Wikivoyage talk:Administrators
Add topicLatest comment: 2 months ago by SHB2000 in topic Reference to Wikibooks
|
Archives
|
Inactive admins 2022/02
[edit]We seem to have a couple of inactive admins on this project. Just a list of accounts that fall into that criterion:
- ARR8 (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-07-21)
Danapit (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-09-29)(desysopped on 2022-02-02 as they have agreed to be desysopped)EvanProdromou (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-06-05)(created a new article on 2022-02-02)- Globe-trotter (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-08-11)
- JuliasTravels (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-01-22)
MarkJaroski (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-01-26)(desysopped on 2022-02-02 as they have agreed to be desysopped)- Sumone10154 (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-01-30)
- Traveler100 (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-01-25)
- Traveler100bot (talk · contribs) (inactive bot account)
As inactive admin accounts pose a security risk, their admin privileges should be removed per policy. Pinging our 'crats @Ikan Kekek, Jpatokal, LtPowers: (and @Andre Carrotflower: with your main account). Thanks. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did you successfully ping them here, or should they be notified on their user talk pages? –LPfi (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- The inactive users should be informed via their talk pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done, except for Traveler100bot as they are not a human though I let Traveler100 know about this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- The inactive users should be informed via their talk pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, as I am no longer an active contributor, it is only reasonable to remove the admin rights from my user. Thanks :) --Danapit (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. -- Mark (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just a comment: It looks like, based on a thread on a previous round of desysopping that was just archived, we wait 2 weeks after inactive admins are notified on their talk pages, and if possible, also by email, before we desysop them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- That said, I'll act right away on the Danapit and Mark's accounts because they agreed in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Danapit and Mark, you are now autopatrollers. We would welcome your return to edit any time you like, and if you ever decide you'd like to be admins again, just let us know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I hear-by confirm that I'm in favour of this -- Mark (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've fixed the dates. Thanks for picking up the error Ikan Kekek. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- That said, I'll act right away on the Danapit and Mark's accounts because they agreed in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just a comment: It looks like, based on a thread on a previous round of desysopping that was just archived, we wait 2 weeks after inactive admins are notified on their talk pages, and if possible, also by email, before we desysop them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek As it is 17 days now since notices given, when you get the time, can you please remove the sysop privileges off these accounts. Thanks :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did anyone try to email them? We did before, as I remember. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Has anyone tried to email them? Does anyone want to, or should I just desysop them and post a talk page note encouraging them to let us know if they ever want their admin bits restored? Let me know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did we have a standard email template from the previous times we did this? If so, it shouldn't be hard to email each of the five users with the notice, excluding the bot account. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't remember this, but per Wikivoyage talk:Administrators/Archive 1#February 2020, it looks like the following wording of emails was agreed to:
- Did we have a standard email template from the previous times we did this? If so, it shouldn't be hard to email each of the five users with the notice, excluding the bot account. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Has anyone tried to email them? Does anyone want to, or should I just desysop them and post a talk page note encouraging them to let us know if they ever want their admin bits restored? Let me know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did anyone try to email them? We did before, as I remember. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your service as a Wikivoyage administrator. As you may be aware, our Wikivoyage:Administrators policy indicates that administrators who have not edited on the English Wikivoyage in over two years should have their administrator flags removed. This is for account security purposes, not a reflection of a loss of trust or any disappointment.
As such, we have removed your administrator flag as of [today's date]. If you ever decide to return to Wikivoyage as an active editor, your administrator flag can be restored by request.
If you have any questions or concerns, let me know.
