Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Babel

This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Billinghurst (talk | contribs) at 01:29, 23 April 2012 (→Special:AbuseFilter/7: warn and tag (better than nothing)). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Billinghurst in topic Special:AbuseFilter/7

Meta:Babel/Header

RfC on Nemo

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Hi. User:Mathonius has suggested I come here for an answer to my question: If I have issues concerning the administrative failures of User Nemo? Is the correct process an RfC? I asked Nemo but he has not responded. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed. So, it depends. Is there really a conflict, or are you rather in disagreement with Meta policy? Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
No I am in disagreement with Nemo's poor judgment and rashness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a note that I wasn't notified of this discussion but I'm now aware of it. As usual, I don't mind review of my sysop actions: on the contrary, I'm always very confident, when using my sysop tools here on Meta, that as we have a very wide and diverse community of administrators any (big) mistake I might make will be corrected. However, if a user is not able to find someone to revert an administrative action, it's highly unlikely (I'd say: impossible) that such action was abusive, and even less likely that it can pave the way to a removal of the administrator who performed that action; and in any case, I don't think the discussion on the administrator can come before an attempt at resolving the issue/discussing the action. Nemo 11:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

While I was writing, you've written this. I hope that I've answered you above, but as you don't say what problems you want to solve I might have gotten it wrong. Thanks, Nemo 11:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, there I am focussing on a different question. Would you like me to go into chapter and verse of your administrative judgement failings, beginning with your absurd belief that others should clean up your mistakes, here? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, what does "go into chapter and verse" mean? You might have noted from my babel that my English is not that good, you might need to consider this when choosing your words. (It applies also to other users, as this is a "multilingual" wiki.) Nemo 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
It means do you want me to lay out [go into detail about] your administrative failings here? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
"go into chapter and verse" = "go into detail". PS Your English is good - certainly more than "intermediate" - and you can't be expected to know every idiom. Rd232 (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC) --- Yes. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Another thing I note on my user page is that I'm always eager to receive feedback, so if you feel you have time and experience enough to examine all my actions in the past years and give me suggestions on how to improve in the future I surely won't tell you not to. You don't even need to be polite, it's really hard to offend me.
However, I suspect your aim is to frame such an examination in a way that makes it functional to some other purpose. As you don't mention such purpose, it's hard for me to help you. If you want to get me removed, my suggestion is to get some of my administrative actions reverted by another administrator, with strong consensus if possible, so that you have a proof I made a mistake (WM:RFH is usually the way, or you can ask some respected administrator directly). This is not enough in itself, as we're bound to make mistakes, but perhaps it will if, as you seem to think, I've repeated some mistake over and over. On the other hand, maybe a long list of horrible things I did in many years, if you'll be able to find enough of them and you don't seem to be ranting too much, might convince someone (or even myself) that I shouldn't be an administrator any longer. If you post such a dossier on my talk page, you'll probably look more constructive and less aggressive, still getting more or less the same attention, and you'll always be able to open a removal discussion under Meta:Administrators/Removal or something. I hope this helps, Nemo 20:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
This is definitely required, possibly if we can't get something going here we should go for an administrator removal.
You guys need to get your house in order so admin actions can be challenged appropriately - otherwise en:WP:IGNOREMETA will become codified and we'll just go and deal with the other major projects directly. Eraserhead1 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
There should be a simple way to scrutinize admins by the Community. It would also, help with any communication issues, as seen above. No. admins here cannot rely on other admins to cleanup after they have made a mess. Admins are accountable to the Community, not only to each other. Moreover, since other admins don't have a lot of time, here, they cannot be the check that Nemo imagines. Admins have more duties to serve the community, they therefore need higher scrutiny. The appropriate middle ground between de-admin (which I have not suggested) and no scrutiny is community discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree that de-sysop is an extreme step - I only considered it because the community driven process seems to be entirely broken here, and Nemo seems to be unable to revert his actions and let someone else take control.
Given the level of broken-ness with the process here maybe the better option would be for en.wiki (or one of the other large language wikis) to handle issues like this for meta - as we clearly have a much more functional dispute resolution process. Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
The scary thing is, that you actually believe that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Then show that Meta is able to resolve its own problems and sort this matter out - it really shouldn't be difficult. Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's not. We just have a different perspective on what the problem is. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, Eraserhead1, are you simultaneously suggesting that a local project actually take measures to deal with an issue internal to Meta when you are upset about Meta's discussion about an issue that relates to as local project? Why is one wrong in your eyes and one right? My opinions are pretty well known on here and Meta, but even I will be the first to agree that it is more in accord with Wikimedia policy and culture for Meta to be a place to discuss Wikis than for any one project to enforce blocks on the local project solely because of activity on Meta. If anything your suggestion runs in direct opposition to Arbcom's own policy. See w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. The third and fourth points in concert allow EnWiki Arbcom to take other project behavior into account when making decisions that relate to EnWiki, but not to take action due to outside project behaviour that is unrelated to EnWiki behavior. Even on EnWiki, the most that would happen to Nemo, in my opinion, would be a warning or an admonishment. Regardless, a closure on Meta, has no relevance to EnWiki, and action taken on EnWiki as a result would be, in my opinion, improper, out of jurisdiction, and indicative of a pettiness of spirit in the sense of "I can't get you here, so I'll punish you there". As for EnWIki's dispute resolution process, while it certainly works, and is robust, on Meta, we've always had a more relaxed and patient attitude. If it takes a week or two of discussion to work something out, we do. We don't need as formal and bureacraic a process b/c we have been able to work based on trust and mutual understanding, something that the size and nature of EnWiki no longer allows. You've been around EnWiki about as long as I have (I think you predate me by a month), you've seen how the project has shifted in the past 7 years. What works on Meta will not work on EnWiki, and vice versa. What saddens me is the lack of patience by many people here,and on EnWiki itself for that matter. -- Avi (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

