Meta:Babel/Archives/2010-02

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Min. number of votes for Bureaucrat[edit]

I started a discussion about creating a possible minimum number of votes required for the election of a bureaucrat (similar to current CU and OS standards) at Talk:Bureaucrat#Minimum number of votes. Please feel free to comment. Depending on interest, I would like to open the matter up as an RfC. Ottava Rima 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Global sysops vote[edit]

Something needs to be done to get the ball rolling WRT the global sysops vote. I have a bad feeling that after all that work, and after nearly 2,000 votes, nothing will ever come of it. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, it is still being poured over. But I agree, I'd like to see an outcome soon.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin flag removal[edit]

I ask to explain. Whether can forbid language section Wikipedii in rules to the community, voting for flag removal admin? SergeyJ 11:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, it has been specified

However, the decision to unsysop a person should be made by your community. Not by stewards. Stewards do not punish or decide who is not a good sysop. Stewards only do what the community wants. If the russian community has a problem with a sysop, you need to decide what you want to do, and we will do what you need.Anthere

But, to community do not give such possibility, whether it is normal? SergeyJ 11:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

SergeyJ, I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it? (Or post your question in another language, along with its translation into English!) Thanks you, Sj+ help translate 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Прошу пояснить. Может ли отдельная языковая секция Википедии, в своих локальных правилах запретить голосование за снятие с администратора флага ? Является ли это нормальным, что сообщество не может выразить свое мнение по этому вопросу ? SergeyJ 01:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(Whether the separate language section of Vikipedii can, in the local rules to forbid voting for removal from the admin of a flag? Whether it is normal, what the community cannot express the opinion on this question?) SergeyJ 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you are saying that the local rules prohibit anyone from even trying to remove a sysop? Hmmm I definitely don't think that SHOULD be, I'm not sure a case like that has really arisen. I would assume you can still open up a discussion about it though. If there is a discussion (say on the Village Pump or a Request for Comment area) and a large consensus is formed I think the stewards would be unlikely to be able to ignore that. Since the rules are set by the community, if they decide that they want to remove an admin they are basically changing the rules (which they are allowed to do). James (T C) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Да, верно. Уточню. Согласно местным правилам право снять флаг админа есть только у арбитражного комитета (хотя в явном виде такое решение сообщество не принимало). Любое же обсуждение по обсуждению админа сообществом закрывается и нет возможности обсудить его действия без арбитражного комитета. При этом есть подозрение что арбитражный комитет предвзято выносит решения. Необходимо ли создавать локальные правила ? Или наоборот у сообщества и так есть такая возможность ? (Yes, truly. I will specify. According to local rules the right to remove a flag of the administrator is only at arbitration committee (Though in an explicit form the community did not accept such decision). Any discussion on discussion of the administrator by community is closed and there is no possibility to discuss its action without arbitration committee. Thus there is a suspicion that the arbitration committee prejudicedly takes out decisions. Whether it is necessary to create local rules? Or on the contrary at community and so there is such possibility?) SergeyJ 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On projects where there is an absence of an arbitration committee, a simple vote similar to granting someone admin rights would suffice. On projects where there is an arbitration committee and the local policy is that it can only be done by that body, the project should keep in mind that such an ability is granted to the arbitration committee by the community... if the community chooses to implement an alternative removal method, the committee should respect that decision. Further dispute between a committee and the community it governs is beyond the scope of this discussion, of course. Kylu 03:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Further dispute between a committee and the community ... Whether we will admit such dispute? After all it concerns bases of all project!? SergeyJ 16:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
My point is that the question of an arbitration committee having a dispute with the hosting community is beyond the scope of this discussion. Please don't simply treat it as an unanswered question on that basis alone: It simply deserves more consideration in a proper venue, Talk:Arbitration Committee might be a good example of such. Personally, I would probably suggest a local vote of no confidence and immediate re-election in such a case, but as I said, this page isn't quite the correct location for determining such procedures. You may wish to reconsider your approach on the matter. Kylu 01:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Then can be to copy this discussion there? You can make it? (I do not know as it correctly to issue) SergeyJ 03:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To summarize this: SergeyJ refused to follow the interwiki link to find en:Wikipedia:Administrators#Removal of adminship (desysopping) which basically says the same thing as in ruwiki (desysopping is done by Arbitration Committee); the statement that "any discussions about admins actions us closed" is simply a lie. What SergeyJ wanted is the option for him to initiate any admin confirmation (by voting) at any time (this idea was discussed and rejected by community several times, again, just like in enwiki). -AlexSm 17:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • (1) any discussions about admins actions us closed I did not tell it. I said that discussions on removal from the administrator of a flag are closed (закрываются обсуждения по снятию с админа флага). And it is true and is not admissible. (2) in ruwiki community did not grant the right to arbitration committee to solve a question about desysopping (And corresponding discussions too were). And the more so, the community did not grant exclusive the right on desysopping. Therefore I do not see why the community should discuss "admin confirmation (by voting) at any time" - this right is at community initially (это право есть у сообщества изначально). SergeyJ 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Requests for approval[edit]

