Meta:Babel/Archives/2012-02

Meta administrator for pagetranslation right

Hello, I see several Meta administrators asked for translation administrator right which comes with only one access, "pagetranslation". Since administrators already have a lot of rights with their group and they are trusted enough, I propose they should also have "pagetranslation" right. That will make easy following things:

1. Those administrator who want to help out don't need to request for it and wait;
2. We can easily understand who only work for administrating translations on Meta;

Please discuss. If we can gather consensus here we can file a bug to deploy the changes. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 07:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed in the recent Translation tools workshop hosted by Siebrand, the responses to that question were:

How does one become a translation administrator?

• We need to decide what the requirements will be. As it's only one group right, this could simply be added to meta admins. - THO
• Short answer: depends on the configuration and agreed process ;)
• On Meta: Bureaucrats can add but cannot remove the right (?)
  • I brought this up at Meta:Babel#Translation admins user right slightly early, so this will need to be re-reviewed. - THO
• I will propose at Meta that it just be bundled with "admin" -- any objections?
  • nope, inactive admins are removed so there is not a problem with that.
  • better to require them to add themselves to group, as with abusefilter on en.wiki

Whilst bundling it with the admin group is a good idea, as suggested above the ability for admins to give it to themselves is also a viable option as this will ensure that the user group still exists to be able to be given to non-admins (presuming that Translation administrators would be removed as a user group). The Helpful One 14:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That proposal is already part of the draft Meta:Translate extension, on which I'm working in these days. Nemo 21:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Languages help

Could please some template wizard fix/change the template so that it works also on (sub)pages such as Fundraising and Funds Dissemination/Wikimedia’s culture of sharing or Fundraising and Funds Dissemination/Iberocoop joint statement? It's probably looking for the language code in the wrong subpage level title. Thank you, Nemo 21:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the specific problem? Ruslik 04:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Did you try putting it in the example pages? Nemo 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I did not. You still can use mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23titleparts. Ruslik 19:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that I can, I was asking to fix the template. :-p Nemo 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite configure out what exactly {{Languages/Lang}} is doing. I do know that it's reinventing the commons:Template:Lang links wheel... Rd232 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Involved admins: time for an actual policy?

Somewhere in between going after specific admins one at a time and shutting down this whole project is a simpler, less drastic solution that could possibly have helped avoid a lot of the recent drama here. Input is requested at Meta:Proposal for a policy on involved administrators to decide if it is time for Meta to have such a policy and how it might differ from the similar policies in place at other projects. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Guiding principles are always worth developing and sharing. If meta is the hub for crosswiki collaboration then having the documents on matters of principle is very valuable. We already do that for CheckUser and some others, that can then become the default for many communities, so to me it makes sense to have metamedians collaborate on that, and maybe also to get translated too. billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's not meant to be a Meta policy/guideline but rather a general guideline or essay, it should be in main namespace. Nemo 20:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I had in fact intended it to be for Meta specifically, but other participants have suggested that it be a guide for other projects as well. I don't think participation as yet has been sufficient to say there is a consensus on any of that though. It can always be moved if it needs to be though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is just about codifying the good practice, then that's fine. But if an actual written policy is needed correct misbehaviour that is ethically obvious to administrators on pretty much every other Wikimedia project then a better solution would be local RFCs on specific problematic admins. CIreland (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be developed as a general guideline; and some of the metapedians who have expressed concerns with recent involved closes should discuss them personally with the meta-admins in question. –SJ talk   02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change of MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown

See MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Nemo

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)

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)

No I am in disagreement with Nemo's poor judgment and rashness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The scary thing is, that you actually believe that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

It's not. We just have a different perspective on what the problem is. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of meta-wiki

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

To note that this has been closed by a member of the Languages Committee. billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Proposal - complete unified login for all eligible accounts

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)

Deletion process update/clarification

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)