful tool, and there are lots of pending changes reviewers so very little backlog Cremastra (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Because there are enough people who dislike or distrust pending changes that it's hard to get a consensus to use it. See, for example, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#RFC: Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. Anomie⚔ 14:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, gee, I fucking wonder why? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on your point? I'm not seeing it. Anomie⚔ 17:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anomie: Read the "Proposal" section on the linked page. The fact that RfC even exists should give you a clue as to why CRASHlock is so mistrusted by a significant minority of editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Still not seeing it. People supposedly mistrust it because there was a trial 14 years ago and enwiki admins didn't immediately stop using it after the trial period pending a consensus on the future of the feature? Anomie⚔ 18:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You familiar with the idiom of the Camel's nose? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The TL;DR I'm taking away from this discussion is that you're still butthurt over consensus not going your way 12 or 13 years ago, and assuming that anyone opposed to PC shares that reason and no other. I think it's unlikely continuing this conversation is going to go anywhere useful. Anomie⚔ 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That isn't how consensus works, either. Consensus can be determined by an RfC, yes. But it can also develop just by the way that things are done already, regardless of whether it has formally discussed.

I think about the example given by Technology Connections about "the danger of but sometimes". The LED traffic light is superior in energy savings and much more, but sometimes snow and ice builds up on them, so they are bad. Likewise, XCON pending changes will help with enforcement of WP:ARBECR but sometimes admins might apply this to pages out of policy, so it shouldn't be used again. The correct response would be to place in policy guardrails so that admins don't do that. Awesome Aasim 19:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

How is an RfC from over 13 years ago still reflective of consensus today? I am pretty certain that while some opinions might not have changed, others definitely will have. No one is saying there should be full pending changes. Awesome Aasim 18:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: The RfC was linked specifically to point out one of the reasons for the mistrust in the PC system. The most recent RfC on CRASHlock, as I said, predates XCP as a concept. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, please explain what you mean by "crashlock". I cannot find any discussion or glossary entry on "crashlock". Awesome Aasim 18:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: It should be VERY obvious from context. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess you might be the only one using this terminology; as it is not in WP:GLOSSARY or anywhere else.

Nonetheless, this is the Idea Lab; it is the place to develop ideas, not to show stark opposition to ideas. That is what the other discussion boards are for; consensus polling. It should be noted that WP:ECP was created originally for the purpose of enforcing arbitration decisions and community sanctions. It was never intended for anything else; it just got used for other stuff de facto. Awesome Aasim 18:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All these things you think are obvious really are not. You should try explaining yourself better instead of emphatically waving your hands at something random. Anomie⚔ 18:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Obvious perhaps, but it still doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure how using your own special terms of unclear implications to disparage things you dislike is helping communication or community understanding here. Cremastra (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. People mistrust PC because of a bureaucratic misimplementation of an experiment over 10 years ago? (In a noncentralized bureaucracy where dumb shit happens all the time?) The RfC is explicit that it makes no normative judgement on PC, and it seems the !voters are not doing so either. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's one reason, and probably the biggest for some (who viewed the trial's mishandling as trying to force CRASHlock/FlaggedRevisions down our throats). Another reason is that, from 2010 to 2014, CRASHlock RfCs were called at least once a year, with most of them being written by pro-CRASHlock editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok for those not into WP politics, there's an overview opinion piece from the August 2011 WSP that seems to capture the attitude and aftermath. It appears the closure results of the RfCs left admins in an indeterminate state as to whether PC can ever be applied or removed. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

as to whether PC can ever be applied or removed True in 2011 when that was written, but later RFCs resolved that. Anomie⚔ 19:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you link to said RfCs? All else that's linked previously regards the main page. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 established basic consensus to use PC, with Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 2 and Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3 clearing up some details. PC level 2, on the other hand, never got consensus for use and eventually in 2017 there was consensus to remove it from the configuration. Template:Pending changes discussions has a lot of links. Anomie⚔ 22:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the 2017 RfC is the last one about any aspect of CRASHlock, to my knowledge. As I said above, there would need to be a new RfC in order to get consensus for extended-confirmed CRASHlock, as PC2 was originally full-protection level and no ECP!CRASHlock question was asked in the 2016 RfCs, none of which were particularly comprehensive. (The last comprehensive RfC was the 2014 clusterfuck.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the main reasons editors don't want to expand the use of pending changes are practical: no technical support for fixes (or additional feature development) is on the horizon, in spite of documented bugs; and uncertainty in the community's ability to manage expanded use. There are certainly vocal editors who are wary due to past history, but this has already been a factor in other decisions, and they have accordingly been influenced to be more definitive about how any trials will proceed. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok so there's a lot of history here as you are already seeing above, and no one's even gotten to discussing Phillipe's little misadventure yet. Despite all that I actually think the general idea here is sound. And since we are discussing history its worth pointing out that as a practical matter this is actually closer to what the EC restriction was intended to do in its earliest incarnation where it functioned as a softer version of 1RR originally enforced as a bespoke AE remedy on one specific article reverts of non-qualifying accounts did not count towards 1RR.

Times have changed, ECR now tends to be enforced in mainspace with ECP and is applied far more broadly than anyone from then would have envisioned, for better and for worse.

The best use case here is for quiet pages where the history of non-EC editing is largely one of minor non-contentious fixes and improvements, but have caught attention due to sporadic contentious edits, where it can offer a middle way between leaving enforcement to post-edit reverts and preventing all non-EC editing.

As a practical matter the limitations of the extension mean that it really only works-well on low-traffic pages and realistically improvements to the extension aren't coming anytime soon. So use case (2) makes sense, but (1) is a harder sell. Might not be enough of a use case to justify the hassle. Personally I'd have to do some research and think about this a little but the basic idea is sound.

Apologies for the hastily typed response, I'm a little pressed for time; hopefully there was something useful in there. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe what is needed is this...

