::A very nice proposal was put forward at [[Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Proposal: Indicating article class assessment on articles]] and was enjoying substantial support. Unfortunately it was never taken forward. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
::A very nice proposal was put forward at [[Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Proposal: Indicating article class assessment on articles]] and was enjoying substantial support. Unfortunately it was never taken forward. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
:The tagline alone would be more than enough, the symbols just don't get enough attention. Maybe we could force it into the Usability initiative? [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 14:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
:The tagline alone would be more than enough, the symbols just don't get enough attention. Maybe we could force it into the Usability initiative? [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 14:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
:Ratings below GA are pretty much arbitrary and frequently based on only a cursory review. I think the quality of our quality rankings needs to improve before they're especially useful for much. [[User:Mr.Z-man.sock|Mr.Z-man.sock]] ([[User talk:Mr.Z-man.sock|talk]]) 16:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose we rename Autoreviewer, see the documentation to Autopatroller, articles create by users in this group are automatically patrolled when created. The name 'Autoreviewer' has resulted in much confusion with the upcoming and unrelatedreviewer usergroup which will be used in the Pending changes trial, and the name 'autopatroller' is closer to the group's function. Cenarium (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, we called it autoreviewer because we were planning on using it with FlaggedRevs in some capacity. If that's no longer the case, I would support a rename, if that's actually possible. Mr.Z-man22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the comment by developer Roan Kattouw here deem this proposal moot? he said "Added patrol and autopatrol permissions to this group because 1) the group needs to have some permissions in order to exist and 2) it has these permissions by default in the FlaggedRevs code (among other, FR-specific permissions)." Does that mean the the new reviewer group will include the old autoreview right? Sole Soul (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that way. The Autoreviewer group includes just one right, autopatrol. The new Reviewer group includes the patrol and autopatrol right. Patrol is given to all autoconfirmed users, so right now the Reviewers group is functionally identical to the Autoreviewer group. And once Pending Changes is activated, it will have more functionality than Autoreviewer. Reach Out to the Truth17:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that, if this were for a more definitive implementation, we should consider dropping entirely the autoreviewer/autopatroller group. But this being a trial, we should preserve the autoreviewer usergroup in case we don't continue pending changes. Cenarium (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was that later 'autoreview' userright would be added to this group. The group was intended as a general autosomething group. Ruslik_Zero08:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the existence of the new Reviewer permission, the Autoreview permission is extremely misleading. Even if it is eventually removed altogether, the Autoreview permission should be renamed to Autopatrol for the time being just to avoid confusion (and because it's a more accurate description altogether). --Cryptic C62 · Talk16:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like Dragonfly's subtle change, as it makes more sense. The user is not patrolling anything; any new page said user creates is automatically patrolled. –MuZemike21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Autopatrolled or Autoreviewed is a much better choice because the user isn't doing anything. The process is happening in the background on the server to reduce the workload of other users. Acps110(talk • contribs)03:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a name change seems in order. However, if the name is going to change, I'd like prefer the new prefix be something other than "auto-". Currently the "auto-" prefix is also used to indicate permissions that are granted automatically by the software itself (e.g. see "confirmed" vs. "autoconfimed). Since there has been some discussion of other permissions being automatically granted, I'd like to see permissions that apply an action to one's own edits use some other prefix, perhaps "self-". Thus I suggest a new name of "Selfpatrolled" or "Selfpatroller". —RP88(talk)18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that a name change is in order. I went to see if I was given Reviewer rights and I first checked "autoreviewer" because it was the first right that I saw. The permissions weren't obvious to me from the name and self-patrolled seems to make more sense while not conflict with de facto naming conventions for "auto-". —Ost (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the reviewer usergroup no longer possesses the 'autopatrol' userright, since it could conflict with autoreviewer which applies different standard for granting et al. Cenarium (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename as making more sense. The current names might imply that autoreviewer is to reviewer, as autopatroller is to patroller, and autoconfirmed is to confirmed. (even if it doesn't quite work out orthogonally). I also like patrolled vs. patroller, as noted by Dragonfly. — Becksguy (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several names have been proposed now: autopatroller, autopatrolled, selfpatroller and selpatrolled. Can you mention which one you prefer so we decide ? Cenarium (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Autopatrolled. It makes more sense for the name of the group to reflect the right it grants ('autopatrol'). The potential for confusion between a group that is automatically granted and a group that enables one to automatically do something is noted, but probably not very significant. –xenotalk14:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A rename to "Autopatrolled" seems to be the best option in my opinion since the MediaWiki software itself will automatically mark pages created by group members as patrolled; entries in the patrol log currently display the word "automatic" if the corresponding pages have been automatically marked as patrolled by the software. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just because something may be confusing doesn't mean we have to change it IMO. I love the name 'autoreviewer' and I don't think I can change that... I mean, they didn't rename Java or Javascript, did they? Kayau VotingISevil13:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except Javascript is a scripting language. It's pretty clear which one is which. Is an autoreviewer somebody whose contributions are automatically marked as "reviewed" or somebody whose new pages are marked patrolled? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢19:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Autopatrolled; meaning the software automatically patrolled the addition of a trusted user to reduce the patrolling workload of other users. This removes ambiguity from the new Reviewer right. Acps110(talk • contribs)13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the change of "autoreviewer" to "autopatrolled", to help clarify things. I have seen many mistaken requests at WP:RFPE that involve editors requesting the "autoreviewer" permission when they actually are looking for the "reviewer" permission. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L)19:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too support the name but would prefer autopatroller to be more consistent as all the other groups are nouns. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. This is about grammar. In that case the editors themselves are autoconfirmed. In this case it's not the editors who are autopatrolled; it's the pages they create. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this sentence "When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone." at the bottom of the page when I am editing, and, while in the past it was entirely correct, it is no longer valid, as with pending changes an edit is not automatically viewable to all users and readers. Could someone remove it for the duration of the pending changes trial? Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's only wrong for less than 1% of articles (and far less than that of all pages), I think leaving it alone or just adding a caveat ("on most pages") would be better. Mr.Z-man.sock (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "on most pages" should wikilink to WP:Pending changes. Or maybe we could have a different message appear for pages to which pending changes applies? It probably is good to clarify this matter, since some users may think something's wrong when the changes don't appear immediately. Tisanetalk/stalk01:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what are we implementing? I'm assuming that if people don't specify otherwise, they're voting for the original proposal. Why should we remove the sentence entirely when during the trial it will never be wrong on more than 0.06% of articles and 0.009% of all pages on the site? And even on articles that have pending changes on, its still correct for the vast majority of edits by autoconfirmed users. That seems more than a little pedantic. I'm not saying we should just do it, I'm wondering why people aren't actually discussing it, they're just voting around the discussion. Mr.Z-man02:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not like the linking. I would propose a simpler wording: When you click Save, your changes will usually become visible to everyone immediately. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of linking to FAQ or a Help page since they are generally more reader-centric. I suspect that the actual question frequently asked would be along the lines of "Why did my edit/changes not appear when I clicked save?", which may already be answered for edit conflicts, protected pages, external link blacklists, nearly instantaneous bot reverts, etc. —Ost (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in this case "usually" means more than 99.9% of the time. And even when it isn't "immediately" its still a median time of <2 minutes. I would worry that changing it too much could actually make it worse by making it more misleading. Currently it says that 100% of edits will go live immediately, which is still pretty close to true; "usually" could mean edits on only 51% of pages. Mr.Z-man21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe replace "usually" with "in almost all cases"? Really, it should be split into two separate messages, one for situations in which changes will appear immediately, and one where they won't. Pending changes is probably going to be implemented project-wide, so we're probably ultimately looking at more than just 0.1% of Wikipedia pages. Tisanetalk/stalk21:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trial however, is for no more than 2000 pages, and it will last for 2 months. It only takes a minute to actually change the message, there's no reason to do it preemptively. Mr.Z-man22:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the most pertinent measure would not be number of pages but number of edits to those pages, or even more specifically, number of edits to those pages by users unfamiliar with how pending changes works, would it not? E.g., a page like The Beatles probably receives more edits than Jason Boland & the Stragglers. Hmm, anyway, I'm sure we're all sticklers for accuracy but as you say, it might not matter much so maybe the whole issue should be deferred until later. To get the message perfect would probably require a bit of development, and there are a lot bigger fish to fry. Tisanetalk/stalk22:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What we actually want to do is not display this message for pages under pending changes. Does the software support a custom message in this position based on the settings of the page? Dcoetzee14:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One reasonable way is to simply remove the text "When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone" on edit pages when Pending protection is in place. Another is to modify the script so that, e.g. when Level 1 is engaged, for non-autoconfirmed users the text is replaced with something like
It will be extremely helpfull if we add a Translating Tool(TT) Like Google Translateintool box or in print/export section of every article/template.It'll be extremely easy to translate articles.
As grammetical errors in the machine translated text are common,these errors can be fixed by human users.
Consider an article of 5000 words which would have taken a month to translate fully by various users but can be translated in seconds and can be made grammetically error free by contributors in 5 minutes.
This can also prevent some original research.
Like a German translator who translate it manually may add some original research while translating.
The thing is, these translators miss the subtle nuances of each language. Also, trying to decipher what they mean is sometimes harder than just straight translating, from experience. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}}08:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who comes across text translated by Google and other software tools on a regular basis I strongly advise against implementing this. I speak, read, and translate Japanese and I can tell you that what Google spits out when going from Japanese to English or from English to Japanese is absolute garbage. It might give you the most basic idea about what the text is about, but other than that it should not be used or relied upon. I know a lot of people think that other languages are like codes where the words are simply switched around, but that is just not the case. Someday, hopefully soon, computers will be able to handle the thought processes necessary to translate. But it is not today, nor this decade most likely. Colincbn (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even with relatd languages (e.g. from Dutch to English), the results can be quite amazing. Considering that the Dutch "West-Vlaanderen" (Western Flanders, one of the ten provinces of Belgium) is translated as ... Ontario (!)[1], I believe that it is indeed still way to early to use such software to create articles. (That the River Yser is given as Iron, or that the province of Namen is translated as Names is more understandable, but accetuates the problem of translating proper nouns). Fram (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: we must beware the limitations of translation software. I admire Coercorash's optimism, but in reality, it would be very rare for Google Translate to provide a translation which would be usable after a simple grammar clean-up. Often, the original meaning is completely lost and the translation is gibberish, but more importantly, a mistranslation may appear to make sense but might actually be completely wrong. Google Translate can be useful for very simple fact-checking or to get a rough idea of what the article is saying, but should never be considered an adequate substitute for human translators. It's particularly problematic when translating languages with very different grammar and/or text which is badly written to begin with. I found some bemusing examples of Google Translate's efforts when I was attempting some research for the Vitas article: since much of the potential source material is in other languages (mostly Russian) I decided to give Google Translate a try.
