Approval of bot policy suggested by MarcoAurelioEdita

Vide Wikipedia:Avenis corente#Bot policy.

Hi MarcoAurelio, I just read the note at the Porton de Comunia and I didn't understand anything. Could you please tell me what is is about this bot policy, in a nutshell? I thought that bots make changes like adding interwikis, changing images that are no longer available for new ones or for better ones, things like that, is that correct? --Chabi (discute) 20:51, 20 april 2018 (UTC)

Hello Chabi, thanks for the welcome and for your kind message.
The policy I am proposing to adopt is the m:bot policy, which sets out some basic rules for bot operations and if the community so decides, will allow the automatic approval of certain bots and/or the operation of global bots. The policy is already enabled in hundreds of projects. Indeed, bots perform those tasks that you mention. Please let me know if you have further doubts and if you need anything else. Best regards, --MarcoAurelio (discute) 21:03, 20 april 2018 (UTC)

In favourEdita

  1. --Chabi (discute) 08:17, 21 april 2018 (UTC)
  2. Sajmĉjo (discute) 10:47, 21 april 2018 (UTC)
  3. Cgboeree Cgboeree (discute) 11:51, 25 april 2018 (UTC)
  4. IsaacBenHarush (discute) 09:21, 27 april 2018 (UTC)
  5. Angel Blaise (discute) 14:01, 11 maio 2018 (UTC)

AgainstEdita

TotalEdita

Done. --MarcoAurelio (discute) 22:46, 22 julio 2018 (UTC)

Proposa per ce la Usor:Sajmĉjo deveni manejorEdita

ProEdita

ContraEdita

ResultaEdita

Proposa per ce la Usor:Cgboeree deveni manejorEdita

ProEdita

ContraEdita

ResultaEdita

Proposa sur la Paje Xef fada par Usor:IJzeren JanEdita

ProposaEdita

And here's one more suggestion. At the moment, the Main Page contains two templates, Model:Article xef and Model:Imaje xef, for a featured article and a featured image respectively. That is excellent! However, this is a small user community and changing them on a regular base is not going to work on the long term (just consider that the Article of the Week on the Volapük Wikipedia hasn't been updated in over ten years now!). Therefore I would suggest to automatize the process. What you can do, for example, is select the best 31 articles of this Wikipedia, save the text you want to display on the Main Page on a page called [[Model:Article xef/26]], and replace the link on the Main Page by {{Article xef/{{CURRENTDAY2}}}}. The result would be that every day of the month a different article is shown on the Main Page. This is precisely what I have done on the front page of Novial Wikipedia.

Of course, days of the month is just one possibility. Alternatively, you can also use weekdays (7), months (12), weeks in a year (53), etc.

The same goes also for the Featured Image, of course. One thing to consider here is this: do you just want a nice picture? In that case, there is wonderful stuff to be found on Commons (for example here). Or do you want a picture that relates and links to a related article?

Best regards, IJzeren Jan (discute) 21:32, 26 april 2018 (UTC)

DiscuteEdita

Me gusta esta idea ma, si la resulta es favorable, me no sabe como fa lo. --Chabi (discute) 08:54, 27 april 2018 (UTC)

I will, of course, be more than happy to help!   IJzeren Jan 18:44, 27 april 2018 (UTC)
  • me ia crea 31 "bon articles" e ia ajunta la "calendrio" a la paje xef. me crede ce cada "bon article" ta es acompaniada par un imaje, preferable de sua paje orijinal. Donce, posible nos no nesesa un parte separada per "bon foto". un idea plu: oji-aora de simon pote es un parte de la paje xef. esce nos ave un modo fasil per inclui los automatica? si "si", me sujeste ce lo es poneda supra la "bon article". tua comentas? Cgboeree (discute)
  • Cisa es plu bon demanda Simon sur esta. --Chabi (discute) 09:48, 2 setembre 2018 (UTC)

ProEdita

ContraEdita

ResultaEdita

Proposa per ce la Usor:Chabi deveni manejorEdita

ProEdita

ContraEdita

ResultaEdita

DiscuteEdita

Esta usor ia usa ja sua pote per proteje sua article "Marxisme cultural", ce insiste ancora la validia de un teoria sin atesta e oposante la realia sertable. פֿינצטערניש (discute) 19:01, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)

Proposa per cansela la article Marxisme culturalEdita

Esta vota es cluida. PF no vota asi.

Pro inclui esta articleEdita

Contra inclui esta articleEdita

  • Resulta

1-0: La article ia es sutraeda.

