Wikimedia Forum

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Shortcut:
WM:PUB

<translate> The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the [[<tvar|wmf>Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation</>|Wikimedia Foundation]] and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see [[<tvar|meta-babel>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Babel</>|Meta:Babel]].)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the [[<tvar|mediawiki>Special:MyLanguage/MediaWiki</>|MediaWiki software]]; please ask such questions at the [[<tvar|mw-support-desk>mw:Project:Support desk</>|MediaWiki support desk]]; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on [[<tvar|tech>Special:MyLanguage/Tech</>|Tech]] page.</translate>

<translate> You can reply to a topic by clicking the "<tvar|editsection>[edit]</>" link beside that section, or you can [<tvar|newsection>//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&action=edit&section=new</> start a new discussion].</translate>
You can reply to a topic by clicking the '[edit]' link beside that section, or start a new discussion
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit
This page experimentally allows language localisation.

Logo overlapping text on "wiki does not exist" page.

If you look at the page for a wiki that does not exist, e.g. http://cv.wiktionary.org in Firefox 2.0.0.14 in Linux (not tested in other browsers/platforms) you see the following at the start of the page:


Obviously this is an error. I'm not certain if this is the right place to report it, but the page claims to be from Meta and this appears to be the general comments page for Meta. Thryduulf (en,commons) 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page still links to holopedia (now Min Nan Wikipedia). -- Prince Kassad 14:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page is pretty old and kinda ugly in general, it could use a revamp. :-) I suggest you open up a bug on Bugzilla for them to fix this error (we can't change it from here on Meta). Cbrown1023 talk 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modification of the official board election page

The Election Committee would like to ask the community of administrator on Meta to refrain from editing the English version of the Board election page Board elections/2008/en.

The page was protected by the committee as it contain the official rules for the election, and is the source for translations. Its current wording and formatting is what's agreed by the committee.

Of course, if you spot anything which you think may be an error, any ambiguity, or any points which you feel should be modified, feel free to suggest it to the election committee either on the talk page, on foundation-l, or straight to the election committee. However, please take into account any changes to the page requires all the translations to be updated and hence it is unlikely the page will be modify simply for small grammatical changes.

For the election committee,

Kwan Ting Chan (KTC) -- 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all this talk about globalization...

...just how exactly impossible would it be to implement global templates? I think it would be great to transclude pages from other projects, but I'm also totally ignorant of the performance costs in this. I know Wikia does this, but that was a "from the start" sort of thing, if I recall correctly.

Perhaps maybe not completely global, but I can see a certain value in being able to transclude Meta pages directly onto any project. We already force duplicates of content on en.wp; it would be great if we could simply transclude Help:Edit summary at w:Help:Edit summary, rather than fork it. It would also allow us to fully standardize all the Babel boxes; just create a local copy here at Meta, and voila, it's instantly available on any project. I'll admit that my initial thinking on this was changing all my userpages to transclude a local "generic" version; dunno if any other wide-editing admins would find that useful as well, but with SUL already here for admins and around the corner for everyone else, it might be an even more valid reason.

How feasible is this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. But it will require huge amount of coding and possible database restructuring — VasilievVV 16:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would also be nice for having local wikis fetch Help: pages which do not exist on that wiki from (Meta|MediaWiki wiki|Commons|elsewhere). Many/most wikis have enough of a struggle writing content without having to worry also about writing complete help pages. While language will be an issue, this would at least reduce duplication of effort by sharing help files between wikis (dynamically, rather than forking) while still allowing customization on a per-wiki basis. See bugzilla:12306 and bugzilla:4547. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language would indeed be an issue at the beginning, but for smaller wikis (where English can run rampant anyway), there could be at least some content, and the translations that happen here could be spread out over all the other wikis in each language. I think this could be a very, very beneficial feature. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steward requests/SUL requests/Usurpation policy

Everyone is welcome to comment it on the talk page — VasilievVV 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate arbitrators elections in Russian Wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed: Dispute was resolved locally

There is upcoming 6th Arbitration Committee staff elections campaign in Russian Wikipedia (see Википедия:Выборы_арбитров/Весна_2008).

But bureaucrats (ru:User:Maximaximax and ru:User:Obersachse) without ANY discussion with the community of ru-wiki decided that elections will be hold on third-party site ( http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kalan/arb6/ ).

Many of the russian Wikipeida considers that this bureaucrats individual decision is the violation of Wikipedia Policies (see talk at Обсуждение_Википедии:Выборы_арбитров/Весна_2008):

  • any voter must have e-mail address, but according to Wikimedia Policy, there is no need for it; hence there is no equal rights for any Wikipedia user;
  • ru:User:Kalan (author of script-based elections on tool-server) theoretically can view (and log) voters' IP-addresses, but he is not a checkuser of Russian Wikipedia; hence there is violation of Wikimedia privacy policy;
  • there was a delay of beginning of election campaign on 12,5 hours because of Kalan's mistakes in script (probably); by the way, elections campaign started over a half of day later than it had to start;

