From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 March 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Template:Steward requests/Permissions/CheckUser

Shouldn't this template (Template:Steward requests/Permissions/CheckUser) be updated? I still saw "An email template is available for requesting new users to identify." Which is obsolete since we already use Phabricator per Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign?--AldNonymousBicara? 13:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I understood that the email template is there so we can request users to identify. Though I never saw anyone using it. Stryn (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Well I once used that template, but afaik it's no longer used, can we update it?--AldNonymousBicara? 13:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It is referencing Steward handbook/email templates, which stewards can use to ask people to sign the paperwork. It is not saying to email to identify. The email template may need a few edits to bring it up to date (unsure, haven’t checked), but it’s existence is fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
That's really confusing, really need an update IMO.--AldNonymousBicara? 14:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The English is fairly straightforward, and if you click the wikilink the meaning becomes clear if there was confusion. I suppose Stewards may use this email template to request users sign the agreement could be a way of phrasing it, but I don’t really think it matters since the guidance is aimed at stewards and none of them have complained about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The issue is with multilang, in case you haven't noticed, that template is translatable (Template:Steward requests/Permissions/CheckUser), rather than directing user towards that template/email (Steward handbook/email templates) that is in full English I would rather directing it directly to another translatable/translated pages such as Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. Also "The English is fairly straightforward" in case you haven't noticed, not all of local wiki user speak English.--AldNonymousBicara? 15:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It’s not aimed at local users requesting permissions. It’s aimed at stewards to help them get people to sign. I know it’s translatable: my point was that in terms of simple English that is easy to translate or for non-native speakers to understand, the construction is about as good as it gets for those purposes. If someone wants to translate the email template into other languages I think that’d be a great thing, but getting rid of a tool that can be used to help people do things when none of the people who are supposed to use it have complained about being confused seems like a bad idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, not all volunteer who want CU access can read English, also, your comment didn't make any sense to me, I kind of getting anglocentrics vibe from you, so, based on your comments, every applicant should understand English? Isn't this wrong? What we do here in meta is to help local user, not the vice versa. In case you haven't notice yet, you are commenting on place called Babel. Sentence like "It’s not aimed at local users requesting permissions" is already unhelpful enough for me.--AldNonymousBicara? 15:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I’m not anglocentric, and accusing me of that won’t help get the resolution to the concern you raised. I responded trying to explain what was being said. The sentence you are discussing is a direction for stewards. It isn’t there for the people requesting CU access. It is there to help stewards in giving them CU access and remind stewards of policy and their own practices and resources.

What your concern seems to be is that there should be a link helping people find the instructions and sign it in their own language. I agree with that, and think it should be added. That doesn’t mean we should get rid of a resource that can help people sign. The solution to these sort of problems is almost always more information, not less. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ey, TonyBallioni, 1st What you've been talking about is not directed toward stewards, it's directed toward WMF trust and safety (in the old time it's directed toward WMF Legal), also its the old email template which haven't been used since ages. 2nd the new email template is for steward to send to applicant, afaik no stewards even used it, hence what Stryn said. 3rd, no stewards have ever used this since they can just bypass it by telling the user directly visit Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign onwiki instead of using Email which is more productive, rather than Stewards sending that email to the user in full English. I know what you mean for ease and something, but it's unhelpful when stewards sending that email in full english toward user that don't speak english. Well in any case I will wait other opinion instead--AldNonymousBicara? 15:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I think you’re misunderstanding both me and what the template is saying. The sentence you are talking about is included in the section that starts Stewards:. That is what I mean when I say it is directed at them. It is letting Stewards know that the template exists and they can send it as an email if they want to. It is not instructions for people requesting access, but for stewards in assigning it. The wikilink to the templates is there for them to use if they need it, and I don’t think it is harmful.

On the other points, sure, I agree with you that on-wiki is better, but there are some users who have disabled cross-wiki notifications and so email may be best. As I said, the solution to this sort of thing is almost always more information, not less. Keeping the email template for stewards to use if needed isn’t harmful. Adding an on-wiki link like you suggest is also likely helpful. The solution here is probably to do both, not one or the other. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahaa... That's what you mean. Then I agree keeping it (the email template) there, but the addition of Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign directly on Template:Steward requests/Permissions/CheckUser still on the table, I'm waiting for another opinion of adding it directly on that template.--AldNonymousBicara? 16:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I changed my mind after rethinking it again, the addition is fine, but usually from the usual action of stewards, they already directed user themselves to said pages, so yes, that email template might be necessary to unresponsive applicants.--AldNonymousBicara? 07:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --AldNonymousBicara? 07:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Inactive local bots