My objection is that we have a clear case of an involved admin closing a discussion who has been asked by a large number of editors in good standard to revert his closure.
When the matter has been complained about here no action or any serious discussion has taken place.
My views on interference between projects is summed up by this diff "The only reason [one project] should be interfering with other projects blocking policies is if they aren't dealing with the issue appropriately." - it's looks very strongly to me that you guys are failing to deal with this matter. Its not as if I've demanded an answer within an hour, until my comment about en.wiki "interfering" we had 36 hours without any comments at all from anyone on Meta here. Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I do not disagree with you in that I think Nemo's closure created the appearance of impropriety, even if he acted in what he felt was a completely impartial way, and I too now have added my request to him to reopen the RfD. However, I am willing to wait a few more days for this to settle, since (especially after I courtesy blanked the page a few days ago) we are less worried about google scraping. The very fact that " a large number" (as you say above) of editors in good standing have addressed Nemo on the issue is the Meta way to have serious discussion. Meta doesn't have what we EnWikipedians affectionately call "drama boards" here. Consider Meta the "old fashioned geezer" in that regard, but it's more willing to let discourse languorously meander its way through to a conclusion, unless it is an emergency. So serious discussion is occurring, just at a slower pace than on EnWiki, which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, in my opinion. I think some w:WP:ANI discussions get closed and then overturned waaaay to fast, but that's just me :) -- Avi (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I'm pleased to see we are making some progress, and I am perfectly happy to wait a few more days. I agree that on en.wiki we can sometimes be overly speedy. Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of meta-wiki

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Please see Proposals for closing projects/Closure of meta-wiki. Thank you. Rd232 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

To note that this has been closed by a member of the Languages Committee. billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
To note that in fact that the LangCom member agreed to the reopening of the proposal; it was later re-closed by an admin who is not a LangCom member. Rd232 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you can find a way to frame that proposal that does not come across as trolling, you can develop a proposal for it anywhere on Meta, and organize a related discussion to build consensus. Project closures, as considered by langcom, are generally activity and language related; the sort of reorganization you propose should be framed differently if you want a serious discussion. –SJ talk   01:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

"generally activity and language related" - possibly. Apparently relying on written Meta policy (even when it actually exists, as it frequently doesn't) is a waste of time, but that's actually what I did, referring to Closing_projects_policy#Types_of_proposals:
2. Other (often relatively more active) wikis that may be controversial, questionable or in another way uncommon. For example: Quality Wikimedia, Simple English Wikiquote, ...
And the reason I chose the "close project" route was because (i) the change is dramatic enough to amount to a closure, and dramatic enough to require Board approval I would think; and (ii) because the only alternative is an RFC, which will almost certainly sit there without conclusion for a year or two until somebody closes it as stale. Utterly pointless. I thought at the very least the proposal will get a lively debate going, which would allow ideas to flow from it in a way that might lead to something useful. Or the proposal might even had found favour, given room to breathe - who knows? As it is, the thing was stomped on with such speed that I hardly even have any useful input for improving a reformulation of the same idea - never mind new ideas or substantial criticisms etc. Rd232 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Comment (my opinion only) The reason that the discussion was closed so quickly was that there is good administrative work at meta that would seem to be not noticed by you, and was not discussed in your proposal. It seemed that we had a level of umbrage from a small portion of the activity at meta and decided from that small portion that caused you distress, that the whole functionality of meta was dysfunctional. The topic area of your concern has high discourse, occasional emotion, but often has little effect on general operations, and takes ideas from all around that don't have a specific home elsewhere. For your proposal to have feet, it needed to be reasoned, address the areas of work that are undertaken locally, and come up with functional and practical solutions, to me and presumably to others, it failed in that area. You addressed some technical issues that did sound good to explore, however these were lost in the demeanour of the discourse.