Can stewards of Wikimedia STOP this election campaign because of its illegibility and bureaucrats' tyranny? --Jaroslavleff 07:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Internal community conflicts aren't subject of stewards activity — VasilievVV 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what we can do if bureaucrats say that elections anyway will be hold on third-party server, and community in most of users says that it is illegal? Will elected Arbcom be legal or illegal? --Jaroslavleff 07:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Open an arbitration case on Russian Wikipedia. But don't bring your own wiki issues on Meta, please. We don't override local decisions on Meta. P.S. Arbitration Committee elections on some Wikipedia aren't subject of Foundation's policies — VasilievVV 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an election campaign, case will be listen by future arbcom staff, which will be elected via third-party site, and results of the elections can be wrong due to juggling or anything, which we (community) cannot verify. So, arbitrators (theoretically) will be bureaucrats' proteges... --Jaroslavleff 07:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Khristos voskrese, if you are whoever listen to it with a delight.
Back to the topic, VasilieVV is quite right here. Stewards use their technical abilities only per request based on community consensus. And the entire course described on the above has no relation to technical abilities entrusted to stewards. I have no idea why you thought stewards was involved. --Aphaia 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But can we hear here stewards' opinion on this situation? --Jaroslavleff 07:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not steward, just a meta admin, but have to say that such procedure doesn't break any Foundation policy and was used on Commons:Picture of the Year elections — VasilievVV 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat ru:User:Obersachse BLOCKED a poll about this situation: ru:Википедия:Голосования/Выборы_арбитражного_комитета_на_стороннем_сервере! What we can do now? --Jaroslavleff 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely the internal affair of Russian Wikipedia and no related to the other community whose members stewards are and the Foundation. It should be solved at first on your own community, not meta. You are however welcome to open a request for comment on our RFC, but if you did not do the appropriate on your wiki before opening inter-wiki RFC, you would be rather criticized and taste more bitterness than at your home. --Aphaia 08:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we can do? Bureaucrats block all our initiatives! Thanks for the link to RFC, I didn't know about it. Later we asked there if we could not do anything... --Jaroslavleff 08:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I told you, open an arbitration case — VasilievVV 12:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should still at least make the attempt. Keep in mind that, for every legitimate effort to rectify the situation that they shut down, the better your argument looks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your postion, Aphaia. But would like to make couple comments to show your the situation and existing concerns under different angle. If you analyze changes in administration approach in Russian section, you will be able to make a conclusion, that there are obviuos attempts to establish total information control on this power independent resource (implicitly or explicitly - who knows). Analogy between changes and methods of establishing such control in Russian society in recent years and this information project are obvious. It's not future, right now we have one very power administration control on not only technical aspects of the project (whhich I agree is very important) but also on information content of the project. And this administrative resource continues to strength this control through the steps similar to one described above, by ignoring community opinion. The whole Wikipedia community should take this seriously if freedom of speach and rights for individual to express his/her own opinion are the values. --Poa 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I again wonder why there is no arbitration case yet. Just bringing it here without using last chance to resolve the dispute within Russian Wikipedia community confuses me — VasilievVV 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you open an RFC case suggesting to desysop all administrators of Russian Wikipedia. It would be fun to read the reasoning. --Yaroslav Blanter 17:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder is this according to WMF policy to give access to IP of every voters to some guy who is not a checkuser?91.145.207.60 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Toolserver isn't subject of any WMF policy. You use it on your own risk — VasilievVV 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's exactly the problem: a site that's not subject to the WMF policies would be the host of supposedly policy-regulated election. --BeautifulFlying 18:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I said, it's not problem of Meta-wiki or whole Wikimedia foundation, it's a problem of Russian Wikipedia community and should be found out there — VasilievVV 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conflict was resolved. Elections will be taken by standart procedure without any tool-server. Thank you all for your comments. User:dima io22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad to hear that! However, just as a note for future reference, I want to echo what VasilievVV and Aphaia said... this matter is not one that stewards would get involved in as it is an internal matter to the ruwiki. Stewards don't arbitrate disputes or judge policy matters. They only evaluate whether consensus exists or process is followed, before deciding about flipping a bit. That's as far as judgement takes them. That's my view, speaking as one particular steward. ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical wishlist

Everybody is welcome to add their wishlist there — VasilievVV 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate

In replying to a suggestion at wikt:Wiktionary:Feedback, I have discovered that every multilingual and English language Wikimedia project has some content related to chocolate (although this is tenuous in Wikiversity's case), I have not investigated projects in other languages. I've saved the list at wikt:User:Thryduulf/chocolate, if anyone here is interested/bored enough to expand it to other languages, or indeed do anything else with it, feel free. Thryduulf (en,commons) 01:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback group

I suggest to introduce a global group, called "rollback".

Rollbackers' privileges: rollback

Requirements for rollbackers: to have rollback privilege on some Wikimedia project.

— VasilievV 2 12:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only aware of the "rollback" group on the English Wikipedia myself at the moment, are there any others which have implemented this? From my knowledge of the process to gain rollback on enwikip, I'm not sure I'd be confident in granting rollback globally on the basis of rollback there. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to grant this those with admin rights on any WMF project. Adambro 12:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think the requirements need to be rather tighter than that. Taking an example - because someone has "rollback" on en wp does not mean I think they should be able to do the same here or on Commons. I think they should be cross wiki admins/Small Wiki Monitoring Team folk personally --Herby talk thyme 12:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adam and Herby, in that the English Wikipedia rollback system and selection is not sufficiently high for global rollback, and indeed to define global rollback as such would simply raise the bar at individual wikis and hence cause more consternation. I support the suggestion of "any administrator on any Wikimedia Foundation wiki" (excluding testwiki and other assorted similar projects) upon their request at Meta. Daniel (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just wonder what does "assorted similar projects" mean — VasilievV 2 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, projects similar to Test Wiki in that they aren't exactly mainstream Wikimedia projects. You could include, for example, internalwiki, otrswiki, Wikimania wikis, Incubatorwiki etc. as those which the administrators don't de facto qualify under the "Adminship on a Wikimedia Foundation wiki = rollback" rule. Daniel (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incubator is a content project, and we have test-admins there — VasilievV 2 13:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, confused Incubator with Betawiki. But the point is still the same in effect. Daniel (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just something else to consider, since I understand that SUL hasn't been rolled out beyond administrators yet, wouldn't it be impossible to grant this to anyone who doesn't have admin rights somewhere from a technical point of view? Adambro 12:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment yes (under the false assumption that only sysops have SULed accounts). But other users are going to get SULed sooner or later and making a policy now that covers that case as well is wiser, IMHO. --FiLiP ¤ 13:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just noting that SUL being more widely available would be a prerequisite to anyone other than admins having any global rights so would rule out giving global rollback to anyone who isn't an admin at the present time. Adambro 14:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Global rollback would definitely be useful for fighting cross wiki vandalism, spam etc. However, I'm not sure how it should be implemented. For instance on nlwiki there's no local rollback group, but would a global group be possible? I agree with Herby and Daniel about the requirements. I think it should be reserved to cross wiki admins and the SWMT and you'd have to be an admin somewhere. --Erwin(85) 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admins for now is fine by me. It's not like rollback is a very high-power tool, so I'd want to see it expanded once SUL is rolled out for all.  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, global rollback for admins is a great idea. The auto-summery being in the project's local language would also be a plus. Global rollback for non-admins would cause a lot issues, I think, if it's done like it is now. Let's say some admin somewhere thinks anyone who asks nicely should have it, while another admin somewhere else thinks no one but admins should have it. You have cross-project wheel-warring without a unified community to step in between. They may even support their respective admin's actions. You would need a global policy of who can get the right, who can remove it, what the criteria is, etc. I don't think it'd really be worth it for just rollback. Rocket000 06:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already tested Global rollback, it was great, only had it for 12 minutes, the stewards are interested in introducing this soon, but they firstly need a guideline to govern it to prevent abuse, and they are discussing it on the stewards-l and they might just implement it soon, AZ1568 is the other person that had a slight preview of it, and I think it will be an excellent addition to our Global wikimedia family :) ..--Cometstyles 10:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iu.wikt

Hola Piolinfax, please don't make this site blink so much (it makes me dizzy). I am quite surprised by this decision, in fact imho it is wrong. I have requested to reopen the wiki in Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Inuktitut Wiktionary and bugzilla:13967. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Piolinfax (@es.wikt) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia listing news on their Main Page?

