| Village pump This box:|
|Skip to: Table of contents • First discussion • Bottom of page • New post|
|Welcome to the Outreach Wiki's village pump. This page has two functions:
|Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon: in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.|
The Outreach Wiki is relatively small, so let's try and keep administrative tasks to a minimum, by keeping as many questions as possible on this page. (Suggested "rule": unless we have more than 15 cases in a short while, we can do without any extra tools such as administrative pages.)
- 1 Deletion of Outreach team
- 2 Deleting unhelpful pages.
- 3 Fixing double redirects with Thehelpfulbot
- 4 Best practices
- 5 Translate
- 6 Unhelpful page deletion
- 7 What do I do?
- 8 Account Creation Improvement Project - inactive but still creating accounts
- 9 What is wrong with this wiki?
- 10 Spam, blocks, and due process
Deletion of Outreach team
I noticed that the page Outreach team was recently deleted, as outdated. However, there are two individuals who added their names to the list within the last month, and others last fall. While I agree that there was little clarity about the purpose of the page, it seems that deletion without seeking to engage the people who have signed up may be premature. I am interested in knowing others who are interested in Wikimedia outreach, and I suspect others on the list are as well.
- Surely it should be restored and made into a redirect to whatever replaced it, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleting unhelpful pages.
- Is there live on Mars? is not really helping outreach. Perhaps it should be deleted?
- Ditto for Santa fe indian school, which appears to be copy&pasted from here.
- The first page was nonsense and the second was a copy of an English Wikipedia page. I deleted them both. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Fixing double redirects with Thehelpfulbot
I'm planning to run Thehelpfulbot here to run on a crontab to fix double redirects, see Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulbot for what it does - it's trusted pywikipedia code and the bot has been running on the English Wikipedia for years.
- A crat needs to flag it as a bot. Mono (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that the Best practices page was declared historical as of this week. The tag suggests to go here for discussion, but it seems that no discussion took place. I would like to restore this page to active. While it hasn't had a substantial number of edits in recent months, I believe that recent discussions regarding a space to organize general how-tos and best practices (often compared to how things are set up in GLAM) points to the need for this page to remain. In fact, we have a promising guide that should be added there now. Thanks. HstryQT (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Despite its significant value and importance to anyone organizing an event, no resources have been funneled into the project from volunteers or the WMF for a long time. I also noted that most, if not all, of the content was relocated to Meta. The lack of activity on Outreach Wiki does not disqualify its usefulness, but it is simply not being given any attention. I am open to reviving it because I feel it is valuable, but it should be decided whether its home is here or on Meta. --Mono (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Unhelpful page deletion
Page List of topics hasn't been edited since it's creation and it has no real reason I can see on outreach. I would also suggest moving the page to a different title.Shaun9876 (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted the page. It had one non-substantial edit. Feel free to create a new page with whatever different title you like and with whatever content you think would be useful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
What do I do?
- This is the village pump, where you may ask questions or make comments about anything related to Wikimedia projects. If you have a question about Wikimedia outreach we can discuss it here; for other Wikimedia concerns someone would direct you to whatever forum is appropriate. Thanks for visiting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Account Creation Improvement Project - inactive but still creating accounts
I recently clicked a New user page through Outreach:ACIP link and when I got to Account Creation Improvement Project it indicated the project was inactive and retained for historical purposes. How is an inactive project still creating new accounts? Rather confusing... Monty845 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. I see that this project is listed in the sidebar under "Projects". The discussion page is closed and it says to redirect all queries to the village pump. The project is inactive and it has the inactive template on it, but I cannot find a historical record of how it ended and whether any of its tasks have been assumed by another project. It is not immediately obvious what its tasks were.
- I confirm that it is confusing as you say and I am not sure what to do about it. I would like to think that the project creators should wrap it up with some conclusive statement but I am not sure that I want to get involved in this. What are your ideas? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with this wiki?
I don't know why but this wiki is presenting a strange behaviour (bug?) with respect to user contributions. See for instance the history page of Template:Other languages: for some of the registered contributors there are links "(talk|contribs)", while for others, just (talk); and when we click on their names we're directed to their contributions list, as if they were IPs. My edit on that page is also not recognized as mine anymore, as well as others I had done that year (a bug ticked was opened for this matter). Is there a script that an admin could run to fix these issues? Capmo (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Spam, blocks, and due process
Obviously, this wiki doesn't have all the detailed process and policy that you might see somewhere like en.wikipedia.org, but... I just thought it would be a good idea to invite discussion. Lately I've found some spammers; usually they make a single edit which creates a new page full of blatant spam, so I delete that, and then I block them for a week. Autoblocks probably a good idea too, considering that the accounts are effectively throwaway accounts. But what does everyone else think?
- Should the block period be longer or shorter?
- If we ever reach a situation where a block is controversial or borderline, is this page the best place to discuss it? Or shall we cross that bridge when we get to it?
- If we ever get editors who are in the grey area (ie. a mixture of spam and nonspam edits &c), perhaps it's a good idea to start using user talkpages?
- Perhaps we need an actual blocking policy? Doesn't need to be much, just a few sentences will do.
- Hi, Bobrayner. I usually lock for indefinite accounts made solely to spam. I think it's the best thing to do.Érico msg 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I notice that the general practice on Outreach is to block spammers after a single spam post. In the rare cases where I find spammers I am more generous and give one warning. I think here at Village Pump is a reasonable place to discuss controversial or borderline blocks but I hope those discussions are rare. Pine✉ 06:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocking after one spam post is fine here. There is not enough traffic here to counsel people. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)