To turn your proposal around, the ideas could become

  • as WMF wikis have developed and WMF matured, is meta's scope and mission still appropriate, and does it need review and updating
  • how does meta better manage its resources and global functions and make them available to all wikis
  • some of meta functionality may now be overtaken by other wikis and so what should be looked to be retired, or have a better fit at other WMF wikis

If after all of that, that it is clear that meta is not needed, and the work can be done better elsewhere, then I will put my hand up to vote for a close.

To me the recent kerfuffle clearly identified that there is marked disconnect with meta from other projects, at least with most contributors to the WMF wikis (probably get general agreement). Some of that will relate to meta doing a good job and keeping a low profile (clearly meta is not the focus); some to projects being quite insular within their space and/or asserting a level of independence, and some to people bringing in a culture from their wiki and expecting that to be the existing culture here and if you don't like that then "suck it up sunshine!" and then a "fight or flight" response from those here. Not sure if any of that is a surprise or enlightening to anyone.

As should be the case, let us turn the coin over and see what benefit we can get from these circumstances. billinghurst sDrewth 02:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well that's fairly reasonable. I would point out though that the concept I proposed did not come out of the recent Gwen Gale RfD closure debate. I'd already raised it at the Wikimedia Forum, and it was basically motivated by finding how badly supported the multilingualism of Meta is. Commons' multilingualism is far from perfect, but certainly better - hence part of the concept was merging Commons' and Meta's multilingual infrastructure. At root the proposal was technical, not about power relationships (if anybody had bothered to ask, I had imagined existing Meta adminship would be retained for the Meta namespace, for example). PS the reason the "good administrative work at meta" was not discussed was that it didn't need discussing - it would have simply transferred to the Meta: namespace. Rd232 (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

One more thing, on the framing: the proposal had to be titled "closure" because of the context it was in. It could equally be called

  1. Meta Everywhere
  2. Meta Goes Global
  3. Metafy Meta
  4. Metamorphosis of Meta into a truly meta Meta

...etc Rd232 (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Comment re benefits/insights from the kerfuffle aka Almost Valentine's Day Interwiki Singularity(which began with Misbegotten Charge/Rally @AN/I — which should, rightfully, nullify everything that has occurred since, as a kind of fruits of a poisonous tree — if that was not quite so rhetorically stated with second order methaphoricals :-)

Systemic structural/social-dynamic issues within en.wikipedia (which derive from it's evolutionary path, but which may prevent it from adjusting to the cultural prominence it has achieved) should be expected to produce externalities. An RfC on meta is a relatively mild one, and one that might provide valuable feedback to allow guidance in structural innovation/flaw correction ... far preferable to externalities arising beyond the project (in the public realm).

(The en.wikipeida reaction to the RfC in question is the illuminating plot point.)

The assumption that en.wikipedia can evolve within the constraints of its own box, is debatable. A clarification of a role/function of meta in that context might (strangely/miraculously) arise from the seed of the kerfuffle. The Wikimedia Foundation surely has imperatives beyond averting its eyes unless (project-endangering) externalities arise.(Resisting the temptation to add further rhyming clauses. :-)

Metacomment: The attempt to impose en.wikipedia operational norms/social dynamics etc on meta (culminating in an outlandish proposal to close meta as a procedural tactic in the kerfuffle(an assertion strongly resisted by Rd232 I am fairly sure)!?! LoL) ... res ipsa loquitur.(the latin, not the legal)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

"an assertion strongly resisted" - no kidding. I maintain that the proposal would make Meta more relevant and useful. And in a discussion you were involved with elsewhere I already pointed out that the concept contained under the somewhat misleading heading "closure" preceded the Gwen Gale RFC kerfuffle (see Wikimedia_Forum#What_is_Meta_For.3F). Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Site notice for fellowship project endorsements