I recently posted a comment on Wikipedia's Village Pump reagarding their news section on their main page. If Wikimedia projects are truly coming closer together (Unified Login, etc.) then why is Wikipedia (the largest of their projects) stealing territory from Wikinews? (Often, in typography, it is difficult to determine what kind of mood someone is in when typing, please know that I am not angry when typing this.)

You do not open the newspaper to find general knowledge and information, nor do you open the encyclopedia to find the latest in happenings. I am in complete favour of Wikipedia having the news section simply as links to the Wikinews project, but not to an encyclopedia article.

I am in complete and full favour of attempting to get all of the Wikimedia projects as large as Wikipedia, and am thrilled by movements towards this, such as Unified Login.

Thank you! Agomulka 12:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, as someone who contributes frequently to both enwikip and enwikinews, don't see a problem. These aren't news articles, these are encyclopaedic articles which happen to be related to current events. I think this is of a great benefit to readers who will visit the homepage and then quickly find something interesting to read about which is current and in the news at the time. I don't really consider it encroaching onto the scope of Wikinews and I think it potentially benefits both projects. Adambro 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more admins

Hi, I am a casual editor on multiple Wikimedia projects, especially Wikipedia and Wikisource (in English and Romanian), and on Commons. I want to ask a question about what happens if a project "runs out" of admins. For example, there were only three admins on the Romanian Wikisource, two of which aren't active anymore, and the third is barely active. I asked for adminship on the Romanian Wikisource, but since there was no other admin to discuss, well, nothing happened. The problem is that WS:ro is still being edited by people, even though there almost aren't any more admins there. The point is that I would like to become an admin there, so that I can also update WS, and other things. Is there any way to do that from here, if there are no more admins there? Note: As I said above there still is one more admin still showing some kind of activity, but very, very rarely. -- diego_pmc 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is no problem, if the community is too small to hold a voting just request temp-adminship at rfp. Admins are voted in by the local community, so if there are still people editing they could hold a voting. But if not I would recommend to ask for the temp - status, which is technically the same (same admin-functions), You just check back some time before the status expires to let us know everything is fine.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
K, thanks for the answer. -- diego_pmc

Usurpation policy

IMPORTANT! This vote is intended to reflect the consensus for an old version of the proposed policy (see the initiator's comment below). In the meanwhile, the proposal has changed significantly (changes which made most of the original objections obsolete, but which also made the policy a lot weaker than originally intended). I'm not sure how this should be handled, but it's obvious to me that continuing the voting when its object has changed so radically during voting can't produce any meaningful results. --Gutza 10:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: A new vote has been opened for the new version of the policy, please vote here. --Gutza 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose eveybody to vote for new usurpation policy (discussed version), which will be used on all projects which don't opt-out. Vote will finish at 15:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC) — VasilievV 2 14:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the duration of the vote to one month — VasilievV 2 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um the GFDL is not subject to the democratic process. The policy as it standands cannot be adopted.Geni 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally -- I've been trying to push this since voting began, but nobody seems to listen. --Gutza 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually we need to break it. --Gutza 21:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer. I don't know if you are (are you?) but it seems to me you might not be. I suggest we let the legal question be answered by the WMF's legal guy- Mike. Whatever he says is the official position of the WMF and we should follow his opinion. So, who wants to ask? Bstone 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
message inserted post-factumNo, I am indeed not a lawyer -- but I have been advocating for forwarding this to the WMF forever (see the first Oppose above) and nobody listened (see all of the "Aye, seems nice" below that). By all means, do stop this process and forward it to WMF! If the legal teams validates it (which I highly doubt), then we can resume this process. --Gutza 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah it's a standard derivative type question that we deal with all the time. The only franctional complication is that the proposal as it stood would have violated moral rights as well which creates further issues.Geni 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no mainstreme free licenses that would allow this (well other than releaseing work into the public domain).Geni 21:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated version

[3] — here's another version of usurpation policy. Note that the previous version of the policy is illegal since it doesn't match GFDL requirements (see the talk page; I still want someone from Foundation to clarify this). Thanks — VasilievV 2 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a concern... we need to get to a version and then have an up and down comment period, all the comments above I think are not quite valid any more as they are commenting on an earlier version. Let's slow down, get a version that most folk think is right, and THEN put it up for approval. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Wait
Absolutely support for this (Lar). As I sated above, the voting is not quite regular if A. it was not announced properly and B. there is no discussed proposal to be voted for. -jkb-  (cs.source) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Wait
I support the updated version, if proposed for vote according to voting policies (some discussion and a new announcement). Jérôme 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Wait
All discussion about the legality of the proposals should only be directed at the WMF legal counsel. We are not qualified to discuss the legality of this and it is unethical for people to opine on the legality without the appropriate credentials. Bstone 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Wait
WMF legal staff should get the final call on this. -- Da Punk '95 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Wait
per Lar.--Cato 22:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the local community

I added that to the proposal. Any objections or comments? — VasilievV 2 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear enough. More than being informed of a usurpation request, the communities should be informed that they can opt out entirely.([4]) Hillgentleman 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notifications of this vote to locals communities

one of the oppose's reason is that communities are not informed of the current proposal. So, I propose everybody go spread the word about this on their respectives wikis.

Below, add the wikis your spread the info to to the list.

DarkoNeko 09:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL concerns

I think the raised concerned about GFDL violation by just renaming the username should be solved by Experts opinion about copyrights licences .. would anybody who has contact channel with some wikimedia person especially if he is lawyer expert in copyrights to ask him for his opinion ?? --Chaos 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wolof wiktionary

The Wolof Wiktionary is up and running alright. Could somebody please leave a message in this bug: bugzilla:14428 invalidating it? The staus of this should be changed as well.