Hi there! I want to request appoval for Karachay-Balkar Wikipedia. We have already translated all MediaWiki messages and I suppose that our community is rather active.
No one answered me on the talk page of the Language committee, so I wrote here... --Iltever 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

vi.wiki ignoring attribution to other projects[edit]

I brought this issue up in the past, but these things are still happening. Magicknight94 continues to directly translate pages on the English Wikipedia for use on the Vietnamese Wikipedia without including a link to the English language project except as an interwiki link. I am ignored on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, but when everyone works hard at en.wiki and the pages are translated by a single editor and never touched again on vi.wiki (and id.wiki by another individual who I've sought to get globally blocked) there is nothing to say anywhere in the history of these pages that the en.wiki pages are the originators of the content, if only for the GPL and CC rights to be reserved.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

New stewards[edit]

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)
Open ballots are counter-intuitive in an election because they introduce an element of unfairness, group-think and influence. A secret ballot is an essential part of minimizing voter suppression. riffic 21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to think of it as part of developing a fair agreement. If everyone has to vote secretly, how will evidence be presented? People are left in the dark with SecurePolls. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, these concerns has been rehashed before. An open ballot is a bug, not a feature riffic 05:00, 16 February 2010 (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)
I'm not keen on SecurePoll for the Steward election. But if we are to use it, it would need some process configuration so that we use the metric of a support/oppose ratio of at least 80% with at least 30 supporting users... it can tell us that easily enough from the results. I agree that we need to wait til after the Fundraiser at this point. ++Lar: t/c 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Templars,Vatikan - the big mistery[edit]

..what do you think ,who they really was?...i was reading lot of books about them,but i would like to get some more facts,,..so please can you help me?><..

see sk.wiki not here. -jkb- 09:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal administrator destroys valid references and valid redirect entries[edit]

See:

Please intervene against such vandalisms and restore pre-vandalism revisions. 204.124.181.153 19:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Local issues should be resolved on enwiki. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

They can't. I always gets bullied for such analogous intervention requests. Meanwhile please revert him if you can. 204.124.181.153 19:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more productive to not call admins "vandals"? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but such behavior cannot be named otherwise, if it is not vandalism, what it is? 204.124.181.153 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a disagreement, not an attempt to deliberately destroy content. But regardless, this has no place on Meta. Please take it up on enwiki (ANI might help). –Juliancolton | Talk 19:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I previously tried to take such misconducts to ANI, but I always got caught by this administrator before another administrators could intervene. Can you forward this in your name to ANI? 204.124.181.153 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you did not noticed that, he restored sourcing requests and removed valid sources which is against Wikipedia's policy of reliable sourcing. 204.124.181.153 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not an emergency issue and, as such, will not be resolved on Meta. Not to be rude, but you're wasting your time asking for help on this matter here. Sukida 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Stewards/elections 2010/votes/efa[edit]

What should we do with that? Efa was accidently disqualified on February 1, although he is eligible to become a steward. However, the voting page says nothing about disqualification, and there is 1 support and 8 oppose votes at the moment. Should we add him to the voting, or keep disqualified? — NickK 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding him to the voting will just be feeding him to the lions den based on some of the responses so far in the oppose section. Ottava Rima 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin requests unfulfilled[edit]

I notice that there are two pages that have been sitting in Category:Meta protected edit requests for a few months. Could a friendly admin please fulfil theses requests, and also keep an eye on this category? It would be most helpful. Thanks, This, that and the other 09:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I had the same problem some time ago – I had to wait two weeks or so until my request was fulfilled.
I created a new template system: Template:Maintenance Category. It's currently included in Deleteme, Meta protected edit requests, Proposed page moves and Requests for unblock and it shows links to the other category pages if they are not empty. The template also displays how many pages are in the other categories. Hopefully this will draw some attention to Editprotected-requests and similar matters. Regards, --Church of emacs talk · contrib 11:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If you need something done by an administrator and it's not getting done in a timely matter, feel free to leave a note on WM:RFH. Cbrown1023 talk 14:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)