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I'd really like to get more community input on the project ideas that have been submitted for Wikimedia Community Fellowships. Was thinking about running a site notice here on meta for a few days (no more than 1 week, and much less if it doesn't drive any conversations), that would link to this page that explains the endorsement process and asks people to help evaluate project submissions. Thoughts? Concerns? Ideas for what the text on the site notice should say? I was thinking something like "Wikimedia Community Fellowship program needs your input on project ideas! Please review and endorse an idea today." Siko (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Siko, I didn't get a message from you but I saw your edits on recent changes so I thought I'd chip in. You'll need to have a look at CentralNotice/Calendar to see the most suitable time frame for running your banner - the schedule is quite tight at the moment for notices and banners. However, it should be possible to disable the CentralNotice on meta for a few days and run a site notice instead so that there aren't 2 banners running on the site. Are you asking users to only endorse ideas? Where would they comment if they are against a particular idea, is this so that you can reduce the number of fellowship applications for a final review by Wikimedia Staff? Is there an upper limit to the number of Fellowships available, or would you like users to pick their favourite x fellowship ideas? Hope these questions help to get you thinking! The Helpful One 21:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, helpful one, I messaged a few people who I know are active on meta just because I wanted to be sure I got any feedback at all, am glad you're seeing it too :-) Good point about Central Notice, I usually don't see those banners running on meta so had assumed there wouldn't be a conflict with site notice here...but I will check! We've asked that comments against an idea or requests for clarification etc should go on the talk page instead of the endorsements section, and I do think that kind of input is helpful. If it is still confusing how to anti-endorse, I will try to make this clearer! I was thinking to not initially limit how many projects someone could endorse, partly because there are a lot of factors involved in selecting each crop of fellows and matching them to projects, so this can't turn into a simple voting situation. And because some of these ideas may remain open for future rounds of fellowships, we're generally trying to use the process to get a sense of which projects are particularly high priority for the movement. Some ideas were submitted by people who aren't even applying for fellowship, so if I know that everyone really wants to see x project happen, I can look extra hard for a fellow to take it on in the future. (I've got about 4 slots for new fellows right now, BTW).Siko (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
We usually put such things on Template:Main Page/WM News, which appears on the main page and is used very freely: you're encouraged to update it. A notice like this section is useful as well. I don't see any problem in putting such a local notice, just propose a short text and I'll add it (or someone else will). The overlap with centralnotice is not big deal here on Meta, and I'd show a blank notice to anonymous users, by putting the text on MediaWiki:Sitenotice and an empty message on MediaWiki:Anonnotice. Nemo 22:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Good to know about WM News too, Nemo, that hadn't occurred to me at all! For the stewards election, I think they used site notice as well as this main page news section, which seems like a good idea to try. Thanks for the offer to help add, I'll definitely need it :-) Siko (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I added a notice to WM News and removed the fellowships open call news from December. Not sure exactly how to get the December bit that I removed into the "Goings On" archives, so any fixes/suggestions there would be much appreciated. Proposed site notice text: "Help the Community Fellowship Program evaluate project ideas by reviewing open projects." Would someone be willing to help me implement this too? Thanks! Siko (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done. let's not forget to remove it, as it doesn't expire automatically. ;-) Nemo 22:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Good point! I'll make sure it is removed next week, before everyone gets tired of it :-) Siko (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
That looks good. Thanks for soliciting this feedback, Siko. :) –SJ talk   19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It really looks nice. Thank you Siko for your all work to get community feedback :) --Aphaia (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for everyone's help and feedback here! I've taken it down today as promised. We definitely got some new endorsements on projects as a result of the publicity, so glad we tried this :-) Siko (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Proposal - complete unified login for all eligible accounts

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created a new proposal at Wikimedia Forum#Proposal - complete unified login for all eligible accounts. If you are interested, please reply there. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 11:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Where should "deletion review" discussions be held

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As we, thankfully, don't have many specific drama boards here (see commons:COM:DR and commons:COM:UR, w:de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung, w:ru:Википедия:К восстановлению, w:Wikipedia:Deletion review for some examples) if we wanted to have a discussion about the merits of the closure of a particular RfD and whether it should be upheld or overturned, where is the best place for that discussion. Would it be at Meta talk:Requests for deletion or its own RfC? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would think the former (Discussion page). As it is directly germane, what purpose is served by moving away? If the concern is notice to all, perhaps also a notice link here and at forum should be encouraged/required? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Deletion contestations (not sure if this is the proper word) hardly happens. If the result of an RfD is to be challenged then the Talk:RfD page or the Meta admin board can be of help. Creating a RFC for every deletion contestation would be overkill IMHO; and I would only reserve it for these rare cases where nobody seems to agree with nobody. My two cents. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 20:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Deletion process update/clarification

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Proposal for deletion process closure, update and clarification is going on here: Meta talk:Requests for deletion#Discussion of proposed change -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Translation request

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please translate into English. I guess its Spanish, but not sire. ZeaForUs (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's Spanish indeed. I'll have a look later. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Filtering out translations in the recent changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Filtering out "the translations" in the recent changes doesn't work. Could someone please fix this? Mathonius (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Filed on Bugzilla. --Yair rand (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Closed invalid, not enough information. What's wrong? Nemo 17:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
"Closed invalid"? I don't understand why you would declare a simple question invalid, especially since it has been 'solved' already, thanks to Yair. Anyway, as it turns out, the "filter out translations" option on Special:RecentChanges only applies to edits in the "Translations" namespace. This should've been clearer; I thought it applied to all edits with the translation tool (see this). Mathonius (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Bugzilla is not for questions, it's a valid question but an invalid bug (I think), let's not care too much about words. We're trying to improve docs, would you please read mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Statistics and reporting#Recent changes, feeds and logging and tell us if it's clear enough? Thanks, Nemo 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

{{Ombox}}

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. It seems we need to update some configuration to make {{ombox}} to work again. We can probably import some of this. I'm not good at CSS and do not know what needs to be done thus asking here. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: Enable WikiLove on Meta

Latest comment: 13 years ago26 comments21 people in discussion

I went to give some stewards some wikilove, and noticed it isn't enabled. How would the community feel about having it enabled? --Ryan Lane (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

While I suppose I don't have anything against it, why do we need it? When did writing "thank you" stop being used as a customary form of expressing gratitude? Go ahead and enable it I guess, but I don't see the point. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'd like to use barnstars and such, and it's much harder to know which templates to include and such. WikiLove makes everything way easier.--Ryan Lane (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Instead of voting, perhaps people can take a few minutes to examine the root problem (that Ryan is having)? What about making WikiLove a gadget or something that people can opt in to using? Or is the entire idea objectionable? Saying "well people might play with it" is a bit silly. It was designed to be enticing: it's a red heart.

