Wikispecies

Wikispecies:Requests for Comment/Archive 1

< Wikispecies:Requests for Comment
These RFC's have reached conclusion. Please do not edit them.

Novice contributor seeks general feedback

Hey, I'm an inexperienced contributor and I was wondering if someone could check my recent contributions and let me know if anything I've done is messed up or contrary to convention. Abyssal (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abyssal: It looks like you're doing a fine job. I know this feedback is pretty late--I hope you decide to come back to us. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

I propose to change the actual logo wich looks too old for me and doesn't attract new users. I propose two logos:

  •  
    First
  •  
    Second

Tell me wich one you prefer, or if you prefer the current logo. Archi38 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous logo designs can be found here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the first

  1.   Support As creator. Much more modern. Archi38 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the second

  1. Because it makes it clear it's a double helix - but more shading would be better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support As creator. Much more modern. Archi38 (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Replacing the existing logo is a huge undertaking, still I believe it is very needed. This new logo is also has a much better color contrast. --Abbe98 (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I would say no for now. I don't see a major difference between the current logo and the 2 proposed versions. From other perspectives, changing a logo slightly causes far more trouble. WMF has to file an update to the trademark office. Then they have to update and reprint brochures on top of revising all the wiki pages that use the logo. You will need to change the logo on every single project's main page (over 800) and their subpages (for any multi-language projects). As if that's not enough trouble yet, Wikpedia Store sells items such as stickers and lapel pins which would need to be revised for such a trivial change. I don't feel that it's worth all the trouble just because the logo feels old and needs to be modernized (but not by a substantial degree of difference). OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @OhanaUnited All Wikimedia projects use this file in Commons, so we just have to overwrite on it and it will change everywhere. For the brochure, WMF and wikipedia store just have to sell the last pins with old logo and then change it. Also see my comment below Archi38 (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Archi38: I would consider it if the new logo is substantially different from the current one (not saying that the current one needs to be replaced). But as it stands right now I don't feel that it is vastly different. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep the current logo. Even beyond the compelling arguments just above by OhanaUnited, the shading variations on all components of the current logo make it appear more three-dimensional (and just more professional) than either of the two newly proposed variants. MKOliver (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MKOliver The problem is that the mode is flat design and we have to follow the mode if we want to attract new users. And the current logo spoils among others Wikimedia logos, wich are all flat. Archi38 (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. For instance, Wikipedia as well as MediaWiki and Wikinews all use "non-flat" logos. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Keep the current logo. In my opinion, it's nonsense to think that flattening the current logo would attract anybody, who is able and willing to contribute. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keep the current logo, at least for now. From a practical point a view I agree with OhanaUnited – changing the logo is a bigger deal than we might first expect. On a more personal note, I simply like the current logo. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  5. I don't see anything wrong with present logo. Quite easy for me to tell which project I am on, by stylized DNA helix. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I prefer todays logo. PeterR (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I am sympathetic to the idea of a new logo and I like option 2 but I don't feel it's really necessary or will make this project any stronger to have a new logo (slick and attractive though it may be). Had this been proposed 10 years ago, it may have won the day. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Flow on beta feature

Hello, I suggest to add Flow to beta features. Flow is much better than the "normal" talk system. Archi38 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short explanation – what is Flow?
  • Flow is a project for building a modern discussion and collaboration system for Wikimedia projects.
  • It provides features that are present on most modern websites, but which are not possible to implement in wikitext. For example, Flow automatically signs users' posts on talk pages, threads replies, and permits per-topic notifications.
  • The main goals for the Flow project are:
  1. to make the wiki discussion system more accessible for new users
  2. to make the wiki discussion system more efficient for experienced users
  3. to encourage meaningful conversations that support collaboration

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Support

  1.   Support really good feature Archi38 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support I will give a go as well Andyboorman (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support I've been checking it out a bit on MediaWiki, and it seems good. (You can try it out yourself by changing your MediaWiki user settings here.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Dan Koehl (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Against

  1.   Oppose Awful interface. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose Beta testing may take place somewhere else. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Koavf: Automatic signpost, threads replies with auto indentation, switch from source to visual editor only for your message, adding posibility to subscribe to a topic and be notified and tons of other things :) Archi38 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that switching to the visual editor is a choice made by the user, and not mandatory? ’Cause I really, really dislike the visual editor, and never, ever use it – except to check whether it's gotten any better. Which in my opinion, it hasn't... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yes of course, it's the user who decide. By default if you click on edit it will be in source editor. And I hate visual editor too ! Archi38 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree with Andy that the interface needs quite a lot of work (it's still in beta, after all) but considering the features rather than the UI I still think we should give it a try. Also, as far as I understand every user can decide whether to use it or not. This will most likely be true also after Flow is out of beta, since I guess it will show up in the "Appearance" section of the user settings, with a check box next to it? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Deployment

Hello!

