Meta:Babel/Archives/2009-09

Strategy

Is there any info on meta regarding the Strategizing wiki that's theoretically going to guide WMF development? - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anything "theoretically going to guide WMF development?" - We had some discussion about issues on its talk page and other places. Certainly, there is some awareness here about Multilingualism (OmegaWiki...) and platform-related things that can link to/from proposal:MediaWiki language and project support. See also Initiatives. --Quinobi 01:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wanted pages

The special page "Wanted pages" has been disabled for over two years now while it is one of the most used special pages. At li.wikt ([1]) it only gives 35 links while there are over 10.000 pages... Some of these links actually do not exist any more. A page like "Ètsbergsj" is linked over 500 times ([2]), but it isn't shown on Wanted pages. Is there any way to re-enable this page? --OosWesThoesBes 06:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You can always ask someone with access to toolserver to provide you with wanted pages on liwiktionary. Just add a request on JIRA Project: Database Queries. Here is the first 2000 results for you. --Meno25 09:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your instructions. I've add a request here. --OosWesThoesBes 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages directly translated from one project to another without attribution

I've been bothered on and off by en:User:Magicknight94 lately concerning articles that I've primarily contributed to on the English Wikipedia. For a while now, I've realized that he's been taking these articles and translating them for use on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. As an example the first instance of a page titled "Samurai Sentai Shinkenger" on the Vietnamese Wikipedia is nearly identical in content to the same article on the English Wikipedia from that time period.

I've asked Magicknight94 to attribute the source articles to the English Wikipedia (without it, to my knowledge, he is violating the GFDL), but my requests and edits at vi.wp have been met with rudeness and reversions. Clearly they know English but I do not know Vietnamese, and the single English comment has been particularly rude (Vinhtantran's comment calls me petty and narrow-minded according to Google Translate) after Magicknight94 complied and added a comment that says some pages come from the English Wikipedia, but this was removed by Vinhtantran and my reversion was undone by Sholokhov.

Before I continue attempting to argue at the Vietnamese Wikipedia, am I right in assuming that if they do not provide the source content it is a violation of the GFDL of the English Wikipedia when the language barrier is producing issues in both directions?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, nothing justifies being rude to you, but I have to tell you that your contributions are not only GPL, but also CC. Additionally, the created articles also link to the original English article (as well as other language version), and explicit reference to the original article from which it might have been translated is not required. Don't forget that both the original and Vietnamese versions of the article might as well change a lot after the translation, rendering null the concept of the article being a translation of the English version.

I would give Vinhtantran the benefit of doubt on that comment, as the google translation read really bad. He is after all an administrator

I'm not sure such a reference to the original article is needed, and you should ask yourself if it doesn't only serve your ego. But anyhow, you should consider leaving the reference on the Talk page in a new section instead of the template itself; they should have a really good reason to remove such a harmless comment from its own section in a talk page.

Be sure to leave a message to Vinhtantran in his talk page before you do so, and link him to this place for a reference. Good luck, MarianoC 08:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

For proper attribution, there should be a permalink to the translated en:article version in the vi:edit summary. A reference on the vi:article page, on the other hand, makes no sense since, as was already said, the two versions may evolve in different ways. Regards, Guido den Broeder 12:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Thekohser blocked

Note: Moved from Talk:Public speakers

I don't know where to post this, so I'm going to put it here. Some people here seem to think Thekohser has been trying to update this list in good faith. Some people seem to think the only reason he's editing this wiki is to be disruptive. I'm not commenting on that. But now the user who created this page has blocked Thekohser indefinitely, started a new discussion here, and said he won't be available for the next 2 days on top of that. WTH? That's not helping anyone. 207.34.229.126 17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I point out here that Guillom has a large conflict of interest in the matter which should prohibit him from making indefinite blocks without consensus against such a user. I think this is highly disrespectful and gives Wikimedia a very bad name. I am concerned about Stewards going about and acting in this manner, as it is an abuse of trust. Ottava Rima 18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong here, Guillom did his job as administrator and if you don't like the result you should make a unblock request, trying to make Guillom look bad in front of the complete community isn't the way to go.

Now lets move on, nothing to see here.