But, as Nemo notes, the technology could be modified and still have some usefulness; you could even keep a few of the default templates. Or better templates could be made to fit Meta-Wiki and its ... quirkiness.

Would this be a more reasonable approach? It looks like WikiLove already has an attached user preference. We could just set a reasonable default. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I have no idea what problem is Ryan having. On Meta we don't have all those templates en.wiki has; if you want to give a barnstar you just take a suitable image and add a text, you don't need anything else after all. Nemo 08:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer beer. It is a change of cultural approach than currently exists, though I note that there are numbers of people who like it, numbers who don't, and those who are ambivalent. If it can be gadgetised rather than having it sticking out like dogs' balls, then maybe it is okay. billinghurst sDrewth 14:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hear hear!(re: "gadgetised rather than having it sticking out like dogs' balls"  ) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Beer is ok, but kittens are good too – as between-meal snacks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Update of WM:MSR

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I propose to replace WM:MSR which is quite confusing and outdated with Meta:Meta–Steward relationship/Rewrite. Comments on the wording before voting the final version to addopt it as a policy are welcome at Meta talk:Meta–Steward relationship/Rewrite. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 23:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Change special pages in local wiki

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. How can I change the interface and special pages of a local Wikipedia? For example, we want to change the Upload page of Armenian Wikipedia, in particular the form form completion. How can it be done? Thanks in advance for your help! --vacio 22:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am no expert but to see the local message components and those that can be customised, append to the url ?uselang=qqx (or &uselang=qqx if appending to the string), so for your example it is this. That said there is a project to get all the languages captured and reproduced through the languages project so ask at Meta:Babylon for guidance. Best place for the exact information on Mediawiki is mw:Manual:Contents billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have translated Estonian Main Page couple of times, but now I got error message, when trying to translate Template:Main Page/WM News. This template is under protection, because it is used on Main Page. How to translate WM News? Taivo (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

New Wikimedia Shop feedback/help requested

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey all,

Some of you may already know that we've opened a shop at http://shop.wikimedia.org to sell Wikimedia Merchandise. We're now entering our "Community Launch" allowing us to hopefully get as much feedback from the community about the store, it's products and everything else involved. For those that are interested we've set up an FAQ/information page, feedback page and design page. We also have a 10% discount up for at least the next 2 weeks (CLAUNCH or 'Wikimedia Community Launch' in the discount box at checkout) and a $10 maximum shipping fee world wide for most orders.

However the big thing I wanted to ask you about was Meta gear. Right now everything on there is Wikipedia related but we want to make sure we have merch from all of the projects as well. So far we have a couple things on order:

  • Stickers from all of the projects
  • 1" buttons (or 'badges' ) from all of the projects
  • Are in the design and digital mockup phase of lapel pins for all of the projects to both go independently and as a set. Right now we're getting mockups to see how they look and to see if we want to go with the Pewter look that we have right now for the globe (this new set will have an interlocked v W for the wikipedia piece) or the full color enamel look like This Strike Command pin.

We want to have more though both soon and in the future and I wanted to know what you thought. One of my thoughts for something early on was a series similar to the I Edit Wikipedia shirts (we have two versions right now) on the shop for each project. If we did something like that should we just use Edit or adjust the verb for meta? Is it too much to have a shirt for meta? Other ideas for products? Jalexander (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just copy the chapters. See for instance wmit:Categoria:Gadget, but you should have some somewhere in the office too. wmit:File:Bebold6.jpg+wmit:File:Bebold7.jpg (also in green) has been very successful, the same for the polo with the Wikimedia logo. Make some stuff which is "crosswiki" or with the Wikimedia logo and Meta users will be happy I suppose (nobody ever asked Meta-specific stuff to us). For the pins, don't put the name but only the logo without text, and add the portal URL which will convey the name in a neutral way, compare wmit:File:Spilla 12 copy.jpg. --Nemo 06:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I hadn't seen those shirts for some reason but I'll dig and see if I can find any in the office :) . I agree the pins right now are logo and no text though the portal url is an interesting idea. We definitely need some straight wikimedia specific gear. Jalexander (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:Unfree images

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Meta-Wiki does not have an exemption policy. All the images at Category:Unfree images are copyright violations that ought to be deleted. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

