Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

Request for Deleting All Translations By Shaunak Chakraborty
All the translations done by are filled with issues. They have many formatting issues and I suspect those are instances of unedited machine translation. Considering they have made 628 edits in the Translations namespace, I think a Phabricator task should be created requesting this instead of trying to do this monotonous work by hand. Thank you. 11:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Bump. If nobody objects within the next 48 hours, I am going to proceed with this and request deletion on Phabricator. 06:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's a good idea to simply declare all of someone's translations as problematic and order a complete purge. I think the user should at least be given a chance to defend themselves first, and 48 hours would not be enough. So I propose we wait and see what has to say about these allegations. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be about 72 hours since this request has been created. As you can see, I have taken care to ping the user in question above. But if you still want, I am okay with waiting till 14th April. 08:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't you feel that deleting someone's work is simply insulting the user's hardwork. If you feel that the translations are not correct then mention the pages which needs correction. I will rectify each an every page which you will mention. Shaunak Chakraborty (talk)
 * Hi, thank you for your reply. First of all, this request is not meant to insult anyone and I appreciate everyone's translation work. It is just unedited machine translation that I hate. Now, there are a lot of issues in your translations and I think you would be better off starting from the beginning. Nevertheless, I have made an incomplete list of such pages here. Please expect the list to be expanded later. Thank you. 10:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, please consider adding a timestamp to your signature. Signatures without timestamps will cause errors after we upgrade to MW 1.36. 10:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reception123 here. I'm quite uncomfortable with a Phabricator task merely to delete all translations on the basis of being suspected machine translations, particularly with the user in question never having been guided as to our approach to translations. Machine translations, while somewhat problematic for native speakers, are not terrible, and can nonetheless be improved upon. We also don't know whether all or some of them were unedited machine translations, too. So, while I'm not opposed to deleting some poor quality translations, I would rather identify a list of pages, post them here (or in a subsequent thread on here), and delete them in the normal course and method&mdash;that is to say, by marking the pages for deletion and having FuzzyBot process the applicable deletions. Dmehus (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my usage of the word "suspected" was not strong enough/did not provide enough context. If you check the list of pages I have created, it will be clear to you why I have said that. "particularly with the user in question never having been guided as to our approach to translations" Hmm? Have you checked their talk page? I left a message months ago. 14:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No follow up at all from . Could we proceed with deletion, please? 14:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th I'm not willing to consider a Phabricator mass deletion as you originally proposed, but if there are specific pages you can list which are either (a) not translations, (b) barely started translations (i.e., less than 30% completed), or which otherwise have issues, please list them here, and we can consider deletion on a case-by-case basis. Dmehus (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? I thought I made it clear that almost all if not all translations have issues. It would be a waste of our time if we wanted to "consider deletion on a case-by-case basis". 14:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th Well, for one thing, case by case basis doesn't mean one page at a time. You can still list multiple pages in this thread, but I want to see clear and specific issues necessitating deletion. Machine translations on their own are not prohibited, provided they've been done in good-faith, and there's no indication Shaunak Chakraborty's translations were not done in good-faith. They can be improved upon by other native Hindi speakers. Dmehus (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shaunak Chakraborty did reply above previously, so I'm inclined to at least give them another chance to further respond to you (perhaps link specific pages) rather than proceeding to a full purging of all their work. They might have issues but I would still feel uncomfortable with dismissing another translator's work without hearing more from them first. I also find it quite problematic that it is said to be a "suspicion" and not certainty regarding the translations being machine translations. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the fact that using machine translation is not prohibited. I myself use it. My concern is that Shaunak Chakraborty's translations are unedited and have a lot of issues anyone can notice even without knowledge of Hindi. One of the first things you see when you visit a new website should never be messy translation. Trust me, that is a very unpleasant experience.
 * "@Shaunak Chakraborty did reply above previously, so I'm inclined to at least give them another chance to further respond to you (perhaps link specific pages)" Hmm? I linked an incomplete list of pages above. "I also find it quite problematic that it is said to be a "suspicion" and not certainty regarding the translations being machine translations." Something I said above- Perhaps my usage of the word "suspected" was not strong enough/did not provide enough context. If you check the list of pages I have created, it will be clear to you why I have said that. 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh! I am extremely sorry I will look into this as soon as possible. Actually, for 2 weeks, I'm working with COVID relief teams management, organizations and extremely busy in that which is, of course, my first priority, please excuse me for some time. Shaunak Chakraborty (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for responding. 20:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for crats
Dear Bureaucrats,

Can we get extended deadline of this request to prevent premature closure as some comments raised needs to be addressed before the closing?

