Template talk:Editabuselinks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Not just admins

I've just reverted this template because the version that was displaying made it appear as though these areas "belonged" to Wikipedia adminstrators. This is in fact very incorrect. By all means edit for formatting but do be sure to not limit the target "audience" for the template. Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should make anybody believe that it is admin-only. Plus it looks more organized when it's on two lines. Hbdragon88 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noticeboards

Shouldn't we add a link to WP:RNB? They can and are used to report some abuses (usually content disputs, sometimes quite ugly, on regional-interest topics).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FURG

Does the link to AN/FURG really belong? That page is a fork with little traffic, and missing rationales aren't "abuse." See the brief conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG#List of U.S. state tartans (its brevity is evidence of the lack of traffic. . .). Chick Bowen 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Does anyone object if I add a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? It has existed since 25 May. Explanation of this noticeboard's history and justification is at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive13#A_reliable_source_committee? and Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Reliability_noticeboard. EdJohnston 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not about abuse, though. Chick Bowen 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Only the top row deals with editing abuse. --Edokter (Talk) 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add link to protection-requests?

Should the "Editing abuse" line contain a link to WP:RFP? DMacks 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Please comment on the proposed change to this template here Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal MBisanz talk 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there are 2 supports at Talk:AN, so I'm gonna do it. Feel free to revert me if I missed something or did something wrong. MBisanz talk 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Completed. MBisanz talk 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz talk 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this template should only address edit abuse; it was created to make it easier for users trying to report abuse to find the correct page, since there was a lot of posting on wrong pages. That said, I don't object to your particular change. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:35:18, 06 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry it closed so quickly then, but glad you don't object. MBisanz talk 01:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard

John Reaves has just removed the Fiction Noticeboard from the template, but I've just promptly restored it. I've done this as it is a noticeboard just like this rest of the noticeboards (e.g. RS, ANI, AN), it doesn't matter whether its two years or two weeks old it should still be there. Removing it in my view, and it could mean that it could get forgotten about again. Other opinions welcome. D.M.N. (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that it's yet to prove its worth, but whatever. John Reaves 17:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added • Report spam

An obvious problem, we've all seen spam, but few know that there is a place to report spamming violations. Unlike concerns above, this has proved its worth to the project.--Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrats' noticeboard?

Seems an obvious omission. Should be linked under the noticeboard section, but doesn't look like it will currently fit. ~Eliz81(C) 01:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, WP:BN appears to lack a navigational header at the moment. I'll crosspost this to WT:BN. ~Eliz81(C) 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Depends on what it should fit on... I already have two lines on my 1024 display. — Edokter • Talk • 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I suppose I have widescreen. But maybe the noticeboard section should be divvied up in twain? ~Eliz81(C) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No matter how you format it, it will always suck on someone's screen. — Edokter • Talk • 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say add BN, only because at this point a single-line noticeboard is pretty much worthless. If we added BN, I'd say it should be an autoformated 2 lines in this order Line 1 AN, ANI, BN, BLPN, RSN, COIN, Line 2 ArbcomE, NPOV, Fringe, OR, Fict, BON. That would seem to be an order-of-importance listing to me. MBisanz talk 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a sensible ordering to me. I support making the change. ~Eliz81(C) 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree--Hu12 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've got something to do at work tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. MBisanz talk 08:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverted as crats don't prefer BN being here. Doesn't make 2 rows worth it then. MBisanz talk 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggested the RfA template over at WT:BN as a sensible alternative, since it already links WP:BN anyway. ~Eliz81(C) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing abuse -> admin intervention

How about we change "Editing abuse" to "Admin intervention"? Seems more appropriate to me, at least. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, never thought of it that way. But wouldn't having the title of the line be Admin Intervention and then having AIV on that line be confusing? And non-admins can intervene in things like ISP reporting, SSP, and checkuser to basically the same (minus blocking) degree as non-admins. Still edit abuse seems unnecessarily vague. MBisanz talk 04:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser noticeboard link