If Meta-Wiki doesn't allow unfree images, wouldn't it be a good idea to remove local upload? Free images should be on Commons anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Also, the page Meta:Copyrights needs either to be updated or deleted. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Basically I agree but the experiences suggest it might be prudent to have a room for local uploading. For instance, I saw external people who got involved in a past Wikimania (i.e. potential partner) bid upload photos to meta, not commons. They were not necessarily Wikimedia savvy and it might have been inconvenient for them to go to Commons and meta and hence might be discouraging. Meta serves maintenance and administration, not daily editing. I agree on that those unfree images should be properly licensed or deleted in a long term, but in a short term, specially in case their right holder uploaded them, I think some lack of information can be tolerable in expectation to sort out finally: we don't expect all same mind people from the external of this community are as Wikimedia savvy as we wikiholics. --Aphaia (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Proposal to clean Meta-Wiki namespaces

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

Currently at Meta-Wiki there are the following namespaces: 

'metawiki' => array(
        100 => "Hilfe",           # German
        101 => "Hilfe_Diskussion",
        102 => "Aide",         # French
        103 => "Discussion_Aide",
        104  => "Hjælp",         # Danish
        105  => "Hjælp_diskussion",
        106 => "Helpo",           # Esperanto
        107 => "Helpa_diskuto",
        108 => "Hjälp",          # Swedish
        109 => "Hjälp_diskussion",
        110 => "Ayuda",           # Spanish
        111 => "Ayuda_Discusión",
        112 => "Aiuto",           # Italian
        113 => "Discussioni_aiuto",
        114 => "ヘルプ",       # Japanese
        115 => "ヘルプ‐ノート",
        116 => "NL_Help",         # Dutch
        117 => "Overleg_help",
        118 => "Pomoc",           # Polish
        119 => "Dyskusja_pomocy",
        120 => "Ajuda",           # Portuguese
        121 => "Ajuda_Discussão",
        122 => "CA_Ajuda",        # Valencian
        123 => "CA_Ajuda_Discussió",
        124 => "Hjelp",           # Norsk
        125 => "Hjelp_diskusjon",
        126 => '帮助',      # Chinese
        127 => '帮助 对话',
        128 => 'Помощь',      # Russian
        129 => 'Помощь_Дискуссия',
        130 => 'Pomoč',        # Slovenian
        131 => 'Pogovor_o_pomoči',
        132 => 'مساعدة', # Arabic
        133 => 'نقاش_المساعدة',
        200 => 'Grants',    // per bug #22810
        201 => 'Grants_talk',
        202 => 'Research',  // per bug #28742
        203 => 'Research_talk',
    ),
    // @}

Probably they are there for historical reasons but the ammount of namespaces is overkill and useless. Translations are better handled in subpages and the new translate extension does that way. See for example Hilfe:Bearbeiten; which can be perfectly a subpage of Help:Editting/de. Per the usual practice to subpaginate and the new translate extension I propose to move all the content to subpages and remove the following namespaces: 

        100 => "Hilfe",           # German
        101 => "Hilfe_Diskussion",
        102 => "Aide",         # French
        103 => "Discussion_Aide",
        104  => "Hjælp",         # Danish
        105  => "Hjælp_diskussion",
        106 => "Helpo",           # Esperanto
        107 => "Helpa_diskuto",
        108 => "Hjälp",          # Swedish
        109 => "Hjälp_diskussion",
        110 => "Ayuda",           # Spanish
        111 => "Ayuda_Discusión",
        112 => "Aiuto",           # Italian
        113 => "Discussioni_aiuto",
        114 => "ヘルプ",       # Japanese
        115 => "ヘルプ‐ノート",
        116 => "NL_Help",         # Dutch
        117 => "Overleg_help",
        118 => "Pomoc",           # Polish
        119 => "Dyskusja_pomocy",
        120 => "Ajuda",           # Portuguese
        121 => "Ajuda_Discussão",
        122 => "CA_Ajuda",        # Valencian
        123 => "CA_Ajuda_Discussió",
        124 => "Hjelp",           # Norsk
        125 => "Hjelp_diskusjon",
        126 => '帮助',      # Chinese
        127 => '帮助 对话',
        128 => 'Помощь',      # Russian
        129 => 'Помощь_Дискуссия',
        130 => 'Pomoč',        # Slovenian
        131 => 'Pogovor_o_pomoči',
        132 => 'مساعدة', # Arabic
        133 => 'نقاش_المساعدة',

Comments welcome. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 19:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Old discussion about namespaces can be found here too. Perhaps creating a Essay: an Historical: namespace would help. Not sure. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

No it would not. I agree that all translations should be moved to the new system and then the old namespaces deleted. It's probably better to discuss this as part of the Meta:Translate extension draft. Nemo 19:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree with the above, we don't need these unnecessary namespaces due to the new subpages system which makes it a lot easier to fix other language versions of the same page. The Helpful One 20:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think some stats would help here. Here are the current page counts by namespace:

Extended content

The number of pages in each namespace; data as of 21:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

