Jump to content

Talk:Closing projects policy/Archives/2017

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This is not working

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

While this new policy provides some clarity, the process designed by it is not working at all. PCP has proposals stalled there for years with no action taken by the LangCom, which say that they're focused on project creations rather than project closures. While I accede to that, PCP is not being handled by any LangCom member. I've approached several times a LangCom member so he could ask their fellows to have a look at that page and handle those requests as appropriate and even mailed langcom mailing list months ago without any reply. I am not asking that my proposals or any other proposal is closed as "close the project"; but that the page is monitored and after some time proposals are closed in either way. If LangCom is too busy with project creations or do not want to deal with project closures I think we should, maybe, give the power back to the community to close those requests and assess them using the criteria of this policy. Respectfully, —MarcoAurelio 10:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As I can see LangCom periodically act on closure requests. As of now there are relatively few requests that are still open. Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There still needs to be a time limit. I think any proposal not disposed of within six months should kick back to the community at large. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
In reviewing those proposals older than two years old, I find the following:
  • A current attempt to ping a LangCom member to close the Beta Wikiversity proposal as "not done" because it's four years old.
  • No strong groundswell of support for the closure of the Bosnian or Limburgish Wikibooks projects.
  • At best equal pro-and-con !votes to delete the Marshallese projects.
So my opinion is: If we haven't had action on these by 15 July, go ahead and close all of the above as "not done".
The question of the Moldovan projects is more involved, and we could look at some of the newer requests after these are disposed of. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. I'm sorry if I'd rather like pinging possibly unrelated users:
  2. For Beta Wikiversity, I still believe that, not only beta, but also nearly all of Wikiversity users are gaming our Vision , not surprise, they even make trolling to Stewards Confirmation works per year, especially @Marshallsumter: (e.g. in Stewards/Confirm/2017, Not active on Wikiversity since 2008! Not active on Wikiversity since 2012! Not active on Wikiversity since 2015! (specifically under DerHexer subpage, even some users pointed wrong point, Marshall. has not changed his comment) and a lot of trolling comments from him). This would be a huge huge and huge challenge to Founding principles if we decide to keep this trolling. Also Wikidata support on this wiki could be murder.
  3. I still argument that a cleanuped Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Swedish Wikinews should be restored, so we can continue discussing n:sv: standardly? This project is also dead for ⅔ decades and unlikely to be reactiving again.
    Or should Operations developers like e.g. @JCrespo (WMF) and Krenair: start using this wiki rather than Afar Wikipedia when maintaing codfw/eqiad/esams/ulsfo...?
  4. For Moldovan, it's clearly that even ethnic Moldovans are aggred Romanian is the proper name of their ethnical lingua franca, so yes, both Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia 2 and Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Moldovan Wiktionary should be closed as Approved rather than rejected, and could databases (not only tables) of mowiki and mowiktionary be DROPped? This way can also slow down redundancy crawler traffics.
  5. For other PCPs, let's just reject Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Bosanski Wikibooks, Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Marshallese Wikipedia and Wiktionary, Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Limburgish Wikibooks, Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Venda Wikipedia 2, Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Albanian Wikinews and approve Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Afar Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wiktionary, Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Hiri Motu Wikipedia, Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Norwegian Wikinews 3, Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Alemannisch Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikiquote

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Has become off-topic for what is being discussed here. Can we get back on-topic, please?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • The proposal to move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator can be closed as Rejection or No consensus, which are the outcomes. I agree thereby with user Marco. Just FYI, I have read User:Rschen7754/SE2015 and appreciate user Rschen7754 providing these. I also believe that stewards should do their best to serve all WMF projects including en:Wikiversity as best they can. I also consider "a lot of trolling comments" as a personal attack rather than an issue. You've overstepped here! --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Marshallsumter:And how do you explain those comments to your Stewards Confirm comments?
  1. Unfortunately, that is not correct. According to the tools, I edited a Wikiversity project the last time in 2016. Fortunately, there are more Wikiversity projects than the English one. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Moving pages is an activity. He was not talking about content contributions. ;-) —DerHexer (Talk) 12:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. I don't understand at all what has editing a Wikiversity wiki to do with steward rights. But moving pages and global renames have much more to do with steward rights than editing there. That reason (on all these pages here) doesn't make any sense to me. Why shall it be better, if a steward who shall do steward actions in one of the Wikiversities has been active there not very long before than if he hasn't been? --Bjarlin (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If you could say sorry to at least DerHexer then I would accept keeping BetaWV, otherwise this was the reason that your enwiki account blocked, and will be the same reason that I request Global ban to you. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Have you read my comments carefully? my "keep" is having conditions. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate StevenJ81 having brought this to the mailing list of the LangCom for their attention. I am not sure if I am allowed to post messages there so I have refrained from doing so. I see that GerardM disagrees here that this is not the task of the LangCom to "kill" projects. Unfortunately this policy says that the decission is made by the LangCom while the Board will have the final saying with regards to the LangCom decision. That means that PCP is indeed in the remit of the LangCom as things stand now.

I agree with what was said above by Steven that there should be a minimum and a maximum of time to discuss once the requirements for the proposal are verified. Proposals cannot be open forever and need to be addressed in either way.

It might not be the perfect place to discuss this but I see some calls to close Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Afar Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wiktionary as unsuccessful. With all due respect, I feel that there's some agreement that aa.wikibooks and aa.wiktionary are inviable, never had content and after years closed it makes no sense to keep that subdomain active, and the only reason to keep aa.wikipedia is that sysadmins need it otherwise the project could go as well. And while I am certainly biased in Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Marshallese Wikipedia and Wiktionary as I am also the proposer, I feel that the comments in favor of deleting the project are weighting more now that those who wish to keep the wikis locked with no content. Those domains could be later redirected to their respective Incubator test projects where it is more likely that they'll get any contribution rather than to continue showing a main page of a wiki with no content.

Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 20:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You can mail the list (non-langcom members are moderated but I accept next to everything except spam). --MF-W 23:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: Thanks. I've asked to be subscribed for future communications. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 11:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I just request restoring Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Swedish Wikinews, as keeping this wiki can only attract to spam. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That page was badly formatted trolling. You can create a better request by yourself. --MF-W 11:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What I find missing in the section Definition of actions is what happens to the interwiki links on Wikidata. Are they removed (by somebody), or kept but no longer used by the software, or something else? --bdijkstra (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

They are kept and used. Locking of a wiki has no influence on Wikidata. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Closing_projects_policy/Archives/2017&oldid=24480313"