Meta:Babel

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Babel)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 ← 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:
  • You can comment here in any language.
  • This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
  • If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
  • For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
  • For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
  • To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
  • Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Partial blocks on Meta-Wiki[edit]

Hello Meta contributors,

Anti-Harassment Tool team's is doing ongoing work to improve Special:Block. Last month partial block was introduced on Italian Wikipedia and is now being used on on a regular basis to address vandalism and other kinds of abusive edits. During this first month, the majority of partial blocks set on Italian Wikipedia were to ip contributors and newly created named accounts that are doing vandalism and other common types of abuse. There were also a few partial blocks of ip range blocks making similar abusive edits. Partial blocks makes it possible for the block to be targeted to specific pages and prevent collateral damage that can happen with range blocks.

Since Italian Wikipedia found partial blocks useful and there are no serious known issues or bugs, our team is planning to slowly introduce partial blocks into more Foundation wikis. Our team decided to prioritize deploying to Meta before other wikis because there is the added benefit of giving Meta admins the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the best uses for partial blocks before it comes to their local wiki. Of course, the primary reason for deploying on Meta is so that Meta admins can get the full benefit of all Special:Block's features.

It is scheduled to SWAT deploy to Meta on Thursday, February 21 at 00:00–01:00 UTC (Wednesday 16:00–17:00 PST.) The interface will change and the new partial block function will be added. I anticipate that the most common uses will be similar to requests for blocks made on Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. Since currently Meta does not have a detailed policy about blocks, more documentation and discussion about partial blocks uses is probably not needed before the feature is introduced.

For anyone interested in a more detailed policy or guideline, Italian Wikipedia wrote a page that explains the use of partial blocks. Something similar could be added to Meta.

Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts about introducing partial blocks on Meta. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team. SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: You can't be a BS in one part of the project and a constructive contributor in another place. This sounds like you can be tolerated in a project as long as you are behaving well on some part of a project while being a BS on some other part of the project. — regards, Revi 00:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: Yes, though we know that we have certain ranges where the dipsticks hang out who like to vandalise certain pages, and we don't block these ranges due to collateral damage. This could allow better-tuned restrictions on pages like SRP, SRG and some user talk pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: and @Billinghurst:, thank you both for considering the possible new uses for partial block. We are collecting metrics about its use that we will make public. And I'm reviewing the logs every few days to get a sense of how it is being used. It is mostly being used to block ip contributors and newly created named accounts that are vandalizing. Also some range blocks. A few for copyright violations. As billinghurst says, a partial block allows for a more targeted use that can limit collateral damage. Over time we'll see how else the use evolves. SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@SPoore (WMF): The one thing that I would love to see is the ready ability to block an IP address/account from a page itself, probably from the page history and diffs (admin gadget possibility?). On a page history/diff, one click "partial" and it prefills the page name, partial block, and removes the other fields. [Some clarity would be helpful around ticking "stop account creation" with a partial block as that seems a little weird, and only relevant to full blocks.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, I'll verify with Trevor and the developers about how the "stop account creation" should be working with partial block added and make sure that it is working as expected and the documentation is accurate. During the next 3 or 4 months, our team plans to finish adding the basic level of functionality for pb and fix the bugs that significantly interfere with its use. Then we can begin prioritizing the addition of more improvements like the one that you're suggesting. In all likelihood, more major work won't happen until after we finish work on a new User reporting system. But we will need to begin collecting and prioritizing ideas about more blocking improvements well in advance so keep on thinking about ways that pb can be better integrated into admin and functionary workflows. SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Changes related to the checkbox for "stop account creation" should go out this week. See Phab ticket T208510 for the working we are doing. I think it will address the issue you raise. SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Update of Deletion Policy[edit]

Meta:Deletion policy has been updated in accordance with this RfC. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: The different subcategories of types of deletions should still be numbered for ease of reference (preferably they should keep their numbers from before the update for consistency if possible) and MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown should be updated to match. Nihlus 11:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've made a partial update of the MediaWiki message. That's simple than to renumber the whole Deletion Policy IMHO. I'll continue updating the MediaWiki message later unless someone else wants to continue (and I do not object). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No objections, thanks for closure of RFC and all that contributed, it's long overdue. For the numbering is a little odd but I think we will get used to it. Thanks all for the efforts.--Cohaf (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The issue with a renumber is that it changes all the historical blocks. Maybe just ditch the numbering in the drop down and just have the reasoning.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Which is why the original numbering should be kept and anything additional assigned to higher numbers. Nihlus 06:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
yes, that, or the removal of the numbering from the dropdowns.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that would be beneficial to users, especially if they read the site in a different language. The numbers provide an easy reference to the actual reason listed. Nihlus 15:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll be boldy updating these unless someone has a good reason not to. Nihlus 13:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
(Outdent) Go ahead, I like Nihlus' idea. — regards, Revi 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Someone who is more familiar with the translation markup might want to double check to make sure nothing was messed up in my edit. Nihlus 14:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, seems fine.--Cohaf (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I have updated the delete reason dropdown accordingly. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Intercultur 2019[edit]