No. ID Name Non-redirects Redirects Total
1 0 (Main) 27258 8939 36197
2 1 Talk 5659 1603 7262
3 2 User 245497 2144 247641
4 3 User talk 596750 886 597636
5 4 Meta 873 409 1282
6 5 Meta talk 165 43 208
7 6 File 3788 43 3831
8 7 File talk 220 3 223
9 8 MediaWiki 47519 28 47547
10 9 MediaWiki talk 434 3 437
11 10 Template 8967 947 9914
12 11 Template talk 719 90 809
13 12 Help 384 217 601
14 13 Help talk 241 33 274
15 14 Category 2943 21 2964
16 15 Category talk 61 1 62
17 100 Hilfe 56 5 61
18 101 Hilfe Diskussion 30 0 30
19 102 Aide 102 12 114
20 103 Discussion Aide 30 1 31
21 104 Hjælp 10 0 10
22 105 Hjælp diskussion 1 0 1
23 108 Hjälp 1 0 1
24 110 Ayuda 6 1 7
25 111 Ayuda Discusión 2 0 2
26 112 Aiuto 59 5 64
27 113 Discussioni aiuto 2 0 2
28 114 ヘルプ 59 15 74
29 115 ヘルプ‐ノート 7 0 7
30 116 NL Help 9 4 13
31 117 Overleg help 2 0 2
32 118 Pomoc 6 0 6
33 119 Dyskusja pomocy 1 0 1
34 120 Ajuda 6 0 6
35 121 Ajuda Discussão 1 0 1
36 122 CA Ajuda 1 0 1
37 124 Hjelp 2 0 2
38 125 Hjelp diskusjon 1 0 1
39 126 帮助 29 0 29
40 128 Помощь 52 30 82
41 129 Помощь Дискуссия 11 1 12
42 130 Pomoč 12 3 15
43 132 مساعدة 17 14 31
44 133 نقاش المساعدة 9 5 14
45 200 Grants 319 36 355
46 201 Grants talk 92 6 98
47 202 Research 378 85 463
48 203 Research talk 113 32 145
Totals 942904 15665 958569

I support removing the old, unused namespaces. They're a(n) historical artifact, as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I don't really like the Translate extension. I'm not sure we should be encouraging people to use that. Separate discussion, though, really. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Note the namespace typo: "Hjälp diskussion" needs to be renamed into "Hjälpdiskussion". I assume that the Danish and Norwegian ones also need to drop a space. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply


Basically I support cleaning them up, we could even delete those pages as well. They are relics of the day before mediawiki.org was created, not only before Translate extension. In those days all MediaWiki document was hosted here. I am however concerning with links from the external sites to those pages. As said, this wiki served once as MediaWiki documentation site, do we need to assure them to (soft) redirect to the current venue? I'm not sure if we assure those soft redirecting after we delete namespaces. If it doesn't affected, it's ok. --Aphaia (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cleaning up templates

So I've been working through these pages with the help of some users and we've noticed that there are a few frankly annoying templates that have a structure with means that with this namespace moving all the links need to be updated manually. So I'm proposing that we replace all of these instances with {{languages}} which is a much nicer template. There are cases though if you look at Template:H-langs:Edit summary where links go off-Meta to other wikis - the best solution for this is to create sub-pages that soft redirect to these pages wherever they maybe - MediaWiki.org or other language Wikipedias. Thoughts? The Helpful One 22:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You can view some of them transcluded at Help:Help page footer templates#Template:H:f. The Helpful One 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Thehelpfulone and I support this proposal. Fyi, I'm currently helping him to clean up the namespaces. Mathonius (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agreed with Thehelpfulone's proposal. I have also been helping with the maintenance work. -Orashmatash (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, yes, just do it already!! PeterSymonds (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Having {{languages}} there's no need for creating a template for each help page, as Template:H-langs:CheckUser. We should delete all of them or make the <languages /> tag to work on pages not exclusively marked for translation. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 10:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Proposal to reactivate Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Meta needs some cleanup. I propose to reactivate Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 19:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

What else have you noticed in particular that requires cleanup, other than the namespaces above? :) The Helpful One 20:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
The entire meta. Things could be better organized, old junk deleted; etc... See an example above :D —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 20:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Transition of the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6 & Wikipedia support for IPv6

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As many folks are aware, the Internet has been a remarkably successful phenomena. One consequence of this success is that the present underlying Internet Protocol (IP version 4, or IPv4) is reaching the deployment limits on the number of devices that can be uniquely addressed. The upper limit is approx 4.3 Billion devices. To allow the Internet to continue to expand, it is now necessary to begin using larger IP addresses for servers, these new addresses are known as IP version 6, or IPv6. It is particularly important for major Internet content providers to make this transition, since new users are now being connected with IPv6 and must go through transition gateways to reach sites which are not using both IPv4 and IPv6.