Deployment has been done at 23:00 UTC, May 11.

You now have Flow available as a Beta feature. You can activate or deactivate it on your talk page. When you activate it, your current talk page will be automatically archived on a sub-page.

If you have questions, you can read the documentation, or ask me directly on my talk page.

Cheers, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Checkusers

Please comment We need at least two. If any others come in the near future, please transclude them here as well so the community can see them:

−

Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Dan Koehl

−

Dan Koehl (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

This poll has closed. Final results:
  • 28   Support
  • 1   Oppose
  • 1   Neutral
  • 93% approval (97% not counting neutral votes). This nomination passes, pending any community review of the voting process.


Referring to earlier discussions regarding local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community, as per local Checkuser policy on META. I am aware of that we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks. I am well over 18 years of age, of legal age in my place of residence, and I am already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation (Verify identification at Wikimedia).

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poll ends 2017-02-11T01:26 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support Trusted User. Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 04:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Dan is a very valued member of the community here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support --Murma174 (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support of course --Ruthven (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support AfroBrazilian (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support No doubt in my mind Andyboorman (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support -- Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Wikispecies needs a CU. Céréales Killer (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support -- Neferkheperre (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support -- Orchi (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Burmeister (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Accassidy (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support --RLJ (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    xxxxxxxx -- Mariusm (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support -- BanKris (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support --Info-farmer (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support --Fagus (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Thiotrix (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support -- Floscuculi (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support Jianhui67 (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support Stephen G. Brown (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support User:Amdb73 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support --Djiboun (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support user:UtherSRG (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support lycaon (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support MPF (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Lost faith after the pump discussion. Mariusm (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral


For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.

−

Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf

−

Koavf (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

This poll has closed. Final results:
  • 25   Support
  • 3   Oppose
  • 2   Neutral
  • 83% approval (89% not counting neutral votes). This nomination passes, pending any community review of the voting process.

As pointed out at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Dan_Koehl, for us to have one Check User, we must have at least two. I am happy to serve the community here if that's what others think is best. Dan and I are also in opposite time zones so that will help us have more comprehensive coverage. I have had admin rights here for a year, have advanced rights on a few other wikis (custodian on en.v, bureaucrat on outreach, etc.) as well as Staff rights on WikiIndex and I have Check User on wikilivres:. I had an unsuccessful bid here for bureaucratship and have had a some successes and setbacks with my initiatives here. I hope that everyone who !votes gives careful consideration and if you think I'm not a good fit, please nominate yourself so that at least DK can get the rights he deserves to serve the community.

Regarding verification, I am a very verified wiki user and can provide proof to the WMF if necessary.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poll started 05:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 05:28, 11 february 2017 (UTC). Dan Koehl (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.   Support Trusted User. Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 05:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support AfroBrazilian (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support -- Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Dan Koehl (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Andyboorman (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support MKOliver (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Burmeister (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Accassidy (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support --RLJ (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support -- Neferkheperre (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support -- BanKris (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Info-farmer (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support --Thiotrix (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support -- Floscuculi (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support --Jianhui67 (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Céréales Killer (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support Stephen G. Brown (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support --Djiboun (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support -- Mariusm (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support --世界首都环游 (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support - user:UtherSRG (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support - Brya (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC) : I guess three is better than two.[reply]

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Fagus (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose --Murma174 (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose --This is a taxonomic project. I'm not convinced on your experience in that matter. lycaon (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. @Lycaon: Please can you explain the relevance of that, to the use of checkuser tools? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 9 February 2017.

Neutral

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.

Please place any additional comments below:

− Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

− − And now:

− −

Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing

−

Pigsonthewing (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

This poll has closed. Final results:
  • 18   Support
  • 5   Oppose
  • 4   Neutral
  • 66% approval (78% not counting neutral votes).

I support both of the currently-open requests for checkuser access, from Dan Koehl and Koavf. I am offering to serve so that we have three checkuser operators, to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable. I am an active admin, patroller and contributor on this project. I am UK based, and am over 18 (which should be no surprise, as I've been contributing to WMF projects since 2003!) The WMF know me, and I am willing to identify myself to them formally as required for this role. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poll started 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 15:18, 11 february 2017 (UTC). Dan Koehl (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.   Support -- Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Experienced on the whole Wiki project and good conciliator Andyboorman (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Dan Koehl (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 16:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Trusted and valued member. I have never had a problem interacting with Andy and I think he would take the responsibility seriously. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Burmeister (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Accassidy (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --RLJ (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support - Neferkheperre (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support --BanKris (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --Thiotrix (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support --Info-farmer (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --MKOliver (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Céréales Killer (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Stephen G. Brown (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Kaldari (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1.   Neutral. I haven`t well knowladge about this user contibutions. AfroBrazilian (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Neutral. I haven`t well knowladge about user contibutions. User:Amdb73 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Neutral. While I've had little interaction with Andy here or on Wikipedia, I can't help being wary of handing this tool to a user with a background of adversarial behavior who's been fully banned or otherwise sanctioned by arbcom at least three times. Yes I'm aware several of those sanctions were subsequently lifted, but the background remains worrisome nonetheless, and I have to be honest with my thoughts on this issue. Furthermore, as much as I respect his technical work, I feel he is mostly present as a side effect of his Wikidata work rather than for the advancement of Wikispecies itself. Circeus (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I am an administrator on this project; a position I hold by consensus of the Wikispecies community. I invite you to either nominate me for de-sysoping, to test whether that consensus holds, or to strike your comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Neutral Jianhui67 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.