Please see bugzilla:11512, sorry for not update WM:PCP --Johannes Rohr 11:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johannes Rohr :) Fortunately it took only one day to unlock it. I'll move the last paragraph of my previous message to a new section. --81.39.199.80 13:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused. I see the progress from bugzilla:10707 to bugzilla:11512. As the situation is solved, would not be safer to clearly state it in bugzilla:14428 as well? Or maybe it gets automatically cancelled for the sysops there (sorry if this is a stupid question [I am not totally sure it is not] but I do not know much about the inner cogs and bolts of Bugzilla) in some way I fail to detect? Regards. --81.39.199.80 13:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why no links to bugzilla with projects already requested to be closed?

I originally left the following comment in the previous section but I am moving it here so that people knowing about it can answer to it. --81.39.199.80 13:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why information about the request for closure of the project in bugzilla is never (or, at least, almost never) attached in the pages of "Proposals for closing projects" once a closure has been decided? Often it is really hard to properly track the history of this kind of cases. Failing to do it keeps information fragmentary, partial and/or unreachable for many. It becomes hermetic or too much for users who are not meta- or bugzilla-savvy. --81.39.199.80 10:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Siberian Wikipedia!

Please have a look at Save the Siberian Wikipedia. Your comments there will be much appreciated. --SiberianHuskyRyder 21:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uma reclamação a fazer

Depois que eu fiz a usurpação de contas eu consigo entrar logado em quase todos os Projetos Wikimedia com exceção do Wikispecies e do Wikimania. Alguém pode consertar isso? Pois outros Projetos pode ter o mesmo problema. HyperBroad 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "After I make the SUL, I can login in almost all Wikimedia projects, with excepition Wikispecies and Wikimania. Somebody can fix this? For other projects may have the same problem" —translated by Alex Pereira falaê 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
This is intentional, see bug 14407. Cbrown1023 talk 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Só mais uma coisa: Os usuários do Internet Explorer têm o mesmo problema mas resolveram apenas no Firefox. Esse problema tem conserto? HyperBroad 19:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "One more thing: Internet Explorer users have the same problems but it is only resolved in FireFox. Does the problem have a solution?" —translated by Monobi (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Globally hidden usernames should be hidden locally too, and local hiding of usernames should be possible

Dear all,
hiding global accountnames from the global userlist is possible and makes much sense for very insulting accountnames. (eg. containing realnames or accountnames of respected users and living or dead people)
Renaming them only moves the problem to the renamelog (of course better than the userlist).

In bugzilla:14476 the hiding of accountnames had been requested as feature for local projects too. Imho the local hiding should be assigned to local bueraucrats. Also if an accountname is hidden globally it should be hidden in both userlists, not only in the global one.

Please express Your opinion here.

Globalização de navegadores web

Os usuários do Internet Explorer, Safari, Opera e outros têm o mesmo problema mas resolveram apenas no Firefox. Esse problema tem conserto? --HyperBroad 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "Internet Explorer, Safari, and Opera users have the same problems but it is only solved in FireFox? Does this problem have a solution?" —translated by Monobi (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

SUL Question

I successfully created a unified account on the English Wikipedia a week or two ago. I had one concern, however, that I decided to put off until later; that is, my account at wikimania2007.wikimedia.org was not and is not listed in the "automatically identified"/"automatically merged" accounts. I am quite certain that I my password there is the same (I recall logging into every account to ensure that) - anyways, is there a plan to make accounts from old Wikimania sites merge-able? Or I am I missing something and they are merge-able? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Iamunknown 05:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikimania2007 has the SUL extension not installed, thus You can't merge the account there, it is also not possible to create a new account there, best regards, --geimfyglið :^╡ 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see - Special:Version lists the extensions, and Central Auth is not enabled at Wikimedia2007. I guess that makes sense, because otherwise new accounts would have to be created there when people with a unified account visit the site. Okay, thanks for the advice! Cheers, --Iamunknown 06:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global sysops (poll)

According to the policy proposal, voting for the policy starts at June 16th, 2008 at 00:00 UTC and ends at June 30th, 2008 at 23:59 UTC. For the extensive discussion about the policy proposal, see Talk:Global sysops.

For successful adoption of this policy the following conditions are necessary:

  • at least 30 votes in favor;
  • at least 80% overall votes in favor, with neutral votes not counting toward the overall total;

Any Wikimedian with at least 500 edits (across all projects) total, and at least 100 edits (across all projects) between January 1 - May 31, 2008 may vote. Voter should have an existing user page at meta with a link to at least one content project. Comments are welcome from all, but those not qualifying to vote, will not have their votes counted.

