Meta:Babel

As you may recall, Meta had (quite briefly) local oversighters. After a while, that was deemed unnecessary - Drini and I had our rights removed so the stewards as a group would handle oversight for meta, since that would (and did, I think) result in better "service" in terms of availability/response time.

With the activation of revision deletion, oversight has become far more useful to us - in particular to hide usernames. Since stewards lock+hide the accounts, this leaves behind log entries which must in turn be hidden. Currently this is done by granting ourselves oversight rights temporarily, which is a hindrance when (trying to) work quickly.

I'd like to suggest two ideas for community discussion:

1. Stewards who want it (not all of us are active in lock+hiding accounts for example) could leave oversight on all the time. This would avoid bloating userrights logs, would make hiding such things a bit more discreet (which is a good thing!), and would make workflow easier as described above.
2. Meta could reinstate the local oversighters and/or elect new ones.

I am partial to the first option because when such log entries are created, they are created by a steward. That means there is a steward available to hide the log entries. That means that if a local oversighter isn't available (which, if we had 2 oversighters as we did previously would be quite likely), the steward is permitted to do so.

Thanks for your consideration.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Makes perfect sense to me. New developments in the oversight right make it something quite necessary, and there is no reason why Stewards should continually re-equip this right on Meta when they're all trusted enough to perform the actions anyway. In fact, I'd have no oppositions to development to the effect of rolling CheckUser and Oversight access on Meta into the Steward user right. It just makes sense. I think local Oversighters would also be a good idea. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well we had local oversighters. (I was one of them, briefly... very briefly :) ) and the community decided to go the way it is now. Do we want to undo that? I support just leaving the rights turned on for stewards that are consistend workers in this area rather than going back and having new elections. But I'm not opposed to new elections if that is what everyone wants to do. AD can you clarify which things you favour the most? ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I favour both. I think increasing our oversight coverage by both electing local oversights as well as allowing Stewards who need it to have it is a sound idea. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well... Stewards who need to use it already have that power, that's what the community decided... what this is about, I think, is waiving what the WM:MSR page says about logging everything that possibly can be logged by preference, as it relates to just running with the bit turned on instead of turning it on and off a lot. A list could be put somewhere (hung off the oversight page) of those stewards currently running with it always on, maybe. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. 1 seems easiest in my mind, and I have no objections to it. Cbrown1023 talk 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No objections to either alternative, but 1 seem easiest. Finn Rindahl 10:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a note that rolling oversight and CheckUser into one user group has been discussed (quite favourably, to my surprise) recently. I don't think this is the place to discuss it, but if people are interested in that idea, Talk:CheckUser and Talk:Oversight are ready & waiting :)  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm in favor of this myself, and started a discussion at talk:CheckUser. It would also be nice to get rid of camelcase in whatever name is given to such a combined group... -- sj | help translate |+

I have no real issues with OS being left turned on for active stewards on Meta. However if there is a demand of some sort I'd probably support local OS users (who were not stewards). I'm not a fan generally of people with too many rights & it would mean that some non stewards could at least keep en eye on the log. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see local OS users as well. -- sj | help translate |+ 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Upon reflection, I think my preferred course would be to reinstate the local oversighters we had previously, and add more. Now that oversight has become so useful to us, there is a lot of demand for it's use. I would suggest adding perhaps 4 stewards and 1 or 2 non-stewards on top of the 2 local oversighters we had previously. This sounds like a lot, but I think that'd be sufficient to allow the local oversighters (whether they happen to be stewards or not) to respond quickly when hiding log entries is necessary, and we would still (if necessary) have WM:MSR which permits stewards to use oversight if the locally-elected ones aren't available. I have in mind some names, but getting support for the idea in general would be a better first step, I think. This is, in essence, a combination of my two suggested ideas above. We want some people to have oversight all the time, but this also gives them explicit sanction from the Meta community to leave the bit on all the time - no technicalities or hand-waving. At the same time, it leaves stewards in a position to take action if necessary (ie emergency situation, log entries needing to be hidden, no local oversighters available).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

As a former overisghter: Yes, we removed our bits because at the time, with the old oversight, it was barely used. Now with the new one, I think as Mike said, it's more useful, so I wouldn't mind having the bit back. es:Drini 21:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter for me, if 1 or 2 is favoured as long as there will be local oversights. It's annoying to switch that user right on and off again and again. The problem with Special:Log/globalauth would be partially fixed when bugs bugzilla:18060 and bugzilla:18183 would be fixed, too. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