He worked in the theater and the plastic voice parody, where he found a Sergei Nikolaevich Pudovkin - his current producer.
OK, this one's relatively straightforward: an editor would just need to ascertain the correct English translation of the phrase translated literally as "plastic voice parody", then the sentence would basically make sense and would need only minor tidying.
In December 2002, Vitas took part in the shooting of multi-series on the book of Mrs. Dontsova "bastard beloved" in the role of the artist who came from the province and blew up a unique voice and his songs pop Olympus.
The first part of this sentence makes sense (though "Beloved Scoundrel" or "A Beloved Scoundrel" seems to be the generally accepted English translation of the title literally translated as "bastard beloved"): however, I can't make much sense of the rest of the sentence. As for these...
Thousands of viewers and listeners, usmlyshav extraordinary voice of Vitas, broke his head, he does it so sings?
Now Vitas very izmenilsya.S one side is correct, the old image of all of its new long nadoel.A same deprived "gills", enigma, increased the number of hair ... "and moved it into the category of" such a lot "...
(edit conflict) Even between common language pairs (such as French–English or German–English), the ones that Google should do best, it still takes as long to clean up a Google translation that to translate the old-fashioned way. I'm not saying that Google Translate is useless, far from it, but it is not suited to the production of reasonable quality English prose such as we look for on Wikipedia. Physchim62(talk)13:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Machine translation is OK at best and horrible at times. If you understand the issues, but still want translation links, add this to your JS:
Probably you haven't read what they said: Machine translation introduces other errors, not just grammatical, and the translated text sometimes doesn't even make sense. If we did exactly what you propose, we could quickly translate articles, and the result would be grammatically correct, but it wouldn't make sense or it would be wrong. Svick (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen what you said ("grammetical" errors and all), and I oppose the idea even more. Machine translation is, in general, garbage, and your statement that more such garbage would be "extremely helpfull" is entirely unsupported. Your notion that an army of human users would make up the deficiencies is naive, because fixing syntactical errors (grammar) in no way addresses the more profound deficiencies of semantics (meaning). Sorry, but no way. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen cases where machine translation produces a sentence that is perfectly grammatical English, but with a meaning exactly opposite that of the original sentence. Unless you are fluent in both languages involved, you won't be able to find or fix this sort of thing. --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the original suggestion, translated into German and back again:
It will be very helpful if we translate a tool (TT) template.It As in Google Translate tool box or in print / export section of each article / 'll add is extremely easy to translate texts. As grammetical errors in the machine translated text are widespread, may be adopted such errors by human users. Let us look at an article of 5000 words that would have taken a month to translate fully, but can be translated within seconds by different users and grammetically made errors of contributors in five minutes. This can also prevent some original research. As a German translator to translate the translation can manually add in some original research.
I don't think removing the grammatical errors would help much.
If the end is calculated to turn around the conversion of dae (automatic device of the information entrance) (TTT, of what gradiciamo with the printing of portautensili Google or the drawer u), or, if all the regulations or the exemplary section if they are united to, this one is not useful the much municipality. It' Ll the limit in the conversion, is very simple. Gradice erroneous Grammetical the unit - what the preoccupations, transform the text to the divided interest of the conversion an error, what closings, more than the client of the person if possible those. About the month the requirements in the conversion and many that the types of that one probably had, turned totally the client into a second, can think that done grammetically and they do not depend on 5 distribute, the more on the equipment of employees of the relations of processing of 5000 words end to pay erroneous to the regulations are possible. That it interests the origin the search is therefore impedetto later possible. Somigli to the German decoder, if one turns, possibly, if this one turns the end to add the end him to use the hand, in the order the origin of the search.
A considerably more realistic proposal, already used in practice, is to suggest that article translators (who do know the source and target language) use automatic translation tools as a starting point to facilitate more rapid translations. Dcoetzee14:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's very hard to understand for people who speak only one language, but different languages are not just scrambled versions of each other. Automatic translators are not helpful for proper translations, where did you get they are used in practice?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I object to your assumption that I speak only one language. I said they're used in a supplemental way, which they are. You still have to speak both the source and target language and look at the source text, obviously. Dcoetzee16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSD for userpage being used for games
A quick browse through the list at WP:MFD brings up a number of user-pages, user talk-pages, and user sub-pages being used exclusively for keeping track of betting pools. Many of them are quite blatant (and colourful); I wish all our article tables could look as pretty as this one! These pages serve no purpose whatsoever and yet they mostly sit at MFD for a few days until the clock runs out and they're wiped (some are simply snowballed). These are non-controversial pages to remove and I feel they should be removed quickly and cleanly, so I propose we create a U4. Game pool section to WP:CSD. Tag them and bag them; why hold a vote? Matt Deres (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sick and tired of seeing fantasy TV show tracking pages. I seem to remember first encountering this sort of page two/three years ago. (There is an ANI on this issue 1.5 years ago and some older stuff in the MFD archives.) Delete on sight, salt, block, big colorful flashing text, abuse filter, whatever it takes to get the message through. MER-C13:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This rubbish always ends up being deleted through MFD unceremoniously, and I figure we can save time by making it a delete-on-sight issue. harej17:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because speedy deletion requires not only that the case is obvious but that it's frequent and objective as well. In this case it isn't. On a side note, can we please keep speedy-deletion related discussions at WP:CSD? Regards SoWhy18:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New editmessage for semiprotected talk pages?