Support

  1. Support Support. Additional measures to combat vandalism on smaller wikis would be quite helpful, and I see no serious wikisovereignty issues for the bigger projects. This will provide a large net benefit to Wikimedia. --Rory096 01:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support. Potentially useful policy. As per Rory096. Yamakiri 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support - Big wikis may not like this, but wikimedia has 700+ wikis interest in hand and this will benefit them a lot..--Cometstyles 01:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support - it will help the small wikis, and I'm sure it can be disabled on some larger wikis... Monobi (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support This would help the SWMT and other vandal fighters incredibly and I find the opposes (both below and on the talk page) to not have a strong enough reason (if any) for an oppose. Cbrown1023 talk 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Definitely. This would really benefit the SWMT and lessen the amount of work that is put on stewards. --Az1568 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support The smaller wikis can really use the help Dbiel 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Nemo 06:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Beau (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support Thunderhead 06:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support SatuSuro 06:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - I agree that there should be a technical opt-out for the wikis that wish it (simply because I believe in choice) but I also believe this position is of greater importance to the smaller wikis than to let the larger wikis' fears prevent it from adoption. These sysops will have the trust of two communities before they are even eligible for global sysop and I am certain that the voters participating in these nominations will be extremely discerning when choosing global sysops. No single wiki should fear that someone is going to use global sysop-ship to gain access to deleted contributions for the purpose disseminating them because it would be far easier for any individual with such intent to just go through adminship at the local wiki level than through the global sysop process. This project will always be susceptible to abuse, but fear of that shouldn't prevent better operation across the whole of the project. --DeadEyeArrow 07:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. This is something that would be a very important benefit to smaller wikis & non quite so small wikis. It would help some of the active cross wiki folk to deal with vandalism in a far more efficient way. I realise with the might of en wp getting peeved (most of whom have little idea about smaller wikis, SWMT etc etc) this may not get through without an opt out. However we are talking about a right for people who are already well skilled with the tools & tasks necessary. --Herby talk thyme 07:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Magalhães 09:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support. I was originally skeptic of this proposal, but if stewards are trigger-happy in removing those users who abuse global privileges in larger wikis, that suffices for me. If a particular wiki doesn't want them, there's the Global sysops/Wikis subpage where individual communities can post "Do not disturb" signs for global sysops. Titoxd(?!?) 09:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support No reason for a technical opt-out. If a wiki decides not to allow these people helping them, they can put themselves on an opt-out list on Meta and the global sysops will then not be allowed to help these wikis (unless they are elected sysop there). --Thogo (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support. I have passing experience with almost overwhelming problems encountered by a small wiki from spammers and just plain confused users. I understand this to be a measure for those users that specialize in administrating small wikis, per Small Wiki Monitoring Team, and the requirement for Meta participation thus makes sense. I trust prospective global sysops realize the consequences if you try to run roughshod over an established community or violate the terms at Global sysops/Wikis. - BanyanTree 09:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support - Keeping with the objections raised below, I think it's still a good idea. As pointed out above, there should be mechanisms to prevent global sysop intervention when specifically denied by a project and of course all global sysops should consider the rules of the wiki they are interfering with --SoWhy 10:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support - as a wikimedia commons admin, this would make my job a hell of a lot easier as we would be able to see deleted images to see whether they ever had useful information which wasn't transferred across. Yes, big wikis won't like this, but big wikis don't like anything because there are enough people that there is always someone willing to be very vocal opposing an idea. Mattbuck 10:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support (as a proposer) --Millosh 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support --Cradel 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support --GerardM 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support iAlex 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support --Yaroslav Blanter 13:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support --MF-W 14:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Support after bug 14556 has been submitted, there is no objection, -jkb- (cs.source) 14:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support Why not simplify the whole system. Interwiki collaboration is in terrific state now.--Kozuch 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support Without this system, a lot of wikis will be under-patrolled. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support Excellent idea - Icairns 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support - this is clearly a sensible way to manage the maintenance of small projects. Use on a large project would lead to suspension of the right so I don't think a technical opt out is needed. I am disappointed that small projects may miss out on the benefits of this right due to opposition mainly from one large project - I don't think this aids inter-project relations or does much for the global perception of enwiki. WjBscribe 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support - Trevor MacInnis 15:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Support - only high quality admins would be able to survive the nomination process. We already trust these people for other major projects, so why not trust them at a global level? Royalbroil 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Great idea: it will help clean-up and reduce unnoticed vandalism on the smaller Wikis. Acalamari 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support upon the condition that large wikis with enough local admins be allowed to opt out. My opinion is similar to Messedrocker's in the Oppose section, but I recognize that this feature will be developed. Until then, local policies like w:en:Wikipedia:Global rights usage should govern the use of their rights on those wikis. Nihiltres(t.u) 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. No one will use their rights on the big 'pedias, and if they do, they'll quickly lose them. A technical opt-out method might be nice, but there'll be no trouble either way, methinks. --Conti 18:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support with the understanding that larger wikis with a sufficient number of sysops will not be affected. Vandalism and spam can be a problem on smaller wikis, and I have wished I or someone else could do something about it without involving bureaucracy. Grandmasterka 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Support with the obvious get-outs per wiki as necessary. James F. (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Contingent on the opt-out implementations, which have been committed to. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! :) --Millosh 19:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Support per many of the above comments; plenty of the smaller wikis do need help, and this seems to be a pretty good way to provide it. The members of those wikis can of course decide for themselves to what degree the global sysops can act (rollback only, protect and block, etc.). My only concern is that global sysops should be monitored to ensure they're following consensus on each wiki. Parsecboy 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Support - This should help out some of the smaller wikis. NuclearWarfare 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Support - Agree w/ Cometstyles. Cirt 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Support - Necessary to address cross-wiki harassment in a timely manner. Durova 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Support - I encourage lots of folks to monitor activity (especially early on) to ensure that the program is what we really want. --141.174.97.231 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) gah, logged in to vote. --Rocksanddirt 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Support - I have every reason to believe the opt out would be implemented before this was put into practice. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Support I have seen many smaller wikis destroyed because of vandalism. This will help stop it. Mm40 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Support Big time - David Gerard 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Support, assuming that they will not have any sysop rights on those wikis that don't want them. (I don't believe this actually requires any changes to the software: AFAIK, the devs can already configure the rights assigned to each user group on a per-wiki basis.) --Ilmari Karonen 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Support - No doubt. 