On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Cos I've never understood how bugzilla works, and there's something
weird about how you have to register over there and it is different
The good news is that after dipping below the 1720 peak, admin numbers
are on the rise again and we currently have what I believe is a new
record of 1724 admins. However if one were to exclude adminbots then I
think we are still below peak levels, and even if we are now
appointing admins faster
On 27 May 2010 23:38, Matt Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote:
My guess is that it's because the bureaucracy has become too intimidating.
I suspect many editors do not want to commit the time and effort to learning
it all.
All guesswork is a fruitless exercise, in the absence of any data on
Tightening up on new page creation would free up a lot of time for
admins as well as other editors. A lot of rubbish articles get created
that need to be speedied.
Alan Liefting
WereSpielChequers wrote:
The good news is that after dipping below the 1720 peak, admin numbers
are on the rise
On 28 May 2010 16:48, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
A lot of rubbish articles get created
that need to be speedied.
That's very true. And the CAT:CSD workload is more prone to backlog
than it was a couple of years ago, perhaps because RfA is not as
sympathetic to the 'recentchanges
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
Tightening up on new page creation would free up a lot of time for
admins as well as other editors. A lot of rubbish articles get created
that need to be speedied.
Alan Liefting
{{fact}}.
Jimbo himself admits that
AGK wrote:
On 28 May 2010 16:48, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
A lot of rubbish articles get created
that need to be speedied.
That's very true. And the CAT:CSD workload is more prone to backlog
than it was a couple of years ago, perhaps because RfA is not as
On 28 May 2010 17:18, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo himself admits that banning all anons from page creation didn't
do much of anything to help.
He's not talking about banning unregistered/unconfirmed users from
creating pages. I think he is talking about tightening up on article
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
Tightening up on new page creation would free up a lot of time for
admins as well as other editors. A lot of rubbish articles get created
that need to be speedied.
Alan Liefting
On 05/28/2010 08:31 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
We may still have enough admins to do the urgent admin tasks for quite
some time to come; But I can see us becoming more dependant on the
occasional admin who can clear a 100 article backlog at CSD in an
hour or two, and I fear a growing
I'll add that it doesn't take much to simply create an account and
create an article that says I luv Jane Doe she iz so awsumtastic!!
While banning anonymous creation in the mainspace had its good
intentions, it's probably not as useful now as it was intended.
For instance, just today I speedy
snip
I'll add that it doesn't take much to simply create an account and
create an article that says I luv Jane Doe she iz so awsumtastic!!
While banning anonymous creation in the mainspace had its good
intentions, it's probably not as useful now as it was intended.
/snip
And I'd like to add to
I agree actually. It would also open the opportunity for rangeblocks on editors
that dodge autoblocks more easily.
However I don't think you will ever achieve consensus for this. There are
people in the community today that advocate blocking ip editing entirely, not
just article creation.
I say this as a new page patroller myself:
For love of all that's sweet and holy, somebody higher up please
tighten up the technical standards for non-userfyed article creation.
Most of my PRODs and CSDs nominations are from people who simply don't
know what they are doing. In the meantime,
I'll add that it doesn't take much to simply create an account and
create an article that says I luv Jane Doe she iz so awsumtastic!!
While banning anonymous creation in the mainspace had its good
intentions, it's probably not as useful now as it was intended.
For instance, just today
Emily, your approach to patrolling has it backwards. The priority is
not removing articles; the priority is adding contributors. Without
new contributors the inevitable attrition of existing active people
will cause the quality to decline and the potential for covering new
or neglected topics
Hi everyone,
After much debate, we've settled on a name for the English Wikipedia
implementation of FlaggedRevs: Pending Changes. This is a slight
variation on one of the finalists (Pending Revisions) which has the
benefit of using the less jargony term changes instead of revisions.
The
On 28 May 2010 23:25, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
After much debate, we've settled on a name for the English Wikipedia
implementation of FlaggedRevs: Pending Changes.
I find this decision very odd. Revision Review had much more support
(and very well-reasoned
On 28 May 2010 17:29, AGK wiki...@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, he certainly has a point. Having to wade through the
nonsense that gets submitted to Wikipedia is a huge time leech.
Suggesting otherwise is silly.
Mmm. I think it's unavoidable, though - perhaps the question should be
how can we
First off, let me say that you have influenced my editing a bit. Just
read my whole email.
Let me respond to your statements one at time, in no particular order.
For patrolling, nothing is easier than to remove impossible
articles. One step harder, not all that much harder, but only a
20 matches
Mail list logo
