Meta:Babel/Archives/2020-01

Pedophiles and Holocaust denialists

The following discussion is closed: Global bans is the policy and it is not subject limited.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I ask for a resolution that grooming pedophiles and Holocaust denialists receive a lifetime Foundation Ban. In case you wonder, WMF will be the jury, judge and executioner, such bans are not supposed to be voted for or against at meta. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Not certain that this is particularly pertinent to this page for a resolution as you desire. Suggest that you discuss with WMF's Trust and Safety team.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That and I am pretty certain the former is already custom and practice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This issue doesn't particularly pertain to meta alone, can we discuss in Wikimedia Forum for wider reach and relevance? And yes, discussion with T&S / WMF will be better for these types of issues, maybe a RFC if needed. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I saw that for pedophiles there is a reporting e-mail at WMF. So, that's already covered and does not need an extra RFC. About Holocaust denialists, I have written to the WMF legal department and I'm waiting for their answer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The definition of holocaust denier is a contested one, and unless such a user is globally disruptive about this topic I don't think there is a reason anyone other than local admins should be uandling it. Vermont (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment This is a subset of talking about global bans, and your area of disgust is not excluded from that criteria of where the community can take action.  Closed the discussion as it is not singularly pertinent to Metawiki/Meta: namespace.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Allow sysops to grant patroller without request on RFH?

• I am seeing a trend on meta that sysops granting +patrol to users without user requests, like Krd to Geni, Tulsi Bhagat to ~riley as well as ~riley to several users. I had a conversation here with ~riley about this. I recalled the RFC that was held have something like the user should request on RFH, which is also being reflected on Meta:Patroller. Basic points against unilaterally granting was that it may be hard to hold a person accountable if it was granted w/o their request as well as forcing on a user.
• For projects like commons, and elsewhere, sysops can grant patroller w/o formal request. Patroller isn't a great deal, and it is in fact one of the least dangerous right here. So shall we allow sysop discretion to grant this right (and I will then propose to add one line to the meta patroller page something along the lines of commons which rights can be asked per formal request or admin discretion).
• This issue isn't that important but just an administrative issue to sort out. If by right sysops can grant patroller without formal request and I just read that RFC wrongly, do TROUT me and I will willingly accept it. Sorry if I seem to overstep and Best Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we speak about autopatroller, not patroller. I also don't see how the mentioned RFC addresses that. If I'm mistaken anywhere, please advise. --Krd 18:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Krd:According to this you granted patroller? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That was a mistake. Sorry! Granting patroller without request IMO is not a good idea as it changes the look of the interface and can be surprising to the user. Autopatroller has no possible negative impact. --Krd 18:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I see. Will let more opine, thanks for your views. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Krd: When you say it was a mistake, do you mean you intended to grant autopatroller or patroller was intended, but a request should have been made? Just wondering if a right should be adjusted to correct. ~riley (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

My intention was to assign autopatrol, but now as it is granted as patroller, I think it is least disruptive to keep it so and not change it again. In any case more care shall be taken in future so that such mistake does not happen again. --Krd 19:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for opening this up for discussion. You have not read the RfC wrong, or Meta:Patrollers wrong. Your trouting of me was applicable and your conversation clarified the precendence that I interpreted when I was assigned patroller. ~riley (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment To special:userrights view for admins/crats (via MediaWiki:Userrights-summary), I have added the text "Noting that patroller requires community request at Meta:RfH" as a little guidance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Great idea, this is a helpful resource! ~riley (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• While we are on this topic, should MassMessage senders not also require community request? MassMessage senders, unlike patrollers, are a big deal and has implications if misused. ~riley (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @~riley: In my view, MMS surely requires a request at RFH, yeah, I agree it's a big deal as it can be use to send MMS to every wiki, just like GR vs local rollback, MMS vs local MMS. Something aside, your Meta guide (although is in a draft now) is quite useful, thanks for the effort in writting the guide. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Good stalking, lol! Work in progress, but will be moved out of userspace and into mainspace once complete. I know Vermont plans to spend some time on it, feel free to add to it as well. ~riley (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Lol. I am just doing RC Patrol. Thanks for the invitation to add on. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Automatically display translated home page

Hi! I’ve requested admins to introduce an automatic translation of home page. Your reviews and your feedbacks are welcomed, in order to establish a really consensual wish. —Pols12 (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Admin handbook