75.183.127.68 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - looks ok.   jj137 ♠ 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Support Very useful. --Werdan7T @ 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Support I do see potentials for abuse, however I have enough trust in the admin selection process that I doubt such abuse will occur. Nar Matteru 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Support Support and yes it's an excellent idea. Bstone 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Support This would be a boon to small wikis. Firefoxman 00:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Support I was reassured by the restrictions. 87.194.39.154 01:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Support: restrictions can be added later, fear of possible "abuse" is unfounded. -AlexSm 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Support, with the caveat that I would prefer a longer approval period (two weeks or a month perhaps) rather than a week. Would also like a way to make these kinds of nominations higher profile so they could receive added scrutiny by all projects. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I cannot support this until there is a technical implementation to restrict privilege use to wikis with few-to-none administrators only. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Toes will be trodden on, there's no way of knowing how large a community is until you're part of it - at which point you can get a local sysop-hood anyway. Conrad.Irwin 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, isn't that why that list of wikis sorted by size and number of admins, etc. was created? I'd expect that any projects that explicitly chose not to have global sysop interference would also be put in a special section on that list, so global sysops shouldn't screw up and use their tools on a project where they're not allowed (and the fact that they'll be autodeglobalsysopped if they do seems like a pretty good incentive to keep them from doing so). --Rory096 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this exclusion-from-interference list extant? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Global sysops/Wikis and Global sysops/Small and large wikis. They're not designed to be quite as black and white as I'd like, but I would expect that to improve as projects pass policies regarding global sysops. --Rory096 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose Until Wikis can opt out at a technical level from Global Sysops being able to perform an action and until viewing deleted contribs is separated from restoring accidentally deleted pages. MBisanz talk 04:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Toes may be trodden on in a larger community; I see this as mainly for websites not big enough to have an active community with a sufficient amount of administrators. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 05:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They will never be able to opt out technically, that is not something that we'd want them to be able to... we do not want to restrict any global group. Also, tbh, I think the whole worrying about deleted contributions to be a little crazy... it's not that big of deal, these people are going to be trusted as is. Cbrown1023 talk 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. At a minimum until wikis are able to opt out. I think the general issue of allowing any editor to "patrol" for vandalism in a language they don't understand is problematic. Perhaps a rewritten proposal with more attention to limiting the opportunity for error and abuse, in addition to a clearer definition of the role of these global sysops, would be something I could support. Avruch 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you realize that we already patrol wikis for vandalism in languages we do not understand? See SWMT and #cvn-sw... this will just make our lives easier. Wikis can already opt out, see Global sysops/Wikis and Global sysops/Small and large wikis. Cbrown1023 talk 04:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I wasn't clear - I was referring to a technical opt-out, which you say above will never happen. I'm aware that folks patrol for vandalism, but the potential damage from an error is limited to what any editor (and vandal) can accomplish. The characteristics of a small wiki that make a global sysop seem necessary also make it unlikely that errors and other problems from global sysops will be noted in a timely manner. Large wikis will notice a global sysop screwup right away, but at the same time they have no need for global sysops in the first place. I'd like to see a global log of all actions by global sysops, and I'd like to see them technically limited to wikis below a certain threshold of activity, and I think limiting them to rollback and delete should be considered. Once SUL is universal the need for the ability to block on each project could be obviated - a clear vandal could simply be globally blocked by one meta admin. Just some thoughts. I think the poll on this proposal is probably premature - why does it need to go from proposed to voted upon in barely more than two weeks? Avruch 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Certainly not. The above users, especially Conrad Irwin, have said it well. — Dan | talk 04:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I will oppose this until there is a software mechanism to opt-out large wikis. Any claim that this is not 'technically possible' is pure hogwash. --MZMcBride 05:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Until opt-out is technically available. giggy (:O) 05:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There is no real way I can see justifying global privileges like that. It's too much risk of abuse of power, let alone other concerns. --Neskaya 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The opt out capability (at the software level) for established communities is mandatory. And I mean opt out in advance of the first grant of global sysop privileges. Anywhere that there is an editing community, that community has autonomy over the shape and content of their work, and there is absolutely no guarantee that someone from another project will understand or abide by local policy; if that person is given sysop privileges witout having had any previous interaction with that community, this simply exacerbates the situation. And it's not just a matter of local policy; it's a matter of the community dynamic, which may be wildly different from that of the sysop's home project(s). As someone involed in several non-wikipedia projects in two languages, I'm speaking from direct observation. Assume good faith, all well and good; but many people do *not* wait to learn what the local community is like before leaping in and making decisions (and yes, some of those hasty folks have been sysops elsewhere). -- ArielGlenn 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose The points made above about the lack of a mechanism to opt-out a wiki make this a deal-breaker as is. OverlordQ 05:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Opppose. 24.29.228.33 (en:WP User:Badagnani) 05:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I really like the idea, but like others, I would also like to see an opt-out option. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose as premature. This can happen only after: 1) The technical infrastructure is in place, 2) Individual wikis have opted in. Personally, I would prefer that the big wikis with enough administrators explicitly stay out of such a scheme for at least 6 months after it starts in earnest. Let those small Wikis who need such a service come up with a policy that works for them and let them have a few months to tweak it. Counterproposal - pick a small number of smallish Wikis to run a common sysop scheme as an experiment for 3 months. If it works, gradually invite other smallish Wikis in. After that is stable, revisit inviting larger Wikis in. Davidwr 05:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per ArielGlenn. The points he brings up are quite valid.--Rockfang 06:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Not just because of the ability for wikis to opt-out (which I think is essential) but because I also feel the process is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Just look at the requirements to attain global sysop status: 6 months at Meta and two other content projects, 5,000 total edits, 1,000 edits at one content wiki, 100 edits at a second content wiki, 100 edits at Meta, 50 edits at Meta in 2 months, 50 edits on two different projects within the last month, and administrator, bureaucrat or checkuser status on at least two projects, with one a content project. Frankly, that part of the policy is ludicrous -- if there's going to be voting on the candidates anyway, what's the need to introduce so many complicated rules when voters can weed out candidates themselves? I cannot and will not support a policy that introduces unnecessary bureaucracy, and can be easily gamed. To a lesser extent, I also feel that the process is becoming "steward-lite". Ral315 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose (in the current form), IMHO, this is a function which does need to be fully global, on all wikis. There are types of vandalism here which tread beyond only one wiki, and which may appear minor on single wikipedia. Certain forms of vandalism are vandalism on all wikis. With the backlog which (even on the English wikipedia on en:WP:AIV!) occurs every now and then, and with vandalism (with all the recent changes patrollers, also even on the English wikipedia) which does not get reverted and stays for some time (and not only minutes), and where blatant vandalism with only a few edits would not be stopable as it may not have recurred often enough on a single wiki to result in blocks, the people that do watch the cross-wiki aspects of vandalism should have the possibility to revert and stop such edits when they occur, even on the large wikipedia, and preferably fast so the 'vandal' notices that his edits are of concern! People who get this bit should have a broad support from quite a number of wikis, but also have the possibility to use their powers on all wikis. Abuse should result in their bit being withdrawn, but people seem more concerned about the possible abuse than about advantages. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (I am quite close to going on a short trip, so I don't have too much time.) Funny that you give me the generic ask as well, you could have noticed that I vote against the proposal for different reasons, so:
