Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

Archives:
 * Archive 1 (9 August 2015 - 21 December 2015)
 * Archive 2 (21 December 2015 - 13 December 2016)

International Office
International Office (talk) may need a username block as a username that implies shared use or some position of authority. Not completely sure about this one though - I have no idea if "International Office" is itself an organization, or if they're attempting to represent or imply some authority over something else with the term "office", or whether this is a complete false positive. Amanda Catherine (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have completely no idea. Since we do not have a username policy, I do not care about these usernames. Fung ster (contribs - email - CA) 05:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

리브레 위키 대피소 libre.miraheze.org was vandalized by User:리브레위키대피소혁명
Please undo all his vandalism --Dongyomania (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, although similar requests should be on the Stewards' noticeboard. -- Void  Whispers 04:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Translator rights
Please, may you give me translator rights? I want to translate pages to British English. Fung ster (contribs - email - CA) 09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting question, as I'm not even sure in which type of English we've written so far. I'd like someone else's opinion on this. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 14:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m curious if the difference in reality. Besides 2 staff members, I think we all learnt and use British English - personal preference but I believe our default is Queens English. John (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was some little difference of vocabulary between U.S. English and U.K. English. U.S. English may considering as traditional type of vocabulary, and U.K. English is modern kind of vocabulary. Example like the words "colour" (in traditional English as "color"), "neighbour" (in traditional English as "neighbor"), "centre" (in traditional English as "center"), "biscuit" (in traditional English may refer as "cookie" or "cracker"), "holiday" (in traditional English as "vacation"), date format like "16 February 1987" (in traditional English as "February 16, 1987"), and so on. Here are worldwide hosting server, most of us and the MediaWiki software interface are using the vocabulary type of modern English (U.K. English), except for some certain interface are using the vocabulary type of U.S. English, translating the additional kind of vocabulary English maybe a little bit of enhance the unwanted space. You are already a Autoconfirmed users, you have the "Edit using the translate interface (translate)" privilege is that thought? SA 13 Br</b>o</b> (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is odd to call my American dialect "traditional" and the British stuff "modern." The English did invent English; only later did we get it.  I have not noticed British usage on Meta.  In my international collaborations, the rules are: (1) Use the appropriate dialect, if there is one (such as an article on the Queen), but (2) Don't distract the reader by going back and forth between dialects; edit the page to support the style it uses.   03:54 13-Jun-2019
 * I think the rules that Spike proposes make sense. I don't see a need for translating into "British English" or "American English" since the differences are minor and unnoticeable. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 17:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ...And I'm the oddball who uses Canadian English :). TBH though there's very little, if any difference between Canadian English and U.S. English - maybe some small spelling differences or grammar preferences, but (outside of Quebec) that's about it. I agree that there is no need to split languages into the different varieties of English. Amanda Catherine (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think our default is American English, because we have translating options for en-gb (British English) and en-ca (Canadian English), but not en-us. Considering that around 300 million English speakers are from the US, otherwise we should've had the option.  You don't need to have the translator rights as you are already autoconfirmed. The translator permission is mainly for those who want to translate our content but has no permissions (yet). Generally speaking, I agree with the point that we don't need to translate into en-gb or en-ca (because the differences are usually minor enough to be ignored, and personally speaking, I feel British English today is getting closer and closer to American English in many cases). The similar thing applies to the set of variations we have in Chinese; I think all the set of translations should be merged into zh (and Portuguese (pt vs pt-br), Spanish (es vs es-formal vs es-419), German (de vs de-at vs de-ch vs de-formal), etc as well).-- 01:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pioneer generally speaking which had make the point on that, thought it should proposal to delete away the redundant of Chinese translation pages. Even the main Chinese translation pages are used the traditional characters, it has the variant preference to select the characters as simplified Chinese for readers, given the redundant of translation pages are going to enhance the unwanted space. S</b>A</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

greenleft.miraheze.org has disappeared can I get it back?
the entire content and page has disappeared, can I get it back?
 * It was marked as deleted due to inactivity, but luckily the data wasn't completely deleted yet. Now I've undeleted the wiki, and it should be available. If you wish to keep your wiki, try to be active or consider applying for the Dormancy Policy exemption.-- 12:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to have inactivity clause for Meta admins
I know I am a new user here, and I do not really get the functioning of Miraheze and Meta yet but I have been looking around at the current policies. What I find does not make sense is that the wiki creators can be removed if they don't have any actions in 3 months, but there is no inactivity clause for administrators. In my opinion admins are people who have to be active to enforce the policies and rules of Meta and there is no point in having an administrator if he or she is inactive. That's why I am proposing that a clause is added to the administrator policy that states Administrators who have not contributed to the community in any form for at least six months, may have their rights removed by a bureaucrat. The contribution may not be a single edit or a simply a few edits made to circumvent this clause. I hope this is the right place to make this proposal as I don't know since I am kind of new here. --DeeM28 (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  As the proposer of the added condition my reasoning is listed in my statement that is above. --DeeM28 (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  For this community, i believe that it should be steward/‘crat’s discretion if an desysop should occur for inactivity. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  You are "kind of new here."  Recommend achievement before legislation.  Recommend no legislation at all in the absence of a problem.  The trust placed in Admins, and changes in real-world schedules, should not be ruled by an arbitrary measure of activity.   22:03 16-Jun-2019
 * 3)  Per the comment I made below.-- 03:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
Since you are users who are active in discussions here This is an invitation (so don't feel obliged) but I would like to invite you to comment here. Thank you. --DeeM28 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a minor comment noting we actually have no policy for Administrators or Bureaucrats on Meta. Therefore the focus should be on the roles of both as well as including things like usage, appointment, removals etc. and with the lack of a policy, discretion for removing sysops lies with a bureaucrat, so I could theoretically remove a user right now if they're inactive. John (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I accolade your clause opinion, but Miraheze Meta-Wiki are not WMF Meta-Wiki, so we have no any policy for those inactive admins. Admins on Meta primarily focus duties are keep locally clean from vandals and spammers, and here is not much vandals or spammers activity than WMF Meta-Wiki. Hence, theoretically are discretion by John. S</b>A</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, but as SA 13 Bro already pointed out, there aren't a lot of vandalism to deal with here on meta. This means that some admins may not have chances to use their advanced permissions. Thus, I don't think we need an inactivity clause (yet).-- 03:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Per John's comment, I will be making a local RfC to have an actual policy for appointment and removal of administrators here on Meta, since now, as he says everything is bureaucrat discretion. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 04:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can now comment here, where the initial proposal made here has been included. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 05:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)