La article es ancora no sutraeda. פֿינצטערניש (discute) 18:54, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)

DiscuteEdita

Esta article es riable e plen de asurdas destriste. "Marxisme cultural" ia es un critica de la cultur poplal par la Scola de Frankfurt de la teoria criticante, un discipline ce usa sabe de la siensas sosial per revisa marxisme. No la marxisme cultural no la teoria criticante mesma ia es "un construida teorial cual comprende e aplica consetas marxistes en termas sosio-cultural en loca de economial."

La alega ce "marxisme cultural" es "relatada con la progresisme (sua promove political) e la coretia political" es burlable. No progresistes conose lo. On considera "marxisme cultural," en la majoria de Vicis, nonsufisinte notable per ave article propre, car lo no es pertinente per cualcun eseta destristes estrema. In la usa moderna entre destristes, "marxisme cultural" ia deveni un terma sustitua per la teoria de conspira de la era Nazi "Bolxevisme cultural." Finsternish (discute) 15:21, 14 junio 2018 (UTC)

Me no conose ci ia ajunta esta article, ma lo no es bon scriveda. Me ia prende la libria de rescrive lo, con la espera ce lo ta es plu asetable a tu e otras (me incluida). An si la usa de esta teoria es aora restrinjeda a la destra radical, lo es ancora un teoria de cual on debe es consensa, si sola per reconose lo cuando lo apare! Per favore, leje lo e comenta. Cgboeree (discute) 20:32, 14 junio 2018 (UTC)
Me sujesta lasa la article e scrive la du puntos de vide: tal on va ave un article con plu informa. Me va ajunta informa e, cuando me fini, me va demanda Cgboeree per coreta la teoria esiste e per esta me crede ce no debe sutrae lo ma cambia lo per es neutral. --Chabi (discute) 23:09, 14 junio 2018 (UTC)
Vera, pos leje la cambias, me no pote comprende los. Plu, me no comprende como la teoria pote es defendeda. Lo pare multe nonlojical. Me acorda con Finsternish. Si on vole, un article sur la Scola de Frankfurt pote inclui alga de la ideas plu clar. Cgboeree (discute) 00:53, 15 junio 2018 (UTC)
Me es xercante informa en internet cual defende la du puntos de vide, me crede ce tal on pote ave un article plu neutra. Lo ce me vole fa es presenta la idea de un grupo e de la otra e pos la critica ce cada fa de la otra. Tal me crede nos va ave un article plu neutra e con tota la puntos de vide. Me no conose esta teoria e pare un peti loca ma si on ave un article lo debe es neutra e per esta on debe ave la du vides (ance si un de los es ideas stupida). Me ance va atenta trova referes per ambos partes ma me demanda tempo car asta la fini de esta mes me ave otra cosas per fa. --Chabi (discute) 07:32, 15 junio 2018 (UTC)
Per favore, permete ce me scrive un article sur la Scola de Frankfurt, cual ta inclui un discute corta de Marxisme Cultural. Per favore nota ce Marxisme Cultural es un "teoria" de conspira, no un teoria vera suportada par razoninte o evidentia. Donce, on no pote defende lo! Alga ideas no ave "du lados". Cgboeree (discute) 12:15, 15 junio 2018 (UTC)
Si tu vole, scrive un article sur la Scola de Frankfurt, me va move Marxisme Cultural a otra paje personal per edita lo e sutrae lo. --Chabi (discute) 12:25, 15 junio 2018 (UTC)

Me ia pone un paje Scola de Frankfurt a la vicipedia, cual inclui un discute de marxisme cultural. Cgboeree (discute) 15:06, 15 junio 2018 (UTC)

Proposa per ce Leonardo da Vinci deveni un article bonEdita

ProEdita

ContraEdita

  • Resulta

DiscuteEdita

Proposa per ce la Usor:Cgboeree deveni manejor (renovi)Edita

ProEdita

ContraEdita

ResultaEdita

4/0/0. Successful. I will take this to the stewards. StevenJ81 (discute) 21:54, 29 agosto 2018 (UTC)

Granted for one year, expiring 2019-08-30. StevenJ81 (discute) 03:42, 31 agosto 2018 (UTC)

Proposa per ce la Usor:Chabi deveni manejor (renovi)Edita

ProEdita

ContraEdita

ResultaEdita

4/0/0. Successful. I will take this to the stewards. StevenJ81 (discute) 21:55, 29 agosto 2018 (UTC)

Granted for one year, expiring 2019-08-30. StevenJ81 (discute) 03:39, 31 agosto 2018 (UTC)

DiscuteEdita

Esta usor ia malusa ja sua pote per proteje sua article "Marxisme cultural", ce insiste ancora la validia de un teoria sin atesta e oposante la realia sertable. פֿינצטערניש (discute) 19:04, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)