Huib talk 18:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abigor and disagree with Ottava's wildly hyperbolic charge. --David Shankbone 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The idea that because Guillom started the page he cannot take reasonable administrative action is ridiculous. If the action was reasonable then there's no problem. If it wasn't, then show that the action itself is not in fact reasonable. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that someone who heavily edits a page has the ability to be objective enough to determine if a user of their page happens to be in the best judgment or not? And are you further trying to suggest that an admin can indef a user without any sort of discussion on the matter, especially when other admin made it clear that the user was not doing anything blockable? That is ridiculous. I can't believe you three. Ottava Rima 18:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole point is that if the action was appropriate then it doesn't matter who actually did it. You never showed that the action itself was wrong - if it isn't wrong, why should anyone get upset?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Image and propriety. We should hold ourselves to an appropriate standard of decorum that doesn't simply cut corners and ignore ethics in order to get the job done. I still feel that a lack of discussion first is highly inappropriate. At least now there is an objective person making the -bold- move. Now we can have an honest discussion. Ottava Rima 18:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

@Mike: you have in the past argued with me about actions I and others have taken, suggesting that they had a CoI, or an appearance of a potential CoI, and have stated quite strongly that such should be avoided, even if the appearance is marginal. I'm surprised to see you take the other side of that argument here. That said, I don't think G had a CoI large enough to prevent his taking appropriate administrative actions. So I have no issue with the block from that aspect. However, as I say below, I am not sure I support the grounds for the block and I believe that G erred. It was a good faith action, unlike GerardM editwarring through protection... (that's absolutely unacceptable and if I ever see it again from GerardM he will be blocked for it) but it is one I think was not correct. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - solved removed the block. Huib talk 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - new block place by a non involved admin. Huib talk 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now can we actually discuss the block? Ottava Rima 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Should The Kohser be indef blocked?

For discussion. It seems that there are at least five people who support an indef (three above, guilliom, and Gerard). There are also a few admin who did not think he deserved one by not going ahead and indef blocking him. So, lets discuss the matter. Ottava Rima 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thekohser is a strong critic of WMF and of certain practices at certain projects. He's also a two time board candidate, and a contributor to Meta. The actions he took at the page Public Speaking were hardly uniformly bad in my view... he did work to freshen the page, which is goodness. Removing people was perhaps unwarranted, but there was an apparent (lack of any discussion based...) consensus to do so. Not a very good one, I wouldn't have proceeded on that basis. That he put his name in as a speaker is completely valid in my view, given the criteria at the page for inclusion at the time (i.e. none). GerardM's edit warring over that and subsequent personal attacks were not helpful. Far from it, in fact they tended to escalate the tensions. In short I don't think that it's valid to say Thekohser does nothing but troll. Far from it. If he were to undertake to keep his snarkiness in check going forward I would support an unblock. We should not be trying to silence critics, merely ensure they participate in appropriate ways. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• If any block is warranted, then for GerardM. Really this is not so hard. People should not be indef blocked when they act in good faith, only because you don't like their opinions, just like they should not be removed as a speaker for that reason. Guido den Broeder 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course people who severely dislike Wikimedia, its goals and its community should not be prevented from speaking on behalf of Wikimedia, its goals and its community. Who would ever think such a dumb thing?! --David Shankbone 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The page, at the time of all of these events unfolding, made no representation about who could or couldn't speak or what they were, or weren't representing. That's the important point. A minor point, though... when you say "severely dislike... etc.", who exactly are you talking about? ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• An indef block is way overblown and inappropriate. Majorly talk 22:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think a 24 hour block for edit warring was appropriate. A further 24 hour block for taking Jimbo's name off the list for point -if necessary-. Beyond that, standard 24 hour blocks or a progression in small increments would be more than enough to stop any games. An indef block at the drop of a hate is a bad standard. Ottava Rima 22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not even sure I totally agree the original block was warranted, actually, and the removal of Angela and Jimbo happened before the original block was given, IIRC, so I'm not sure I agree with a further block for that either. As Majorly says, an indef block is way overblown and inappropriate. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why we'd be blocking anyone as punishment for removing Jimbo's name (or anything else, for that matter) since blocks are about prevention, not punishment.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Which is why I emphasized "if necessary". Ottava Rima 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Point of edification: Thekohser is unblocked, by Mike.lifeguard. -- Thekohser 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)