        Reply. No, I am not voting oppose because I want the capability to have an opt-out/opt-in system. I do believe that the task 'global sysop' should be global. That is, no opt-out! I know I am the odd one out here, but I believe that the current state of the proposal indeed forces the large wikis to request opt-out. With the opt-out it is just as easy for the stewards to just give some trusted meta-admins with some experience (temp) sysop status to catch the obvious stuff, and it would solve a part of the problem (vandalism to small wikis), but it does not solve the complete problem that we have here.
        What the majority of the oppose votes here want is to remove the global status of the global sysop. Still, the large wikis have to live with cross-wiki vandalism as well. Cross wiki external link 'spammers' perform only a small number of edits on wiki, and would probably not get blocked for that, but if one looks at the total number of edits performed on the project, they would well be over the limit. Now those editors active on such cross-wiki aspects would have to revert using undo (tedious!!!), and go to WP:AIV (where they might get a slow or no response, 'only n (n<5) edits, not a reason to block yet!'). The global sysop should be able to perform actions on such cases, when there is a clear global aspect to the vandalism (including spamming). So:
        • Total global sysop, no opt-out, but,
        • Only allowed to use the global sysop tools when there is a clear global form of vandalism.
        • Voting, only admins (on whatever project) votes are counted (all users allowed to comment), they need a clear majority of granting (80%?), and the group of voters has to contain at least 3 (unique) admins per wiki from at least 15 (?) content wikis. Voting can close after that has been reached, or after 30 days when there is no chance of support.
    So with the opt-out I would still, or maybe even harder, oppose the proposal. Then it is just useless. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I made a couple of mistakes with putting my generic question and I fixed one of them... I didn't put a generic question because I don't have enough of time for communication, but because the question was same. I could only make different sentences not to make this to look like a generic question :) --Millosh 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may see that there is a hard opposition to any global permission. While in this moment majority supports the idea, we are very far from the consensus. And I suppose that your idea would have much harder opposition. This may be the first global role. And only when people start to communicate all over the projects much more frequently (cross-wiki cooperation is almost non-existing; with exceptions in the relation *.wp->en.wp (only one way) and some very close languages (but, not all!), like tr and az are). --Millosh 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose until there is a technical opt-out. —Dark talk 11:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose until projects can opt out. -- Eugene van der Pijll 12:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. -- Eugene van der Pijll 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose; same reasons, opt-out option must be implemented first.Ezhiki 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose; sledgehammer to crack some small nuts, and a dangerous one at that. --Alison Wheeler 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Oppose - No thanks, there is nothing all-that-wrong with the current system. If a Wiki has too few administrators then search the current active user list and find suitable candidates to nominate or sysop (depending on the system). If there aren't enough users to do this, i'd question the point of the project in general. This is just a way of increasing power to those who are hungry for it, IMO. Sorry. Cyclonenim 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have ANY real experience to fight vandalism on small wikis to produce such statements? --Yaroslav Blanter 14:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that at all relevant? No, I do not have experience on small wikis but my point was that if you have even a few active, reliable users, nominate them for adminship on your small wiki. If you don't have enough active users then I'd question the point of existence for that wiki. My experience of vandal fighting isn't relevant at all to my point. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, just looks like you are voicing an opinion on the subject you have no idea of. If things were so simple no vandal fighters would be needed at all. --Yaroslav Blanter 14:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your opinion but may I bring to your attention that this poll is not about the necessity of vandal fighters but about global sysops. I am by no means objective to vandal fighters on smaller wikis, they play a crucial role in reverting vandalism. My point is regarding the necessity of global admins which I see as pointless since you can nominate your own administrators from active users. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - I cannot support this policy in its current form. My primary grievance is with the stupidly high number of requirements placed on even being elegible - why not let the community decide who is "worthy" of such tools. Also, some communities may wish to opt out of this, and therefore a technical opt-out is necessary, nay, mandatory before this is implemented. --Skenmy 14:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose -- atleast not in it's current form. = ) --Camaeron 15:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. I agree that there should be a technical opt-out for the wikis that wish it, standards for this user right are too high in my opinion. Rudget. 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose as per Davidwr. It's too immature, but there are also other problems:
    1. local sysops usually form a kind of community, that global admins may have probles to participate in;
    2. I think first SUL needs to settle down a little bit and we should gain some wider-scale experience from it;
    3. The needs to introduce that (except for 'let's help small wikis') are too vague and they just not justify introducing a sledgehammer as others pointed;
    4. Even then, the projects should explicitily opt-in to participate in this experiment.
    And please Millosh, do not put your generic placeholder below my vote.  « Saper // @talk »  16:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose for the main reason stated above - no way to opt out. I don't think anyone should be given admin access to a wiki without the consent of its community. (Please, no cut-and paste responses, I've read the discussion and will only change my stance once the feature is actually available.) --Explodicle 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough :) --Millosh 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I did not think that there was anything wrong with this until I read the comments of MessedRocker and WjBscribe (who is ironically supporting). –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose per Saper, bug 14556 and other opposes, I don't think we are ready for it yet. (I'm really getting tired of that generic response, so please DON'T put it beneath this Millosh.) --Chetblong (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Oppose - Londenp 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I really don't see why it is necessary to arrange for these things on meta. There is no visibility for these kinds of proposals on local projects. Centralizing is NOT a good thing. Each project is independent, with local policies, and it should stay that way: don't change it, especially not outside the view of all the people which don't look on or are interested in meta. I don't like this movement to centralize power at all.[reply]
  28. Oppose Oppose barring an ability for wikis to opt out on a technical level. And don't spam my comment please Millosh. Prodego talk 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Oppose We need to focus on getting local sysops for those wikis that need it; this isn't a good solution, in my opinion, for reasons which have been stated above numerous times. - Rjd0060 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Oppose Per most of the above. Not until larger wiki's have this opt out ability. KnowledgeOfSelf 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Oppose, while I am completely of the same opinion as Ral315 and KnowledgeOfSelf. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Oppose Per KnowledgeOfSekf and Skenmy. GreenJoe 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Oppose No need for it at least for the large wikis. Maybe the small ones, but its completely unneccesary for my wiki.--Finalnight 22:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Oppose Bad idea. Sorry. 24.97.138.90 22:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Oppose Needs the trust of the Local community to have rights there. Alexfusco5 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Oppose, I agree with most of the above. More centralisation is not something we need. --Aqwis 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose: [[Wonderfool]] would love this... instead of having to build accounts up to adminship on en.wp and en.wt, he could just work for global sysop and bam! delete the main pages of hundreds of projects. - Amgine 02:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I would greatly prefer to see technical opt-out. Daniel (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While I understand there is a need, I think the proposal has turned more from "anti-vandalism" to "steward-lite." I also think there needs to be a technical opt-out system. Right now we seem to be allowing projects to set their own policy regarding this. Are global sysops going to have to consult/memorize a list of wikis with local policies before taking any action on a project? I also don't like that small wikis don't seem to be able to opt-out. I think if a small wiki can get enough people (more than a handful) to vote and decide that they don't want global sysops, then they should be able to opt-out. Mr.Z-man 06:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I too would like a technical opt-out system. Mr.Z-man has left a good comment above. --MiCkEdb 08:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't think the requirement of being an administrator on at least one content project is good: if someone is such an administrator, he must be busy at his project and hardly have time to supervise other small projects, so such a person will hardly be useful as a global sysop.