Proposa per aseta cgboeree e chabi como "bureaucrats" (lo pare ce los no es per sempre!)Edita

ProEdita

ContraEdita

DiscuteEdita

  • Chabi, good luck. But as I said to you elsewhere, I think the stewards are going to turn this down. The community is not big enough for bureaucrats yet. (Also, I strongly recommend that before you even consider taking this to the stewards, both you and Prof. Boeree renew your administrator status first.) StevenJ81 (discute) 21:10, 21 agosto 2018 (UTC)
  • And how can we renew our administrator statuses? --Chabi (discute) 07:32, 22 agosto 2018 (UTC)
    Really? Just translate the word renewal in the two places where I inserted it just above, let both discussions run for seven days. Then I'll help you take them to stewards. StevenJ81 (discute) 13:52, 22 agosto 2018 (UTC)
    Um...you are supposed to vote, too. (For Prof. Boeree, not yourself ...) StevenJ81 (discute) 14:24, 22 agosto 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought bureaucrat and administrator were the same thing. If administrator is the same as sysop, I was led to believe sysops were "higher" than bureaucrats, and required greater knowledge of computing. Wrong again? Cgboeree (discute)
    You are right that administrator = sysop. The rest is a little more complicated to explain.
    It is true that you would need greater knowledge of computing to be a sysop/administrator than you would need if you were a bureaucrat-but-not-sysop, at least here. But in reality, there are no bureaucrat-but-not-sysops. Bureaucrat is generally a set of rights layered on top of administrator, not instead of administrator. In general ...
    • Administrators can do almost all of the "limited" functions necessary to manage the day-to-day needs of a wiki that is fully operational—deleting pages, blocking troublesome users, hiding disruptive edits, placing wiki-wide messages on pages, and so forth.
    • In a clean install of MediaWiki for an independent wiki, the bureaucrat is the owner and lord of the wiki. Besides the administrator rights, the bureaucrat's extra rights include being able to configure the wiki, to grant and remove advanced user rights, to flag and unflag "bot" accounts, and a few other technical things. Effectively, these are rights to (a) configure the wiki, and (b) give to others (or take from others) the right to have the administrator functions, both of which are occasional management duties, not everyday needs. To me—and I work in business, not academia—I think of an administrator as a COO and a bureaucrat as a CEO.
    • On Wikimedia projects, though, bureaucrats' rights are more limited. Mostly, 'crats only job is to grant (but not to remove) advanced user rights like administrator rights. Why those rights have been more curtailed here is a longer discussion than I want to have right now. But on Wikimedia projects, the better analogy (than COO and CEO) is that they're more like the general manager and president of a division, not of the whole company. And to stretch the analogy just a little further, some decisions are reserved for the home office ( = stewards), such as "Who can fire the general manager?" (remove user rights) and "What divisions are large enough to need a division president [ = bureaucrat] and which can be handled by just a general manager [ = sysop]?"
    So on the whole, 'crats are "higher" than sysops. But on most projects—Incubator being very much an exception—it is very rare for a 'crat to use 'crat rights (that aren't sysop rights). On Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia, where Chabi and I are both sysops and 'crats, I've used my sysop rights many times. I've used my 'crat-only rights exactly once—to transfer Chabi's rights from one account to a different account. We only have 'crat rights there because they are grandfathered from an earlier time in Wikipedia history; today, that wiki, like this one, wouldn't be allowed to have bureaucrats at all.
    Anyway, that's the explanation. For 99%+ of what you would ever want to do, you need to be a sysop. If the stewards will approve bureaucrat for you, great, but if I were a betting man I wouldn't bet on it. Any other questions, please feel to ask me (anywhere). StevenJ81 (discute) 20:52, 22 agosto 2018 (UTC)

ResultaEdita

(apologies for writing in English)

Both candidates do have over 80% approval. However, see both m:Requests for comment/Bureaucrats on small wikis and m:Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements. While neither of these RfC's were formally passed, I can tell you that in practice, the stewards do not promote people to bureaucrat when there are fewer than ten supporting votes, and in general also do not promote people to bureaucrat when a project has only two sysops (which this one will, as of tomorrow). Accordingly, I am closing this request as ...