− − −

Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas

−

Faendalimas (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

This poll has closed. Final results:
  • 27   Support
  • 0   Oppose
  • 2   Neutral
  • 93% approval (100% not counting neutral votes). This nomination passes, pending any community review of the voting process.

I was initially willing to do this, including some years back when I investigated the policies and created the CU pages here on WS. I then thought I would hold off after seeing a total of three applications currently going. But since Dan Koehl has encouraged me to do so I will apply. I have been actively involved in Wikimedia projects for over 10 years and am a member of numerous sub projects that can be seen on my user page here, or at Wikipedia. I also do some editing on Wikidata, also have edited the Portuguese Wikipedia. In the past I have been involved in some Checkuser cases, importantly one on Wikipedia where other editors were asking me to check a particular pair of users but I declined to do so as I did not feel there was evidence to do it. It turns out the users were indeed two different users and hence there was no reason to invade their privacy with such an action. A checkuser not only has the responsibility to know when to do it, but when not to do it. I am not a checkuser on any other project just have been involved in the issue a few times while mediating editing issues. I am an administrator on Wikispecies and have been heavily involved in a number of discussions regarding policies and planning, also development issues. Additional to creating pages, largely on Turtles which are my specialty as a professional taxonomist. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poll started 23:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 23:42, 11 february 2017 (UTC). Dan Koehl (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.   Support Faendalimas has a good insight in the CU issue, he imported many of the WS CU documents. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Scott does good work here and shows some discretion. It's not a problem to have (e.g.) a half-dozen CUs. Better to have one or two too many than too few. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 08:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --BanKris (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Céréales Killer (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --RLJ (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Accassidy (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Burmeister (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Ruthven (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Andyboorman (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support -- Neferkheperre (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support--Aboulouei1 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support My (few) interactions with you and my "gut instinct" say yes --Succu (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support --Info-farmer (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support --Fagus (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support --Orchi (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Thiotrix (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support I do not know this user, but he seems like a good guy. Can be trusted with extra tools. Jianhui67 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support --Murma174 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support Stephen G. Brown (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support -- Mariusm (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support - user:UtherSRG (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support --lycaon (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support MPF (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1.   Neutral. I haven`t well knowladge about user contributions. AfroBrazilian (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Neutral. I haven`t well knowladge about user contributions. User:Amdb73 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Removal of User Rights Policy and Considerations

Result:- Voting tallied at 10 positive, 0 neutral, 0 against. Those voting included a number of Bureaucrats and Admins. Motion is passed and to be implemented as the Administrator Review Policy of Wikispecies. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following proposal laid out by Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our current list of 30 admins and 10 bureaucrats includes many who have been innactive for extended periods. It is not fair to the community and in particular to new users who may need help to not receive replies for requested help due to innactivity. It is also unproffessional. Therefore after numerous discussions on this in the past (2015-2016; Early 2015; 2014) we are resolved to do something about it. This issue has also been formed into policy and a review process on Meta which can be read here. In this The review process is undertaken by the Stewards with the exception of those Wiki projects with an Abitration Committee such as EN Wikipedia (Here) or who have developed local policy to deal with this issue and an example of this is the Wikimedia Commons whose policy is here. One difference between Wikispecies and the Commons is that we can remove admin privelages from Administrators, though we cannot do it for Bureaucrats. So we need to do things a little differently but the spirit of the proposal would be the same. The removal of rights can only be done by Stewards so upon reviewing the activity of an admin or bureaucrat we must ask the Stewards to change the user groups of the user.

In theory this policy applies to all higher user rights, Administrator, Bureaucrat and CheckUser being those present on this Wiki. However, CheckUser's are subject to review by the Stewards and other CheckUsers so we will leave them to that scrutiny. Which is much higher than the others.

Policy Proposal

Activity

The implementation of this part of the policy is dealt with at subpage of wikispecies/administrators to be constructed.

As with the policy for administrator access on Meta, inactive Wikispecies administrators (including those holding bureaucrat privileges) will have their rights removed. An "inactive admin" is one who has made fewer than 5 edits and 5 admin actions on Wikispecies in the past 12 months. An "admin action" for this purpose is an action requiring use of the admin tools and which is logged as such according to Logs.