- My feeling is that we don't have to wait for a broad discussion on this wording, as no-one else seems to be following this thread, so the only question is whether I should in fact remove their admin bits now or whether we would like to postdate the removal. I'll go with whatever you prefer unless anyone else wants to express an opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think we ought to give them a chance to see the email first, if that's what we've done with prior accounts. Does this email go from a particular email address? Or just the "email user" function? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd use the "email user" function if it's operational. If it's not, it'll probably be impossible to email them. Should we give them another week to see the email and reply to it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- The main reason I've pretty much abstained is because I have not been here long enough to do all this, but I think the bot account's admin privileges can be removed tho. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're saying. Abstained from what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for not being clear enough. Abstained from commenting further because I'm very new to this process and the only time where I've seen this process done is on Commons' bureaucrat's noticeboard. As to the bot account, I'm taking about Traveler100bot (talk · contribs). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're right that I can remove the bot's privileges. I'll do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Selfie City, would you like to email everyone concerned? If not, I probably have time this week to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. One user did not have a registered email, but I have emailed the others. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry I am so late in taking care of this, but all the accounts listed above have been desysopped, with their statuses changed provisionally to autopatroller (except for the bot), with everyone invited to resume their status as admins if they would like to do so any time in the future that they would like to participate here again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Under "Current administrators," we see the following statement: "Wikivoyage has 45 administrators." However, I count only 42 at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/sysop. Any insight into why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- It says 40 now. I'm not going to worry about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- The page says " Wikivoyage has {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFADMINS}}-2}} administrators.". I assume that there is a few hours delay between making the change and the number being updated, and the -2 is either an earlier attempt to fix what appeared to be an error, or is removing bot accounts from the total. AlasdairW (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't understand what the code means, but there does appear to be a delay after the number of admins is changed by a bureaucrat. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it should be changed from "-2" to "-1", as Abuse filter is the only non-human admin left. AlasdairW (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't understand what the code means, but there does appear to be a delay after the number of admins is changed by a bureaucrat. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The page says " Wikivoyage has {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFADMINS}}-2}} administrators.". I assume that there is a few hours delay between making the change and the number being updated, and the -2 is either an earlier attempt to fix what appeared to be an error, or is removing bot accounts from the total. AlasdairW (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It says 40 now. I'm not going to worry about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Under "Current administrators," we see the following statement: "Wikivoyage has 45 administrators." However, I count only 42 at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/sysop. Any insight into why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry I am so late in taking care of this, but all the accounts listed above have been desysopped, with their statuses changed provisionally to autopatroller (except for the bot), with everyone invited to resume their status as admins if they would like to do so any time in the future that they would like to participate here again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Selfie City, would you like to email everyone concerned? If not, I probably have time this week to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're right that I can remove the bot's privileges. I'll do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for not being clear enough. Abstained from commenting further because I'm very new to this process and the only time where I've seen this process done is on Commons' bureaucrat's noticeboard. As to the bot account, I'm taking about Traveler100bot (talk · contribs). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're saying. Abstained from what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- The main reason I've pretty much abstained is because I have not been here long enough to do all this, but I think the bot account's admin privileges can be removed tho. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd use the "email user" function if it's operational. If it's not, it'll probably be impossible to email them. Should we give them another week to see the email and reply to it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think we ought to give them a chance to see the email first, if that's what we've done with prior accounts. Does this email go from a particular email address? Or just the "email user" function? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- My feeling is that we don't have to wait for a broad discussion on this wording, as no-one else seems to be following this thread, so the only question is whether I should in fact remove their admin bits now or whether we would like to postdate the removal. I'll go with whatever you prefer unless anyone else wants to express an opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Question about admin requirements
[edit]What are the requirements for being an administrator? Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- What it means to be one is here: Wikivoyage:Administrators, how to be come one is here: Wikivoyage:User rights nominations, how to be a good one is here: Wikivoyage:Administrators' handbook. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your reply. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Inactive admins 2022/12
[edit]I know it's only been 10 months since we last did an admin activity check, but I'm only starting this now so we can be consistent by doing one every year just before the New Year (and hopefully this permanently stays this way, as opposed to doing one every February).
Not that many users this time, but here's a list of all admins who have not made one edit in the past two years:
- DenisYurkin (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-11-01)
- PerryPlanet (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-12-23)
- Texugo (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-10-26)
I have not sent out a mass message just yet, only because I'd like to know when will their sysop privileges be removed (assuming they don't respond), but as soon as I get a few opinions on when, I'll send out the mass mail (and emails).
Also pinging our (active) bureaucrats @Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!:. Apologies for the extra burden that I may have caused – one by starting this two months before we did our last admin check, and two because I sorta have to canvass both of you into this discussion (thankfully w:WP:CANVASS isn't a behavioural guideline here) so I can mass mail and message the three users listed above.
