Funding drive - who will donate when treated badly?
I have been on WP for over 16 years. After a few absurd, time-wasting edit wars, I don't even bother to sign on any more. The problems are pervasive and fundamental, particularly the group-think, bias against expertise and good (primary) sources, and cabals of really awful people given special privileges. I don't think there is a solution that doesn't involve completely banning ~98% of those who now have privileges and rewriting the basic rules of WP from scratch. But it's not going to happen, and WP is going to go ever further downhill.
When I get another funding drive message, I get a strong impulse to tell someone off. "Where is the '#^@% YOU' button!" I shout. So do many others, I'm sure. There is no allowed response to these funding messages other than: "hand over the money" or "close", if there were perhaps the organization would find out why 98% won't donate. User: Enon
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
- Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
- A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
- A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
- A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
- The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
- The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.
DYK for Marvel's Midnight Suns
Based on my understanding of Meek's method, once the number of hopeful candidates left matches the number of remaining seats, since the quota is reduced iteratively by removing exhausted votes and untransferred excess votes, eventually quota will drop below the remaining unexhausted votes for all the hopefuls. Thus trying to set some minimum quota that has to be exceeded means redefining Meek's method in some fashion, and I'm not confident in an RfC being able to consider all the implications of this. Personally, I'd rather have some form of approval voting ballot in addition to an STV ballot rather than try to devise a new voting system. isaacl (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: Thanks for your comment. I had assumed that the method allowed for seats to be left unfilled if the method is modified accordingly as outlined at single transferable vote#Finding winners using quota where it says This process repeats until either every seat has been filled by candidates surpassing quota or until there are as many remaining seats as there are remaining candidates, at which point the remaining candidates are declared elected. In my naiveté, I assumed that this would allow stopping before all seats are filled. Regards SoWhy 18:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I apologize for forgetting to say that my understanding is based on running thought experiments in my head, so it's possible I've missed some other exit condition from the iterative process with Meek's method. If I understand correctly, the key point is that quota keeps getting revised downward if there are more excess exhausted ballots to transfer, and by the pigeonhole principle I believe that's the only way for there to be N (elected + hopeful) candidates left without all of them already meeting quota. isaacl (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Nick Connors page deleted in 2020
Hi there, I was in the process of creating a page for Nick Connors, the singer-songwriter from Colorado and got the note that a previous page with this name had been deleted. Was this the same Nick Connors or another one? If it's another one, let me know and I'll start on this one; if it is the same one, do you think you could revert it to a draft article so I can work on fixing it up? I'm assuming there were issues, given that it was deleted.
- @Ddramacat: Yes, this was the same subject. The page was deleted because there was no indication why the subject should be considered significant or important. That version also did not have any real content though. There was a draft as well at Draft:Nick Connors which was deleted for inactivity. I restored that draft for you to work on it. Regards SoWhy 08:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)