However if an admin places a message on the administrators' noticeboard stating that they will be away for a period of not more than 12 months and giving an intended return date, then no action should be taken over inactivity until two months after that date.

Inactivity: De-adminship process as a result of inactivity

  1. A notice (Commons example) must be placed on the inactive admin's talk page linking to this policy and explaining that admin rights may be lost. An email should also be sent.
  2. If there is no response from the admin requesting retention of rights as required by the notice within 30 days, the rights will be removed.
  3. If the admin responds to the notice as required but then fails to make five admin actions within the period of six months starting at the time of the notice, the rights will be removed without further notice.

Administrators who have lost admin rights through inactivity but who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process.

Removal of rights

Where an admin loses rights under this policy, that should be effected by means of a local Bureaucrat removing the rights, for or a Bureaucrat looses rights a request to the a stewards at Meta will be made by a local Bureaucrat for the removal of advanced rights. (local bureaucrats do not have the power, themselves, to remove another user's admin or bureaucrat rights). The ex-admin or bureaucrat should be notified by a talk page message.

Voting

  Support:

  1. — Mariusm (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - Andyboorman (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - Dan Koehl (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. - Neferkheperre (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk • contribs • block log • all projects) 20:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Samuele2002 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — MKOliver (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Zerabat (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Advanced rights without supervision is a risk in case of breach of the account.[reply]
  10. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 15:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  Oppose:


  Neutral:


  Discussion: The adminstats page is returning 0s for everyone. Wouldn't it be faster to check via Logs instead? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever means of obtaining an overview of the activity should be fine. Commons uses the Administats tool apparently, so I assumed it would work. Possibly it cannot grab the data from this wiki. I will switch for the logs page. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Admin Review Part 2

Result:- As a result of this discussion which ran for two weeks the following users with advanced rights will have requests to the Stewards made to remove those rights for innactivity: Admins - @Ark, Totipotent, and Uleli: and the following Bureaucrats - @Benedikt, Maxim, Open2universe, and UtherSRG:. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal was added by Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of the above proposal it is also necessary to deal with currently innactive admins and bureaucrats. The two will have to be dealt with separately, we can only remove admin rights locally. Removal of admin or bureaucrat rights must go to the Stewards as outlined above in the policy proposal.

I am listing those that I feel have been inactive for too long. Please feel free to add or argue against any of these names and we shall make a decision on removal of advanced user rights as appropriate. My initial list I have been generous, some of those I did not include have two or three edits this year, after not editing for over two. But they did have 2017 edits so I did not include them. Others may wish to see it differently. I am very well aware of who some of these editors are and their role in the history of Wikispecies. But they can be honored for that without keeping the admin flag.

Administrators

Bureaucrats

Discussion

I would like to add User:UtherSRG, who is bureaucrat and admin, but inactive, with 3 edits 2017 (voting on the CU elections) 1 edit from 2014, but in reality stopped editing in April 2010, after he reverted on edit from Stho002 on his userpage. Since his votes was questioned as valid only some days ago, because of his absence from WS, this gives an indication on whether he should remain admin on WS.Dan Koehl (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly did for the exact same reasons. Will add him in for now. This will be a dynamic list till we get consensus. Once we have agreed I will take what names we have to the Stewards. Get the policy worked out at the same time for the future. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Maxim. He only commented once in November 2016 on inactive bureaucrats but effectively stopped editing in 2014. In my view, both UtherSRG and Maxim should have been considered as inactive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Maxim is there. Please note as all Bureaucrats are also admins I am not listing them twice here, so if a crat is listed please assume they are on the admin list too. I will request both sets of rights removed from inactive crats once we have some consensus. cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point on the above list. Some of these users appear to not meet the criteria set out above, but this is mostly because they made 2-3 edits recently, some only during our recent checkuser nomination. However in all other points have not edited for a considerable amount of time. Therefore I am listing them to have the privileges removed anyway. But I will do that if we have agreement to do so. In future once the policy is in place we will follow the policy. I felt it would be good to do a general clean up of this issue at the outset. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Oversighters

Please comment Requests for oversighter run for two weeks. . We need at least two. If any others come in the near future, please transclude them here as well so the community can see them:

Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Dan Koehl
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Result: This nomination failed to garner at least 25 support votes as per policy for obtaining access. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Koehl (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

Wikispecies has no local oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, I herebye apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community, as per local Oversight policy on META. On wikis without an m:Arbitration Committee, the community must approve oversighters by consensus. The candidates must request it within the local community and advertise this request to the local community properly (community discussion page, mailing list, etc). After gaining consensus (at least 70–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in their local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval, the user should request access on m:Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the community's decision. I am well over 18 years of age, of legal age in my place of residence, and I am already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation (Verify identification at Wikimedia). I already signed the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and I am familiar with the privacy policy.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for oversighter run for two weeks.
Poll started 13:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 13:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

