Meta:Babel
| ← Index of discussion pages | Babel | archives (latest) → |
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
|
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.
|
Stop allowing 24 hour crat nominations[edit]
Our policy allows 'crat nominations to be closed successful after just 24 hours when there is endorsement by two current crats, 150 edits/log actions in the last 6 months and no objections by other users within those 24 hours. While this is allowed by the policy, it is quite snowbally in my opinion. As long as two of the current bureaucrats agree, other users only have 24 hours to raise concerns. That is very little time. In my opinion, too little time for a responsible office like that of a bureaucrat. Besides, I don't really see the advantages, bureaucrat candidacies are very rare and I think they can run for a week, so that all users have the chance to express their opinion. --Zabe (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- When this policy was made, it was specifically with the goal of making RfBs very easy, based on the idea was that all meta admins are, in principle, trustworthy enough to be bureaucrats (see here for the old discussions, continuing in several sections). RfBs and consequently bureaucrats on Meta have become a rare species in the last few years, so that I have found myself one of only two bureaucrats twice, but I think that's actually a sign of the diminishing importance of bureaucrats, who, compared to the past, can neither rename nor help with SUL unifications nor desysop anymore. The 2008 situation described as "since all of our admins are promoted by pretty much all the community's approval" still (or again?) seems rather fitting to me. On the other hand, 24 hours is really a short period in the context of usual deadlines. --MF-W 22:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe three days or something? If a week is too long. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 11:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep at 24h, the meta community is quite small and I still believe that all admins are trusted enough to be crats here, no point prolonging the holding time and I trust the crats will extend if they find something fishy or not right. What the issue with the policy is that it needs 2 existing crats to endorse, with now we having 3, we cannot expect all the crats to be 24/7 on wiki, so the timing might be a little longer than 24h in some situations. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Trust your 'crats. This is not a high risk, high use item. It isn't being abused, and the crats can push back to the community as they choose. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've never liked the current process, and don't think it needs a complete overhaul but some ideas:
- Just make this a week like most other timed discussions here.
- Have two paths to success:
- (a) The current "two current bureaucrats" endorse and a lack of a consensus in objection is present
- (b) an actual consensus of support is present
- This would eliminate pocket vetoes from current crats, allow the no-objection route to continue if endorsed, but allow sufficient time for any actual objections to be heard. I can't see a week being onerous, this isn't a process that requires urgency. — xaosflux Talk 12:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Support Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Emphasizing the route (a) I will support it to remain as 24h or at most 48h, or else it's really moot as (b) will take around the same time. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: my idea with (b) was that it didn't require the crat's to be involved. I'm still in favor of just using a week - but if there is the current endorsement not actually requiring "supporters" (i.e. it can just sit there and not be objected to). We have pretty much rejected speedy closures on most everything else here (Meta:Snowball) due to nature that contributors may not check in very often. — xaosflux Talk 15:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux I think I get your point now. Yes, we do have that policy here. What I am thinking is that for crat since there are other criterions which significantly narrow the candidate pool, and the existing crats now are all well trusted to make that judgement call and it requires 2, I don't see how a lightweight process is that risky in these narrow parameters. If we want, we can make the crats needed to 3, but based on the status quo now, it will restore the pocket veto situation. 3 pairs of eyes is better than 2, so I am saying if we really want to be careful to promote, we can do 2 crats endorsements, and an uninvolved crat close the speedy promotion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I absolutely would not want to require more crat endorsements! I'm not really in favor of requiring any, but recognize that it is historical and has some support from others so I wasn't proposing removing that path to success. — xaosflux Talk 14:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux Not to worry, I also don't wish to see the requirements to 3, just giving all possible options to consider if the concern is perceived lack of scrutiny of the candidate due to the short timeframe. What my point is that if the crat endorsement route is as long as the community support alone route, then it seems more practical to just do the full 7 days, community support alone. I will support having both routes existing concurrently when there are significant enough differences between the 2, now it seems that what the crats have is a more powerful vote in the RFB. Correct me if I am wrong, just trying to make sense of the proposal. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I absolutely would not want to require more crat endorsements! I'm not really in favor of requiring any, but recognize that it is historical and has some support from others so I wasn't proposing removing that path to success. — xaosflux Talk 14:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux I think I get your point now. Yes, we do have that policy here. What I am thinking is that for crat since there are other criterions which significantly narrow the candidate pool, and the existing crats now are all well trusted to make that judgement call and it requires 2, I don't see how a lightweight process is that risky in these narrow parameters. If we want, we can make the crats needed to 3, but based on the status quo now, it will restore the pocket veto situation. 