--Imz 08:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enjoy the idea, but opt-out should be a technical functionality before this new class can be considered for mainstream integration. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While a nice idea in essence, there are some parts of the proposal that I don't quite like (SUL administration right, Undeletions [they can always ask a steward to undelete; I doubt there'd be emergencies], future global block right, to mention a few). Also, the mentioned technical limitation regarding project opt-out is quite a hindrance, IMHO. Other than that, the proposal has some merits and I acknowledge that the global sysop group would tremendously help in maintaining small wikis. --FiliP × 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. I support it for some reasons (cf. comments by Rory096, DeadEyeArrow, Titoxd, and others) and oppose it for others (cf. comments by Messedrocker, Avruch, OverlordQ, and others). I concur with the comments below about the present limited visibility of the watchlist announcement: global sysop is proposed for smaller wikis, yet it is on the smaller wikis that it hasn't been announced in a highly visible way with watchlist messages. — Athaenara (contribs) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I am sysop at enwiki, and have been temporary sysop five, six or seven times in smaller wikis. I agree that there is a need for global sysops. However, it is also true there are wikis with election processes that should be able to opt-out from this feature. I don't believe it is strong enough a reason to object: if the feature is implemented, it should be used. -- ReyBrujo 16:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per bug 14556 will support once global groups can be defined on a subset or wikis, or wikis can opt-out in some other way. --Rainman 16:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think it's a fine idea, but I'm opposed to the qualifications as currently laid out. I also believe there should be a technical opt out. And yes, Millosh, I know about Bug 14556. Philippe 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think that the deletion/undeletion powers should generally only apply to edits from users whose home wiki is the same as the global sysop's home wiki. I can see making an exception for projects small enough that timely attention from a local admin might be a problem, but if for example, I were to for some strange inexplicable reason ever become a global sysop I doubt I'd be able to judge non-English edits properly. Caerwine 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't know enough of the goings-on at the smaller wikis to oppose confidently. However, I have a few reservations about it. The whole opt-out issue would be good to be taken care of, but it seems like that is in the works. I am more worried about the effects it would have on the smaller wikis, especially since a number of them (I believe) are in languages that not many people know. It seems unlikely that global administrators would be able to use their tools effectively in these cases. (how can one know if something is vandalism if one can't read the edits?) It may be that I'm putting too much emphasis on smaller, other language wikipedias, but that's how I see it for now. -- Natalya 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Latin, but it's not hard to tell that this is vandalism. Spamming and test edits are also pretty easy to identify.--Werdan7T @ 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. As I think about it, that same rational could even apply to languages in different scripts. I'll have to think about it. -- Natalya 02:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Considering this poll is posted as a watchlist message on en-wiki, and might not get similar visibility in other projects, I don't know how useful the results are. It's pretty obvious that the users on en-wiki would oppose the proposal, since global sysops aren't needed there, and could conceivably harm the project. - Bobet 08:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, adding this to the watchlist notice was not a good idea. -- lucasbfr talk 11:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any way we can communicate this to small wiki teams (who do not speak English in many cases)?--Yaroslav Blanter 14:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This seems to be a general problem: a kind of chaos. Just short time ago there was another voting, on Usurpation policy, that has not been anounced properly, and where there were some three versions of it while the voting went on (first version, updated version, discussed version at least). Might be that meta should provide some kind how to bring something to a poll. And, how to announce it in other projects if the matter does not concern meta only. Otherwise even good ideas will be opposed because not because of the matter but because of the kind of voting. -jkb- (cs.source) 09:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We could announce these things quite easily if meta had a low-volume page on which important project-affecting announcements owere made, and had a bot to distribute the changes to any local communities that had signed up to it. It might require a bit of work translating all the announcements, but in some ways that is good as it ensures the announcement page will only be used for important things. Conrad.Irwin 10:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I submitted bug 14556 for making technical opting-out possible. --Millosh 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you spamming every possible place on this page with your bug link?  « Saper // @talk »  16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked only contributors who declared that they are voting against because of a lack of possibility for technical opting-out. It was targeted question; which means that it is not a spam. --Millosh 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about posting it once at the top of each section where it would apply, rather than posting duplicates below many individual posts in those sections?
    The duplicate postings are distracting and increase the difficulty of simply reading the editor comments. — Athaenara (contribs) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that it would be appropriate: (1) it is a question to particular voters, not to all of them and (2) this is the place for comments (not the sections above) (and I see that a lot of voters don't read them). --Millosh 17:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am concerned that the bulk of opposition to this proposal is from enwiki editors (who will be little affected by this user right). If someone with global rights used them on enwiki, they would lose them - it is clearly a project with plenty of local sysops. I think the prominent advertising of this poll on enwiki is leading to a distorted view of the consensus across Wikimedia projects, to the detriment of the small projects who would really benefit from this right. WjBscribe 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This poll is skewed in any case. The majority of the wikis which would benifit the most from this (the small wikis with no or few admins) have in some cases only a few thousand articles, and hence probably also only a couple of thousand edits, editors solely active on that project are very unlikely to have enough edits to be allowed to vote here. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually expecting a revolt from the enwikipedians, and it has happened..I'm not sure why these people are not realising that this proposal is only for the benefit of smaller wikis and larger wikis will NOT be affected..and yes the "global sysops" will have the ability to use Special:Undelete and could delete and block users on those 'bigger' wikis, but they will be forbidden from doing so, and since millosh has already filed a bug on this, it will be better if the people from bigger wikis avoid voting for now and await the outcome of the bug, and if this never eventuates, then sysops and/or crats will be appointed from big wikis to "stalk" the contributions of the global sysops on their wikis and if they do anything out of line, report to the appropriate page here on Meta and they will be dealt with swiftly....but the enwikipedians/large wikipedians should remember a major advantage they have, they can choose who gets the right, since most of them qualify to vote or request the right themselves..if you vote for someone you trust, then all those oppose above will mean nothing....and if not...hope for the tech opt-out to be resolved..--Cometstyles 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And when has being forbidden stopped an admin from doing something they shouldn't? And now they're supposed to get a global bit? OverlordQ 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble at the Persian Wikipedia

Zereshk's RfA at the Persian Wikipedia (fa.wiki) is due to close at ‍‍14:14, June 17 2008 (UTC). He currently has 34 support votes, and 3 oppose votes (91%). However, a couple hours ago, Roozbeh, the bureaucrat there, extended the RfA for two more weeks ([7], [8]). His rational was "based on [other] users request (without naming anyone) the deadline is extended for two weeks so they can do more thorough research and change their vote." ([9]) I cannot recall any RfA on any Wikipedia that has lasted a total of three weeks, and consider this be a gross abuse of bureaucrat privileges. Several people have already protested Roozbeh's actions ([10]). I am requesting that the original RfA deadline be restored, and that Roozbeh possibly be punished for his actions. Khoikhoi 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this an internal matter for that wiki? I'm not sure anyone at meta has the authority to override a local 'crat. Certainly people could opine that it might not be a good approach, perhaps, but not actually overturn things I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&oldid=1046306"