Support

  1.   Support — He convinced me. - BanKris (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support — Me too. Seems a very good idea all in all to have Oversighters. Andyboorman (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support per above. Trusted user and a need for local oversighters. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 15:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Nothing against ;) Céréales Killer (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Full confidence! Orchi (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support MKOliver (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Burmeister (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Accassidy (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Jianhui67 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support — Green Giant (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support – Tommy Kronkvist (talk • contribs • block log • all projects) 18:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  20.   Support - PeterR (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support - Franz Xaver (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.
Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Result: This nomination failed to garner at least 25 support votes as per policy for obtaining access. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf (talk · contribs · block · all projects)

Per our other Oversighter request, we must have at least two members with this advanced user right. I am nominating myself, Koavf (talk • contribs • block log • all projects) and hope that you'll see me as a fit option to view our deleted entries. Per m:Oversight policy, "Local oversighters should generally handle local oversighting, when they're available" and this would be a useful step in Wikispecies being a mature and self-regulating wiki. Frankly, I hope that if we end up deciding to have Oversighters we never have to use our privileges but if someone has to do it, I hope it's a local trusted member. I would encourage anyone investigating me to take a look at my CheckUser application. Please feel free to ask me any questions on- or off-wiki that you think are relevant. If you find me unsuitable, I'd suggest that you nominate yourself or ask someone else whom you think is a good fit so that Dan can get these rights and help the community. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This poll will run for two weeks: 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 15:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

Support

  1.   Support — BanKris (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Céréales Killer (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Sensible choice for the required second oversighter. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support RLJ (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support MKOliver (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Accassidy (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support--Rojypala (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support — Sobloku (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Jianhui67 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support — Green Giant (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support Andyboorman (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Burmeister (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support – Tommy Kronkvist (talk • contribs • block log • all projects) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  17.   Support - PeterR (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Really, the title should be "Overseer", from the verb to "oversee", not "Oversighter" from the noun "oversight"... but then I speak English not American! Accassidy (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acassidy: The user right is also known as suppressor. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Accassidy: I agree that "Overseer" sounds a lot better, however the term "Oversighter" is used by all other Wikimedia projects. I guess the underlaying reason is that it is derived from the now deprecated MediaWiki extension (and noun) Oversight (superseded by RevisionDelete in the MediaWiki core database). For the sake of consistency we should use the same title. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Not until now I realise that the information about the title is actually shown in plain sight on the Wikispecies:Oversight page itself. Silly me had an awkward time figuring it out using archived extensions- and tech pages on MediaWiki instead... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(Moved from talk) Hi Dan, I noticed the two requests for oversight. I know that it's kind of late to comment, but do we really need such rights on Wikispecies? I mean: how many needs for such actions are needed yearly? More than 2-3? --Ruthven (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven:, I don't know who decided which user right that should exist on Wikispecies, and which not, this may even have been performed without any formal decision on Phabricator, which may be a starting point to find out about the origin and reasons for different user rights on different projects. It seems originally, that the user right was an MediaWiki extension more than a specified user right. I suggest you start there with your request, but maybe someone else has an idea as to find out why certain user rights exist on Wikispecies, and not.
As for your second question, I also don't know where to find those statistics, how many cases there has been, and how many cases there should be, or what to expect in the future. I remind you that this falls under the Privacy cases, why a fully exposed transparent statistic may not be available. On the page global oversight policy no specific numbers are specified, it only says:
On wikis without an Arbitration Committee, the community must approve oversighters by consensus. The candidates must request it within the local community and advertise this request to the local community properly (community discussion page, mailing list, etc). After gaining consensus (at least 70–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in their local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval, the user should request access on Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the community's decision.
If I understand you right, that you believe this user right should not exist on WS, I guess a suggestion to remove it could be brought up here, and with a link from the Village pump, so everyone are aware of the suggestion to remove the right. After that, if there is a consensus to remove the right, I guess next step would be to discuss it on meta and/or Phabricator.
Maybe you will get response here, right now also, as to what other users think regarding your question. I hope my answer address your question at least in some parts. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards handle oversight actions on all wikis without oversighters. That's a better option than removing the right entirely, which WMF might not be okay with, and which is a bad idea because then I could put in someone's credit card number onto a page, hit Save, and nothing could be done to remove it. --Rschen7754 00:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just surprised that local oversighters were necessary here when on it.wiki the stewards are sufficient. Generally the revdelete is enough to hide private information, which is something that admins do, and hiding information even to admins is quite rare. --Ruthven (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: I don't know how necessary it is as such but it's just generally better for this project to be self-sustaining and it's generally better for Stewards to have their workload reduced. I don't have any anticipation that Dan or I would need to use CheckUser or Oversight but if it's needed, it's nice to have someone local who can do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.



The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Original Research Policy

Wikispecies:No original research
This is a draft proposed policy with no standing as yet.