3 pairs of eyes is better than 2, so I am saying if we really want to be careful to promote, we can do 2 crats endorsements, and an uninvolved crat close the speedy promotion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: my idea with (b) was that it didn't require the crat's to be involved. I'm still in favor of just using a week - but if there is the current endorsement not actually requiring "supporters" (i.e. it can just sit there and not be objected to). We have pretty much rejected speedy closures on most everything else here (Meta:Snowball) due to nature that contributors may not check in very often. — xaosflux Talk 15:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Emphasizing the route (a) I will support it to remain as 24h or at most 48h, or else it's really moot as (b) will take around the same time. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support. No prejudice against current appointment process, but Xaosflux's proposal seems fair enough. Sgd. —Hasley 13:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Xaosflux's proposal. I'm not aware of any actual issues as a result of the current way of crat nominations, but the objections here are valid, and Xaosflux's proposal seems a good way of mitigating future issues. Best, Vermont (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be in favour to just run RfBs the same as regular RfAs for the sake of simplicity. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Support 
Comment I want to hear a better argument than "I don't like it". — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- "We have pretty much rejected speedy closures on most everything else here (Meta:Snowball) due to nature that contributors may not check in very often." is a clear enough argument for me. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC) - Support RfAs and RfBs on Meta should not be closed after 24 hours, since administrator and bureaucrat rights are positions that require strong community support and trust, as well as the ability for the holder of the rights to continue to uphold that standard after being given the flag, and as such, these are not the kinds of positions where decisions about granting access should made with urgency. Hx7 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Inactive importers[edit]
Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk · contribs) and Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs) have been inactive on this wiki since 2018 and 2020, respectively. Daniel has also concluded employment with WMDE. Should importer rights be removed? --Rschen7754 23:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Remove both. — xaosflux Talk 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'll remove Daniel's as his WMDE account is no longer used. I'd check with @Thehelpfulone whether he still needs/wants the permission, but if there's no reply after some time I'd say to remove it as well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Asked [1], we'll see if there is a response. --Rschen7754 21:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754 I think it's close to 20 days and might be okay to ask for removal? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, @MarcoAurelio: does the request need to come from you? --Rschen7754 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it has to, but I'll post something on SRP shortly. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @Rschen7754 and @MarcoAurelio. I wonder do we need an inactivity policy for importers to be hard coded, like say 1 year inactive, 1 month notice, no response, remove to make things easy. Let me find some time to frame a RFC for review of our inactivity policies (also those that are recently archived here on Babel, I think there are some consensus in those which can be confirmed via a RFC). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it has to, but I'll post something on SRP shortly. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, @MarcoAurelio: does the request need to come from you? --Rschen7754 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754 I think it's close to 20 days and might be okay to ask for removal? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Asked [1], we'll see if there is a response. --Rschen7754 21:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'll remove Daniel's as his WMDE account is no longer used. I'd check with @Thehelpfulone whether he still needs/wants the permission, but if there's no reply after some time I'd say to remove it as well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM newsletter migration from Outreach to Meta[edit]
Hi everyone,
I'm here to announce and discuss an important project that the GLAM and Culture team at the Wikimedia Foundation is taking part in during the next few weeks.
Due to Outreach having a limited readership and visibility within the movement, our community newsletters (GLAM and Education) don’t always receive the attention they deserve. To address this, we’re working to facilitate with our colleagues in the Movement Communications team the migration of the This Month in GLAM newsletter from Outreach to Meta-Wiki.
Both teams are working on this task in the next few weeks in order to:
- Increase visibility and participation in the GLAM newsletter.
- Ensure the GLAM community has a place (Meta-Wiki) where they feel seen, engaged, and supported by the Wikimedia community, partners, and Foundation.
- Increase the amount of multilingual (or translatable) content to engage contributors from other languages and more regions.
This activity already has the support of the active newsletter’s main editors and it will also be accomplished by the newsletter main editor. It was also already announced in this October report in the newsletter, on Outreach's Village Pump, on social media, and on several mailing lists.
The migration of the report pages, talk pages, categories, and templates is planned to happen from November 19th to 30th, 2021. This period is important to accommodate the migration before the reports from next month. Any other modifications or corrections will be made before December 15th, 2021.
It is also important to notice that, as this is a migration, the pages from the newsletter on Outreach will move with their entire history and they will receive a redirect. For that reason, of course, that no content will be lost, forgotten, nor any page will be deleted or have its link erased.