Just noticed a link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard was added recently; at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard#Folding I've suggested we consider merging said noticeboard to Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser. Regardless of that discussion's outcome, currently this template already links to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, which in turn links to the clerk noticeboard on both its front page and talk page (if memory serves). Is this additional link needed for such a low-traffic noticeboard, given this template's increasing crowding troubles? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty low-volume noticeboard, so I think it can be removed. The checkusers were never consulted either, and it is getting crowded. — Edokter • Talk • 00:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say clerk noticeboards like this and IP reporting and Arbcom are too specialized to warrant sitewide attention, unless the clerks/owners desire it. MBisanz talk 03:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be worth adding WP:DR to the Edit Abuse section of the template? or WP:RFAR? MBisanz talk 05:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The RFCU Clerk noticeboard was added by a Crat, so it might be worth asking him why he added it. MBisanz talk 07:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in the interest of keeping everybody on the same page, the link was removed and the noticeboard has been merged to WT:RFCU. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to WP:Copyright problems added

I've just added a link to WP:CV to this template. It is a suitable addition to the "Editing abuse" section and placing the link in this template should help reduce the 2-month backlog currently there. - 52 Pickup (deal) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to say this, but we need to watch out that this template does not become overcrowded. — Edokter • Talk • 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but I felt that WP:CV really needed to go here. If the template does get too overcrowded, a redesign might be needed later on. 52 Pickup (deal) 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree its becoming unwieldy. I almost regret adding the top line to it. Would anyone object to killing the Site Directory and Village Pump links? And maybe breaking tradition and moving some of the less-used Edit Abuse pages to the top bar? MBisanz talk 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New design

Not to be a party-pooper, but I'm not wild about the new design. It's lost the navbox feel. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lost that feel a long time ago. Its good, just not the subcat in edit abuse line. MBisanz talk 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, just a bit too big (margin)..IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
For the edit abuse requests, we prob should now include medcomm, rfar, rfc, 3o, and medcab. MBisanz talk 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Not liking the borders either. They make the template look too... clunky. I've removed the width parameter so that it's not quite as tall, though. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bullets

Can we have some opinions on small vs. normal bullets? In my view (IE6), the small bullets are but single-pixel dots, which make it hard to tell the links apart. — Edokter • Talk • 14:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be Fixed now. The small bullets have been upped to standard size. Anthøny 19:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I did that, but this wasn't quite a matter of "fixing" it, I was actually asking for opinions on wether they should be small or large. — Edokter • Talk • 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well then, it is fine as it is. Anthøny 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As they now are is great. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Weird. On IE6 here (Windows XP PC, 21"ish screen at 1152 by 864) the bullets appear the same somewhat "pushy" size as they do in Firefox 2. Okay, not quite Wikipedia's greatest problem, but distracting nonetheless (and not just in this template). I've never seen bold middots rendered as single pixels, even on a laptop. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain now that 95% of admins and 99% of non-admins never even look at the this thing. If we did the changes to the mainpage we've done over the last couple of months here, heads would roll. The downside is with only a handful of us, we can't test changes as well. Is there some sort of thing that can test a wikipedia page under multiple scenarios (like a W3C compliance tool). MBisanz talk 08:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. To be honest, the template is fine as it is now, and there is no point in bartering over frivolities—we'll never get any use out of the template itself :) This would probably be an appropriate time to say "move along folks". Regards, Anthøny 10:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yead, bold middots do tend to show as single pixels, especially with the reduced font-size within the box. — Edokter • Talk • 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Oversight

Resolved. Link to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight added. Anthøny 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We occasionally have someone request the deletion of one or more revisions, for which they are directed to Oversight. One such editor today suggested that we add Requests for Oversight to the editabuselinks template. I thought I'd start a discussion on the matter, as - though it's not as frequently used as items such as Checkuser and the like - it's probably a worthwhile addition. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done by AGK here. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. :) I forgot to annotate this thread, noting that I'd made the change, but yes, all done. Anthøny 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

I went ahead and added this page to Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution. I also recommend adding a link to WP:DR somewhere in the template. --Elonka 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)