Wikispecies articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikimedia projects to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)

The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.

Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words, while substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research.

For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see Wikispecies' Village Pump.

For an in-depth analysis of OR, see en:Wikipedia:No original research.

Result: no clear result, has been on RfC two months. Resubmit discussion for clarity in future.

Discussion

--copied from pump--
Above it is suggested that we should have a "No original research" policy. I have posted a draft at Wikispecies:No original research. Does anyone have any suggestions for amendments or additions, before we have an RfC on its adoption? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be "original research", when you find out, that a name already has been validly published in an earlier paper, that has been overlooked in literature? Would it be "original research", when you compile a taxon page on a genus, where no recent generic synopsis or revision is existing, based on different sources. I did a lot of this kind, e.g. Stephania, Securidaca, or Elvasia. Would it be "original research", when you only are applying the relevant code of nomenclature in a simple and straightforward case, that never would justify a separate paper in a scientific journal?
An example: When I created Xanthophyllum albicaule on March 1st, I changed the name from Xanthophyllum albicaulis, according to ICN Art. 23.5 and 32.2. After having notified IPNI on March 8th, they corrected their entry on March 9th. OK, now I can refer to IPNI, but for more than a week this maybe was forbidden OR??? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--copied from pump--

I made this into an rfc as it is a complex issue for wikispecies. We have a significant number of taxonomists contributing and using to support this what is in reality their own research. Myself included. What needs to be clear is that what those in this position must not do is utilise unpublished information in this, must publicly acknowledge their potential NPoV issue and ensure that everything they use is clearly referenced to an existing scientifically acceptable research article or similar. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The questions of Franz Xaver are important for all taxonomists contributing here. From the explanations on en:Wikipedia:No original research and the essay en:Wikipedia:These are not original research, I think these examples resemble OR, but they are not: 1. When you find out, that a name already has been validly published in an earlier paper - Very often taxonomic works cite different papers as first publication. So Wikispecies authors can "reasonably expect", that there probably exists a scientific work, which cites this earlier paper, too. Nevertheless, the info of the "re-discovery" should be sent to a reliable database. 2. When you compile a taxon page on a genus, where no recent generic synopsis or revision is existing, based on different sources - This kind of compilation work is done at all wikipedia pages too and is ok. But we must not use references A and B to come to conclusions C and D which are not cited in any of the references. So of course no new combinations of names should be made here! 3. Regarding those small correctable errors according to ICN, the essay states that "We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article....In many cases, the best solution is to remove minor incorrect claims." The incorrect claim should then be sent to a reliable database, and be additionally noted in the taxon page, until the database is updated. - Would you agree with this assessment? --Thiotrix (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thiotrix: Yes, I agree more or less. (1) In my opinion, the least problematic point is the first one, as you can use the neglected publication as a valid reference in WS. Anyway, there may be objections by someone, whether the earlier paper actually is a valid publication according to the relevant code. So, an interpretation of the Code would be necessary, and this might be counted as OR. That's why I reported the case of Xanthophyllum colubrinum (and two other species) to IPNI: They updated their entry today. Before that, they had neglected the earlier paper in J. Bot. (Morot), which conforms to the rules on valid publication for 1908, but would be invalidly published today. (2) Compilation of this kind generally is accepted, and references can be given for the separate components. However, it is inevitable in such a case, that the final species count in a genus deviates from published species numbers. E.g. for Stephania, compare the numbers in the rather recent treatments in Flora of China (2008) and Flora of Australia (2007), i.e. ca. 60 vs. 35–40, with my result of at least 64 species. On the other hand, for Securidaca compare the numbers in Flora of China (2008) and Flora Malesiana (1988), i.e. ca. 80 species in both references, with the lower species count resulting from my compilation. (It's not yet finished, but at the end it will probably be between 60 and 70.) So, any species count resulting from such a compilation would be OR according to some opinions, if there exists no publication reporting exactly this number. That's why the species count is hidden text in the genus articles compiled by me. (3) I agree, that such simple corrections should be reported to IPNI or other relevant databases. Anyway, when IPNI is updating in consequence of having contacted them, it's not their research, which is the basis of the update. Anyway, this should be allowed. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above points also, as discussed by Franz Xaver, in zoology of course it is a little different in some places. In zoology until a nomenclatural act is made to deal with a previously unused but older and valid name, the younger though incorrect name remains in place and should not be dismissed. A nomenclatural act requires a publication that meets the ICZN code with regards to being a valid publication. Which we are not. So we can mention the issue but cannot change it. I am aware of several species in this situation but I cannot do anything about it here. I cannot tell someone about it because that message would be to me in regards to these species, I already know. I cannot do anything yet.
@Pigsonthewing: Andy just so you know I am not against what you proposed here, the problem is that we are in an unusual situation and we have to carefully modify this policy to suit our specialist needs. Many of the taxonomists on here who edit are the original sources of the information.
With this in mind I think it is imperative to make the point that our editors must restrict themselves to peer reviewed published in acceptable science journals any information that technically originates from them. In other words anyone could have obtained the information because it is published, I just happen to have done it myself from my own publications. But the point is it has been peer reviewed, it has been published, it has been open to scrutiny by other scientists, before we use it. It is not some theory or hypothesis I have in my head. We need to be clear on this point in our policy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I posted to the Village Pump, I wrote (emphasis added) "Does anyone have any suggestions for amendments or additions, before we have an RfC on its adoption?". My intention was explicitly to encourage discussion before voting (so that we could, indeed, "carefully modify this policy to suit our specialist needs". You have copied my comment here, without asking me, and with a voting section, without it being clear what people are voting on, and discussion has effectively ended. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I moved it so we could have a discussion. But fair enough I should have discussed that with you (we need to communicate better Andy, I am at fault here too). In any case the issues specific to Wikispecies have been laid out, above. Otherwise I am fine with it. Or I would not have supported it. I am trying to keep the Pump clear of some of the basic policy discussions, in the hope they get dealt with quickly and better. In the past they have had a bad habit of getting smothered by other issues coming up. People stopped reading it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Further discussion

