Meta:Babel

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This page experimentally allows language localisation.

[edit] User:Thekohser blocked

Note: Moved from Talk:Public speakers

I don't know where to post this, so I'm going to put it here. Some people here seem to think Thekohser has been trying to update this list in good faith. Some people seem to think the only reason he's editing this wiki is to be disruptive. I'm not commenting on that. But now the user who created this page has blocked Thekohser indefinitely, started a new discussion here, and said he won't be available for the next 2 days on top of that. WTH? That's not helping anyone. 207.34.229.126 17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I point out here that Guillom has a large conflict of interest in the matter which should prohibit him from making indefinite blocks without consensus against such a user. I think this is highly disrespectful and gives Wikimedia a very bad name. I am concerned about Stewards going about and acting in this manner, as it is an abuse of trust. Ottava Rima 18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong here, Guillom did his job as administrator and if you don't like the result you should make a unblock request, trying to make Guillom look bad in front of the complete community isn't the way to go.

Now lets move on, nothing to see here.

Huib talk 18:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abigor and disagree with Ottava's wildly hyperbolic charge. --David Shankbone 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The idea that because Guillom started the page he cannot take reasonable administrative action is ridiculous. If the action was reasonable then there's no problem. If it wasn't, then show that the action itself is not in fact reasonable. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that someone who heavily edits a page has the ability to be objective enough to determine if a user of their page happens to be in the best judgment or not? And are you further trying to suggest that an admin can indef a user without any sort of discussion on the matter, especially when other admin made it clear that the user was not doing anything blockable? That is ridiculous. I can't believe you three. Ottava Rima 18:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole point is that if the action was appropriate then it doesn't matter who actually did it. You never showed that the action itself was wrong - if it isn't wrong, why should anyone get upset?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Image and propriety. We should hold ourselves to an appropriate standard of decorum that doesn't simply cut corners and ignore ethics in order to get the job done. I still feel that a lack of discussion first is highly inappropriate. At least now there is an objective person making the -bold- move. Now we can have an honest discussion. Ottava Rima 18:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

@Mike: you have in the past argued with me about actions I and others have taken, suggesting that they had a CoI, or an appearance of a potential CoI, and have stated quite strongly that such should be avoided, even if the appearance is marginal. I'm surprised to see you take the other side of that argument here. That said, I don't think G had a CoI large enough to prevent his taking appropriate administrative actions. So I have no issue with the block from that aspect. However, as I say below, I am not sure I support the grounds for the block and I believe that G erred. It was a good faith action, unlike GerardM editwarring through protection... (that's absolutely unacceptable and if I ever see it again from GerardM he will be blocked for it) but it is one I think was not correct. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - solved removed the block. Huib talk 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - new block place by a non involved admin. Huib talk 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now can we actually discuss the block? Ottava Rima 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Should The Kohser be indef blocked?

For discussion. It seems that there are at least five people who support an indef (three above, guilliom, and Gerard). There are also a few admin who did not think he deserved one by not going ahead and indef blocking him. So, lets discuss the matter. Ottava Rima 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thekohser is a strong critic of WMF and of certain practices at certain projects. He's also a two time board candidate, and a contributor to Meta. The actions he took at the page Public Speaking were hardly uniformly bad in my view... he did work to freshen the page, which is goodness. Removing people was perhaps unwarranted, but there was an apparent (lack of any discussion based...) consensus to do so. Not a very good one, I wouldn't have proceeded on that basis. That he put his name in as a speaker is completely valid in my view, given the criteria at the page for inclusion at the time (i.e. none). GerardM's edit warring over that and subsequent personal attacks were not helpful. Far from it, in fact they tended to escalate the tensions. In short I don't think that it's valid to say Thekohser does nothing but troll. Far from it. If he were to undertake to keep his snarkiness in check going forward I would support an unblock. We should not be trying to silence critics, merely ensure they participate in appropriate ways. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• If any block is warranted, then for GerardM. Really this is not so hard. People should not be indef blocked when they act in good faith, only because you don't like their opinions, just like they should not be removed as a speaker for that reason. Guido den Broeder 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course people who severely dislike Wikimedia, its goals and its community should not be prevented from speaking on behalf of Wikimedia, its goals and its community. Who would ever think such a dumb thing?! --David Shankbone 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The page, at the time of all of these events unfolding, made no representation about who could or couldn't speak or what they were, or weren't representing. That's the important point. A minor point, though... when you say "severely dislike... etc.", who exactly are you talking about? ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• An indef block is way overblown and inappropriate. Majorly talk 22:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think a 24 hour block for edit warring was appropriate. A further 24 hour block for taking Jimbo's name off the list for point -if necessary-. Beyond that, standard 24 hour blocks or a progression in small increments would be more than enough to stop any games. An indef block at the drop of a hate is a bad standard. Ottava Rima 22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not even sure I totally agree the original block was warranted, actually, and the removal of Angela and Jimbo happened before the original block was given, IIRC, so I'm not sure I agree with a further block for that either. As Majorly says, an indef block is way overblown and inappropriate. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why we'd be blocking anyone as punishment for removing Jimbo's name (or anything else, for that matter) since blocks are about prevention, not punishment.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Which is why I emphasized "if necessary". Ottava Rima 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Point of edification: Thekohser is unblocked, by Mike.lifeguard. -- Thekohser 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted pages