Howdy all,

I have made a short info page on being an admin on Meta as it is a different approach than one would take on enwiki and commons. I have proposed that it become a guideline as it has been well received so far. Discussion is happening on it's talk page for feedback. ~riley (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I like it, but it should be moved into the project namespace if it is Meta-specific. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it is meta-specific, I think I will BOLDly move it into meta namespace.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that meta namespace is appropriate, but the move was pre-mature considering the name is actively up for discussion on it's talk page.. Was waiting to move once, not move twice. ~riley (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. Feel free to revert if needed. Sorry ~riley.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That would involve another move silly :P. All good, just wasn't acting on Ajr's advice until there was more consensus on the name to avoid multiple moves. ~riley (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Noted, and sorry for the mess caused. Wasn't a good start of the day for me, my brain wasn't thinking straight. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 fresh look at NOPROXIES and its relevance/misuse with VPNs

Talk:No_open_proxies#Welcome_to_2020 - new thread of discussion FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Movement Learning and Leadership Development Project

Hello

The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.

To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!

-- LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Start a #wikimedia-meta channel for meta discussion and request for meta sysop help (with @admin ping)

Per title. Proposed.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Support This should have been done a long time ago! --Novak Watchmen (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but I see no need for it. Although Meta is a single project, it has global effects. Most of the vandals here are LTAs. Having a unified channel makes us more closer to Stewards. I would not expect every Stewards watch the meta channel. A meta channel used to exist but they it was closed I heard. I would like to hear the reasons why it was closed I the first place. I am happy to change my vote if you clarify the reason why it should be reopened. About the bot command, I think we can create one like "!admin@meta" and use it on #wikimedia-stewards. It will ping the meta admins if posted on the channel. Masum Reza^📞 19:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support. #wikimedia-stewards is full of offtopic chattering that makes us, stewards, unable to properly keep track of what's going on sometimes. Meta discussion should happen elsewhere, and reopening #wikimedia-meta would allow us to direct general Meta-Wiki or other chattering to there. This also sends the wrong message that Meta = Stewards Wiki, which is not. #wikimedia is too broad and generic to serve this purpose. Other Wikimedia projects such as Wikimedia Commons have their own IRC channels. I don't see why we should be different. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support make sense, now we can separate convos from steward channel, even if it has global effects.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 09:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support requesting the group contacts to stop forwarding #wikimedia-meta to #wikimedia per MarcoAurelio. There is a clear need for a channel where Meta specific discussion can happen without interferring with steward business. It is not the responsbility of the stewards to watch the -meta channel as it's MetaWiki, not StewWiki. ~riley (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as talked on IRC (and as said above). It would be something similar to #wikimedia-gs. —Sgd. Hasley 12:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Strong support per Novak Watchmen. Oftentimes users do not know where is appropriate place for Meta-Wiki discussions. -- Несмир Кудилович (разговор) 15:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Minorax (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --BRP ^ever 22:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not something that necessitates (or even benefits from) onwiki discussion, and consensus reached here has no bearing whatsoever on what happens. That said, I'm requesting the GC's reopen the channel. Vermont (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

GCs have declined Vermont's request, however, they have offered to op wikimedia admins instead in #wikimedia. We have also setup wm-bot in there for recent changes reporting. ~riley (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Approving WM:URB

Hello. We've been applying and enforcing Meta:Urbanity for many years already (civility standards have been enforced even before something had to be written). Can't we just formally approve and tag the page as policy? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I will suggest just renaming it as civility. Urbanity is hard to understand, and not all here are native in English. Otherwise obvious support.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with this. While the term urbanity is technically correct, people that struggle with civility often seem tempted to mock the name, so we should rename it to "behavioural expectations" or something similar. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on this list, the most common is civility. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Support --Rschen7754 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Esteban16 (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Minorax (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support. —Sgd. Hasley 16:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Page tagged as a proposed policy pending consensus and included a link to this discussion for those who watch the page but not Babel. @Rschen7754, Esteban16, Novak Watchmen, Minorax, and MarcoAurelio: As this is now also a discussion for renaming, do you support remaining to Meta:Civility per above? ~riley (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not really against Meta:Civility or Meta:No personal attacks. Personally I'd keep urbanity as the term is accurate; but I'm not going to fight over the naming as I think it is not important. I suggest that the WM:URB text be approved if there's consensus to do so in the next few days and let the discussion about the rename continue should people want to rename the page. It's the contents that matter. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I’d generally prefer Meta:Civility since the word is more common but I’m fine with Meta:Urbanity & Meta:NPA. Redirects can always be create, right? Minorax (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