If the OR policy passes, how would this affect all existing pages, Wikispecies:Criteria for speedy deletion, and Wikispecies:Policy, which mentions deletion policy? Is the "deletion discussion" process needed? Also, how would this affect scientists and researchers contributing to this taxonomy database project? --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Maik Bippus

Moved to Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#Maik Bippus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Change of Bot policy

This poll has closed. Final results:
Support = 9
Oppose = 2
The motions have passed, changes to the bot policy as per this poll are accepted. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After some concerns were brought out regarding (a) the definition of AWB whether it qualifies as a bot or is just considered an assisted editing and in view that some admins are making use of it without a bot account. (b) the breach of automated Bots and assisted-editing speed limits.

I propose the following modifications to be made to the Wikispecies:Bot policy text.

  • After the phrase "Use of tools to assist with repetitive tasks, such as reverting vandalism, is termed assisted editing, and is not usually considered to be operation of a bot." add the following: Some software-tools may also be excluded from the bot definition to be considered assisted editing. The tools currently excluded are: AWB (AutoWikiBrowser) and JWB (JavaWikiBrowser), which is a web-version of the AWB. These tools need user-approval to complete each edit and can be used in an automatic mode (Auto save) only with a bot account. Please note that if you're using these programs regularly to make more than 20 edits per minute you're strongly advised to open a bot account.
  • Change the following bot policy text: "Bots' editing speed should be regulated in some way; subject to approval, bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every four seconds." to: Automatic Bots' editing speed should be regulated in some way; subject to approval, bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every five seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every two seconds. Assisted-editing with a short span of activity is allowed to edit at a rate of up to 50 edits per minute.

See also the discussions at Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Proposal_of_bot-policy_modification and at Wikispecies:Administrators'_Noticeboard#AutoWikiBrowser.

Voting

Vote started Saturday, 20 May, 15:38 (UTC) and will end on Saturday, 27 May, 15:38 (UTC).

Comments

Our bot policy currently makes clear: "The term bot... refers to a script that modifies Wikispecies' content with some degree of automation, whether it is entirely automated, or assists a human contributor in some way. This policy applies to any such process."

Note also that there is also voting underway on an overlapping proposal, at Wikispecies:Village Pump#Proposal of bot-policy modification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is the vote to change the bot policy, so what the policy currently says is irrelevant. Why you wish to hamstring the taxonomic editors on this site I do not know. But they are deciding here what is best for Wikispecies in regards to this. The current proposals aim to redefine bots, place awb in this scenario. Rates are also being set in accordance with the needs of Wikispecies, not EN WP from where the original policy here was taken. The RfC vote is open to all and its outcome on 27 May will determine the policy here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly relevant that people understand what is proposed to be undone; and what conditions proposed to be discarded. It is doubly relevant when the RfC opens with claims about whether or not AWB falls within the terms of the current policy. Your claim that I "wish to hamstring the taxonomic editors on this site" is both false and itself a breach of our own policies.; and I ask that you therefore strike it, and desist from repeating it. Your reference to EN WP is a straw man; no one has claimed that we must or should act in accordance with its needs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I have struck out the line you wished. As for reference to EN WP being a straw-man argument, I would argue against that, since our original policy did come from their's. The point being that issues there are not entirely relevant here. I never said you think we should follow their policy, I said our current policy was derived from their policy and is in need of modification. People should know what is being changed of course. The original policy is still apparent. Since it has been discussed as to whether or not AWB / JWB falls under the definition of bots, it would seem important to be clear on this issue too. I have closed the other discussions (without removing them of course) so that all discussion can now take place here, with a community vote on what we need here on Wikispecies. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: Re: "urgent" tasks - the current bot policy says "The urgency of a task should always be considered; tasks that do not need to be completed quickly (for example, renaming categories) can and should be accomplished at a slower rate than those that do (for example, reverting vandalism).". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What left us defining what a urgent task is, Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Applying for Importers