A multi-part RfC asking how ECR should be enforced for existing pages, including based on activity. High traffic pages will need extended protection retroactively as those tend to get the most disruption from ECR violations. Low-traffic pages, not so much, but we can use abuse filters and workshop ECP pending changes for this. Spelling and grammar fixes as far as I am aware are excluded from WP:ARBECR. Awesome Aasim 19:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I view the ECR in the PIA area to be absolute (no editing full stop by those who do not meet 500/30), so CRASHlock would be off the table there in any event. I'm not sure if this also applies to WP:GS/RUSUKR (which falls into the EE area). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we build the proposal here?

Here is some starter text maybe to get the ball rolling:

• What is the best way to enforce WP:ARBECR on articles?
  • Option 1: Preemptive XCON protection
  • Option 2: Preemptive XCON pending changes
  • Option 3: Edit filters
  • anything else?

This probably is incomplete, anyone else have ideas for this proposal? Awesome Aasim 19:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say remove "preemptive", as it is sometimes placed only in response to disruptive activity from non-ECs. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

So should reactive also be an option? Awesome Aasim 17:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think so. That's what I support. Cremastra — talk — c 19:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

So we should have it like this?:

• What is the best way to enforce WP:ARBECR on articles? Please rate whether these options should be preemptive, reactive, or not used.
  • Option 1: XCON protection
  • Option 2: XCON pending changes
  • Option 3: Edit filters/Revert filters
  • anything else?

Awesome Aasim 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

sure. Cremastra — talk — c 19:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good - but bear in mind we are discussing CRASHlock (which would require developer buy-in to make XC happen) and an Arbitration policy (which ArbCom may short-circuit). Also note that there would likely need to be a separate RfC consensus to allow XC CRASHlock in the first place; like I said above we haven't had a comprehensive discussion about it since 2014. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano, I do wish you would quit using that made-up word. WP:PC is shorter to type, and when editors use the same words for the same thing, then we're less likely to end up with avoidable confusion ("CRASHlock sounds really bad, but I'm just asking for WP:PC"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

My point still stands - a new RfC, developer buy-in, and ArbCom not interdicting the RfC would be required for this to become a reality. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we're discussing "pending changes protection". Crashlock is a type of cardboard box. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR can first just be XCON PC. After extensive edits by non-EC, piling on to PC backlog, then it can just be upgraded to normal XCON. If the disruption is already severe before being brought to RFPP or other venue, then XCON protection can just be the first action. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above in re an RfC. EC!CRASHlock does not exist, and would need a consensus to use it and the devs being willing to work on it for it to be a thing. Spitballing anything about this is a waste of time until that happens, especially as the current consensus is that (1) anything beyond standard CRASHlock is deprecated and (2) ECP renders EC!CRASHlock pointless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Please, stop calling it "CRASHLOCK" it's confusing and pointless. At least explain why pending changes = crashing. Cremastra (u — c) 19:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano the discussions that you linked are from 2016, so we cannot assume the consensus has not changed. Also, I believe that this is a platform for building ideas and new proposals, hoping to bring them to reality while abiding by consensus. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav: Which is why I'm saying "start a new RfC." Something everyone seems to be glossing over despite me saying something to this effect four separate times in this thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

On another thought I am actually wondering if we can just have a two-part RfC as to whether to turn on this feature I discuss. Part 1 would just be about PCECP and part 2 would be just about replacing ECP with PCECP on low-traffic WP:ARBECR and related articles. Awesome Aasim 16:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, but the second RfC might fail, as it one would have to discuss page wise about the change in protection. Also proving that PCECP is enough for said pages will be complicated, and also have to think about the storming of backlog in PC if it is not enough. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That would be hard-required, as I've repeatedly been saying. Without an existing consensus for the former, any discussion on using it for 500/30 rule areas is academic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC started

See WP:VPPR#RfC: Extended confirmed pending changes (PCECP). Awesome Aasim 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Allow IP editors to set preferences

IP editors now have the ability to turn on dark mode, which previously was limited to logged in users setting a preference. We should extend this concept to allow IP editors to set other prefernces such as disabling fundraising banners or whatever other preference they prefer. RudolfRed (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that would require changes to the software. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, temporary accounts are already on. I doubt that the WMF isn't already planning this. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Supporting preferences in general would mean the caching infrastructure could no longer be used for non-logged in users, which would have a big impact on the amount of computing resources required to handle Wikipedia's traffic. So I don't believe that general support is in the works. isaacl (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

They could 1. restrict preferences to a subset that won't interfere with caching; or 2. figure out a way to serve cache to everyone who didn't touch certain preferences. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I've discussed this before so don't really want to get into the details again, beyond saying that making the servers do anything is more expensive than reading ready-to-go HTML content and sending it back. Please feel free to discuss your ideas with the WMF engineering team. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There was some talk in 2023 about a limited set of prefs. mw:Temporary accounts are only created upon editing, not ordinary readers. I can't remember whether they settled on creating the account at the time you open the page to edit, or if it's created only when you click the big blue Publish button, but we should expect only a few logged-out users to gain access that way. However, that requires getting temp accounts fully deployed everywhere, which will happen eventually rather than soon. (Fundraising banners can already be suppressed [for a week at a time?] via cookie; just click the button to make it go away.)

As for the desirability: You should believe Isaacl when he says that this is a lot more expensive and difficult than people think it 'should' be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the slightest problem in restricting privileges like preferences to logged-in editors. If the default editing experience for IPs can be improved, that's fine, but if someone wants an experience different from the default, they already have a very simple way to get it. Zero^talk 02:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of significant figures

While many people have made contributions to history (many more than could fit in one timeline), it's undoubtable that some people's influence far exceeds that of others. 

Therefore, I think we should have a timeline of the significant figures in history. 

I completely understand that determining how significant some people are is a difficult task. It's expected to take struggle and effort to make this work. However, people deserve to know who made the greatest contributions to the advancement of humanity.

Also, many scholars themselves have written about who they believe are to be the most significant people.

I have created a sketch of this idea at User:Wikieditor662/sandbox. It's far from perfect, but you get the main idea. The people are colored based on the era they were in. The most significant people make it to the overview and those who are not as important but still nonetheless significant (as well as people born earlier so the overview doesn't get clumped) go to the individual timelines (below the overview) along with those in the overview.

I would again like to reiterate that this is something that is going to take effort, dedication, and much debate, but if we do this, then I think it could be worth it. What do you all think?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Kindly, I'm experiencing philosophical opposition to this project. History has been a team effort, and further elevation of the already elevated is not likely to improve genuine understanding of historical processes. The Great man theory correctly fell out of fashion early last century.

Having said that, I don't mean to dissuade you from undertaking a project you're clearly interested in, and this seems like it could serve as some kind of subpage of WikiProject Vital Articles. Using the inclusion criterion "listed at WP:VA" is probably the only way you'd ever develop any kind of agreement as to which historical figures to include. That WikiProject has already done a lot of debating over which topics are more important than others.

The periodisation scheme is pretty parochial and Eurocentric, and would have to be converted to numeric year spans or whatever schema WP:VA uses (and the section headings would have to be delinked per MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS). You'll also want to consider how to handle cases where vital dates are approximate, unknown, disputed, etc. Folly Mox (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Folly Mox on this. I'll add that it might be pretty much impossible to find an actual inclusion criteria, that is, any kind of consensus in reliable sources as to who is a significant enough figure – or even if we can compare the significance of historical figures across times, cultures, and domains. If anything, that page will inform more about our own selection than about any historical truth behind it.

However, having it as part of WP:VA, rather than as an encyclopedic article, could make it a pretty useful reference for articles about famous figures needing improvement, without claiming that these are necessarily the most significant ever. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Folly Mox@Chaotic Enby I posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles and a week later there's still no response... Is there anything else I could do?

Thanks,

Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: you may have set yourself up for a poor reception with the question should people be inclu­ded based off on how significant, famous, or both they are/were?. Both of these attributes are not quantifiable: the only inclusion criteria VA would recog­nise as feasible would probably be "limit to Level 3" (112 figures), or "include Level 3 and Level 4" (1995 addi­tional figures; 2107 total). (Delta qualifiers like "vital dates securely known".)

When a discussion is opened on a page and nobody responds for almost two weeks – as is the case here – this can often be understood as signalling lack of interest.

If you really are interested in this data visualisation existing somewhere outside your userspace – which has seen no buy-in by participants at this thread nor any of the 93 watchlisters of the WikiProject talkpage – a next step might be to make a new timeline including precisely the figures listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 § People, and pitch the idea again, specifically as a WikiProject subpage, perhaps at WT:VA instead of WT:PVITAL.

I'm afraid I feel compelled to reiterate that this idea does not feel pedagogically sound, and is likely to tell us more about the people who select the figures to include than it teaches about history. Folly Mox (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a giant pile of WP:OR – Joe (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Researcher group

Okay, so this is a very barebones proposal at the moment, and I'm looking for thoughts into it, especially about viability and how likely this would be to gather consensus. This seems like the right place. Essentially, the idea I'd like to develop is allowing requests for the researcher group. At Special:ListGroupRights, it has the three rights commonly referred to as viewdeleted, as well as apihighlimits. This was discussed a bit at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_269#Temperature_check:_Applying_for_the_Researcher_right. Essentially, this would add a third section to WP:RFA, perhaps called Requests for Researcher, and would follow the same general process as an RFA, compliant with the WMF's requirements for viewdeleted access. Unlike other unbundling proposals, this includes only viewing rights, and while it would probably be a fairly rare ask, it would avoid many of the issues that plague other unbundling proposals, since it does not necessary unbundle actions, just viewing permissions, meaning it doesn't touch the block/delete/protect triad of rights that will likely never be unbundled. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP:RESEARCHER right, since its inception, has required approval from the WMF (specifically from the Legal department, if memory serves). I suspect, but don't know for sure, that this approval requires signing contracts about protecting privacy, etc. It sounds like your plan is to make this userright available to more people, with fewer controls. Is that your goal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Based on the general response from the WMF, we (the community) are allowed to use it as a normal usergroup, if we wish, based on Joe Sutherland's response of Generally you all can do as you want with the Researcher right, though of course Legal will require that anyone who receives it still pass some form of RfA-like process. It historically was only given to those who signed NDAs with the WMF, but as of now is unused and the WMF has indicated they are fine with us using it. I would say the controls would actually be greater, since it would require anyone seeking it request community approval. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What sort of editors are you thinking might wish to get this right, EggRoll97? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I imagine the usecase would probably depend, and might need to be somewhat flexible (similar to how those who make a request for adminship generally have areas they're requesting the tools for), though it should serve to provide some benefit to others. I imagine good use cases might include those who work with LTAs, SPI, edit filters, or other areas where the ability to view deleted contributions would enable them to make a better contribution to the project and where a good case can be made that they are handicapped by its absence, using the wording that ArbCom in 2008 used about viewdeleted. Overall though, I'd think it would be very much still up to the community at large to determine "is this a good use-case, or is there no reason to actually grant this?". EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Right now, the process is closer to provide your real name, sign a legally binding contract, and have a good reason, probably involving paperwork showing approval from your Institutional review board.

You would replace this with convincing RFA voters that you should have this but not have admin rights. Have you read Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures on partial adminship?

I'm not sure your use cases are realistic. People working with LTAs need a block button. SPI needs more CheckUsers. The edit filter managers have to be admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing that those people with a genuine need to view deleted material are usually admin or admin+ already. There's some scope for research on what WP deletes, which I suppose is why it has been referred to as "researcher", but that's not really benefiting the community directly. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Edit filter managers don't need to be administrators, see WP:EFM. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I should have looked it up instead of relying on memory. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree this would be very useful for non-admin EFMs. I asked xaosflux about this once upon a time - he raised some pitfalls at the time. My feeling is that the use case is too niche for most to feel it's worth the community time needed to develop a process around this, when probably less than 10 people will ever hold this right. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if, similar to how the import right was assigned without necessarily having a dedicated process behind it, it might be easier and less of a burden on community time to simply have individual requests at WP:VPP for the researcher right if it's that niche of a usecase. The usecase you describe was actually part of my motivation for making this. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As just a bit of an addendum to the previous comment, I checked the listing of all EFMs and checked through which ones are non-admins. We have a total of 15 non-admin accounts that have EFM. Of those, 8 were granted the right by a consensus discussion, 5 were self-granted as the user was formerly an administrator, 1 is a bot (so technically 14 human EFMs), and 1 was granted the right for bug checking(?) with a user talk page discussion. I imagine your estimate is quite right, in that case, since the 5 who self-granted as admins I believe can simply ask for their admin rights back at WP:BN if they need viewdeleted. The bot obviously doesn't need it, so that leaves 9, at least for that particular usecase. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Short note on this: I don't think we should not use that group for anything from the community and once no longer required it should be removed. We could make a process for a community-managed group that allows viewing non-suppressed deleted content, however the approval process will need to be "rfa like" to meet foundation requirements. It would need not be strenuous and should be able to get by so long as it: accepts both support and opposition feedback from the community, be able to measure that appropriate support exists, be well-advertised, and be well-attended. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Example is our RFA system, which we could even use the existing system with an option that someone is only running for "view deleted admin". If it ran for at least a week, had at least 25 attendees, and had good consensus (i.e. ~2/3 support) think that would more than suffice. Could be assignable by 'crats. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  So if I follow you correctly, the ideal path would probably involve creating a separate group with the permissions duplicated, and some form of "request for view deleted" being added to WP:RFA? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Duplicated? No, for example apihighlimits isn't likely required at all here. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Comparison shopping with data from factboxes

As more information is put in Wikidata and is presented in Wikipedia's fact boxes, I think this opens a possible new feature or gadget similar to the comparison shopping offered by many e-commerce websites. As I visit the article Thailand, the factbox should have a little tick box to add this article to my personal comparison basket, and when I tick that box on another comparable object (using the same factbox template), say Chile, I should be able to view my current comparson set, presenting a table with two columns for Thailand and Chile, and rows for their attributes: capital city, main language, population, area, GDP, etc. LA2 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

LA2, this doesn't sound like it would be possible to implement entirely in client-side scripting, and would require dev involvement. Software changes like this can be suggested at the global Community Wishlist. Folly Mox (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding a long month of drama

Well. WP:RECALL is upon us now, and, while clearly an improvement for community accountability, the first petition is already showing that the system has its limits. To be fair, that is to be expected – we can't really brainstorm a perfect system without any real-life testing, and such a new system should be open to community inputs for tweaking it into a more functional state.

Namely, the issue is with recall proposals that are, from the start, overwhelmingly likely not to succeed. In a case such like this one, where the number of (informal) opposes far outweighs the number of signatories, prolonging the long drawn-out process (the petition being open for a month, and then potentially seven days of RRfA) isn't desirable if the outcome is already pretty much known. I figure there should be a way to cut short petitions where it is clear that most editors are not behind it, a sort of WP:SNOW close, to avoid dragging the admin and the community through a month-long slog.

Of course, the petition itself shouldn't be the final !vote on admin accountability, but only a means to bring up the issue. So, if we go through an opposes/signatories ratio to close it early, for instance, it should be pretty high (maybe 3 to 1?), but still allow a way to cut short petitions with no chances of succeeding. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Discussion ongoing: limiting petition participation to signatures
 Discussion ongoing: shortening the recall period
Links added 12:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC) —Folly Mox (talk)

Agreed. If each person were allowed to write a single short statement (absolute maximum 2 sentences) about why they support/oppose and no discussion or replies were allowed then a month would be reasonable. A month of what's currently happening at the first petition is completely unreasonable - a week of that plus a week of RFA hell is not reasonable even for someone whose conduct is beyond the pale (and they should be at Arbcom anyway) let alone a month for someone who has just made a few minor mistakes or pissed off a few people.

The Crats should be empowered to close petitions early if the result is clear (either way). Arbcom still exists as a venue should people think that a petition that was going to succeed was closed too early. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the primary point of the petition process to ensure that we don't have frivolous RRFAs? It seems that most of the participants are already trying to skip to a future RRFA discussion that may not even materialize. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That is indeed an issue, the petition is itself getting a RfA-like amount of discussion before the RRfA even started. Thryduulf's proposal of limiting the conversation to a single short statement per person could make it much more manageable, and cut short the problem by making 30 days long petitions less awful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Opposes don't formally affect the outcome of the petition, that's what the RRfA is for. From my own thought process (and from what I read from that discussion), opposes can only dissuade potential petition signers to NOT sign the petition. fanfanboy (block) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I know, that's why I was referring to them as informal opposes above. But there should still be a way for the community to formally state that the vast majority is not in support of a petition. At least to shut down frivolous petitions in advance. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like if a petition is unnecessary, then no one would sign it. fanfanboy (block) 15:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Lizardman's Constant means that pretty much all views will be supported by some people, so no, I don't think we can rely on that. It's a complete waste of everyone's time if we only pay attention to the support votes and force a WP:SNOWBALL petition to go to RRfA. Theknightwho (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no drama except what some editors are creating. I don't think an admin is going to quit because they discover that five people think they shouldn't be an admin. Those that oppose the petition can just... not sign it. It'll be over in 30 days. I'm not opposed to shortening the 30 days but I'd rather wait at least one full cycle before deciding. Preferably more than one full cycle. Levivich (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, we need to reduce the drama surrounding these. I agree that people opposing the petition should just leave it alone. There should be no discussion section and no threaded responses to endorsement; a week of discussion (which is plenty) happens once the petition is successful. Additional discussion only makes the signal to noise level worse and cranks up the heat. —Kusma (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting I've withdrawn the petition. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with some of the others that shortening the time makes sense, though I don't think we should be cutting it to shorter than 2 weeks if we started at 30 days. 25 signatures in 30 days does seem really out of wack - less than one signature a day, in a community this large, where RFAs have some 200 votes in a week and we've already got more than 400 votes in the admin elections? Seems very off. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Two weeks as a baseline sounds like a more reasonable time, that could very much work. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thing is that many editors (including myself) voted for the 30 days. Now seeing what has happened, I agree it should be shortened. 2 weeks seems like a good number. fanfanboy (block) 16:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose, we'll have to be mindful of the potential for editors to seek an administrator's recall, who blocked/banned them, in the past. Grudges are always possible as being a core of recall attempts. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think shortening the time period for the petition to 10 or 14 days makes sense. I would oppose allowing snow closes regardless of how unlikely it appears that a petition will pass. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I suggested a few months back Mach61 16:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to believe that, instead of tinkering with this on an ad hoc basis with every new petition, we modify the terms of the recall process to be a six-months trial and then -- at the end of that -- evaluate everything that worked and didn't and make whatever modifications are needed in one fell and final swoop. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Chetsford The close of the final RfC establishing recall instructed that any outstanding issues may be resolved through normal editing. (emphasis mine), and personally, I am very burnt out by all the multi-step trials and ratification RfCs that sprung out of RFA2024. Mach61 16:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have no idea what that means. Any single editor can just change the process by WP:BOLD editing it? If that's the case, why are we having this discussion? Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair, this is a discussion on the idea lab, so the goal is first to figure out what to change before figuring out how to change it. And also because, even if a user could technically make a WP:BOLD edit, having a consensus behind it is always good. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I looked at the petition before it closed, and realised multiple editors opposing it despite it not having any effect. I think it should be possible to run a petition in a closer timeframe to an RfA or AfD. To summarise, petitions could be changed as follows :

• Each petition runs for exactly a week.
• Any extended confirmed editor can support or oppose the petition
• If consensus is reached to desysop after a week (ie: support / support + oppose = 70% per current RfA thresholds) then the admin is desysopped

I think holding an admin to the threat of being desysopped for over a month is worse than what happens at Arbcom. Conversely, if the community is in obvious agreement than an admin has outstayed their welcome and must go, it gets the job done far more quickly without people getting frustrated about when it's going to happen. And furthermore, if somebody starts a petition in retaliation ("Desysop this admin, he blocked me for no reason!") it'll get short shrift and SNOW opposed by the community.

Any views on that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The only issue I have with that is theoretical. Ostensibly, the petition is supposed to create a turnstile sparing an Admin from having to go through the back-and-forth of an entire RfA unless there's some minimum support for that. In other words, ideally, the Admin simply ignores the petition until or if the threshold is met. Only then do they need to ramp up to start compiling, potentially, years of diffs, etc. to defend themselves at RfA. Going straight to RfA means any single, aggrieved editor can encumber an Admin with the significant angst of a full RfA.
Of course, that's all theoretical. As we've seen from the current example, the mere act of petitioning creates the angst it was designed to mitigate. So, if we're going to introduce a Reign of Terror anyway, we may as well make it the most efficient Reign of Terror we can come up with, on which basis I'd support this suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The other option would be to make it so that the petition doesn't turn into a Reign of Terror to begin with. Which is easier said than done, but a good first step would be to limit back-and-forth conversation and just have it be, well, a petition. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I do have a few concerns on that. In this situation the Admin is being recalled for reasons no one is allowed to articulate to them, but maybe they'll learn them during sentencing (RfA)? I liked The Trial as much as anyone, but I'm not sure how I feel about recreating it IRL. But I'm open to whatever. Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No it wouldn't prevent reasons being given, it would just restrict discussion of those reasons. So everybody supporting or opposing the petition would be able to (arguably should be required to) give a single short statement (50 words or 2 sentences have been suggested) about why they are supporting/opposing. However there would be no discussion unless and until an RRFA was opened. There would be no restriction on clarification being sought on user talk pages, e.g. if user:Example wrote "Support because of their actions at the recent AfD" anyone would be allowed to go to user talk:Example and ask which AfD(s) they were referring to if it wasn't clear. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say no. If the petition can get 25 people to agree (despite all the issues of the discussion section), then the RFA should run. Y'all are Streisanding the current petition and bringing people in. If it was as sterile and clinical as the process laid out was supposed to be, it would more than likely died in a month. spryde | talk 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think any petition is going to get significant amounts of attention, maybe not quite this much if they become routine, but certainly enough that it's never going to be "sterile and clinical" under the current setup. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If the time is reduced to a week, then the number of signatures needed should be reduced. I also don't understand the point of opposition statements. If it is a petition, then there should just be people signing it, maybe proposing changes to the petition statement. It seemed like a lot of the opposition was based on people not likely the process. There is already a problem with accountability for admins in Wikipedia, because admins are not only well known, but have power to block people, and probably have more knowledge of how Wikipedia works than the poor editors who try to recall them. Admins are pretty safe. Term limits would have been a better solution, as well as temporary blocks for admins. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

For now, we have a sample set of one incomplete case. Ten editors have signed the petition in the first 40 hours. A linear projection would predict that 25 signatures would be reached in less than five days. Some commenters have assumed that the level of opposition expressed to this petition indicates that Graham87 would retain the admin bit in an RRFA. If a case that appears this weak does reach 25 signatures in less than a week, why should we have to wait a month for cases where there is less enthusiasm for signing a petition. I will note that the rate of new signatures likely will decline, prolonging the end, and that some commenters are claiming that many potential signers will wait to the last minute to sign to avoid social pressure, but that is not an argument for waiting a month, as they can sign the petition at the last minute whether the duration is for a week, two weeks, or a month. But, as I said, this is the first case, and my crystal ball is very murky. Donald Albury 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that that first recall petition showed some of the warts of the process in a really stark way. Floating 4 significant changes for the community to think about here, either separately or in combination:

• 1) - The petition process is too long. If these are going to turn into mini-RfAs, then the petition needs to be significantly shorter than a RFA. 24-72 hours is plenty of time to see whether the petition has legs, anything more is cruel.
• 2) - The petition is too easy to initiate. I know that people will complain about cabals, but I really think it should take an admin to initiate one of these. Alternatively a small group (3 ish) of extended confirmed users works.
• 3) - We should move from number of supports to number of net supports. If a petition has 1 net support at closing time, it can go through as prima facie evidence that the petition has legs. If the ratio of opposes to supports gets over 2-3 to 1, we can close early without losing many petitions that would wind up successful.
• 4) - The commentary is too much. Restrict people, both support and oppose, to something very short, like 10 words and 1 link.

Obviously this is idea lab, so please discuss which of these have merit fluidly either alone or in any combination. tweak numbers, break things. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with shortening the petition process (although 72 hours might be too drastic), but I think turning them into mini-RfAs is not the goal. The point of the petition is to see if there is a substantial number of editors wanting a recall election to begin with, not to replace the recall election entirely. And, if you need to get 3 people on board to start the petition, you're functionally making a petition for the petition.

For the same reason, net supports shouldn't really be what is measured (as it isn't about whether the admin has majority support, but only about whether some people are questioning it). A large oppose ratio, however, would indicate the petition will likely not be successful, so the early close you suggest could work. Also agree with your idea of restricting commentary, as said above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The old RFC/U process required two editors to sign within 48 hours, or the page would get deleted. These two editors had to show evidence(!) of having attempted to resolve the same(!) dispute with the targeted editor. This was fairly effective at preventing RFC/Us over disputes that just needed a Wikipedia:Third opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That could work, in a way. Every editor can start a petition, but two editors have to sign within 48 hours or it gets closed without further ado. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• It's impossible to constrain the discussion when the petition has started and for the petition page not to turn into a quasi-RfA. That's why the petition signatures and comments should be understood as RRfA !votes. The signatures would begin counting as !votes when 25 of them are collected, and prior to that, the signatures would be null !votes, and only valid as fulfilling a precondition to their collective validity as !votes. A signature is actually a latent 'oppose adminship' RRfA !vote. An "oppose petition" comment is actually a 'support adminship' RRfA !vote. At any point, if the admin does not like the protraction and feels secure about passing, the admin can cut the petition stage short and start the RRfA with their statement, answers and all, without a need to wait for signatories to reach 25. That imbues all signatures with the power of a !vote immediately, regardless of how many there are, whereas the "oppose petition" comments have had the power of a 'support adminship' !vote all along. If the admin doesn't feel secure, they can wait it out, and are protected by the fact that the opposition to their adminship is ineffective until it reaches the critical mass of 25 signatories. It isn't reasonable to think that the admin is unfairly treated by the fact that opposition to their adminship is rendered ineffective until a difficult procedural barrier is overcome; that's obviously a mechanism that protects their status. If they don't feel like they need that protection, if the climate seems friendly to their adminship, they can relinquish it and start the RRfA.—Alalch E. 17:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure we should understand them as quasi-votes, since it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to sign the petition because they think a re-RFA ought to be initiated, not because they think the admin should step down. That is, I can easily see someone putting their name on the petition because they believe a re-RFA is the right thing to do, not because they desire for the admin in question to be de-sysopped. But it's true that nothing is stopping an admin from "calling the bluff" and standing for re-RFA before the petition reaches 25 signatories. At this point, frankly, that doesn't look like it would be a bad move for our unfortunate first candidate. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  The way the process is currently set up, you're right. But I would argue that it should be different (that's the idea I'm presenting): If you do not think that the admin should cease being admin, you should not sign the petition. On the material side, the petition should be presented as: "By signing you are stating that the administrator has lost your confidence"; and on the procedural side: "By signing you are stating that (because the administrator has lost your confidence and provided that he has also lost the confidence of many other editors) the administrator should undergo a RRfA". —Alalch E. 11:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  It isn't impossible to constrain discussion. We are capable of setting and enforcing a rule that says "Signatures only. No diffs, no explanations, no discussion, no opposes". This might be fairer, since even a few words or a single diff could prompt "me too" votes from people who had no concerns of their own, and a diff or a brief comment could be taken unfair or out of context. It would probably be stressful for the admin, as people would be publicly expressing dislike without any reason.

  Editors generally oppose efforts to prevent them from talking about other editors, though, so I doubt we'll end up there. More realistically, we could insist that any discussion happen on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  ArbCom manages to have strict rules about constraining discussion, and it does lead to more productive cases (read: not a shiftest). I would support a "Signatures only" rule, especially considering the opening comment should already be expected to have the needed context.

  A talk page discussion would be already lower profile and likely more calm, and ultimately look less like a !vote or like its own mini-RfA. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Any rule restricting what can and can't be said on the page needs to come with explicit instructions to this on the page and a clear statement of who is allowed to remove things that objectively break the rules (I'd favour "anybody"). Perhaps accompanied with a "you will be partially blocked from this page if you reinsert, without explicit advanced consensus, something removed." Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  That could definitely work. WP:RECALL doesn't need a set of clerks like the (much more complex) ArbCom cases do, if the only rule is "just leave a signature" or close to that. Also agree with the disclaimer, and good of you to be thinking of the implementation details already!

  I'm thinking of having a formal proposal with both the restriction on discussion and the shortened timeframe as independent options. Given how the WP:RECALL RfCs have been criticized for not being well-advertised, it might be good to bring this one up on WP:CENT. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's a good course of action. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  We can start workshopping the RfC right now, but it's probably best to hold off opening the RfC itself for the moment given how heated emotions are. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Discussion will migrate elsewhere. ArbCom is mentioned as a counterexample, but discussion there is quite free-flowing, only formatted differently to avoid long non-constructive threads... but the stated problem here is not non-constructive threads, the stated problem is comments. That is completely different. "Discuss calmly and with measure" and "don't talk" is different. It will be possible to have an adjacent discussion on some other page or pages. And if you are blocked from the page, so what, what you added to the page, diffs and all, stays in history and can be viewed by anyone. —Alalch E. 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  And if you are blocked from the page, so what, what you added to the page, diffs and all, stays in history and can be viewed by anyone.

  Nobody inspects every nook and cranny in history for bad things people have said to agree with it. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that a complete ban on discussion will result in the discussion happening elsewhere, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Wherever there are humans, there will be gossip mongers, but gossip whispered between a few people (e.g., via Special:EmailUser) for a few days, or even for 30 days, is not as widely and as permanently destructive as accusations posted on the internet forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  That elsewhere could just be the talk page, and it appears that it might just be that. Edit: All in all, "discussion elsewhere" + word limits + RfA monitor function preserved + "five uninvolved signatories first" latch mechanism could all add up to something good. I'm for trying. —Alalch E. 22:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• It all depends on who you want to sign up to a petition. If it is only "editors who have independently decided that an admin's conduct should be examined", the only way is to disallow comments from both signatories and opponents. Otherwise many signatories will sign because they are convinced by the arguments, even if they never heard of the admin before. In that case, allowing only signatories to comment will dramatically skew the results and be quite unfair. In summary, allow everyone to comment or allow nobody to comment. Zero^talk 02:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Very good point, and why I would favor "allow nobody to comment" as a general rule. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd also like to raise another issue. We have created a risk-free way for editors to get back at an admin who has sanctioned them. I think that editors who have received a recent (definition?) personal sanction from an the admin should not be a signatory. Zero^talk 02:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  On the other hand, editors victims of administrator misconduct should definitely be able to support the administrator being brought to recall. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I can see both sides of this. Perhaps a reasonable way forwards is to disallow someone from initiating a petition if they have received a recent (within the last 3 months?) personal sanction from the admin. They can still support a petition initiated by someone else, but perhaps only if 5 uninvolved editors have already supported. If there is a genuine issue this should be an easy bar to clear but it would make retaliatory petitions much harder to initiate and harder for them to succeed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe we could make it so that the first five signatures (other than the initiator) must not have been involved with any dispute in which the admin concerned acted in their capacity as an administrator within the last (1? 2? 3?) months. If five uninvolved editors are prepared to sign a petition that suggests it's more likely to have some merit than if no such group of five are? Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Zero^talk 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let's say it's day three and there are fifteen signatures. The first five signatories have not been involved in the discussed sense, followed by ten signatures from people who have been involved (they were the greater cohort that was waiting for the special signatures to add up so that they can add theirs; imagine ANI participants). One among the first five withdraws their signature ("I changed my mind after reading the talk page"). There are no longer five signatures from uninvolved signatories. What then? All's good? (Probably not.) Petition has failed? (Probably not.) Monitor halts signature collection only allowing signatures from uninvolved signatories, until one such additional signature is collected? (Probably not.) Monitor notes that the petition will be invalid unless at least one more special signature is supplied during the entire remaining period? (Maybe.) Monitor notes that the petition will be invalid unless at least one more special signature is supplied during a set period, for example three days? (Maybe.) —Alalch E. 17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I hadn't thought of that scenario. The simplest option would just be a latch - once five uninvolved people have signed the petition is unlocked and remains that way for the duration. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Anything more complicated would be too complicated. —Alalch E. 22:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Workshopping the RfC

As the two main proposals that editors seem to converge on (limiting discussion and shortening the petition timeframe) are essentially independent, I'm thinking it can be best to go for a two-part RfC, with the following questions:

• Should input to WP:RECALL petitions be limited to signatures only?
• Should the petition duration be limited to X amount of days?

There is also the possibility of having multiple options for each question. For the first one, an alternate proposal of limiting input to to a short statement per person was also suggested, while multiple timeframes for the petition could also be proposed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think a RFC like this needs to happen. I think the second bullet point is fairly self-explanatory, but the first needs more thought. On a recall petition, is there value in having a statement from the initiator? A statement from the admin being recalled? Statements from people bringing up new evidence? Statements/signatures from supporters? Which belong on the main page, and which belong on the talk page? If we impose a length limit, can anyone truncate statements to fit in it? Do we need clerks, arb style?

For example, I favor the initiator getting a short statement, the admin having unlimited length to respond optionally (hidden comment in the template that makes a section if they choose to respond), all recallers signature only on the main page, with limited commentary on the talk page, and any list of supporters with limited commentary on the talk page, no threaded discussion anywhere. Any editor except the initiator and the admin being recalled can move comments to enforce length/threading/talk page. This is not about my preference, but more saying that this bullet point can get really complex really fast, and we should think about that now in workshopping. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feedback! You're right that the first bullet point should definitely be clarified before the actual RfC.

In my mind, the initiator would be able to make a short statement, with the rest being only signatures (as the point of the petition isn't to be its own RRfA, but only to gauge whether it has enough support). Regarding the admin responding, I think it (and other replies) should be reserved to the talk page, to avoid it becoming a RfA-lite where the admin has to respond to the claims to not be seen as suspicious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If the admin is allowed a right of reply, but only on the talk page, it should be possible to see from just the main page whether they have chosen to respond or not. Regardless of where, everybody who has the right to comment (including the responding admin) should be subject to a word limit, although not necessarily the same limit. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, the initiator is no more or less important than anyone else who prefers to recall that admin, I prefer not creating a "first mover" advantage. So I'd rather just be strictly signatures only, or strictly "Short statement on main page without replies" for everyone.

The talk page will be open anyway, so people who want to elaborate on why can do it as they prefer Soni (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I can get behind a word limit for the responding admin. I do think it's important that the admin have the ability to present their case in the same location that the initiator does. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that as well, I just end up at "Initiator and all future signatures should be given same weightage" and "Maybe both should be on talk" as my preferences. Soni (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I start with "someone should say why we're all here" and "I don't want everyone piling on with extensive commentary. I will concede that I create a first mover advantage as a consequence of those, but I think that's the best we can do. Either way, I think we can craft a RFC that presents all this fairly without too much difficulty. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, a "first mover" advantage makes sense in that, since they're starting the petition, they are responsible for explaining it. We don't need 25 redundant explanations, but we don't need an unexplained petition either, so it is logical that the creator of the petition be the one to state the case for it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

"The talk page will be open anyway", will that result in all the "pre-RRFA RRFA" stuff just happening there instead of on the petition itself? Anomie⚔ 07:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving the discussion to a less prominent place behind the petition, plus a word limit as Thryduulf suggested, would definitely limit the "pre-RRFA RFA" stuff. Not everyone will go through long talk pages, making it less critical to respond than with the "in-your-face" discussion that currently runs in the middle of the signatures. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Will this: Any ... comment may be struck based on the same criteria used during requests for adminship (from WP:RECALL) hold true on the talk page? —Alalch E. 16:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that is something that will need to actively decided. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's mandated that no discussion happen on the petition page, I'm not so sure the petition's talk page would remain very much "less prominent". Sure, not everyone will bother to check the talk page, but knowing that's where discussion is I suspect anyone who would have pre-RRFA RFFA-ed as things are now would. Anomie⚔ 07:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to start a two-part RFC so soon after we just ended a three-part RFC. Take note of the backlash to the third RFC; a fourth RFC will get even more backlash; a fifth even more. Levivich (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

By two-part, I mean asking two questions simultaneously, not running one RfC and then another. The second RfC had more then ten simultaneous questions, so two should be manageable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

But you really think, three days into the first petition, you've learned enough about this process to know how to change it for the better? There's no part of you that's thinking "it's too soon to draw any conclusions"? Levivich (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I share Levivich's concerns here. Now's a fine time to take some notes, but we're 10% of the way through the first use of a process. We might learn something in the coming days, or in a second petition. We might also discover that the RFC question needs to be "Well, that was a disaster. All in favor of canning the idea completely?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

And this is why I said, above, We can start workshopping the RfC right now, but it's probably best to hold off opening the RfC itself for the moment given how heated emotions are. I do not claim to personally know exactly how to change the process, but we can already start discussing the shortcomings we can see, even if we are not going to open the RfC right now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

People have been proposing changes all over the place. Why not have a discussion that will hopefully bring up possible problems with proposed changes, even if it will be a while before any RfC should start? Donald Albury 19:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I've been thinking about how to format this RfC for a fair while. If someone has a better idea than yet another dedicated subpage, I'm all ears, because I'm not sure how else to deal with the number of proposals and changes people are asking for. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think subpages is fine, but we probably should try to limit the number of options to be voted on, in some way. Either by number or some other ways.

Say if a proposal is something like "For 2 future RECALL petition, the petition will not have any discussion. After this trial, you need consensus to make it permanent" - that's self contained and gives place to start off from. Much better than just trying to push through every change at once. Soni (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's the point of starting this discussion now. We're at the ideas stage, at some point after the first petition ends (and, if one happens, after the subsequent RRFA ends) this will move into the stage of collating those ideas that both could work and got some indication they might be supported and refining them into draft proposals. Once we have a rough idea of what and how many proposals there are is the time to work out the best structure for an RFC, as until we know those things we can't know what will and won't work. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification: RfC: Shorten the recall petition period

Wikipedia:Administrator recall has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. CNC (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification: RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

Wikipedia:Administrator recall has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The first notification is for shortening the period and the second one is for limiting comments to just signatures. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Have modified title of first notification to make more sense. CNC (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Creating "Machine Wikipedia" as an edition of Wikipedia

Hi, according to Tim Berners Lee's proposal, that is "Web 3.0" or semantic web, we should make our existing web machine-readable. But current editions of Wikipedia (English, French, etc.) are not machine-readable. Even though "Wikidata" provides some "structured machine-readable data", it does not implement Web 3.0, because Wikidata only provides structured data for one concept and the article may contain many concepts that are not included in its Wikidata item.

So I propose to create "Machine Wikipedia" like other editions of Wikipedia (such as English) which is written in the "machine language", e.g. triples of RDF (Resource Description Framework). This way, Chat-bots and other machines can access required information more accurately and more conveniently. This new edition of Wikipedia (Machine Wikipedia) can be filled with RDFs, both by humans and by artificial intelligence using natural language processing (NLP). Thanks. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Since I'm genuinely not sure whether you're aware, I'm going to head off with the obligatory remark that a sizable plurality of editors are either highly skeptical of or firmly oppose operation of the Chat-bots and artificial intelligence using natural language processing (NLP) you see as the primary benefactors of this proposal—either as they presently exist, or in principle. That is to say, I would not get invested in this proposal, as the benefits you envision are already seen instead as clearly negative outcomes by much of the community.

I'll give fair warning that I am not really volunteering to have you pitch me on why these things are actually good, but I just don't want you to get your hopes up. Remsense ‥ 论 11:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hooman Mallahzadeh, this project is already underway. See m:Abstract Wikipedia. Folly Mox (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox I propose to change the project name from "Abstract Wikipedia" to "Machine Wikipedia" to match Tim Berners-Lee's vocabulary, and finally add it an interWiki like other editions of Wikipedia. We can call the goal article "Machine article".

I should note that extraction RDFs from an article by humans needs some expertise, i.e. this is an encoding process, but the product of this extraction process is very simple, it contains many lines of RDF triples, and we call that "Machine article".

I really think that "Machine Wikipedia" project can be made very fast, and the delay that "Abstract Wikipedia" project had made is unreasonable. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it sounds like you know quite a bit about machine learning. But, kindly, this has no relation to English Wikipedia. m:Talk:Abstract Wikipedia has 236 watchlisters, and the project has a public mailing list, if you want to get in touch about your ideas with the team involved. Folly Mox (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox I added a comment there. Thanks for your response. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"Thank" as a button in threaded discussions

Is there a script or gadget that adds "[Thank]" before "[Reply]"? After is fine too, but I think before might be better.

If not, is someone willing/able to make one? It would make thanking easier, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Convenient Discussions does that (after). Beneath each comment on a talk page are the options Reply Edit Thank. If you highlight some text in the comment, Reply changes to Quote, and it automatically includes the text in your reply formatted with Template:TQ. I like CD because it shows signatures before the comment, which has made it a lot easier for me to follow threads. Schazjmd (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

For a by default feature that would benefit to all users, the Editing team has a thank button on the works. This deployment is currently blocked as this "Thank" button is dependent of other design changes. These changes have been deployed to 50% of users at English Wikipedia; we have to make it a default component. I'm a bit behind schedule regarding this deployment (listed as T379264) as other priorities came up. If you think these design changes and the thank button would be welcomed, I more than welcome support to prioritize this! Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You can also turn off the feature to change signature positions. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)