Failed for an insufficiently large response.
Note: Tomorrow, seven days will have passed since the administrator votes were started, and I expect that they will be successful. Again, based on the size of the response, stewards will not grant permanent rights. However, I believe I can make a case for both candidates to get rights for a full, one-year term, and I will make that recommendation. StevenJ81 (discute) 14:04, 28 agosto 2018 (UTC)
  • Chabi already uses their managing powers to protect their questionable articles that push conspiracy theories that do not survive challenges at larger Wikipedias, such as Marxisme cultural, and granting bureaucratic powers would be an incredible mistake. פֿינצטערניש (discute) 19:05, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)
It is clear both from the existence of that article, from their decision to protect it, and from their attempt to salvage the article with obvious false balance after it had been formally voted to be removed, that they are mainly here to push their point of view on a Wikipedia that is too small-staffed to be able to stop them. פֿינצטערניש (discute) 19:07, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)
Be aware also that this conspiracy theory they are using their powers to push and prevent people from editing is also an antisemitic one. פֿינצטערניש (discute) 19:08, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)

Proposa per ce Y Wladfa deveni un article bonEdita

ProEdita

ContraEdita

  • Resulta

3-0: La article ia es marcada como article bon.

Sur la comentas par פֿינצטערנישEdita

En relata a la comentas fada par פֿינצטערניש en locas diferente de esta paje, me ta vole responde car on pote ave puntos de vide diferente, ma me no tolera alga acusas e min cuando ci la fa ave min ca 60 editas en la Vicipedia en lingua franca nova.

Me ia comensa scrive en Vicipedia multe tempo aa e conose la politicas de esta comunia, cual me no sola ia respeta ma ance defende en mea laboras como manejor en otra varias de Vicipedia. Un de esta politicas es la punto de vide neutra, cual me ia defende presentante la du ideas en relata a la marxisme cultural. Me ia crede ce esta ia es un forma de manteni neutria car tal on no defende un o otra pensa, ma presenta ambos. Pos un vota, on ia deside sutrae la article (lo es vera ce me ia oblida fa esta, mea culpa) e par esta, on debe e me vade sutrae lo. Ma me no aseta comentas cual acusa me de forsa mea punto de vide profitante de es manejor[1] (car en tota tempo, e spesial con esta article, mea intende ia es respeta neutria) e ance de profita ce esta es un Vicipedia peti per fa lo[2], spesial, cuando un de la promovores xef de esta projeta ia es me e un de la contribuores xef es ance me. En ajunta, me no aseta, en no situa e par nun, acusas de antiiudisme[3], spesial cuando me es un de la manejores e contribuores xef de la Vicipedia en ladino. On ave un limita per tota, e per me, esta acusas ia pasa multe la limita. Si tu vole aida en la Vicipedia en lingua franca nova, me sujesta ce tu pote crea articles en loca de acusa un de la contribuores xef.

Par esta, me deside abandona esta projeta, minima asta la fini de esta anio. --Chabi (discute) 23:54, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)

  1. Chabi already uses their managing powers to protect their questionable articles that push conspiracy theories that do not survive challenges at larger Wikipedias, such as Marxisme cultural, and granting bureaucratic powers would be an incredible mistake. פֿינצטערניש (discute) 19:05, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)
  2. It is clear both from the existence of that article, from their decision to protect it, and from their attempt to salvage the article with obvious false balance after it had been formally voted to be removed, that they are mainly here to push their point of view on a Wikipedia that is too small-staffed to be able to stop them. פֿינצטערניש (discute) 19:07, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)
  3. Be aware also that this conspiracy theory they are using their powers to push and prevent people from editing is also an antisemitic one. פֿינצטערניש (discute) 19:08, 30 setembre 2018 (UTC)

Conclui de la desacordaEdita

Regardante la acusa de Chabi par פֿינצטערניש, me aseta completa la esplica de sua atas. Vera, nos debe atende a la aspeta de nosa vicipedia e la articles en lo, car esta es un vicipedia peti e nova. Nos vole deveni un cosa respetada, e no vole ofende otras, ma nos debe ance scrive articles cual refleta realia e mostra neutralia. Me e otras ia es conserneda ce Chabi ia produi articles cual es tro "neutral" en alga casos. Ma Chabi ia acorda ce esta no refleta sua credes, e me crede lo. El ia sutrae sua article sur "Marxisme cultural", cual es aora sola un parte de un article sur la "Scola de Frankfurt". Me espera ce tota persones pote pone esta desacorda a pos. Cgboeree (discute) 17:24, 11 otobre 2018 (UTC)

Proposa per ce Franses (lingua) deveni un article bonEdita

ProEdita

ContraEdita

ComentasEdita

Me vole publica grasia Sajmĉjo per sua aida coretinte la article e per sua pasientia. El ia fa un labora importante par causa de mea eras. --Chabi (discute) 10:36, 3 febrero 2019 (UTC)

Resulta

  • 4-0. La article es asetada como article bon. --Chabi (discute) 10:37, 3 febrero 2019 (UTC)