(Redirected from Meta-Wikimedia:Babel)
 ← Index of discussion pages Babel archives (latest) →
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
  • You can comment here in any language.
  • This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
  • If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
  • For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
  • For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
  • To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
  • Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Propose to amend Meta:SnowballEdit

After Stewards'_noticeboard#Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Global_rename_for_Joseluispasa, we have a second request on SRGP that is clearly not going to pass. I propose to add the following to Meta:Snowball:

Any request that is purely disruptive, or suggests that the requester is going to the wrong venue, may be closed by any uninvolved steward or Meta-Wiki administrator, or any uninvolved user in good standing if the requester is indefinitely blocked in Meta or globally locked.


--GZWDer (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That policy has only ever applied to closing and implementing a successful discussion early. Votes have been and can continue to be closed when they are clearly in the wrong place, the person has absolutely no chance of passing, etc. This was also confirmed in a discussion for SRGP within the last few years. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a need for adding this exception. Nemo 18:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz and Nemo bis:
  • Among Wikimedia project using snowball on successful permission requests seems rare.
  • Votes have been and can continue to be closed when they are clearly in the wrong place, the person has absolutely no chance of passing, etc. - this means we are (harmlessly) violating the established rule. Alternatively this means the rule should be rewritten. See File:Diagram_of_IGNORE.svg.
  • "This was also confirmed in a discussion for SRGP within the last few years" - I mention the amendment above, which only allow stewards to close the request and only after a number of inputs.

--GZWDer (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment Meta:Snowball does not apply to stewards' pages, it is for metawiki business alone. Stewards/community are welcome to adopt it as required, though I don't think that it should be adapted in the formats expressed to cover stewards' business.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

A transparent appeal venue for users locked out of local talk pagesEdit

The following discussion is closed: User blocked. ——SerialNumber54129 08:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Accepting the general point that Meta is not an appeals court, what do people here think of carving out a specific portion of this project for use as a venue for appealing instances of local project user talk page lockouts, as typically the next and final step after a local block. I think this would provide much needed transparency and a sort of brotherly sanity check to counter the incredible power that such a thing represents to local functionaries. To completely shut a user out of a project, after all, is an extreme measure that should be deployed only in response to extreme threats, or at the very least, incontrovertible abuse of the page. Whenever a local project locks a user out of their talk page, they would be provided a link to the Meta appeals venue, where independent functionaries would respond, either upholding or rejecting the appeal. If people here have no appetite for a general case appeal venue, then perhaps it can be one that can only be used if the user's case satisfies certain qualifying criteria, such as a reasonable belief that availing themselves of the local private channels would put their personal data at risk, or that the manner of the lockout was so egregiously bad, seen from the outside, the user would probably be justified in preferring to contact the media rather than spend their time and energy navigating local private channels. It strikes me that such a venue would not only be a nice way to show local projects do not hold certain users in contempt, seeing the process of locking people out as some kind of grand game of chicken, as if they only want to test their willingness to actually use private channels to challenge a lockout, it would also stop that apparently unwanted behaviour of the next logical step for a user locked out of one project, to want to take the matter up on other projects, including of course, Meta, much to its apparent irritation. BarryBoggside (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Most projects already have a local method of doing this most involve IRC or email. One is not needed on meta as only local admins would be able to solve that problem. -Examknow (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The proposal is for people who cannot or will not use private channels, for very good reasons, such as protecting their privacy. Is it impossible for you to even conceive of such a scenario? What makes you assume private channels will keep your information secure, or that complaints submitted privately are always handled properly? Have you ever tested this assumption? Have you ever even been locked out of a local project? BarryBoggside (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Also if you are only looking for a way to be unblocked on the English Wikipedia since your TPA has been revoked, please see en:WP:AAB. -Examknow (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not. Take the proposal in good faith, or not at all. Don't simply oppose it because you cannot believe anyone here would want to help anyone but themselves. BarryBoggside (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Meta is not an appeal court. Wikis look after their local management of their wikis, so bringing formal processes here as a means for alternate resolution is just rehashing a closed conversation; it sounds like an appeal court. The resolution is able to be determined at that language wiki, so there is no need to bring it out of the wiki. We understand "I don't like the decision", however, each wiki is self-managing, and that means that their decisions hold where there is a suitable and significant community.