It has been a month and apparently there is no winner. What happened? I have not heard? --Mr Misterio2 (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You should contact the organizer, which is likely to be the creator of that page. — regards, Revi 13:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

How to begin on Wikimedia[edit]

I have always wondered how Wikimedia works. Do I take pictures and upload them here, do I get pictures with copyright permission and upload them here, or how does this work? I hope to make constructive edits to Wikimedia and redeem myself. GermanGamer77 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@GermanGamer77: Pictures and other media go to c:. That is also a multilingual project and if you are literate in German, there will be tutorials there and a community with whom you can communicate. A nice thing about Commons is that it is also able to accept files from Flickr using their upload system (called the Upload Wizard). Let me know if you have more questions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: Okay, I'm gonna go to c:. See you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GermanGamer77 (talk)

Inactive local bots[edit]

We currently have 45 flagged bots while only 17 have performed any edit this year: https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/stewardry/metawiki?bot=1 (I've counted 'fake' bot accounts such as MediaWiki default & friends which are no real accounts but they are flagged). Given that a bot flag is meant not to flood recent changes while editting at high rate and considering that most are not editting, I see no reason for them to still be flagged. As such, I'd like to ask the community to enact an inactivity policy whereas any flagged bot that has not editted for a whole year will have their bot flag removed. Restoration of the flag upon request without the need of a new BRfA or a expedited one could be a posibility to consider as well. I don't think we should be overly bureaucratic here. But IMHO there's no sense to keep most of the bots listed there with a bot flag when they ain't making any use of it. Thanks for your consideration. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Support that. --Krd 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy with that. I doubt re-granting will be an issue for most of them, but if operators do return then a new BRFA wouldn't be too onerous. Since many bots are replaced once inactive, I think having a discussion to see where the returning bot would fit makes sense. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe a little bit longer than 12 months (18 or 24) - some bots may only do something annually - but yes lets de-flag old inactive bots. The bot request process is fairly easy here, so coming back should be an non-issue. — xaosflux Talk 19:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point. I'm open to 14 months, for example; I see Community Tech Bot and Alch Bot as examples of bots that run at specific periods of time a year. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree in principle, and would be OK for anything from 14 mos. to about 24. (I now count 18 bots having made edits in '19, plus five more that made an edit between 18 months ago and the beginning of 2019, and three more yet going back to two years before today.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Shall we warn bot operators of inactive bots in advance before removing the flag for inactivity? If yes, how much in advance? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I definitely think this should be done, especially since there are a few use cases where bot flags can be used without editing (API rights, evading rate limits, ...). Since such removals are not urgent, I think one could wait until a user replies up to one or a few months. --Vogone (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Months, really? If the operator is active, they should be able to reply in a week, and if they are inactive there also is no reason to wait a month or longer. --Krd 12:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Really. --Vogone (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
We do a one week notification on enwiki, I can't see needing more than a 2 week notification here though. — xaosflux Talk 16:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd go with one week as well. I'd find very concerning that a bot operator isn't able to respond in month(s) to questions regarding their bots... —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Create a template for Machine Translated links of a page?[edit]

Hi I have seen templates like {{langauges}} but seems not very widely used, even at meta. I wonder, have anyone ever attempted to create a template that add links to machine translated version of the same page, like what I do at m::User:Xinbenlv_bot, except for the link should be able to adapt to the page url?

This is what I refer to

For machine translation:

Xinbenlv (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

More commonly than the old "languages" template, Meta:Translate extension is used here at meta. I do not believe, however, that providing links to gtranslate automatically is useful, since that would rather discourage proper translation, looking as if a translation "already exists", even though gtranslate often is not (or only with great difficulties) intelligible. FWIW, "Deutsche" (I assume this is gtranslated as well) is not correct either, it should be "Deutsch". --Vogone (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)