Meta:Babel/Archives/2010-03

Global sysops opt-in

Hey all. Meta-wiki has too many administrators to automatically opt-in to the global sysops wikiset. However, as vandals often come to Meta after they are blocked on local projects, it would probably be a good idea to grant global sysops administrator access at Meta for anti-vandalism purposes. Thoughts on the idea? NW (Talk) 20:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, personally. Cbrown1023 talk 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

While I prefer global sysops to have local local sysop status here, I wouldn't mind opting-in to the wikiset. --Erwin 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Support opting-in per original poster. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Erwin, I'd prefer them to have local sysop status here, but opting-in would be good, as they might notice cross-wiki things which would be better to stop with local sysop status here (external link spamming -> spam blacklist?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 09:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - because meta hosts page which its edits affects in a global scale, including those who have opted-out or does not meet the requirements for automatical opt-in. This is similar to the global blocks tools, which was removed from the pack. I'd prefer them to have local sysop status here. — Dferg (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am always open to being convinced by sound arguments, but my understanding of the global sysop rol is to create a pool of people to help out projects that are too small to have active admin corps of their own. Meta is a large and robust project and is sufficiently capable of having its own admins (which it does) and so I would oppose for now. However, an expedited local approval process for making them local admins may be a good idea. -- Avi 15:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Steward adminship on meta changes

There has been some scattered discussion, but I wanted to officially bring up a discussion about making a change to our policies. I believe that Stewards should be granted adminship status on meta as part of official policy. This granting would be done through them requesting the access. There are many reasons for doing so, but the very basic aspect of this is that Stewardship is a process that receives a vote on meta. If they are supported by that many people, it shows that they have a large amount of trust that is connected to meta. This also serves as their base of operations and there are many things that adminship on meta would help them with. Finally, it would streamline the process of any steward who may wish to run for adminship here, as it is basically guaranteed that they would easily pass. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As the steward elections are broadcast projectspace wide, they do receive much more attention than global sysop requests (discussed above) so I think this makes more sense than to have Meta opt in; JMO. -- Avi 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry

I didn't mean to cause any problems but its a long story it goes back all the way back to this past summer , was in networking and networking security in school and was trying to figure some things on my phone and a design project I was working on but I believe I was hacked and it has caused some problems and all my email accounts r compromised my phone I was starting out on making feeds for friends to translate and follow to a web page and it all gone and I have been trying to follow and figure out what happened and what is going onAllappoliges 05:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) and that wasn't me I just followed and believe used or helped to get herAllappoliges 05:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How to contribute

Although I contribute to wikipedia (as I assume most of you do), I really do not no what to do here. How can a user contribute? I have created articles, mainly on medical topics, on wikipedia, but have now been blocked from editing there for 1 week by GrahamColm for adding unsourced content. Is there any place for encyclopedic articles here. It is certainly hard to navigate, at least for a new user.I also feel that my blocking on wikipedia for"adding unsourced content to medical articles" was a direct violation of Wikipedia's policy on not biting newcomer, which I am sure ou are aware of. Best wishes. Immunize 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Still no response? It certainly is deserted around here... Immunize 19:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no place for encyclopedia articles here. This is the wiki that co-ordinates the other projects. Being blocked for adding unsourced content is perfectly valid, and BITE is just a guideline that should be used with common sense. --86.29.77.243 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that this was a mistake that I made, and I no longer do it. Immunize 23:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving documentation/help pages from meta to MediaWiki.org

Is there anything that prevents us from moving all the documentation/help pages from meta to MediaWiki.org? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate place for them, unless some documentation is Wikimedia-specific? Is it just a matter of labor shortage among people who have import rights? Tisane 23:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Much of the documentation has already been migrated, but a license conflict means many help pages must be rewritten from scratch rather than simply copied. —Pathoschild 23:50:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizing

The Russian translation for "Recent changes" was vandalized in all the Wikimedia projects interface (and not for the 1st time, if I'm not mistaken). It was changed from "Свежие правки" to "Остатнї зміны". Please restore "Свежие правки". --Al Silonov 11:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake by a user who wanted to change rue instead of ru. The change is reverted and the translator has promised to be more careful next time. Merlissimo 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not reverted: see MediaWiki:Recentchanges/ru! --Al Silonov 20:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It was, the software just needs some time to update and to show it locally. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 21:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)