On 6 June 2012, nearly one thousand web sites are permanently turning on IPv6 as part of the Internet Society's "World IPv6 Launch" event. http://www.worldipv6launch.org/ This includes Google, Facebook, and other major providers. Wikipedia has been working on IPv6 support for some time, and it would be good if a commitment to having IPv6 by this date could be made.

/John
John Curran, President and CEO, ARIN 12.174.51.2 00:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've had some discussion with some WMF people, but unfortunately we are not going to be ready for a complete permanent deployment by then. We only plan a "stack test" on World IPv6 Launch day ( :( ), but that can change. To others who are waiting for IPv6, I've drafted a blocking policy at en:User:Jasper Deng/IPv6.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I think this is more of a wikitech-l thing. I posted your message there. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've also asked someone on MediaWiki.org about it.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Enwiki WikiProject whose scope is global

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Related to the above, en:Wikipedia:WikiProject IPv6 has now begun to prepare for World IPv6 Launch, 06 June 2012. This is an initiative that will require cross-wiki participation by developers.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Then why are you putting it on the English Wikipedia? If only there were some kind of central (perhaps meta?) wiki.... Please don't be silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, it started before I realized this would be a global effort... Since I'm not familiar with Meta processes, I just need help globalizing this.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Meta-Wiki has no real concept of WikiProjects (at least not in any substantive sense). It looks like IPv6 is available. Use that? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think I can try IPv6 initiative, but I'm still worried about things like languages and coordinating of the entire global community.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Translation requests#Create a new translation_request. Meta-Wiki is usually adapt at translating things when requests are made. CentralNotices are also pushed to every project from Meta, which would presumably allow for global coordination. Killiondude (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'm starting the page now.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Local account locking

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

While we do have a global account locking system, I've discovered a way that local account locking can sorta be implemented. For technical details, see mw:User:Jasper Deng/Account locking. This would be very effective for fighting (LTA) socks, especially when a steward isn't immediately available to lock the accounts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Whilst this looks to be some interesting code and possible feature, the main reason that global account locking is done is for that exact purpose - to stop LTAs using their SUL account across multiple wikis and vandalising on all of them. Would I be correct in saying that this local account lock would stop them from only being able to login on that particular wiki? If so, then blocking would usually suffice. The Helpful One 00:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's just a stopgap measure that can be used before a steward is available to lock the account.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, so it's effectively the same as a local block (but a little bit stronger)? The Helpful One 00:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, with the added effect of disallowing things like DDOS-via-preferences/purge. The setup I have is basically the same as the hardest-possible-block (sans autoblock) with the added effect of not allowing even the reading of any pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
You don't need to be logged in to read pages on the majority of our wikis? The Helpful One 00:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
The special pages are the ones I was after with that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I guess what THO is getting at, which I sort of agree with, is that I don't particularly see a use-case for this. Especially since it would be for just one wiki. Killiondude (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, then again, it does have its uses. One use could be that if this happens on 2/3 or more wikis, a steward bot could automatically lock the account globally.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Bots and locking accounts globally doesn't sound like a good idea, there's too much potential for false positives and disruption if the script breaks. There are usually enough stewards on for someone to respond relatively quickly from my experiences on IRC. The Helpful One 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
...but many local sysops don't use IRC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
A solution in search of a problem, stewards are available quickly in #wikimedia-stewards, anybody can join there thru the webchat. If there are no stewards, then we should elect more, but I don't see that as being the case currently. Snowolf How can I help? 02:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
What problem?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
My point precisely :) Snowolf How can I help? 03:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Applications for free, full access, 1-year accounts from HighBeam Research officially open

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1000 free accounts are available from the internet research database HighBeam Research. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Here's the link to the project page: WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Sign-up! And, please tell your Wikipedia-friends about the opportunity! Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

GedawyBot's edits on sl.wikiversity

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why aren't GedawyBot's edits being flagged as bot edits on sl.wikiversity? See the recent changes on that new project. Mathonius (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I already made a request for bot status.--M.Gedawy Talk 04:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I didn't have that page on my watchlist (until now). Thanks! Mathonius (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Proposal about Meta-Wiki's future

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Please see Wikimedia.org and mailarchive:wikimedia-l/2012-April/119713.html. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like a few opinions at en:User talk:Jasper Deng/IPv6 which is within the scope of the IPv6 initiative.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Help you can give please?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No understanding given by user rude is English Wiki HELP DESK on. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzzy butternut (talk)

What is your question? How can we help you? Mathonius (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Special:AbuseFilter/7

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. I disabled Special:AbuseFilter/7 just now. The reasoning for doing so can be found here: Special:AbuseFilter/history/7/diff/prev/342 (admin-only link, I think). Please fix the filter before re-enabling it. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Link isn't admin-only. Snowolf How can I help? 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
It is possible to make an axception for the case when a user edits his/her own page. Ruslik (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Completely disabling is problematic, and to me it is not particularly helpful when one looks at the low false positives and the amount that it does catch. I have put the filter to warn and tag, but not reject, until someone has updated it. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&oldid=3674719"