The special page "Wanted pages" has been disabled for over two years now while it is one of the most used special pages. At li.wikt ([1]) it only gives 35 links while there are over 10.000 pages... Some of these links actually do not exist any more. A page like "Ètsbergsj" is linked over 500 times ([2]), but it isn't shown on Wanted pages. Is there any way to re-enable this page? --OosWesThoesBes 06:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You can always ask someone with access to toolserver to provide you with wanted pages on liwiktionary. Just add a request on JIRA Project: Database Queries. Here is the first 2000 results for you. --Meno25 09:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your instructions. I've add a request here. --OosWesThoesBes 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pages directly translated from one project to another without attribution

I've been bothered on and off by en:User:Magicknight94 lately concerning articles that I've primarily contributed to on the English Wikipedia. For a while now, I've realized that he's been taking these articles and translating them for use on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. As an example the first instance of a page titled "Samurai Sentai Shinkenger" on the Vietnamese Wikipedia is nearly identical in content to the same article on the English Wikipedia from that time period.

I've asked Magicknight94 to attribute the source articles to the English Wikipedia (without it, to my knowledge, he is violating the GFDL), but my requests and edits at vi.wp have been met with rudeness and reversions. Clearly they know English but I do not know Vietnamese, and the single English comment has been particularly rude (Vinhtantran's comment calls me petty and narrow-minded according to Google Translate) after Magicknight94 complied and added a comment that says some pages come from the English Wikipedia, but this was removed by Vinhtantran and my reversion was undone by Sholokhov.

Before I continue attempting to argue at the Vietnamese Wikipedia, am I right in assuming that if they do not provide the source content it is a violation of the GFDL of the English Wikipedia when the language barrier is producing issues in both directions?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, nothing justifies being rude to you, but I have to tell you that your contributions are not only GPL, but also CC. Additionally, the created articles also link to the original English article (as well as other language version), and explicit reference to the original article from which it might have been translated is not required. Don't forget that both the original and Vietnamese versions of the article might as well change a lot after the translation, rendering null the concept of the article being a translation of the English version.

I would give Vinhtantran the benefit of doubt on that comment, as the google translation read really bad. He is after all an administrator

I'm not sure such a reference to the original article is needed, and you should ask yourself if it doesn't only serve your ego. But anyhow, you should consider leaving the reference on the Talk page in a new section instead of the template itself; they should have a really good reason to remove such a harmless comment from its own section in a talk page.

Be sure to leave a message to Vinhtantran in his talk page before you do so, and link him to this place for a reference. Good luck, MarianoC 08:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

For proper attribution, there should be a permalink to the translated en:article version in the vi:edit summary. A reference on the vi:article page, on the other hand, makes no sense since, as was already said, the two versions may evolve in different ways. Regards, Guido den Broeder 12:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: The general rules of language use in Wikimedia

[I know that my English is not perfect. And I would be grateful for the correction of possible grammatical and stylistic errors.]

I am a professional anthropologist and at the same time, a man with considerable experience as a politician and as a party to legal conflicts. I am very interesting by those most bitter conflicts in the Wikipedia community around the creation of Wikipedia in those or other languages. This, in particular, the sharp conflicts over language: Volapük, Lombardian, Siberian, Klingon, Quenya, Toki Pona, Moldovan.

[I note that the closing pages of the Moldovan and Siberian languages was partly inspired by political motives, respectively, the representatives of Romanian and Russian languages. There is no doubt in the existence of a group of Siberian dialects of the Russian language, and there is no doubt in the existence of a formal written language, which was called "Moldovan" and was considered different from Romanian.]

I believe that decisions on these matters do not meet many of the panellists. This means that the problem of the continued functioning of languages of the Wikipedia needs more regulation. Should be introduced simple and obvious rules, which could satisfy all. Moreover, these rules should be considered obvious and fair to all members of the Wikipedia community.

These rules I have set out in the form of a few simple and universal legal norms. These rules have a few sources.

Main source: These rules follow from the main purpose of Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia - creating the most complete and high quality on-line version of the encyclopedia in all languages of the Earth.

Second source: own practice of the Wikipedia community in dealing with such issues, the presence in the practice of historical precedents.

The third source: the general universal principles of law that have proved themselves throughout the history of mankind, and which recognized the basic legal systems of almost all States, except in the most odious dictatorships. In this case there are two such universal principles:

1) A person shall not be liable for the acts of illegality which he could not have known. In particular, it should not be punished for acts which at the time they were committed were not illegal.

2) If people are free to enjoy certain rights, these rights they can not be taken away or limited. This is a very important universal principle, which dictates the obvious solution of a number of the most violent conflicts in the Wikipedia community.

Based on this latter principle, those languages that already have existing Wikipedia pages, or who have already obtained the right to create such pages in the wiki-Incubator, in any case can not be denied the right to own Wikipedia.