If you have any other questions or ideas about the migration, please share your thoughts here or feel free to contact the GLAM & Culture team at glam
wikimedia.org and the community editors at thismonthinglamgmail.com. --GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- What does this mean in clear, understandable terms? Which pages will be imported (surely they will be imported as in Special:Import or equivalent mechanisms?), and under which titles? By whom? And what are "any other modifications or corrections" that will be made before December 15? Will outreachwiki be closed on December 15? --MF-W 00:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hey @MF-Warburg, the conversation on Outreach's Village Pump mentioned above has more context that might be helpful. As for what will be imported and how, there's a phab task tracking that work. It sounds like an import/export should work with some redirects and cleanup on Outreach (via a bot). Modifications or corrections is just a way of saying anything we've missed or hadn't considered before the next newsletter is published. There are no plans to close outreach on the 15th. We're working to move just the newsletters for now. The folks at the WMF helping with this process, myself included, are excited to be part of this change and know that it's an important one. Appreciate the thoughts and questions. Chris Koerner (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Request for comment[edit]
As this in some places already has been pointed out, before a large change can taken place like a move of contents from Outreach Wiki to Meta Wiki, a solid ground must be present. To use the momentum and to move forward and to come to a decision about moving contents to Meta, I have created a request for comment with a clear proposal that hopefully tackles all the concerns from the community. The proposal can be found on Requests for comment/Outreach migration. Romaine (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Just moving the GLAM newsletter is not possible because of technical limitations and because it is not a good idea to split the community and having them work on two platforms at the same time. Romaine (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Talk to the Community Tech: The future of the Community Wishlist Survey[edit]
Hello!
We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 30 November (Tuesday), 17:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.
Agenda
- Changes to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. Help us decide.
- Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
- Questions and answers
Format
The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.
We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.
Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.
Invitation link
- Join online
- Meeting ID: 82035401393
- Dial by your location
We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I doubt holding Zoom meetings for stuff that happens on wiki (as the Community Wishlist does) is a good idea. Nobody should be forced to use third-party software and out themselves (totally or partially) just for their opinions to be heard. What happened to talk pages? This trend of outsourcing discussion of onwiki processes to offwiki platforms is most concerning to me. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Making the Reply tool available for all[edit]
The [reply] tool is now available (default-on) for all users at all WMF-hosted wikis except Meta-Wiki, Wikispecies, and the Russian and English Wikipedias. It's a popular tool and has been used to post more than 500,000 comments on the wikis so far, 100% of which were signed and ::::indented. You can see people using it in RecentChanges.
If you want to try it out, then click https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel?dtenable=1 to reload this page, and look for the [reply] buttons after each signature. If you want to use it on all pages, then go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and turn on "Discussion tools". The link and the Beta Feature include several other tools, such as [subscribe] and a simplified tool for creating a ==New section==. I think that automatic topic subscriptions would be particularly good for Meta-Wiki (so people will get notified about replies even if they aren't pinged and without needing to remember to check their watchlists on Meta-Wiki), but only the [reply] tool itself is ready to be deployed now.
I'd like to ask the Editing team to deploy the [reply] tool the next time they're making a config change (could be next week, could be when it's deployed to enwiki in January). Before I do that, I wanted to let you know and make sure that I hadn't missed any significant problems. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Whatamidoing (WMF): I've been using the beta (opt-in) feature for quite some time here, and I find it helpful; so no concerns from me. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't care for it, but as long as it is opt-in, no big deal - so sure. — xaosflux Talk 16:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should turn this on as an opt-out – on by default for everyone, and you can turn it off if you don't want it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Enable WikiLove at Meta-Wiki[edit]
Hi, I am here to propose enabling WikiLove at Meta-Wiki. The reason is probably similar to other sites - give Meta-Wiki users a relatively friendly set of templates to improve the friendliness between users. The configuration could be similar to that on enwiki. Stang 23:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- No additional comments apart from the fact that this was already discussed at length and rejected before (cf. previous proposal, not sure about others). Best, Sgd. —Hasley 00:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Apologize for not making a search before post a new proposal here. Just wondering, why it is thought as "a toy" or "a game", is it just because Meta-Wiki is not a content-based site? Stang 01:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- I would prefer that it went through an RfC than a request here, due to the previous conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to enable it. My views have not changed since 2012. We now have a thanks feature, in addition to the old personalised talk page message of appreciation. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- I would prefer that it went through an RfC than a request here, due to the previous conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Apologize for not making a search before post a new proposal here. Just wondering, why it is thought as "a toy" or "a game", is it just because Meta-Wiki is not a content-based site? Stang 01:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- No thanks, but agree that if this is wanted do a regular RfC. — xaosflux Talk 16:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Really isnt needed. You can use those templates without it being part of the interface. Vermont (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't is mostly useless templates that are in the WikiLove extension? I think it's only a enwiki thing, so no thanks. Stryn (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion vote about the licenses for Abstract content and Function Implementations[edit]
.svg){kind=icon}
| “Event”: | The discussion vote about the licences for Abstract content and Function Implementations |
|---|---|
| When: | Until 2021-12-15 09:59:59 UTC guaranteed. |
| Links: | Discussion vote • Concept • Concept as the practical example |
| What | Licence |
|---|---|
| Abstract content | CC-BY-SA vs CC0? Or anothers? |
| Function Implementations | Apache vs GPL? Or anothers? |
✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)