For what it is worth I agree with Mike's thought here & would completely support the return of rights to Drini & Mike anyway. Add a couple more active stewards & see if anyone "ordinary" is interest? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Both of suggested methods are acceptable but first one is simply much easier --Mardetanha ^talk 04:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've made a request for the return of oversight rights to Drini any myself. I'd like several more RFOs to take place sooner rather than later. I won't nominate anyone, but the stewards who use it know who they are.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I use it from time to time but not nearly as much as Mike or Drini... I'm open to requesting it again if desired. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see this and this. Is there any reason to keep all this images?. Some of them have been tagged long time ago and nobody cared about them. Best regards. —Dferg (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nuke 'em  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Doing... the obvious ones. —Dferg (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps someone who knows how to automatically delete the links can help delinking the images. E.g.: [1], [2] —Dferg (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I am Belinda and I will be working with the Wikimedia Foundation. I am bound by contract so can't fully disclose what or why. Anyway, if you need more info, email belinda.speed@clyde1.com. --Belinda Speed 20:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Belinda, you haven't shown up to work so I expect that you're fired. Oh, and the money from the till is missing too. bastique ^demandez! 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Problem. So, I experience a bit of trouble corrupting various IP addresses (hotels, coffee shops, government installations, etc.) when I inadvertently follow a link from here (where I am a good citizen in good standing) over to En-Wikipedia (where I am unjustly banned). Should I happen to touch any "edit" link or page, then the IP is auto-blocked, and even if I leave the modem, I've "tainted" it for anyone who will follow me. Wanting not to leave this trail of destruction wherever I go, is there some way to disable the "cross-wiki auto-sign-in" feature? Best regards to everyone, especially the kind soul who answers me. -- Thekohser 03:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, the only way to do that would be to request that your global account be deleted. I could be wrong, though. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course, the other option would be for an enwiki admin to change the block setting on your account to no longer autoblock IPs the account tries to edit from. There'd be an argument for that if it's causing collateral damage. On the other hand, it may be that those autoblocks are thought to be useful in tracking down accounts that you might be using to edit despite your ban (by seeing what other accounts have edited from the IPs that get autoblocked). Might be worth asking for the block settings to be changed though... WJBscribe (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I don't see much of a problem, the edit link is quite descriptive and always at the same spot, so I don't understand how it can be touched without wanting it, resolution would be not to touch it. You may request unmerging of the en.wiki account at SR/SUL. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 10:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Spacebirdy, the auto-block can be invoked by things other than the "edit" tab. For example, clicking on "E-mail this user" in the left sidebar will do it. Another example, clicking on a red-link word or phrase in an article will do it. I'm looking into an ArbCom appeal of my unjust "community ban" on English Wikipedia (as far as I know, the only Wikimedia property where I am blocked, much less banned), so we'll see how that goes. -- Thekohser 19:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I already gave You the link where to request unmerge of en.wiki account, note that we will not delete the global account only unmerge en.wiki, that should solve the problem. Br. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to sound dense, but... couldn't you just not do those things? The "Email this user" page and redlinks aren't exactly the sort of thing that you can easily accidently stumble into... EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

What if I wish to contact via e-mail another Meta Wikimedian, but their User page here says to contact them on English Wikipedia? What do I do, then? -- Thekohser 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, though you could still leave them a message, banking on the fact that they may have the "email me when my talk page is changed" option turned on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, is somebody able to answer the questions at Talk:Wikipedia article depth, please? Thanks--JFKCom 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for the answers!--JFKCom 22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I came back today to find that there were outstanding requests from 2007 waiting for someone to deal with them. I think that the driving force behind the project has faded and editors are left confused as to why there has not been a response to their request in over a year. Unless some admins want to step up and deal with the requests, I would recommend that the project be marked as inactive and a note placed on the page to contact a local admin to request blocking/unblocking of proxies. Nakon 19:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I mentioned on ENWP, I handle it there, but if it needs more eyes here, I can help. Dont have the bit here, so I'll have to relegate to tagging and bugging local ops. OverlordQ 07:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Nakon. As I mentioned on enwiki some time ago the cross-wiki aspect of this project is deceased. Meta does not have a big open proxy problem, other projects have all open proxies automatically blocked and unblocked, and the rest of the projects probably aren't too bothered by open proxies (to the extent that local sysops can't deal with it any better). There is also global blocking now. While several project block open proxies all the time, I doubt it would be worthwhile to report them all for global blocking, or to block them all globally. So people looking for blocks should ask for global or local blocks, and people asking for for unblock should ask whoever blocked them in the first place. And if the sysops need an open proxy checking they should just ask around or pop over to enwiki where one of us can usually help. One thing I will say is that all the help pages are on meta, so don't delete them just yet. Updating the help pages will be part of deprecating this project. zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have begun to phase out new block requests in favor of the Torblock extension and SRG for excessive cross-wiki vandalism. I plan on removing the unblock requests in a bit to give time to resolve any outstanding requests and at that time will then refactor the page to provide more information about proxies and their status on Wikimedia projects. Nakon 06:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

What are the guidelines / procedures for creating a new global policy? Specifically, I'm talking about Biographies of living people. Any comments / input would be appreciated so this can move forward. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I seem to recall something akin to "standard mandatory policies for wikimedia projects" somewhere... foundation-l? It's more likely to have a set of standard policies that both make sense and would be applicable regardless of project. BLP would be a good example of one where there are no foreseeable exceptions. Anyway, if you want to get that pushed through globally by itself, you'd want to bring a discussion of it up on the forum, then if enough people think it'd pass, someone will call for a global referendum of some sort... likely a sitenotice pointing to the discussion and subsequent voting. Best of luck. Kylu 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I don't know where abusefilter is discussed. I wonder if a filter !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups)& ("Redirect" in summary) (throttled) would be useful.[3] Hillgentleman 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Non-autoconfirmed users can not move pages according to Special:ListGroupRights. If page-move vandalism is becoming a problem, perhaps someone could import this filter from en.wiki. Nakon 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Notice that none of the actions in my link given is a page move. I am talking about redirecting a large number of pages to another (vandalism-sounding) page. Hillgentleman 22:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether this is the correct place to post this but I can't find a suitable talk page... Anyway, as we know MetaWiki is supposed to be multilingual, but most of it was in English. At the same time there are many en-1 en-2 users, especially those who come to ask for help rather than to take part in a discussion. They can hardly understand certain slang or phrases. For example, on Steward requests/Checkuser, I think it will take a long time for a non-native english speaker to find out what is a w:WP:DUCK, or magic pixie dust, or what do stewards mean when The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says. So why can't we just make it simple and straightforward?—Bencmq 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply