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] 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 (especially the Language committee) 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 necessary 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 639-3.

2) In the Wikipedia can be created partitions on any living language, not having the code ISO 639-3, 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 639-3, 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 639-3, 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, Simple English, Ido, Novial, Intelingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Volapük, Lojban, Quenya, Klingon, Siberian, 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 Wikimedia Board of Trustees. In this case the language must meet all the requirements of paragraph 4) for the dead languages and have code ISO 639-3 and a level of development and popularity of not less than the Quenya in 2009.

6) If a native language has the code ISO 639-3, but does not satisfy the conditions about 2) or 3) or 4), proposal of this language can be rejected.

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] My proposal regarding the registration of new languages

I don't propose “defining what makes a language”. If a language have own literature, this language is already defined as language by its writers, readers, editors and libraries. Every serious library takes account of each language separately. All modern libraries have electronic catalogs. If language has a website, this language is already defined as language by programmers.

There is website Ethnologue: “The purpose of the Ethnologue is to provide a comprehensive listing of the known living languages of the world. (…) Ancient, classical, and long-extinct languages are not listed (even though the ISO 639-3standard assigns codes to them), unless they are in current use (as in the scriptures or liturgy of a faith community)”.

So, I propose:

Profile (test questionnaire) for a new language of Wikipedia

1. Language name in English language.

2. Language name in native language.

3. Status of language: living, recently extinct, dead, artificial.

4. Its ISO 639-3 code (if exist).

5. Article about this language in English Wikipedia.

6. Articles about this language in three other Wikipedias.

7. Three some websites in this language.

8. Five modern (written at 20-21 century) books in this language with electronic catalogs of some libraries, where are these books.

9. Vocabulary of this language as a book with electronic catalog of library or as a website.

10. Grammar of this language as a book with electronic catalog of library or as a website.

For living languages:

11. Article about this language in website Ethnologue.

For recently extinct, dead, artificial languages:

12. Tutorial of the language as a book with electronic catalog of library or as a website.

For recently extinct languages:

13. Summary, that the language died out not earlier than 1850: quotations from authoritative sources (websites).

For dead languages:

14. Five published in 20-21 centuries books with ancient texts in this language, with electronic catalogs of some libraries, where are these books.

For artificial languages:

15. Educational institution with the state license, where this language is learned; with website of this institution.

16. Three different ongoing magazines in this languages with electronic catalogs of some libraries, where are these magazines.

If supporters of a new language are unable to complete the questionnaire, this language can not be accepted. Thanks, Paccoxa 12:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[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)

While I agree that additional stewards are probably needed, we should probably wait til the GS vote has happened, and perhaps until the fundraiser is complete. SecurePoll sounds alright, although we need to find scrutineers for that. I'd be willing to help set up pages, let me know if I can do anything. GrooveDog 14:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I need the tools back

I became sysop here in march (see Meta:Requests for adminship/Finnrind), was fairly active for a while and then had a looong break. Gave up the tools due to inactivity in September [1], but now I am back again and find I could need the tools back. I suppose this is just a matter of a 'crat putting the bit back, but if anyone objects to that I will of course submit to a new RfA. Best regards, Finn Rindahl 11:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. Admins are always needed and your election was with 100% support. I don't know if a re-election per policy must be done, but if not, I support the regranting of the bit. --Barras 12:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course Finn should get his tools back.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me, but request that this wait for 24 hours before anything is done. Majorly talk 14:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No objections either. --Erwin 10:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

By all means, he needs them. Wutsje 10:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can a 'crat please either put the bit back to my account, or tell me to post a new RfA. The blacklistscripts aren't working without it, and that makes trying do deal with it sort of tedious :) Finn Rindahl 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reset the flag. Please readd yourself to the relevant admin lists. Majorly talk 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why I missed that thread... but yay!, welcome back! - I agree with Mike above. —Dferg ^(disputatio) 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. Majorly:will do. Finn Rindahl 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Admin behaviour on Meta

Hello Wikimedians,

I would like to get some opinions about the behaviour for a admin called user:GerardM here on Meta, his behaviour makes me doubt about the AGF and about the Wikimedia believes and I really thinks this kind of behaviour cant be accepted when it is a admin where we are talking about.

• This admin likes to close pages for anonymous editing because he thinks the ip edits are not good enough (quote from irc the anonymous edits are the most obnoxious and destructive), he protected pages against cowards multiple times, but we most not forget that those cowards are our future.

• Protecting the request pages will make sure people need to get autoconfirmed before commenting, this will cause that people need to wait for 4 days before they can edit it and people will give up because they need to wait. And we need the new users for the new pages.

• According the Gerard he is protecting them because he is working in the langcom (quote from irc and I administer the language policy) the strange thing is that I cant find something in the policy that says we cant have a ano editing in a discussion.

• According to his talkpage this user is better than any ip user editing here on Meta (User_talk:GerardM#Recent_coments) what makes me believe he isn't fit for the job because nobody can be better than all ip users.

Now let us ask the question, do we really want admins here that totally assume bad faith and places attacks towards ip users. But more important do we want to keep all ip users out a discussion that would make a big difference in the creation or approval for a new project, I do believe that not everybody with a opinion want to make a account or make a account and wait for 4 days. And I think its very strange that a administrator can just protect stuff without a policy to support it. I can totally understand that we don't want ip to vote but there opinion can be good and isn't it the believe for Wikimedia that everybody can edit?