--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also, genuine question, but should I self-nominate myself for bureaucrat rights to help out with inactive admins? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's no big deal to desysop 3 or fewer people. They should be given 14 days to reply after being emailed before they are desysopped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll send out the mass message in just a moment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is kind of unfair to send a letter with a two-week deadline the day before Christmas Eve. Schools over here are closed more or less until Epiphany, so people may be off with their families. People may be off the grid any time of year, but if we are trying to standardise on some dates, February is much better in my opinion. –LPfi (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Done all users notified and emailed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Setting a particular time of year to do these is a good idea, but I agree with LPfi and wish you'd waited more than a couple of hours to get more opinions before acting. This is a bad time of year for availability for many people. It's a bit late to back down now, because you've already sent the message, but I think you should send another one to tell them we've extended the grace period to a month (so they have until 23 Jan to reply).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ThunderingTyphoons!: apologies for being a bit hasty with this. Reflecting upon it, that was irresponsible of me and I probably should have waited until tomorrow morning. I'll make sure to remember to wait a day before acting on such decisions in the future.
- Nonetheless, I've sent three follow-up emails plus a message on their talk page letting them know they have until the 23rd, not the 5th. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Point well made, Thundering, and well resolved, SHB. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- We're not quite at 23rd January UTC yet, but it looks as though Ikan or I will be removing three sysops tomorrow.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Can also confirm that I have received zero email replies. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- We're not quite at 23rd January UTC yet, but it looks as though Ikan or I will be removing three sysops tomorrow.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Point well made, Thundering, and well resolved, SHB. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Setting a particular time of year to do these is a good idea, but I agree with LPfi and wish you'd waited more than a couple of hours to get more opinions before acting. This is a bad time of year for availability for many people. It's a bit late to back down now, because you've already sent the message, but I think you should send another one to tell them we've extended the grace period to a month (so they have until 23 Jan to reply).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll send out the mass message in just a moment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's no big deal to desysop 3 or fewer people. They should be given 14 days to reply after being emailed before they are desysopped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
just for the record, Texugo is very missed. He is my big mentor and we worked together very hard and very productively in pt-Wikivoyage, way back before the fork. After he went inactive, I lost interest and hardly edit the pt-version anymore. His desysopping taking place is a sad thing for me. Ibaman (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Has any attempt been made to make contact since the end of the festive period? If not, then it might be good to send another email, and give them until the end of this week to reply. If somebody is offline for the holidays (in a mountain hut, or staying with Aunt Morag who has no WiFi), they may come back to 100 emails and just delete the lot. AlasdairW (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- These three were last active in 2020, so I think we've been accommodating enough. If they come back to regular activities in the future, and want to be reinstated it should be relatively easy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. I hadn't realised it had been so long. AlasdairW (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- These three were last active in 2020, so I think we've been accommodating enough. If they come back to regular activities in the future, and want to be reinstated it should be relatively easy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Done - The three former admins are now patrollers/autopatrollers. I have left a message on each of their talk pages confirming the change. Thanks for everyone's assistance.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!: Per User talk:LilHelpa#Admin tools (particularly Special:Diff/4679386), please remove their admin tools. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Changed to Autopatroller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the swift response! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks both. This all happened a bit too early for me! ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the swift response! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Inactive admins 2024/01
[edit]Time for our yearly admin checkup – should we give 28 days for users to respond? I've done this a few days after December now that the holiday season is coming to a conclusion.
List of inactive admins:
- AndreCarrotflower (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2021-04-11)
- Seligne (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2021-05-20)
I haven't sent out a mass message yet until I get a confirmation of the date their sysop privileges will be removed, but at this rate, shall we keep it at Jan 31, 2024? Pinging our two bureaucrats @Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!:. Once I get the green light from either of you, I'll send a mass message.