Currently when an IP views the source of a semiprotected talk page they would receive a message telling them where to make the editprotected requests, but on talk pages it's still link to the talk page, not the non-autoconfirmed talk page. Kayau VotingISevil05:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it would be troublesome for the editnotice to detect which pages also have protected talk pages, and switch messages accordingly. What I was about to do there, in inserting a custom editnotice, would have been enough, imo. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}}07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the PROTECTIONLEVEL magic word can only detect the protection level of the current page. (There is Template:Bug open for this, in case anyone would like to vote for this feature.) However, we could probably add something to the message which appears on the talk page to direct unconfirmed editors to another place to make their requests. This would require a change to MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. I think this is probably a good idea, because at the moment there is a link to "Submit an edit request" which doesn't work on these pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the number of reviewers approaching 5,000 I thought it might be appropriate to allow pages patrols to be only allowed for reviewers. At present, any autoconfirmed user can patrol a page and page patrol sprees often go unnoticed. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that the current situation is a problem, i.e. have there been many inappropriate patrol sprees? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on either side - I don't think this proposal actually changes anything. A newbie autoconfirmed user probably doesn't know what NP Patrol anyway. Kayau VotingISevil14:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a place that records all the pages someone patrolled or the patrollers per pages? I ask to see how many people are taking advantage of the feature, because there is a pretty big backlog and I don't think taking the patroller right from a huge amount of editors will help that right. Feedback(talk)18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 1700 admins who are doing squat for patrolling. I understand your proposal, and if there were "too many patrollers", then your proposal should be implemented. But right now, there is a big backlog, and there are frankly "too few patrollers", not "too many". Maybe if patrols were added to one's contributions, would editors be persuaded to start patrolling pages. Propose that if you want. Feedback(talk)18:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's now almost July, but articles are only listed for new page patrol for a month anyway. I wonder how many don't get patrolled at all? Quite a few I suspect. MalleusFatuorum00:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You have new messages"
You know that yellow box that appears on any page when you have a new message in your talk page. Will it be possible to have that yellow box appear when there's a new message on any other talk page or WP page which the user can specify (like at a Special:Alerts" page). This will be very helpful for everyone to keep track of discussions. Feedback(talk)17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure for dealing with potentially illegal content
A discussion has recently arisen in various venues about an image which is potentially illegal as possibly constituting child pornography. The object of this proposal is not to rehash that debate but to extract some positive proposals which seemed to me to arise from it.
1. There is no clear guidance on what, if anything, an editor should do if they believe that content is criminally illegal: I'm thinking child pornography here, not libel or copyvio. Is it good enough to report it to law enforcement and sit back and wait for the feds to call? If not, what should a concerned editor do on-wiki?
2. There needs to be a clear process for saying "I think X content is illegal" which does not render the report liable to blocking for violation of WP:NLT.
3. I specifically propose: a notice board where concerns can be reported; agreement that admins at that board can remove content if agreed likely; process for referring such content for WMF legal opinion.
One problem that you have is that different things are unlawful in different jurisdictions. I don't believe that you can restrict this discussion to sexual images. That which is unlawful is unlawful. But does it depend on the location of the servers or the location of the reader?
I see why you have raised this. I saw the initial discussion and have seen prior discussions with that editor and others. I think one must rely on WMF to solve this issue. We as editors are not lawyers. We are wholly unsuitable to make a determination. Your suggestion of a noticeboard makes sense, but, since there are genuine legal ramifications globally, I think it has to be patrolled by WMF, not by us. If this discussion shoudl move topwards any form of consensus then they must absolutely be made aware of the discussionsFiddle Faddle (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that any policy wouldn't apply in the case that initiated this, as it clearly isn't illegal, and that should be made clear in any proposed policy. The Virgin Killer furore and the Futanari image should be used as examples of legal content. Verbalchat20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not rehash that, or any other specific case, here. I think it might be helpful to have a clear and authoritative statement about the legality or otherwise of certain images or classes of images from a WMF lawyer to guide concerned editors. My, or your, personal opinions are irrelevant. Now, do you think this proposal helpful or not? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict)I'm afraid you may be mistaken about legality. A court case in Australia relatively recently found someone guilty of kiddie porn because he had a cartoon of the Simpson kids having cartoon sex. As I said, it comes down to jurisdiction. And thus we are back to the main problem. We are just ordinary folk. We can absolutely not make these judgment calls. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear: I'm not suggesting that this discussion attempt to write a set of guidelines for what is or isn't illegal here and now. I'm suggesting a forum in which such questions can be raised, handled and answered in a constructive and authoritative way. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think that would be a very bad idea and could get those that participate into legal problems in their jurisdictions. For example, in the UK, a cached copy of an illegal image counts as "making" - a serious offence. Those involved would be running a very high risk of prosecution. Best to follow WP:NLTs advice in similar situations and keep legal issues off public facing forums. Report it to the appropriate authorities. Verbalchat21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Florida is the relevant jurisdiction. In response to the Australia or even VK/UK issue, WP:NOTCENSORED already exisits. The policy should be basically if you think something is illegal, report it and raise the issue with WP counsel. Do not engage in editwarring (that could get you into legal trouble too in some jurisdictions, returning after you've seen illegal content - unless you're a law enforcement official). Basically, keep it off wikipedia. Verbalchat21:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You have my qualified support. The qualification is that this must be a direct communication route to WMF and must be under their auspices. Without that we just have another talking shop. We have enough of those. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about simply banning all pictures cointaining either people below 20 years, sexually explicit material, or both, at least until the panic vanishes?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IRT AA, that could be considered censorship, especially since I believe the legal age is 18 to appear in pornography? In any case, that is not the relevant issue here. a user above suggested leaving it in the hands of the WMF. This raises a few issues.
Don't we as editors have a responsibility to act? In some jurisdictions citizens have faced legal troubles, not to mention mental anguish, when action was not taken in situation. While not likely to happen, imagine the fallout for the encyclopedia, and any editors involved if wikipedia had an image or other content that was illegal and discovered while we were "waiting for the foundation". The media and the public are not as patient as we may be.
Is a person who sees criminal activity, in any form required to report it?
Should the reported activity be reported to an Administrator? How would they contact one who could take care of the issue immediately? This may seem common sense, but it would seem that the users here are stating, "call the cops, send an email", dont remove the content that could be illegal or dangerous. Who could see it? If there is a picture or video of someone being murdered on wikipedia, I dont want a kid wandering across it while waiting for cops and lawyers. Thoughts? Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where do people get this notion that editors don't act responsibly ? We don't need to formulate everything in policy in order to do the right thing. We have no official policy on acting on threats of suicide, yet I know of at least 2 cases where editors have contacted law enforcement because they had serious concerns after comments that a person left (and those 2 cases were high school jokes as well).
In many jurisdictions you are required to inform law enforcement of criminal activity (not per se about illegal activity).
Illegal content is almost always deleted, some with more immediacy than other, depending on the certainty and severity of the claim. However in the case of suicide threats however, police often asks to keep material online first, because they need it to make their research more efficient. So there are always exceptions. Administrators and staff know about things like this. Perhaps not all of them, but more than most people seem to think.
Pedophelia issues have always been taken care of out of the view of the public. That is much safer for everyone. Just because you don't see something documented, doesn't mean it hasn't happened and been dealt with. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is unrealistic to require anything of editors. They don't have to read the policy in the first place even never mind follow it.
It is up to wikipedia editors to do things in the first instance and only drag in the Foundation in tricky cases. We should just delete anything which looks like a definite problem and has no educational or artistic justification. Tags can be used to raise questions for others to judge ones which which aren't quite so obvious. The number of cases that would need the Foundation should be minute, an occasional test case to check the boundaries and things lie that. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See commons:Commons:Sexual content for our proposed policy so far regarding (among other things) child pornography. We're moving towards adoption right now and we really want your input on the talk page there. The English Wikipedia only needs to worry about illegal fair use images, which I reasonably expect to be quite rare. Dcoetzee00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very bad idea, as has been pointed out already. If the material was illegal (not the case here) then taking part in this talking shop would open editors up to prosecution in various jurisdictions. Report it to the authorities, and report it to WMF. If it is clearly vandalism, remove it as such. Legal opinion and interpretation of content such as this has no place on wikipedia. Whether "I think this picture is illegal" is a legal threat or not depends on context, while "You could be sued for showing this" is a legal threat per WP:NLT and should result in a block. Verbalchat07:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's silly, of course suggesting media may be illegal to host is not a violation of NLT. We nominate articles and images for deletion as copyvios all the time, and the nominators are not blocked for this. On Commons nearly all deletion requests are of this form. A legal threat is not expressing a concern, it's a demand to comply with an action or face legal consequences. Dcoetzee05:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this focus on legality is a red herring. What we really want, IMO, is for material like this to be evaluated with a certain amount of common sense and circumspection. Unfortunately, the more 'edgy' a bit of material is, the less likely that the people advocating for it are going to be using common sense and circumspection - edgy material attracts loud, edgy adherents. To my mind (as I've said before) the best way to approach this is to update wp:NOTCENSORED so that it requires some explanation of the value of a piece of material for the encyclopedia. If someone wants to add material that might be illegal, immoral, disturbing, or what you will, require them to explain what value it has for the encyclopedia, and if they can't do so, give the right under policy to remove it. --Ludwigs206:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, WP:NOTCENSORED already basically says that: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." The problem is that when someone doesn't like something they'll pull out any policy interpretation they can think of to try to set the bar arbitrarily high. And the other side tries to set the bar arbitrarily low. And thus people wind up arguing over the fine points of WP:NorWP:RSorWP:UNDUEorWP:ORorWP:OIorWP:NOT or whether a particular law might apply etc when the real dispute is just WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And the result often comes down to whichever site is more loquacious and/or tendentious, or whether the "wrong" admin happens to come by.
A closely related situation is WP:NOTCENSORED versus "Think of the children"; if one side is an IP or a "new" user the discussion usually ends pretty quickly (by a block for disruption, if nothing else), but if it's "established" editors on both sides we're in for a ton of wikidrama. And there's not really any hope of a solution by rewriting policy: People will never stop thinking their pet peeve should be an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED, but adding one exception makes it a great deal harder to justify not adding exceptions for everyone else until we cannot even cover anything that might be controversial to anyone. Anomie⚔15:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The laws relating to this issue are necessarily non-specific and subject to interpretation. Although it seems to attract no shortage of editors willing to offer their opinions, the community at large is simply not qualified to offer an opinion on this specialized area of law. It bears noting that adminship confers no special knowledge in this area. Discussions on related topics have shown the community -- both here and at other WMF projects -- to be hopelessly polarized and dysfunctional when it comes to taking constructive action to deal with these issues.
Rather than creating a noticebaord or procedure, we should offer advice on how editors who encounter something that they genuinely believe to be child pornography. Simply put, that advice would be:
Follow the laws in your jurisdiction.
Report the image to the authorities.
Contact the WMF.
I hope that anyone encountering something that is obviously and inarguably child pornography would take it upon themselves to remove the image from public view. This is a WMF issue, not an English Wikipedia issue, and we should allow the WMF to lead the way on this if further action is warranted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is only the course of action that someone who actually wants to effect the change they profess to want to effect would take. Individuals who are more interested in publicizing this terrible, terrible badness would not be interested in following this procedure. IE - this is how it worked before this last round of navel gazing, and it's how it will work after. Hipocrite (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussion on this topic should be on the policy page, not on the proposals page. And there must be input from the legal counsel. Anything else is just wheel spinning. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Random Browsing Mode
One way which people use wikipedia is to browse random pages through the 'Random article' link repeatedly. When browsing in this way, the user will often read the title and maybe the first line of the page before moving onto another page of possible interest. This, I imagine, would be a large drain on resources (server load, etc) as the whole page is loaded when only little is read/seen. Possible solution: a browsing mode where a page of titles and first sentences are randomly listed, where users can go to the page (or even have it expand to be the full article with some ajax wizardry) so that the user can look at random pages without wasting resources. The level of complexity this solution adds to UI may not outweigh the resources saved - a suggestion none the less tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrlord (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, you should read WP:Don't worry about performance – there are people who care about the performance of Wikipedia. If random browsing would be a significant drain on resources, I'm sure they would do something about it. Second, even if what you propose would actually reduce the stress of Wikipedia servers, it would require someone to program it, test it, etc. And that's lots of work for probably very small benefit.
If you want this because it would be easier for you to use, that's a whole different matter and it would be best accomplished by some external tool, I think. (Somebody would have to program that too, of course.) Svick (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The TFD discussion was based solely upon the fact that the template was unused. If you undelete and use it, you are surely fully addressing the concerns of all … erm … both of the editors in that discussion, ne? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a lot of nomination systems for articles (FAC, FAR/FARC, GAN, GAR, also AfD and PR), so I'm making this proposal here. It is difficult to gain useful information from old assessment archives (i.e. looking up objections to last year's failed FAC before renominating) because the article can change so much. I propose that we archive permanent links to the revision nominated and the revision at closing. This helps editors see whether the article has progressed since the nom, and helps reviewers see how much the article has progressed during the nom. If a bot could add this information retroactively to the thousands of archive pages, it would be great; otherwise we'd just start doing it now. Thoughts? HereToHelp(talk to me)02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely one can view what the article looked like just prior to the AfD template being added to the page by looking into the history and finding the comment where the tag was applied? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this already done for FA/GA, PR, etc.? The date column of the {{article history}} banner identifies the version at the time of review. For example, Talk:Super Mario 64 has listings of milestone versions starting in October 2004. Though, if there are pages not using the template, combing for the last update date of a review archive could probably generate this information. —Ost (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never thought to click those....heheh. That and the page history section lets you pick a year and month; did it always do that? Anyway, between those suggestions, I think we can get by. Thanks for your ideas, HereToHelp(talk to me)19:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one suggestion as pertaining to the English Wikipedia main page but may be applicable for other languages as well.
Since many people visit Wikipedia to search for an article, I was hoping that the search bar would be in a more prominent position. The previous version had the search bar in the left-most column and the current version has the search bar in the upper right hand corner.
I would suggest that the search bar should be centered, towards the top of the main page and bigger so that it is easily accessible and prominent to viewers. Perhaps a good place for it would be the space to the right of the line: "Welcome to Wikipedia"
I am suggesting this by following the example of other search-intensive sites such Google or Bing or YouTube
Because no one has been able to do it in a way that has satisfied all parties I guess. For just the homepage, I think it is a good idea, the problem is designing it to properly integrate into the main page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have rewards for vandalism fighting? This could be done by the amount of rollbacks that have been performed by the user.--Iankap99 (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that past offenders' (users and i.p. that have been warned for vandalism) changes be in bold to indicate that they have a higher risk of being vandalism. This could be an invaluable tool for vandal fighters. --Iankap99 (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably what will happen before too long is that all pages will be subject to the Pending Changes thing, and users who aren't trusted won't be allowed to auto-review their own changes. So this proposal will be implemented, for all intents and purposes. Tisanetalk/stalk17:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Start a petition against 'fake consensus'?
This is my third village pump proposal for a short while, but I feel the need to do so. I think there is an unhealthy trend in Wikipedia (it could have been the trend long before I came, but I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia as I wasn't involved in any serious editing till sometime last year.) Anyway I don't like the way people count the number of supports and opposes and call it 'consensus'. This is democracy, and Wikipedia is anything but a democracy if we want to make a good encyclopaedia. Lots of WP:LIKEs and WP:IDLs are recognised as !votes every day. And besides, IMO calling a vote a !vote is no different to just calling a vote a vote. I think there could be a petition where Wikipedians sign to reflect their discontent on such 'fake consensus'. Kayau VotingISevil14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the admins do a good job of shutting things which fall under "If we vote, we can make the article's subject whatever we want!", a case of which I saw recently trying to label an advocacy group as a hate group. I haven't seen this sort of thing survive long even in less contentious cases. I have seen people who decided the consensus was against what would have been the vote result being accused of POV, personally I think the decisions I've seen that way have been in the main correct but perhaps I'm a toadying member of a clique and unable or unwilling to see the truth. :) Is there some particular case or cases which you believe are worrying? Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A !vote is not a vote, it's a discussion wherein a number of people state their opinions proceeded by brief bolded summaries of their opinions. We already have "not a democracy" written in policy. Any admin who interprets a result according to a strict vote count to achieve a stupid result is going to get told off for it. Dcoetzee16:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously, the current system exists for a reason. That reason is not a very laudable reason, but it's a reason nonetheless. Admins want to have a certain amount of discretion, and the !votes allow them to assess what they can get away with. If the admin wants to delete a page, and the rules don't clearly support deleting the page, then the admin looks at the results of the vote to judge whether his decision to delete is likely to be reversed. If there's a certain voting margin in favor of deleting, then he knows he can probably get away with deleting. The margin is not set in stone anywhere, and there is a certain potential for other admins to reverse decisions based on their own interpretation of the rules (and, of course, their own preferences as to whether that article should be deleted, which influences whether they choose to get involved), so getting your way is more of an art than a science. I think Abd set forth a "Rule 0" that said the cardinal sin on Wikipedia is to expose the true nature of the "consensus-based" decision-making process for what it is, but whatever. Tisanetalk/stalk17:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current trend is happening for 'small' discussions. I don't think I've seen anyt 'big' discussions being closed like this before, like the XfD, and we have to stop the trend from spreading to the XfD. The petition will not be a voting, just a way to promote consensus and non-voting. Kayau VotingISevil05:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Kayau if it seems like I'm stalking your proposals (because I'm not- you just show up on my watchlist heaps), but Facepalm. "Fake consensus", per se, can occasionally be an issue, but a petition ain't gonna solve anything. XfDs and RfXs are already closed by weight of argument and admin discretion (the percentage is very necessary for borderline cases, and would be used de facto anyway if it weren't de jure), and content disputes are naturally solved via consensus. Where is the issue? Petitions, here as in real life, are in general a load of hot air that give little useful change or information to anyone- especially when the premise is loaded and ambiguous. sonia♫♪06:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I have in mind. Click "here" in the green comment at the top.
We want more readers to become editors.
New editors make mistakes, so more new editors presently means more work for established editors.
My proposal addresses both of these issues.
Having a prominent invitation to edit at the top of each unprotected article would encourage more readers to try.
Linking that invitation to editing essentials would improve readers' first edits.
I'd like to do an initial one month trial on one article, tracking the stats, analyzing the quality; followed by a one month trial of a representative sample of 20 articles; and then present the findings for your consideration. Any support for this? Anthony (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it significantly overcomplicates things. We need to ease people into editing, not try to give them a crash course on citing sources, content disputes, and original research before they do anything. If it looks hard, people won't do it. I don't think "more work for established editors" cleaning up after new users should really be given much weight for things like this. Trying to anticipate the mistakes people will make is what makes editing tutorials like Wikipedia:Tutorial (9 pages?!) so complicated. As long as new users are given the opportunity to learn from their mistakes rather than being punished for them, it should be fine. Mr.Z-man03:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is complicated in this case because it is "how to edit a medical article", and I'm recommending this precisely because it is not 9 pages. It is the bare minimum required to edit a medical article without being a pain (sorry) in the ass. How to edit Rainbow could be half as small again. Anthony (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're looking at it from the wrong angle. The main goal should not be "how to make new editors less of a pain," but "how to attract new editors." If it really is that complicated then we have more serious problems than lack of documentation. We need to actually make editing easy, not just tell people "Sorry, this is as easy as it gets." Mr.Z-man04:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to address "How to attract new editors". That is the purpose of this proposal. I assert that having "You can edit this article. Click here" prominently displayed at the top of an article will encourage first-time editors to try.
You are concerned that the mini-tutorial it links to will scare first-timers away. I hope it is possible to compose a short, simple, clear intro' to editing, that covers the essentials and makes the transition from reader to editor easy. I have trimmed, rearranged and simplified it since your last comment, and would really appreciate your thoughts on this version. Anthony (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to test that hypothesis? A couple of days ago I examined 300 IP edits (one sequence of 100 and another of 200 captured 2 hours apart from Recent changes), and found 3 pairs of test edits in 300. I could do the same analysis comparing the percentage of test edits during the trial month with the average for that calendar month since the article's conception. Anthony (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that red links are what tempt people the most to edit. People who aren't familiar with the fact that a red link means there's no article there, click on it and are confronted with an invitation to edit. Of course, there is always the possibility of reopening up new article creation to anonymous users; that might be helpful. Tisanetalk/stalk03:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like this idea, and I think it deserves a trial. If it's a success, then Wikipedia is greatly improved, and if it fails, nothing lost. Whether it would produce test edits, no edits, or good edits, I have no idea, but there's really no way to tell unless we try it out. --Yair rand (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and new editors want to work together, but Wikipedia's rules and standards usually look complex to new editors. Fortunately in the great majority of situations I think the rules and standards can be applied in simple ways, some simple techniques can make new editors' work much easier, and it's fairly easy to see where this approach is enough and when new editors need some help in a complex situation.Please see me proposal at User:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors and comment at User_talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors. --Philcha (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That is really cool, Philcha, a very nice overview. It did take me 10 minutes to read, though and, as Mr Z-Man pointed out, for the purposes of this proposal, even my 1-minute summary is a little long. The idea is to have it so clear and short that they will read it. Anthony (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is about right. It states the basics and I think saying straight out about citations and not writing your own ideas is good. I think I'd put in about not to worry too much about a polished result as others would fix it up if the content was okay. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anthony's idea is definitely worth a trial. We could add it to a few articles. Develop criteria to decide how we will determine weather or not this has worked. Than wait and collect the numbers. Ideally this would only displace to non registered readers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, can I give it a shot at Pain? It's a moderately popular page with not much IP editing and a good number of vigilant watchers. I would contact all the regular contributors and make the suggestion on the talk page first. (I'd prefer to start with just one page, Doc, just in case of unforeseen problems.) Anthony (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment level display
I think that the default interface should implement the code at User:Pyrospirit/metadata. One of the biggest problems we have with getting people to trust Wikipedia, is that they don't see us trying to maintain the quality of the articles. I showed another user last week, and he had no clue that you could do this and thought it would be very useful. If you implemented this code, or something similar, it would tell users alot more about articles on the main page. Right now we only show them GA and FA symbols, why not the whole range, that way we can increase awareness of all of our efforts in assessing articles? Sadads (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the metadata is pretty helpful information, if only for those who are curious about what Wikipedia's quality standards are these days. What used to be considered a "featured" article is now just a "good" article, and no doubt in the future, what counts today as a "good" article will only be a B-class article. Tisanetalk/stalk14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, but adding color to the header is not the way to do it. Maybe there could just be an icon at the top right, like the FA and GA icons, indicating what class of article it is. Or maybe just use the tagline... --Yair rand (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tagline alone would be more than enough, the symbols just don't get enough attention. Maybe we could force it into the Usability initiative? Sadads (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings below GA are pretty much arbitrary and frequently based on only a cursory review. I think the quality of our quality rankings needs to improve before they're especially useful for much. Mr.Z-man.sock (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citation templates: naming by style
When discussing citation templates, I find it very clumsy to have to differentiate the different templates by style. I propose to name these:
Wikipedia Citation Style 1 (CS1)
This template is based on APA style and uses a comma as the default separator:
{{Cite news}} is listed under CS2. CS1 is used on more than 25000 pages (that is the max that AWB will count). CSV is fairly new and used on a handful of pages. Then there are the uncountable number of article that don't use templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk02:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the descriptions contain a phrase like "This template is based on APA and MHRA styles". First, what is MHRA style? Second, how do we know? Can someone find some talk page discussion in the archives explaining what the original editors of these tempates were thinking? Finally, APA style is only used for parenthetical referencing so it is misleading to describe a style oriented to footnotes as being based on APA. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MHRA crept into one of my early notes when I was doing some comparisons, but that is not right— removed.
I am well aware that true APA uses in-text parenthetical citations. On Wikipedia, we seem to have separated in-text referencing and the reference list citations into two separate systems. The most common Wikipedia practice is to use in-text numerical referencing with Cite<ref>...</ref> tags that link to the reference list citation formatted with CS1 or CS2. I am not out to fix this system, as it seems to not be broken. I just want to document what is already in use, and I need some terminology to do this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk15:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expandable ellipsis
I propose that a expandable ellipse be made for quotations. Currently, when a quote is used with either redundant or irrelevant content, it is removed and replaced with ellipsis ("...") which indicate that content has been removed. These however, can be made in bad faith, either to remove context or to remove content contrary to the use of the quote. My proposal is that to show good faith ellipsis, when clicked the full quote becomes visible. I suggest this could be achieved by the use of Template:... e.g. "I am quoted without the {{...|hidden part of the quote}} as an example"
This, as far as I know, is not possible at the moment due to commons.js forcing a table and [hide]/[show]
930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - although the name should really be a noun, not an adjective. Prodego talk 03:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm. "Fake consensus", per se, can occasionally be an issue, but a petition ain't gonna solve anything. XfDs and RfXs are already closed by weight of argument and admin discretion (the percentage is very necessary for borderline cases, and would be used de facto anyway if it weren't de jure), and content disputes are naturally solved via consensus. Where is the issue? Petitions, here as in real life, are in general a load of hot air that give little useful change or information to anyone- especially when the premise is loaded and ambiguous. sonia♫♪ 06:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
