Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Help/Monitors

Official guidelines of AFT5

Well, I've noticed something; most editors follow these guidelines, but others may not at first. I propose that WP:AFT5/G/M become official guidelines. If you feel these guidelines may be unfair, please post a comment below this one and it shall be fixed with consensus. --J (t) 13:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guidelines generally seem reasonable, but is it really necessary to oversight run of the mill WP:BLP violations or porn links? Monty ₈₄₅ 14:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on further reflection, is there any existing discussion that considers the thresholds between marking a comment unhelpful, hiding the comment, and requesting oversight? I would think spammy comments (at least without advertising URLs), nonsense, repeating characters etc.. could be dealt with by just marking them unhelpful. Content that is actively damaging, like link spam, personal attacks, BLP violations, would then be hidden, and only the most serious problems should need to be oversighted. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest taking the guidelines and setting up an RfC on them or suchlike? I really don't want to be crossing the line and getting involved in such things - community independence in policy terms is important to me. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly moved the draft/proposed guidelines to Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Monitors and will be initiating an RFC there shortly to refine/adopt them. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I'll be keeping an eye on it :). Can I suggest removing it from the other help pages too? They'd be /help, /help/editors and /help/oversighters, I believe. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, linked all 4 now. Alot of duplicative info in all those subpages. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to become a monitor?

Where can you request to become a monitor? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually part of the reviewer, rollbacker and admin userrights - you already have it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For others that don't have full features, you might like to ensure that in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering 'Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages' is unticked. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great help page

Since the page doesn't have the feedback option I'll post this here. It is so refreshing to read a concise help page that has everything I want to know, in clear and simple terms. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks so much :). If you do spot anything that needs tweaking, just let me know :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absent feedback

Perhaps a long shot, but is it possible to suppress the "View reader feedback »" link on the talkpage if there is no feedback, or otherwise indicate that it's a null result? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea! I'll ask. We are planning on mucking with that link. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. It might be worth doing a general counter in all cases - using "View reader feedback (54) »" would both signal the absence of comments (via "0") and give an indication of the level of commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest the same, it's good that it can be worked on. On the other hand, I don't understand why logged-out users can't currently see the "View reader feedback" link. They're editors too. Diego (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the problem is if we start showing it to logged-out editors, we also have to show it to logged-out readers; at the moment we're trying to keep visibility of the page to readers low until we've worked out the kinks in the system. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as resolved when no changes needed

If a feedback post contains no suggestions and/or further specifications (e.g. "superb", "great article" or "this sucks"), it is best to mark it as resolved, right? Makes it easier to navigate on the feedback list in terms of resolved/not resolved. Njardarlogar (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works for the time being; we're also talking about a "not resolvable" button, but I'm not sure if we can fit it in before the end of development :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to filter to 'Not Resolved'? the 'Resolved' items show up in the 'Helpful' and 'Relevant' filters, which may have been true overall... but as a go-forward list - to try to find the actionable items, 'Resolved' should be filtered out.Cander0000 (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but I think it's the most-requested feature now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for the "not resolvable" button - lots of these things are just mostly irrelevant or nonsensical. Hide works but it feels more extreme. It is important to just screen out the noise to make this work effectively.

Agree with adding a "not resolvable" button. I've run across a few helpful suggestions but most are just, to be frank, stupid. People are either complaining about things not being addressed in an article that are actually are addressed in the article, a lack of pictures (that's way too common) or requesting, nay, demanding that we include content that is either impossible to source (how many people Oprah interviewed during her talk show along with a detailed episode guide) or things that can easily be found on Google (where to buy a DVD of a show/movie that has never been released). My personal fave is a complaint that we don't write our articles in Hindi. Because, you know, there's no such thing as a Hindi Wikipedia. Pinkadelica ^♣ 13:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just mark those as "resolved" with a suitable comment, like "No actionable content". I believe that's not an unusual approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a button...

For removing spam, gibberish and other complete bollocks from the feedback list? Hiding the post seems like it would do the job but the instructions seem to reserve that course of action for situations when revdel is needed. Brammers (talk/c) 21:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find feedback for a particular article

I have a long watchlist, most of the posts appear to be unhelpful, such as "make it more easy" or "szddfghjkhgfdm,mbv", and so I would like to see feedback on only a few articles. It seems now that the only way to find what I am looking for is to continue scrolling to the bottom, clicking on 'Show more posts', repeating that until I get tired of it, and then using the find feature of my browser. Perhaps an alternative is for me to create a new account with a shorter, more focused watchlist, but cannot there be a textbox for entering the name of a particular article as there is for page view statistics? -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want the feedback for a single article, you can go to the talk page of that article and click on "View reader feedback". It only works, of course, for pages that have reader feedback. --Boson (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I see feedback from across Wikipedia?

This answer mentions Special:ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist page which was broken about two months ago. BTW, shutdown of ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist is the reason why I ceased to watch recent feedbacks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no :(. I'll fix it - the actual answer at the moment is Special:ArticleFeedbackv5. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist? I guess that it might be related to programming, a change in internal programming interface or something alike, but was it announced or discussed somewhere? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-article feedback

Why do we have feedback activated in other, non-article spaces, such as this page? There is one feedback message, but would have been better just posted to the talk page. In WP space having feedback activated is counterproductive. Apteva (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback - Wikipedia:Contact us

Why is so much of the feedback going to the Wikipedia:Contact us page? (link is here)--Coin945 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

It would be great if a button could be introduced for the feedback which is often very well intentioned but misplaced/misguided -e.g. 'I want to download Wikipedia' and 'Make it easier to enroll as a Wikipedia editor' were two I just found on the Wikipedia feedback page. Maybe a button which removed non-article feedback? Or should I just mark it as inappropriate? Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]