That said many users over the years have made enquiries at meta with those administrators of their local wikis about processes, and opportunities and that is acceptable as long as it done with civility and as a reasonable approach. Some have done it as a continuing attack on their local administrators, and that is not considered acceptable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As I thought I had already made clear in the very first line, this would be a justified exception against 'Meta is not an appeals court', and given the reasons for it. Suffice to say, this is not about giving people who merely dislike a local decision, an alternative outlet. It is a recognition that there are going to be situations where even a large community can make an egregious mistake in how it wields this ultimate power of exclusion, and before the excluded user is forced to either put their personal data at risk, or persuaded they are better off trying to capitalize on it through negative media coverage, there is a sensible and indeed ethical role for Meta to play, one that at the very least can be seen as entirely in the interests of the local communities, to the point it should be possible to support it even if you were the sort of person who assumes, before it is even live, that every single person who arrived there, will not have a valid case. BarryBoggside (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst and Examknow:, now that User:BarryBoggside has been established to be a sock of AttackTheMoonNow on en., this should clearly be opposed as a blatant attempt to weaponise one wiki against another. ——SerialNumber54129 06:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    I will discuss the issue on the premise of the argument, not the proponent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    Weopnise is an apt phrase, only in the sense that the proposal is in effect a counterbalance in the same vein as opposing nuclear arsenals. It is a means to ensure local projects don't, through their own sheer collective hubris and group-think, or simple internal power dynamics, amass a power at their highest levels so great it is possible for them to wholly disregard what are in reality meant to be community wide norms and expectations, such as this idea people's personal data is sacrosanct, or that it is only the Foundation (or the entire movement acting in their name) who can block a user forever. Although quite how far that analogy holds when in this case the United Nations would also have a sovereign base in Switzerland with their own missile silos, for use against any rogue nation not upholding their values, up to and including the US, is open for debate. Perhaps we are still at the stage of the movement's development that is as powerful and unassailable as the U.S. is to the UN, and places like Commons (Canada) are not independent in the true sense, not when there are so many close ties between it and the U.S. But it is ironically the Wikimedia Movement who are apparently working to rectify that issue, on behalf of the whole world, through appealing to a notion of universal human rights. The proposal therefore is no more threatening to local projects than the establishment of international criminal courts should be to the U.S. If they have nothing to cover up, they have nothing to fear from a genuinely independent and wholly public appeal mechanism, whose scope is necessarily limited to only challenging the most draconian measure any local functionary can implement as an individual, in the name of their local project. The local private channels will still be available for those who think they have a reasonable expectation of their use will not merely compound or even exacerbate the original abuse, hence the suggestion of using qualifying criteria in this proposal to show there is reason to believe that is unlikely, if an appeal mechanism for the general case is rejected. BarryBoggside (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The mention of my supposed connection to "AttackTheMoonNow" is entirely irrelevant, to the point I am now struggling to see why it was mentioned here at all, in that context. I will say though that it is relevant in the sense that my talk page lockout at prevents me from appealing these further charges using local procedures, for reasons of personal data security, but that is as far as I will risk going here in terms of details or accusations on the specifics of my case, on the understanding this proposal is not about me, but the protection of future victims of this sort of tactic of using local lockout powers not as a defensive mechanism, but as an offensive one, a powerful weapon that can and should have a counterbalance, at least in any movement that genuinely believes in transparency and equanimity. BarryBoggside (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on standardizing format of COVID-19 mapsEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Continued discussion on standardizing map format. Sdkb (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Enabling events calendar gadget for allEdit

On the page Events calendar there is an embryo for a Wikimedia wide events calendar, which could be really useful. However, in order to get full functionality, one has to enable two user scripts (see How to use it). I suggest that we add those as a gadget, enabled for all by default. That way everyone can easily interact with no hassle, and those who have no interest have a way to turn it off. Besides getting consensus around this, we'll need an interface administrator to turn it on. Ainali (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Gadgets should only be added as default ON for compelling reasons. I don't see a compelling reason.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The compelling reason is that anyone would be able to both edit and navigate the events calendar which brings this tool up to the usability level of the rest of the wiki. Ainali (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for commentEdit

