Meta:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Meta
Tags: Reply Source
Tags: Reply Source
Line 33: Line 33:
 
::::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. {{:User:R4356th/Signature}} 14:37, 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. {{:User:R4356th/Signature}} 14:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 
:::::No follow up at all from {{ping|Shaunak Chakraborty}}. Could we proceed with deletion, please? {{:User:R4356th/Signature}} 14:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 
:::::No follow up at all from {{ping|Shaunak Chakraborty}}. Could we proceed with deletion, please? {{:User:R4356th/Signature}} 14:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  +
::::::[[User:R4356th|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. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 14:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
   
 
== Request for crats ==
 
== Request for crats ==

Revision as of 14:40, 21 April 2021

OOjs UI icon pageSettings.svg Administrators' noticeboard
Shortcuts:
Meta:AN,
Meta:ANI
This noticeboard is for anything that requires administrator intervention on Meta only (anything related to global policies, global groups, or in some way involves other Miraheze wikis should be discussed at the Community noticeboard)

On the Meta Administrators' noticeboard, you can request...

If you would like to request...

To add your request, type in a title and click the "Add Topic" button below.

Archives of Administrators' noticeboard [e]   



Resigning My Patroller Right

I used to enjoy helping out with the right but due to excessive drama starting to happen recently, I am hereby resigning my Patroller rights. Maybe someday I may consider requesting this right if the situation gets better. Please remove my right. Thank you. User:R4356th/Signature 16:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sad to see this. Will remove :/--MrJaroslavik (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. User:R4356th/Signature 16:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This feels like a quite impulsive and rash move and that I don't really understand why disagreeing with someone (which is nothing odd) must result in resigning rights. People have their differences, no one will ever agree on everything, I don't quite see why a resignation is necessary. I appreciated your work as a patroller and find it a real shame that you have decide to resign this right over one discussion. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Deleting All Translations By Shaunak Chakraborty

All the translations done by @Shaunak Chakraborty: 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. User:R4356th/Signature 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. User:R4356th/Signature 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 @Shaunak Chakraborty: has to say about these allegations. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reception123: 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. User:R4356th/Signature 08:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@R4356th: 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)
@Shaunak Chakraborty: 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. User:R4356th/Signature 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. User:R4356th/Signature 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—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)[reply]
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. User:R4356th/Signature 14:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
No follow up at all from @Shaunak Chakraborty:. Could we proceed with deletion, please? User:R4356th/Signature 14:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.) User:R4356th/Signature 13:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
DeeM28's choice of raising this request at Meta: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)[reply]
Making this request here is discouraging input from community members in a way. User:R4356th/Signature 14:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so. Meta: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 Meta:Community portal that would be used for local Meta only community discussions, but there would still be considerable overlap with Meta: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
DeeM28, 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. User:R4356th/Signature 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 <x>" 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@DarkMatterMan4500: This is not a vote, this is a discussion. Please clarify why you support this. Thanks. User:R4356th/Signature 13:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
R4356th 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)[reply]

Personal attacks

FtosorciM has come here from Fandom to harass me, creating an inappropriate talk page, and personally attacking me. [1] [2] This needs to stop. Firestar464 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Meta: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)[reply]