For me I agree with MarcoAurelio where the content is more important. My renaming proposal is just an afterthought kind. I am fine with letting it be a policy first then settle renaming on talk page. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree that the priority is determining consensus for making this a policy, however, I thought we might be able to kill two birds with one stone. I concur with Marco's above course of action re: renaming. On an unrelated note, I have marked this page for translation. ~riley (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed syntax issues :). Please mark for translation. cc ~riley. —Sgd. Hasley 18:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Matiia (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This is why I shouldn't add translation tags by memory... Thanks Hasley! ~riley (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support. No position on the naming, either is fine. --Yair rand (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support and I'm in favor of moving/renaming it to Meta:Civility. Vermont (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --BRP ^ever 04:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support name can be anything. --Sotiale (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support There is no excuse for being disrespectful to persons, only ideas (and even then, show some tact). Let's encourage positive dialogue here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment 2015 is postmodern, I didn't even know this. Not using enwiki terminology can make sense, cf. COM:MELLOW. –84.46.52.96 06:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Approved - There is consensus at this point in time, as clearly illustrated above, to formally approve and tag Meta:Urbanity as a policy. Discussion should continue in regards to the possible renaming of Urbanity. ~riley (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Renaming Proposal

Just in order to make it clearer and less cluttered from the above. I hereby propose the Meta:Urbanity be renamed as Meta:Civility.

•  Support as proposer. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support. —Sgd. Hasley 13:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support I would never have guessed that something about cities, i.e. urbanity, could as well mean civility. It's a very uncommon word, and in such surrounding, where english is just one of many languages, such special terms should be avoided. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support As I said above, the word can be confusing, and a source of jokes for civility-challenged individuals. This policy should be as accessible and clear as possible, and moving it to a more commonly understood name helps with that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support I actually like urbanity better, I think it has a stronger denotation of purposeful politeness as opposed to avoidance of rudeness - however I don't think this phrase is nearly as common or translates as well and could be confusing. In practice, we don't really require purposeful politeness, as being matter-of-fact while avoiding incivility is accepted. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Minorax (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support logical —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Per Xaosflux. It is an ambiguous name that could be misunderstood by non-native English speakers. Esteban16 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Done Enough prior and current consensus to go forward with the rename. I just did it. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

New main page that is readable on mobile

Hi. I created a new version of the main page using TemplateStyles: Main Page/sandbox + Template:Main Page/styles.css. It should be super close to what it is right now. Until you make your screen narrow, then it reorders and makes the thing readable if you are using a mobile device. It still needs some work on the "sister/other projects"-section, but that's a separate template and can easily be improved later on. Please let me know what you think. I'd personally would love to be able to visit meta.wikimedia and NOT be annoyed by the unreadable main page. :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This is, in my opinion, great. To see the main page properly on mobile phones, we have to switch to desktop view, which is somehow annoying (at least for me). I  Support this change strongly; thank you for working on it. Ahmad^talk 16:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• @TheDJ: Can you link diffs to the exact code that is changing to make this happen? The previous is helpful, of course, but many of us are lazy and you might get more discussion if you clearly laid out what changed from the one version to the next. Personally, I don't believe in launching something that is not 100% complete - what is needed to get the sister/other projects section done? ~riley (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @~riley: diff. The sister projects work, they are just inside a scrollable area on narrow screens. Its not worse, but not ideal either. But generally it's better to tackle one problem at a time. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the side by side, forgot about ComparePages. Thanks for clarifying about the "sister/other projects"-section. ~riley (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @~riley: The sister projects have been adapted as well now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Perfect, noted in phab ticket. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Support By the way, is it possible to display the page in user language by default, moving the sandbox in a subpage and transcluding that subpage appropriate translation (using {{int:lang}})? —Pols12 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pols12: hmm, I haven't looked into that. I guess it is possible to make it like that, but I haven't done something like that in while. I'll have to experiment and see what is possible. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Done I have implemented this change as a week has passed without opposition. Modifying the main page to be mobile compatible is a standard of usability that is expected on Wikimedia projects. Leaving discussion open to discuss further improvements, particularly around translation (as outlined above). ~riley (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

awesome! I will make a siterequest in phabricator to disable the special exception set in place for the mobile mainpage for this wiki, so that finally all sections of the page will show there. If there is any problem, ping me —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic; please link the ticket here once down. I assume the special exception is MFSpecialCaseMainPage. ~riley (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ticket filed as phab:T244577 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• I guess Meta:Requests for comment/Mobile web version of the Meta main page is also related. Ahmad^talk 19:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure why they thought an RfC was necessary, considering a mobile webpage is a standard of usability across WM projects. Either way, glad to have more support. ~riley (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm gonna repeat what I say on RFC "Though this RFC is unneeded per Accessibility, we should just do it."--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 19:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Closing this discussion as a patch has been uploaded and we are just waiting for it to be deployed. Thanks again, @TheDJ:. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)