We currently have 45 flagged bots while only 17 have performed any edit this year: (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)
24 months seems fair as per AAR although I hope it'll be lower such as 14 months. No harm removing the flags of inactive bots as they can be regained without much fuss.--Cohaf (talk) 07:10, 23 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)
I am a bit confused about this assessment, since you yourself pointed out that there are bots which only operate periodically and not in every single week of the year (and so might operators of these bots), but my main point is that a notification should occur. I am not feeling too strongly about the exact duration. --Vogone (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I had to detail my answer a bit, sorry. I was trying to say that I would find concerning that an operator isn't able to reply in one month to any questions regarding to their bot(s) if they're operating. I'd not leave my bots running if I knew that I was going to be away for a long time (emphasys in if I knew, because no one knows if they'll get sick tomorrow, or will have an accident or a piano will fell over them or pass away). If they are not operating, while less concerning, I think the process should be fair but quick. If one week is too short, I'm fine with two weeks. Given that we give administrators one week to sign if they want to keep their permissions on April's and October's inactivity runs, I'd say to use one week here as well to match with other policies. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
A week most ideal per above but 2 weeks may also work. Seriously I see no difference if the interval is 1 week or 2 weeks as compared to say a month.--Cohaf (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed partial text from what has been discussed already:

Bot accounts inactive for at least 14 months will have their bot flags removed by a bureaucrat. Bot operators whose bots are inactive for a period equal or superior to said 14 months must be duly warned one week in advance in their Meta-Wiki talk pages before removal can take place. If after a week the operator does not reply to the notice, the bot account will be deflagged. Reactivation of the bot will require a new request for bot status. (edited)

Now, I think that if the operator replies and says that the bot is no longer being used and flags can be removed, then we can go ahead and remove them (common sense). What if the operator replies and states that they wish the bot flags to be kept? Shall that mean automatic keeping? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I am not sure if this wording works. One only knows whether and account has been inactive for 14 months after 14 months of inactivity, there is no way to place a warning in advance unless one makes some presumption. And if such a presumption is intended, it again makes me wonder why it has to be as little as one week and not something along the lines "warning will be issued after 14 months of inactivity, removal after 15 months if inactivity is unjustified" (or 13/14 or 12/14 or whatever). I would suggest using common sense with regards to the question if a bot flag is to be removed for inactivity or not (keep it on if it appears as if there is still a use for it, take it off if this does not seem to be the case). --Vogone (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
One only knows whether and account has been inactive for 14 months after 14 months of inactivity, there is no way to place a warning in advance unless one makes some presumption. I don't think this is an issue. A bot can be made to keep log of activity of all bots and also notify bureaucrats to check and take action after a specified time. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Vogone is right. What I had in mind was that operators should be warned after the bot reaches or surpasses said 14 months of inactivity. Again, my bad. Amending. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
No issues but "superior" sounds odd, let's use the normal "longer"? Support.--Cohaf (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
To deal with the "what if they reply but don't do anything" part and other timing issues - I suggest that once this is closed "round 1" is initiated, but after that this gets processed only on a schedule (perhaps with the admin activity schedule) - there really is no need for a "daily" type rolling feed for this. — xaosflux Talk 19:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Yes, I agree with doing it once a year or so. What do you think we should do with operators that reply saying that they want to get their bots active again (thus preventing removal) but in the next inactivity check they still did nothing? Can we empower bureaucrats to automatically remove those bots right away? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure, it shows the operator is still around and able to contribute so I'm not too worried. Perhaps a second threshold for automatic removal after 24 months? It isn't very hard to get a bot flag on meta if you are going to do anything helpful afterall. — xaosflux Talk 12:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay to sum up and come with a well written text (not me, sorry :( ) The following points seems to have approval:

  • inactive bots will be deflagged,
  • inactivity is the absence of any edit or log for a continued period of 14 months,
  • operators of inactive bots will be warned and will have one week to reply whether they intend to reactivate the bot, to say if still need the flag for whichever purpose or do not need the flag and thus it can be removed,
    • operator's reply requesting that the bot flag be kept will prevent removal in the current inactivity check,
    • if after a week the operator does not reply, bot flag will be removed nonetheless.
  • to regain bot flag a new request for bot status will be needed.

Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Support, fair summary.--Cohaf (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. Fair summary. (I'd probably run it now, run it again in six months, and then go to yearly. But that's just my opinion.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Seems fine. — xaosflux Talk 17:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved, cf. Meta:Bot inactivity policy. --Vogone (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Vogone (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Intercultur 2019

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

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)

Create a template for Machine Translated links of a page?

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)