In order to extend and in some cases simplify the functionality of Wikispecies we sometimes need to import data from our sister projects. For instance, there is a way to branch translated templates based on user language preferences, but for this to work we need to import all these pages from Commons to Wikispecies. To be able to import files we need local Importers and Transwiki importers, but right now both of those user groups are empty. These user rights can only be assigned by a Wikimedia steward (not by Wikispecies' administrators or bureaucrats). Contrary to Wikimedia policies regarding for example Checkusers we do not need two or more (transwiki) importers, but one of each group will suffice.

Please note that we did discuss this about a year ago (Administrators' Noticeboard 2016: LangSwitch) but that conference sort of died out...

I ask the community whether or not we should apply for such user rights? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion

  1. I often import templates (in fact, I did so just a few minutes ago), and doing so manually is sub-optimal. We should introduce this user-right, and I would be happy to serve in that role. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "we sometimes need to import data from our sister projects" Note that this is utterly distinct from including data from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support CreativeC38 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Precisely because Andy imports so much and it would probably make things easier for him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support the notion of an importer on this wiki. Further if Andy (@Pigsonthewing:) wishes this role I have after consideration no objection to it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support It would facilitate the import of mass pages (in the case of XML import), however, it is necessary to configure import wikis before the transwiki import can work (accessible by default to administrators and transwiki importers). —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 09:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Transwiki Importers

Importers

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Interface proposal

I think it would be very valuable to employ mw:Manual:$wgUseCategoryBrowser on this project. I think we should use categories for a hierarchy of taxonomic levels and show the navigation down to the current level by <includeonly> in templates. E.g. on Diceros bicornis, text at the bottom of the page would lead to categories Category:Eukaryota → Category:Animalia → Category:Eumetazoa → Category:Bilateria → Category:Nephrozoa → Category:Deuterostomia → Category:Chordata → Category:Craniata → Category:Vertebrata → Category:Gnathostomata → Category:Tetrapoda → Category:Reptiliomorpha → Category:Amniota → Category:Synapsida → Category:Eupelycosauria → Category:Sphenacodontia → Category:Sphenacodontoidea → Category:Therapsida → Category:Theriodontia → Category:Cynodontia → Category:Eucynodontia → Category:Probainognathia → Category:Prozostrodontia → Category:Mammaliaformes → Category:Mammalia → Category:Trechnotheria → Category:Zatheria → Category:Theria → Category:Eutheria → Category:Placentalia → Category:Boreoeutheria → Category:Laurasiatheria → Category:Perissodactyla → Category:Rhinocerotidae → Category:Diceros → Category:Diceros bicornis. I imagine that this could be partially done by bots and by modifying templates such as {{Perissodactyla}} were modified to something like {{Perissodactyla|Diceros bicornis}}. Note that this has been discussed several times by me: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_43#Adding_the_taxon_as_category_to_each_page?, Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_40#High-order_category_system_of_Wikispecies, and Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_39#Taxonavigation_templates. I want to propose this to the community and if the consensus is in favor, add a ticket to phab:. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For an example, see OrthodoxWiki:Assyrian_Church_of_the_East. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rule this out, but have some concerns. This seems to duplicates the taxonomic hierarchy on the page; I'm not clear what the advantages of doing so are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think it would be visually useful to click on them at the end of longer entries and it also serves a similar purpose to categories and lists on Wikipedia. Sometimes it's just useful to have a clean listing as in a category with no clutter (e.g. for making a list of related taxa in AWB). E.g. a page about a family is useful for showing the hierarchy and how it is arranged but a category for said family would simply list its genera in alphabetical order. I can easily imagine someone just wanting to see those genera listed. There would be some overhead but I think it could be semi-automated and draw from d: as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I don't understand your point. Why do you need a category, when you want a list of genera within a family in alphabetical order? Such lists already are existing, e.g. in Boraginaceae, including even genera, where the respective taxon pages not yet have been created. Here, a category would contain only an incomplete list compared to the existing one. I cannot recognise, why this doubling of structures should be necessary. Moreover, I am not sure, that drawing anything semi-automated from WD would be a good idea. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree at present from what I can see of this it is a duplication of the page information. I can see a benefit to this on sites such as wikipedia where they do not present entire phylogentic nomenclatural relationships, however we do on each page. The same navigation potential of these categories is already available in the correctly set up taxon accounts. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am with the doubters, as I was during the original discussions. With our dear Rhino there would be some 36 plus categories and unlike the the nomenclatural relationships there would be no possibility of using a taxonavigation collapse. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the necessity. Cheers MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.
Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment/Archive_1&oldid=8705604"