Meta:Babel

Seeking conditions for proper and civil dialog

The following discussion is closed: Matter is at RFC

Could someone be kind enough to restore some order on the repeated nominations for speedy deletion made by a couple of disgruntled users? Messages have already been left on their talk pages [1] and [2] kindly asking for an end to such behavior and better observance of the project procedures. Naturally such disruptive edits have prevented me from initiating any kind discussion in the appropriate talk pages:

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 03:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is quite unfortunate that an unkown user, apparently at the request of one of the interested parties[3] has posted unfounded statements and unjustified threats on my user page[4] and elsewhere[5]. It's difficult to engage in constructive dialog when that is refused outright in the most outlandish terms.[6]

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 04:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved matters concerning this section are being pursued at RFH. Vapmachado 00:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I just wrote an essay...

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I just started an essay, and it needs info from Wikiquote, Commons, Wiktionary and Wikiversity. Kayau WP WB WN 08:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging Help Forum

Help Forum is linked from Help:Help but nobody answers there: can we simply merge it to this page and redirect here? --Nemo 17:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

active translation facilitators

If you want to ask somebody for a translation (= no mincing machine), it´s much easier when you see all inactive users at a single glance, e.g. in de:Kategorie:User sv-M. Is there a way to pick out & show active users – let´s say, selectable with 1, 3, 6 months – only for babel cats? --Hæggis 12:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a recurring request. We could categorize active users and then intersect each language category with that category (using DynamicPageList, easily addible to {{user language category}}), but not everybody would like to have his user page modified and categorized and we would always need a bot to do that, unless Special:ActiveUsers (recently introduced) will be expanded to automatically categorize those users... --Nemo 21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for quick feedback :-)

Language-Babels already categorize every userpage (example), doesn´t they?

Yeah, the holy bot way of solutions... after first cat on many userpages the bot only would have to check every change of the list of active users. We could entitle this category "aft" (addressable for translation), or, more carefully, "paft" (potentially ___). In this sense every babel-cat would include a link to active babel users cat, which is sorted out by

• user in this (de)WP?
• user in (sv-M/sv)babel-cat?
• user in aft-cat?

Of course there should be a hint on aft-cat-page which includes a template to deactivate this categorization. But I think most people who use this babels want to help, and this way make it much easier. Maybe I´m wrong, in case of technical feasibility there should be i.e. a poll, which is singular sent to all (active ;-) language-babel-users by bot with a link to feedback page. --Hæggis 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem of references to researches

Whether can Wikipedija delete references to researches in Wikiversitete? SergeyJ 18:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Wikipedia can have its policies. It can be sensible to non consider Wikiversity a good source because otherwise it could be a workaround to add original researches to Wikipedia. But it depends on what Wikiversity page we're talking about, Wikiversiy policies etc. Anyway, this is not something to be discussed on Meta, it's only a metter of Wikipedia policy. --Nemo 11:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Meta:Policies and guidelines

On the page, we have NPOV and Global Rollback listed under "Some Wikimedia projects" - Can anyone think of why they shouldn't be listed under the "All Wikimedia proejcts" instead? Kylu 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it depends on how one interprets "neutrality" in the various Wikimedia projects' contexts.. Wikispecies for one, I don't see how it's possible to not be 'neutral' when compiling a directory of species, unless someone is biased against a particular species?? I suppose it's possible.. Same can be said of Wikisource.. a collection of source documents doesn't really have to be neutral.. neutral towards what? Not sure how it is over at Wikiquote though, perhaps that project requires that when listing someone's sayings both positive and negative quotations must be included.. but then even that is subjective and depends on the lister's point of view anyway. I'm not familiar with Wikibooks enough to know how it works there, but another explanation may be that these other projects just haven't drafted specific NPOV policies yet.

I do think you're right about global rollback though.. it even states it on the page, that it applies to "... all Wikimedia wikis." -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 10:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Global rollback global usergroup is activated for all WMF projects so I think global rollback should be listed under "All Wikimedia projects". --dferg ^{☎ talk} 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved the GR section to All Projects, NPOV perhaps needs more discussion. Perhaps someone more active on Wikispecies can give us the opinion of those users? Kylu 17:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm of the opinion that, when applied to a number of special cases, NPOV on wikispecies must be a "qualified" NPOV, not the militant form found in WP: because by the very way the project is structured, the "waffling" typical of Wikipedia is not readily available to us as a solution. Circeus 14:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There were also some objections on the adjective "strict": Talk:Neutral point of view#Strict?. --Nemo 10:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling features

Currently meta has a system of full diff patrolling, which causes that every change made by non-admin/bot/steward/staff/global rollbacker etc. users has to be checked. The current situation is that actually I feel nobody does that, but the backlog of unpatrolled diffs is still increasing. See for example this request I have made some time ago. I hereby propose to:

1. Cease to use the full-diff patrolling system; which I find somewhat useless, or
2. Create an "autopatrolled usergroup with the 'autopatrol' rights attached to it so that administrators can assign it to trusted users whose edits are presumed not to be vandalism/spam/etc as happens on Commons & some other projects for example.

The third option is to leave things as they are now however I think we need to solve this.

Thanks for your comments. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 21:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support #2, but what about giving the "patrol" right to more users? Lots of wikis have patrol for all autoconfirmed users (btw, do I remember uncorrectly or some time ago you were not allowed to patrol your own edits at all unless you were an admin?). The annoying thing is that if you don't have "patrol" you can't even know that patrolled edits is enabled and whether some edit has already been checked or not... --Nemo 01:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes #2 works for me. I'd almost go for auto confirmed=autopatrolled - it is usually only the very new users and IPs that really require any attention. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

autoconfirmed=autopatrolled is IMHO excessive: even in MediaWiki 1.6-8 it was only a preference (before the implementation of autopatrol right). --Nemo 08:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible to have other autoassigned rights (similar to auto confirmed). Why not consider different levels of activity before assigning the patrol right? Kylu 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Kylu: I was thinking too in something like that, where the system based in some data automatically promotes the user in question to certain group. I saw that in the English Wikibooks here and here. If we are going to use $wgAutopromote we should discuss the conditions that the system will use to do the promotions. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 20:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Retract my last striked words because of misinformation. What Wikibooks uses seems to be part of the flagged revisions extension. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Support #2 -- -OlEnglish ^(Talk) 04:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Eleven days have passed and consensus seems in favour of leaving the full-diff-patrolling feature and to create an usergroup "Autopatrolled" with "autopatrol" permissions attached to it; which will be granted and revocked by sysops. If no opposing arguments are heard in ~24 hours I'll open a bugzilla ticket requesting it's creation. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)