Hello. I am sorry for my poor English. A few months ago, I mentioned about the event what he/she was bullying me in front of everyone, in Korean Wikipedia 10 around 10 years ago to user Motoko C. K. (formerly 미네랄삽빠) About the event, he/she said, "I do not remember my actions at that time, because it was so old. If there was a personal misunderstanding about my actions, please do not misunderstand me.". #1 It was not an apology to me, and I really tired of his/her attitudes. So, a few weeks ago, I decided to leave all Wikimedia projects, and gave up admin right on Korean Wiktionary, too. #2 And finally, I wrote some Korean sentences about the event on my Meta user page. #3 But user -revi who a steward on Meta removed it without any reasons on Meta policies. When he/she wrote some comments about it at first time, really I was a lot of stress from him/her, so I had a headache, and I could not control myself well all that day. And now he/she told me on edit summary, if I revert it, I will blocked by him/her (without any reasons, too). #4 I feel he/she often try to threaten to block me like this from before ─of course, he/she do not remember─. So, now I really had a stress too much again, and I do not want him/her approaching me. But now I really do not know what to do. What should I do now? Thanks. --Garam talk 09:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

False: I have outlined my rationale at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2020-03#Request to block User:Garam and delete his user page. — regards, Revi 09:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I am happy to leave you alone, provided you do not insert any comment that violates Meta policy. Attacking someone without mentioning the subject — it is still attack. — regards, Revi 09:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I did not ask to you about this. PLEASE do not approach me. --Garam talk 09:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
They you should've avoided pinging me. But I get it —- sure. — regards, Revi 09:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? I wrote your name with ":", because I never want to see your comments here. But what? --Garam talk 09:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that it didn't work. # — regards, Revi 09:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Garam: This is not the forum to discuss your interactions at koWP, they solely belong at koWP. Also, don't start battles by putting controversial edits on your global user page.

If you don't wish to interact with an administrator on a wiki then undertake behaviour that does not cause them to look at your edits, eg. practice civility, and do good editing. Claims of "blocked me for no reason" are typically false, they will always have a reason, you may not like it or agree with the reason, however, there will be a reason. So, my suggestion is to go and do good editing, in line with community expectations, and you should have zero issues. And a piece of advice, don't put controversial comments about your battles at other wikis on your meta user page, as they will be deleted, which has been established as reasonable practice through community discussions about deletions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Already this is not about Ko.WP only. Of course, first point is Ko.WP, but now this is about Meta, too. --Garam talk 16:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is very disappointed that Garam is constantly tying violates Meta policy and constantly adding harassment/ hate speech content in his/her user page while many admins warn about his/her edits, since it is not appropriate to criticize publicly in global user page for interpersonal events. --*Youngjin (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know wikt:ko:가재는 게 편. And "many admins"? Now I think you are high-flown in your speech, known as Korean style. --Garam talk 16:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
We have two Korean speakers, so it is quite likely you will operate in the same areas if here at metawiki. If either of you doesn't like it, then you are both welcome to edit elsewhere. The person of whom you speak is an admin, a steward and a holder of advanced rights, and you simply have to accept that this volunteer has these elevated rights from the community after earning the community's trust. If you follow the practices as I described earlier, then you should not be getting into disputes. Apart from that, it is not our job to teach you how to be an adult and operate in an adult world. So, practice civility, and do good editing, and we should not be having problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I also trusted these 2 Korean speakers before, because I worked on some Wikimedia projects and I saw them during 10 years. But now I am talking about my damages, not teach me how to be adult. You know, now your stance is really not good to this stuation. And I think, you do not know well about what happened 10 years ago and now their stance and attitude about this event. So, you can say easily. --Garam talk 04:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
If there is problem with the certain user within community, you should’ve raise the concen in the local community and not the meta-wiki. I am not speaking this only to you, I always commenting like this if some problem regarding the local community and discussion is going on outside of specific local community. —*Youngjin (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you think "block by a steward" is a problem on local, not about on Meta. Yes, this is not your problem, and now your answer is easiest way to leave the problem. I understand your thinking, so I will not say more to you. --Garam talk 12:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. This conversation is going nowhere. There is no requirement for mediation. You have expressed your opinion, and you have responses.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Time for guidance about meta (global) user pagesEdit

It seems that we are needing to give guidance to the broad community about what a global user page (the root page only) should reflect and could utilise to be a good page. It seems that we also need to state that it should not be hosting provocative/hostile/denigatory statements about people or projects (internal or external), though I would not be wishing to inhibit users to be able to have subpages that align with our scope and can explain civilly their experiences at other places and their learning for dealing with other people through the projects.

There have been numbers of discussions about pages for deletion, on user talk pages, and the like in a number of places, and it seems to me that it is time to codify some guidance. I am uncertain whether it exactly belongs, it could be Help:User page or Global user pages at first guess, or maybe if it is coming something closer to policy, then we need it at Meta:User pages. I am tending to think that we are needing to move to stricter instruction, rather than the general information.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Support the codified rules. — regards, Revi 03:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)