Because of this legal principle should be necessary to reopen the languages of the Wikipedia: Klingon, Toki Pona, Moldovan and Siberian.

On the other hand, these Wikipedias have been closed due to fair and honest reasons. So we must not allow the emergence of similar pages in the future. For this purpose, and should be taken these guidelines.

The general rules of language use in Wikimedia

A. Rules of use of existing languages in Wikimedia

1) Any language of Wikimedia may not be removed from it.

2) Administrators of each active Wikipedia in any language are obliged to care about the quality of Wikipedia articles. In particular, there is considered unacceptable the bot-creation of the main part of Wikipedia articles in any language.

In case of serious doubt as Wikipedia in this language guide Wikimedia Foundation may require the removal of all articles that have been bot-uploaded.

3) If necessary, bad-quality Wikimedia to correct the deficiencies can be returned to the Wiki-incubator.

4) In case if the language is used in two or more writing systems, separate sections for each type of writing is not created. Instead, is nessesary to create a program that can translate the contents of any article on this language from one writing system into another.

We are welcoming the creation for any language of Wikipedia, program that gives the contents of articles into the International Phonetic Alphabet, as well as program that translates into the Latin transcription of the contents of articles in those languages, which made other writing systems.

B. Rules for the establishment of Wikipedia and Wiki-Incubator for new languages

1) In the Wikipedia and Wiki-incubator can be created sections in any native (living or dead) language, having the code ISO 639.

2) In the Wikipedia can be created partitions on any living language, not having the code ISO 639, if it satisfies the following conditions:

a) there are people for whom this language is native;

b) these language has a literature and electronic sites;

c) there is a scientific description of the language: its vocabulary and grammar;

d) The Wikipedia has pages devoted to this language in English and at least three other languages.

3) In the Wikipedia can be created sections on any recently extinct language, not having the code ISO 639, if it satisfies the following conditions:

a) The language died out not earlier than 1850;

b) there is a tutorial of the language;

c) these language has a literature and electronic sites;

d) there is the scientific description of the language: its vocabulary and grammar;

e) The Wikipedia has pages devoted to this language in English and at least three other languages.

4) In the Wikipedia can be created partitions on any dead language, not having the code ISO 639, if it satisfies the following conditions:

a) in that language existed and survived to the present day own rich literature;

b) there is a tutorial of the language;

c) these language has a modern literature and electronic sites;

d) there is the scientific description of the language: its vocabulary and grammar;

e) The Wikipedia has pages devoted to this language in English and at least three other languages.

5) All the languages that do not meet the criteria set out in paragraphs 1), 2), 3) and 4), are considered to be artificial.

In Wikipedia, there are sections of the following artificial (constructed) languages: Esperanto, Ido, Novial, Intelingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Volapük, Lojban, Quenya, Klingon, Toki Pona, and Lingua Franca Nova.

In the Wikipedia is not possible to create partitions on any other artificial languages.

As an exception, the decision to establish a section of Wikipedia in any other artificial language can be accepted leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation. In this case the language must meet all the requirements of paragraph 4) for the dead languages and have a level of development and popularity of not less than the language of Quenya in 2009.

I believe that the adoption of these rules will remove all the stress and all the discussions around the language policy of Wikipedia.

Best Regards,

Ihor Rassokha, Ukraine

[edit] New stewards

Hello, can the active stewards please have a look at Steward requests/SUL requests, requests there are unattended for a terrible long time (11. oct, 28. sept...). I have answered some that can be answered without steward-tools, but there are now still some open, plus I don't really want to look at that page. IMHO it is not acceptable to let people wait so long, if the current stewards can't handle all requests in an acceptable timeframe apparently we need new stewards. Thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, steward elections are surely due very soon? They are usually held at or near the end of the year. Majorly talk 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It was February for this year's election –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that was to avoid conflicting with the boardvote, but I'm not sure that is a great reason to delay further into 2010. MBisanz ^talk 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In 2007, they began at the end of November. I think if more stewards are needed more should be appointed. Majorly talk 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly. If there is a backlog it means that more stewards are needed. In this case, just elect more stewards. Barras 14:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A backlog doesn't mean we need new stewards, but there have quit three this year so a little more could be good, but even if we want to make elections this year we should go before or after the fundraiser. Huib talk 19:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement. How does the process work then? I can't remember... we need statement pages, questions, templates, translations etc. Majorly talk 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree, personally I think it should be sooner rather then later but it looks like the fundraiser doesn't end until the beginning of January. How much would they interfere with each other is the question. Jamesofur 18:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We definitely need more stewards, the current team cannot handle the workload presently. People do what they can, but, being human, that is all we can do. If we are continuing with an actual vote, can we consider using SecurePoll? This will make post-vote work much easier, I think.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think SecurePoll is a bad idea. It reduces accountability and openness which is what the wiki projects are about. What is the post-vote work? Majorly talk 18:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Validation of all the users that participated to make sure they qualify under the criteria, I think. If we don't use SecurePoll though, we can reuse the page structure from last time (not the pages, a copy of them), I think. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We usually do that as we go along. Majorly talk 18:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see us use the page structure from last time, exactly, than make it up as we go along. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)