--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bump – I will send the mass messages out tomorrow afternoon if I get no confirmation whatsoever. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to wait until mid-January. The Christmas etc holidays go on for quite a long time in some cultures. Epiphany is tomorrow for instance.-- ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done – the deadline date is set at January 31, which is more than enough time to get back to us. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- AndreCarrotflower appears to have vanished from any wiki project involvement since April 2021. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Andre Carrotflower (alt account) is still active globally. You'd almost certainly get a reply from Andrew through that account if needed. That said, if the sysop account is inactive and unresponsive, it might be better to remove the 'bits'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- We would, but it's up to Andrew to check the account with their sysop perms if they want to keep it. Plus, I have not received any email reply either, so I think it's safe to say they're not going to respond. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be good courtesy to check whether Andrew wants to retain his sysop tools, as he was an extremely important member of the community for some time. He made clear that he was leaving for a time and wavered between indicating that move was temporary or permanent. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What defines "important", though? Why should they be given special treatment because they just so happened to be more active than others? Policy is policy, and we shouldn't be wavering the policy for some users and not for others; it's antithetical to the inactive admins policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Let's just wait till the 31st, like we've agreed to do. If he replies later than that and says he'd like to have his sysop tools, it's no problem to restore them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Anybody given the trust of admin has probably been an important contributor, so this is not really about having been more important, but about trying to be as respectful as possible, which is a virtue and important for keeping the spirit of the community. We can afford to take special circumstances into consideration. That said, nobody suggests deviating from policy. –LPfi (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What defines "important", though? Why should they be given special treatment because they just so happened to be more active than others? Policy is policy, and we shouldn't be wavering the policy for some users and not for others; it's antithetical to the inactive admins policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be good courtesy to check whether Andrew wants to retain his sysop tools, as he was an extremely important member of the community for some time. He made clear that he was leaving for a time and wavered between indicating that move was temporary or permanent. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- We would, but it's up to Andrew to check the account with their sysop perms if they want to keep it. Plus, I have not received any email reply either, so I think it's safe to say they're not going to respond. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Andre Carrotflower (alt account) is still active globally. You'd almost certainly get a reply from Andrew through that account if needed. That said, if the sysop account is inactive and unresponsive, it might be better to remove the 'bits'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just a heads up with 3 days left and I still haven't received any email responses, for the record. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done Removed the tools from both of them and changed their status to autopatroller (with a message on their talk page). I hope I didn't miss anything. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- AndreCarrotflower appears to have vanished from any wiki project involvement since April 2021. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done – the deadline date is set at January 31, which is more than enough time to get back to us. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to wait until mid-January. The Christmas etc holidays go on for quite a long time in some cultures. Epiphany is tomorrow for instance.-- ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Reference to Wikibooks
[edit]A bullet was added:
- The policy on global sysops is the same as on the English Wikibooks.
Do we really outsource the policy to Wikibooks? Our policy may be identical, but I think, in that case, that the policy should be copied to here. Otherwise, any change enacted there would silently amend our policy, which feels weird.
–LPfi (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's always been the case (I clarified that because it's unreasonable to know that with just a single link – see the original first line). I'm indifferent on copying the content over here, though – very little actually changes on that wiki (the only policy that's changed this year is the policy on AI content). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really afraid that there would be changes that we cannot accept. Its just cleaner not to refer outside (other than to Meta for global policies, and the like). "Always" here isn't too long ago, I assume, not before 2013 anyway. I am puzzled that I have no memory of such a decision. Was it actually never made, just assumed? Or made in a single posting in the relevant thread? –LPfi (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- The text was added by Minorax with the link when this wiki became a GS wiki in 2021; I vaguely recall a discussion before it was added, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I now included the linked section from Wikibooks, except the explanations. I find it confusing and odd. Could we just remove that text? –LPfi (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- That wasn't the best wording, I agree – I've clarified it a bit (which is what is current practice at enwikibooks). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- I now included the linked section from Wikibooks, except the explanations. I find it confusing and odd. Could we just remove that text? –LPfi (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- The text was added by Minorax with the link when this wiki became a GS wiki in 2021; I vaguely recall a discussion before it was added, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really afraid that there would be changes that we cannot accept. Its just cleaner not to refer outside (other than to Meta for global policies, and the like). "Always" here isn't too long ago, I assume, not before 2013 anyway. I am puzzled that I have no memory of such a decision. Was it actually never made, just assumed? Or made in a single posting in the relevant thread? –LPfi (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)