Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2014-05
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Global Bot wikis
To make the Wikidata roll out process easier for Wikinews in a month - per request of a user I posted to most small Wikinews wikis which are not opted into global bots either policy wise or wikiset wise. Here is the full list with links to respective discussions.
- cywikiquote: discussion
- arwikinews: discussion
- bgwikinews: discussion
- bswikinews: discussion
- elwikinews: discussion
- eowikinews: discussion
- fiwikinews: discussion
- hewikinews: discussion
- jawikinews: discussion
- nowikinews: discussion
- ptwikinews: discussion
- rowikinews: discussion
- sqwikinews: discussion
- srwikinews: discussion
- svwikinews: discussion
- tawikinews: discussion
- trwikinews: discussion
- ukwikinews: discussion
- zhwikinews: discussion
Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Did you really mean cywikiqoute and not cywikinews? Ruslik (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the exemption to the Wikinews list. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Apart from letting us know that you posted something there, it would be worthwhile informing us of the action required by stewards, if any. This post does not make it clear. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, adding them to the global bot wikiset and implementing the standard bot policy would be the thing to do for community which don't disagree with becoming global bot wikis. Plus I thought it would be self explanatory if some goes 'These want to be global bot wikis, do what stewards do in these cases'. John F. Lewis (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: In case you forgot/don't know how to implement global bot wikis there is a "how to" guide available for stewards.
:-)Vogone talk 12:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)- JFL: you didn't say in your post that they want to be global bot wikis, if you reread your post it circumvents such subject matter. @Vogone, oh really, what a jump to an assumption without basis of evidence. Specific and clarifying statements are no longer allowed from a steward to a request to get an explicit statement of what a person wants a steward to do? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Which assumption do you mean? I didn't provide any and merely posted a link which explains the process John F. Lewis followed (which, by the way, also explains how John F. Lewis' links to onwiki discussions above are to be interpreted), just in case it was unclear to you. Sorry if I touched on a raw nerve with my attempt to help clarifying John F. Lewis' motive. Vogone (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- JFL: you didn't say in your post that they want to be global bot wikis, if you reread your post it circumvents such subject matter. @Vogone, oh really, what a jump to an assumption without basis of evidence. Specific and clarifying statements are no longer allowed from a steward to a request to get an explicit statement of what a person wants a steward to do? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Apart from letting us know that you posted something there, it would be worthwhile informing us of the action required by stewards, if any. This post does not make it clear. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the exemption to the Wikinews list. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Did you really mean cywikiqoute and not cywikinews? Ruslik (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- So, reviewing this request, all but one of the wikis above has either endorsed or not commented on enacting the global bot policy. @Billinghurst: are you OK with adding them to the lists? Ajraddatz (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Huh @Ajraddatz:? I just wanted a proper and specific request, rather than the indirect statements as introduced by the first post. Proponents should propose, and that should include the desired actions for the desire outcome. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that you did not object with the method of the notification or that these wikis should be opted-in to the global policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Matanya (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that you did not object with the method of the notification or that these wikis should be opted-in to the global policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Huh @Ajraddatz:? I just wanted a proper and specific request, rather than the indirect statements as introduced by the first post. Proponents should propose, and that should include the desired actions for the desire outcome. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Inactive admins on sw.wikipedia
Hi, after being contacted by user:Cekli829 I see that you guys start a reviewing system of inactive stewards. I would like to notify you that we have a process for that on our wikipedia - presntly in progress. Is that enough info for you? (replies pls to my sw talk page). sw:user:Majadiliano_ya_mtumiaji:Kipala
- Stewards are a global right, so it is not the job of a local wiki to check their activity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am presuming that it is a misstatement and the user is informing us that swWP has a process for inactive administrators, as per Admin activity review. @Kipala: Please add the detail about your community's review process to the relevant section of Talk:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- And add those info also here please. Trijnsteltalk 23:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Billinghust; you are right. Infos added to both links. And PLEASE react to my sw.page. sw:user:Majadiliano_ya_mtumiaji:Kipala
- And add those info also here please. Trijnsteltalk 23:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am presuming that it is a misstatement and the user is informing us that swWP has a process for inactive administrators, as per Admin activity review. @Kipala: Please add the detail about your community's review process to the relevant section of Talk:Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)