Thank you,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no fixed deadline for such requests. While there is a minimum period of 7 days for a request to stay open, there is no maximum period so it is at the discretion of a bureaucrat to close it, which will not be done if there is still activity. Having participated in the vote, I will in any case not be handling it myself, of course. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's no fixed deadline, but it's been 14 days since it opened, someone might want to close it. I wanted to express that I would not agree with that.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Policy for the functioning of Meta
It is my belief as stated here that it will be beneficial to this project (Meta) to have a policy detailing current "conventions" and practices that are unwritten but are deemed to be policies of this wiki. The arguments in favour of such a proposal may be read by reading my comment that I link above but the main idea is that it would make things more clear and reduces disputes and it would also be a good thing for new users to be able to understand how Meta functions. I do not want to draft a proposed policy yet because I would first like to have some opinions about the idea. DeeM28 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * DeeM28 This is indeed on my todo list, but I wouldn't describe this as a policy page documenting the non-codified conventions and practices, but rather a documentation or guideline page that describes them. I would begin the draft and others who've been here before me would edit and add to the draft, removing or modifying any items that are not considered to be widespread, non-codified conventions but rather customs. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin but am going to boldly reply anyway. (I do not understand why this has been made here instead of CN.) So, first of all, we kind of fallback to Wikipedia policies whenever there is no local policy as those are widely recognised in the so-called "wiki universe". Now, to respond to your concern regarding disputes arising from confusion related to these conventions, people must have common sense. Everyone needs to be able to judge if doing something is right before following conventions taking the circumstances into consideration. In the same way, people should also not be saying stuff like "there is no policy on x so I am allowed to do y" (which is related to the background of this request). Besides, no matter how many pages policies are made, there will always be confusion. I am opposing this as a Mirahezian. (Sorry for the messy wording.)  13:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28's choice of raising this request at Administrators' noticeboard, I believe, is the correct venue, as they're proposing to discuss a policy, guideline, or some sort of documentation on non-codified conventions and customs on Meta Wiki, not something which would be pan-Miraheze where community noticeboard would be more appropriate. Dmehus (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Making this request here is discouraging input from community members in a way. 14:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so. Administrators' noticeboard is watched by 167 page watchers, ~60 of which of viewed recent edits. Reception123 and I did discuss the prospect of a separate Community portal that would be used for local Meta only community discussions, but there would still be considerable overlap with Administrators' noticeboard. Secondarily, as that was the historical community noticeboard, we'd have to merge the historical discussions, presumably to Community noticeboard/Archive 1, before repurposing it as a local Meta community discussion board. Dmehus (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To address the Community Noticeboard vs. Administrators Noticeboard the rationale is that while Meta is the central wiki for all Miraheze wikis it also has its own community and its own policies that only apply to Meta. Therefore I do not think that Meta-specific affairs should be discussed on Community Noticeboard which is for global Miraheze problems and discussions. If people are interested in Meta affairs and discussions I think it can be expected that they check this page. I do agree however that instead of "Administrators Noticeboard" there should be a noticeboard dedicated to Meta affairs like the Community portal Dmehus suggests.
 * Regarding the actual issue I do invite you to read my reply on Meta:Requests for permissions where I dispute the "common sense" principle, as it is relative and while one user may believe that what they are doing is "common sense" another user might disagree. What is the disadvantage of having a guideline page? (compared to the advantages I cite). A guideline or policy page cannot be perfect and will undoubtedly not cover everything but it can cover some ground and be useful to avoid confusion and for newcomers. Also, if I am not mistaken I remember a user complaining about the citation of Wikipedia policies and I do think that we do need our own identity and cannot solely rely on policies from Wikipedia which may or may not fit our purpose. DeeM28 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to what DeeM28 said above, in which I do think a guideline page would be helpful (and anyone could contribute to it and discuss revisions on the companion talk page), I would also add that I think there is a need, generally, for less rigidity and insistance on a certain way of editing. For example, it's a bit of curious irony that some users have lamented my citing English Wikipedia guidelines where no such guideline or policy exists as they, rightly, do suggest Miraheze is a completely separate global community from the Wikimedia community yet they cite English Wikipedia or other wiki editing patterns as the reason for why certain less conventional editing should not be done. I don't agree with everyone's edits, or even other administrators' deletions, but I very much value flexibility over rigidity and do appreciate cultural, stylistic, linguistic, grammatical, and other differences. Dmehus (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that it's probably not a bad thing to some guidelines for Meta (that would be discussed and agreed on) as it would make things more clear and not have people cite Wikipedia policies. While I don't necessarily think that it would change their behavior, it could be useful to have a guideline page that we could point users who struggle with our practices (commonly referred to as CIRs) to. Meta has very few policies and guidelines so I think it could be useful to work on some, and even something like a "Newcomer's guide" or something that could help someone new understand how Meta works. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I do not really get why you think I replied here without reading your comment on the linked RfP. I disagree with what has been said there. 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There really is not problem with lack of policies. There is problem with users that uses "there is not policy for " or linking unrelated Wikipedia policies as excuses to everything. Here will not be policy to everything, but if someone want prepare some, i would support it.
 * Also, i am unaware there was such revocation request based on user behavior before. That also shows something. With this behavior, on WMF (Wikipedia) he would have his permissions revoked already, maybe would be banned... --MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, let's be real here: I think a lot of us will benefit from the written guidelines much better and easier than ever before. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, this is a discussion. Please clarify why you support this. Thanks. 13:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware that this isn't a vote, but the reason why I'm supporting this is simply because the rules should be not only more clear, but more subtle in order to rule out any possible clouding, and make this community even better than it is (or was) now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose to try to create a draft guidelines page with things that I have observed here and after this people can make edits to it and comment expressing approval or disapproval of this guideline page. Does this proposal sound reasonable? DeeM28 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks
has come here from Fandom to harass me, creating an inappropriate talk page, and personally attacking me. This needs to stop. Firestar464 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Firestar464 While I do agree that FtosorciM's personal drama-type comments on your user talk page and in unrelated venues needs to stop, this is a bit old, as the user was already advised at their user talk page to drop it, which they did here and here, so this very act of raising this issue at Administrators' noticeboard feels like rehashing an already dealt with issue. Therefore, I'd strongly advise both of you not to interact with each other going forward. (FtosorciM, please do not reply to this thread, as that will only keep the issue continuing.) Dmehus (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for autopatrolled right
Because I used to have it before I got locked, and I know the scope of Meta and help out. InspecterAbdel (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * InspecterAbdel Though you've had a few missed signatures and did start this good-faith though premature proposal, you do understand Meta's purpose and scope well and generally understand talk page guidelines, so this is ✅, with those points for you to keep in mind. Dmehus (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! InspecterAbdel (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit Access for Autopatrolled Users in Board Pages
I have hit abuse filter 34 a few times trying to make minor changes to Board pages. I think autopatrolled users should be allowed to edit those pages. Could that be done, please? Thank you. 17:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's been explicitly requested by the board that only the board that these pages are protected to prevent access. Autopatrolled is way too wide of a group for me so ❌. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can just make an edit request on the companion talk page or Administrators' noticeboard. Dmehus (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Only trusted users have autopatrolled. :-( I should not have to make a edit request here everytime I want to make small changes like adding relevant categories to Board pages. 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do agree it's kind of a pain, though it doesn't have to be a system administrator Meta administrator who can make these non-controversial minor edits; any administrator or even Owen, as he is exempt from the applicable abuse filter, can process these edit requests. I do try and monitor the abuse logs for good-faith edit requests, and would've done it as soon as I'd seen it. Anyway, I've ✅ this, and also added Category:Board to the previous month's board meeting minutes for consistency. Dmehus (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that's it's annoying to not be able to edit these pages, but they do contain important information and while autopatrolled users are in theory trustworthy it's not really hard to get the right in the end, and it could fairly easily be acquired by a user with malicious intentions. I would remind that global policies (i.e. Content Policy) are also protected at an administrator level. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)