Best regards, Huib talk 11:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree. He protected recently a project page that was updated by anons. The edits where fully ok. Therefore, there wasn't/ isn't a reason to protect it. I decided to unprotect the page, even if I know (and I don't don't that normally) that it means I overruled an other admin's decission. We had the same problem with the deletion of a pic that he restored. It was a commons duplicate and so there was no reason to keep. His use of admin tools are not acceptable. I think should go through a re-election. --Barras 12:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What edit is better or more constructive is a matter of opinion. Most IP-edits I see are less improvement than edits by registered users, but there are also many valuable contributions by IPs. To refer to all IP-users as "anonymous cowards" is far off the truth, certainly for an admin. If it is correct what you say about unnecessary protections, this admin should be told not to use his admin rights in this way. Woudloper 12:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

GerardM has had some issues with his use of admin tools. This should be discussed on Meta:Babel, and perhaps determine if he is still trusted in this role. Majorly talk 14:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I often take issue with Gerard's behaviour and I don't think an examination of whether the community still trusts him in this role would be amiss. However, to be fair, I'm pretty sure the protection reason about "no edits from anonymous cowards" or whatever was referring to a particular user who had logged out to evade scrutiny. I could be wrong, but the point remains that there are redeeming factors - we should weigh them as a community.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Meta:Babel#Strange__Admin_behavoir_on_Meta Huib talk 14:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Abigor for not looking at the situation at hand. I protected a page that is a policy page of the language committee.. It had been changed by an anonymous coward and made the requirements from only the requirement of translating the "most used" messages to all messages core and WMF extensions. These pages are for the language committee to edit alone.

You may also have noticed that on the request for new languages is also a policy page for the process of adding new languages. When you do your research you will find that there are many hot button issues. It is really easy to troll people anonymously. This is what has happened a lot. When you have to stand up for your right to discuss this, it makes the tone appreciatively more civil.

Thank you for your good faith and your deep research in the issue, GerardM 15:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gerard sorry but I think I did my homework and you're making a mistake here, the last discussion about request for closing projects on Foundation-l you stated that the language commite wasn't involved in request for closure for projects but now you say that the request page that you protected can only be edited by langcom members. As far as I see it the page isn't a langcom page and therefor was your protection with comment crossing the line and total misuse of your admin buttons.

To show I did my homework the second time you used to word coward was when you protected this page, again a page about closure and not about creating.

In case you forgot it, here is the link where you stated that the langcom wasn't about closing projects.

After this I spoke to a other member of the LangCom and he stated that most of the protections weren't needed and that ip opinions would be accepted on the discussion pages it even sounded like he didn't even know your protections.

Therefor I think its time to discuss your adminrights since you misused your adminrights when you started protecting pages that didn't need to be protected. Huib talk 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My last block was 10:27, 14 November 2009 GerardM (talk | contribs | block) protected "Language committee/Status/wp/kiu" [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎

We are talking about different things apparantly.. don´t you think that new languages and closed languages atrackt the same kind of trolls ? You are right when you say that the language committee does not determine the policy of closing wikis. However, they should go in the incubator .... and then become part of the language committee again ...

When this other language committee member states that opinions of anonymous people are considered, then he forgets that once the discussion stage is passed, no opinions are considered. However, that does not stop the postering. GerardM 16:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I did say "anonymous coward" not coward ... This phrase is used on slashdot where all anonymous contributions are welcomed and attributed to "anonymous coward" ... makes a bit of a differece doesn't it ? Thanks, GerardM 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The last problem (before this one here) was his usage of the deletion tool link. I'm not sure if his admin actions here are really good ones. I think it would be the best for GerardM to go through a reconfirmation to see if he still has the trust by the community. Moreover, I think this would be easier then discussing here, because I think there is not only one discusable adminaction. Just my thoughts. --Barras 18:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This headline is missleading, to me it suggests admins on Meta generally behave strange... maybe so, maybe not. I do trust GerardM, there might be a certain frustration level at some point but understandable and I still think he does good work for the language committee. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I disagree with undoing the protection added by GerardM on Proposals for closing projects, IMHO the only strange admin behaviour that can be observed, is that admins communicate on the version history and not like it would be much more polite on the user-talk-page when undoing an action... .oO( maybe the other admin had a good reason to do so, etc.) IMHO the protection of this page was overdue anyway and should have been done already long ago. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stewards performing bureaucrat actions at Meta

I'm getting a bit tired of coming across requests at steward pages (mostly Steward requests/SUL requests) that need to be dealt with by Meta bureaucrats and then having to refer the requesting user to another page at the same project. It seems a bit pointless and not very user friendly, so I was wondering how people feel about stewards taking care of those requests. Of course, a steward can just request bureaucratship here and I was just about to do so, but I wanted to see how people feel about this first. So what do you think? --Erwin 10:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be simpler to request bureaucratship, assuming the steward was already an admin. Otherwise, I do believe it best for local bureaucrats to be fulfilling the requests. Majorly talk 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly. An other way would be to just ping a bureaucrat on the notice board with a link to the request. That would make it userfriendly for the requester. --Barras 19:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why can't the local bureaucrats just watch SR/SUL?? Can't be so much more work for them... Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a steward page, and most requests can be fulfilled by stewards. On the rare occasion it's a request for meta, and the steward does not have bureaucrat rights, they can go and request them, or direct the user to the noticeboard. Majorly talk 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course this was too much to ask, bureaucrats are bureaucrats. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)