Meta:Babel
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by روتانا in topic Proposal to add a talk page guideline for Meta
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
- You can comment here in any language.
- This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
- If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
- For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
- For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
- To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
- Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.
|
| Wikimedia Foundation social media strategy |
| Wikimedia Social Suite |
| Meetup |
| Babel |
| Distribution list |
| ComCom |
| Mailing lists |
|---|
| Overview |
| Administration |
| Standardization |
| List info template |
| Unsubscribing |
| Wikimedia IRC |
| Channels listing |
| #wikidata-admin |
| #wikimedia-admin |
| #wikipedia-en-admins |
| Channel operators |
| #wikimedia-admin |
| #wikipedia-en-admins |
| #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en |
| Instructions |
| Guidelines |
| #wikipedia |
| Group Contacts |
| Noticeboard & Log |
| Cloaks |
| Bots |
| FAQ |
| Stalkwords |
| WikiLounge (WMCS-based IRC web client and bouncer) |
| Quotes (en) |
| archives |
| Quotes (fr) |
| Other social networks |
| Discord |
| Matrix.org |
| Signal |
| Steam |
| Telegram |
| [Edit] |
Proposal to add a talk page guideline for Meta
editHello, currently Meta does not have a talk page guideline or policy listed under Meta:Policies and guidelines.
Reason for this proposal: a UCoC case (which should not be litigated in this Babel discussion) leads me to believe that Meta should have such a policy or guideline at least for user talk pages, so that informal consensus or unwritten norms are not used as a basis for enforcement actions related to user talk page conduct on Meta. A written policy or guideline may be used by everyone to understand the expectations on Meta for talk page activities, and also by administrators and others as a point of reference for possible enforcement actions related to talk page conduct. Administrators or others who may be hesitant to intervene in a problematic situation on talk pages hopefully will become less hesitant if they can refer to this policy or guideline page as a point of reference.
en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is much longer than I hope that the Meta policy or guideline will be.
I have not yet drafted a page but I would like to get feedback regarding elements to include.
Suggested elements of the Meta page:
- The purpose of Meta
- General civility expectations
- The general purpose and format of talk pages
- Recommended practices on talk pages, such as the use of a talk page header, ping, and subscribing to discussions.
- Generally prohibited activities on talk pages, such as misusing another person's signature to misrepresent who made a statement, or removing a warning. See en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more.
- Similarities and differences between general talk pages and user talk pages.
- User talk pages are not "owned".
- How to use talk pages in specific use cases
- When recruiting for new participants for an activity such as Wiki Loves Monuments, joining an affiliate, or voting in steward elections.
- When contacting people who may be interested and eligible for an activity (same examples as above) and have participated in it previously but did not sign up for a newsletter or for another round of participation.
- When contacting people who may be interested and eligible for for an activity (same examples as above), but did not sign up for a newsletter or for a round of participation and have not participated in it within the past few years.
- When petitioning for people who have signed up for official roles to take certain actions, such as a request to engage in a discussion or to take a specific action.
- When advocating for or against candidates for a role or an award. This is typically prohibited as "canvassing".
- When contacting someone on their user talk page related to a discussion that is already happening on a more centralized location such as a project talk page, to discuss a specific point related to them or related to their comments in that more centralized location.
- Escalation pathway for conduct concerns, starting with a courtesy notice and then escalating to a formal warning, and finally to administrator involvement. Remember that some users on Meta may act on talk pages in ways that are consistent with norms on other wikis but need to be informed of Meta norms.
What do others think about having the above as a starting framework for a draft?
@Ajraddatz: please see the above proposal.
༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 19:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Has this ever been a problem before this U4C case? Levivich (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for getting the policy conversation going. Glad that something good will come from all of this. ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think we need specific or prescriptive guidance for talk page use. This generally isn't an issue, and the problem in the recent case was the semi-disruptive nature of the messages due to both their tone and the fact that they were individually sent to each board member, inviting discussion in seven places over the same issue. Looking at Meta:NOT, maybe the answer is to add a bit to point 7 specifying that discussions should usually be contained to one place to avoid fragmentation. The civility part is already captured under Meta:Civility and point 10 of Meta:NOT. While that would still leave wiggle room that some might not like, I think that in the future admins should/will be more careful in how they word their messages and the general guidance should be enough. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Any blockable offense that is not obvious (such as posting to multiple talk pages) should definitely be put into writing. Clarifying cultural norms and preferred practices would be super helpful. ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with @Ajraddatz. If we continuously had disagreements regarding proper talk page use and administrative actions in that area a new rule page might be warranted but I don't know of any other case in recent history. Count Count (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- This, needing a book of rules about one namespace seems like overkill. — xaosflux Talk 09:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: as a short term way to address only the issue that surfaced in this case, I would be fine with adding a point to Meta:NOT and in the same paragraph informing admins that first time breaches of this guideline should generally be handled with a non-threatening courtesy notice rather than proceeding immediately to warnings, and a reminder that people may be participating on Meta from diverse backgrounds including other wikis which have different talk page norms. In the longer term, I think Meta would be better served by having a dedicated page for a talk page guideline or policy, although it can be shorter than English Wikipedia's. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 19:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think expanding that entry on Meta:NOT would be a bit more broad than just this case - duplicating dicussions across projects and on Meta itself has been an occasional problem in the past. I am also ok with either adding a caveat for admins to that item, or even adding another item at the bottom of the list, noting that Meta is not the home wiki for most users who stop by to comment here, and thus highlight the need to assume good faith and provide helpful suggestions when people aren't meeting (particularly unwritten) expectations. I understand the desire for a talk page guideline, but Meta doesn't even have a blocking policy. If I were starting to write things down, talk pages would be pretty far down the list. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Now is not too soon for Meta participants in general to start with putting things into writing that are unwritten but expected. Doing things based on unwritten consensus is a recipe for conflicts. Speaking of which, getting a wider consensus on what notifications should be allowed on talk pages I continue to think is a good idea, even if only Meta:NOT is updated with what the outcome of that discussion is. I would not want an unwritten agreement among a few administrators to be treated as if it is a guideline that the Meta community in general has ratified. I believe that in general, it is best practice to avoid treating a norm, especially an unwritten norm, as if it has a formal consensus or is an enforceable policy. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- I believe that in general, it is best practice to avoid treating a norm, especially an unwritten norm, as if it has a formal consensus or is an enforceable policy. Thank you for being the voice of reason here, very much appreciated. ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Anonymous editor: thank you. :) ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 20:06, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: what would you suggest as an initial ranked stack for putting local Meta norms into writing as guidelines or policies? Your list could be a useful place to start. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 20:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be a super useful exercise, honestly. Meta is generally a quiet place with 1-2 notable disputes each year, of which one every few years causes this much smoke. Meta admins are by and large holders of advanced permissions elsewhere, users here are not new, and those who love to argue the most tend to stick to content projects because it is rare to have anything particularly objectionable here. The only policy gap that I see from the recent case is some sort of direction to keep discussions contained, as much as is possible in larger and more complex disputes like the current one around the union.
- If Meta were full of disputes about uncodified norms I would agree that those should be spelled out, but keeping things relatively flexible has benefits in a mature community, including allowing those norms to quietly change over time (like standards for voting on SRGP for example) and respond to unique circumstances better than a codified rulebook. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: okay. I hope that the changes to Meta:Admin handbook will be sufficient. If not then we can pick up this conversation again. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- Much more useful would be a short page for admins:
- Don't block based on unwritten rules
- Don't block or threaten to block based on written rules without first friendly informing the editor that they should do something different (this doesn't apply to clear vandalism and the like, but for possibly good faith attempts at editing)
- Don't treat people and their opinions differently based on whether they are a Meta admin, a Meta regular, a non-meta regular, or a newbie
- If followed, this would likely have avoided all of this. Fram (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
The page w:en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is much longer than Meta's and also happens to contain several things which are explicitly not what we want on Meta. That's why we usually have guidelines mostly to focus on the main things which might be surprising, like Meta:Snowball, but we don't necessarily have guidelines to list everything that is different from the English Wikipedia. I honestly still don't understand what went wrong in this case, as there were several factors at play. There was a series of misunderstandings and overreactions from various quarters, so one guideline I'd bet would have helped is MeatBall:ReactLater. Not a guideline but NVC can help in such circumstances; I could try to think of some short pointers to add somewhere, if we have ideas where. Nemo 20:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- To the points raised by Nemo_bis and Fram, I wonder if adding applicable guidance for administrators in how to handle similar situations should be added to Meta:Admin handbook. @Ajraddatz: what do you think? ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 02:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Good idea. Not sure how well read the handbook is (I didn't realize it existed lol) but I think a paragraph on dealing with experienced users from other projects who might not know the ins and outs of Meta could be boldly added under the blocks section. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've added some suggested text, as the page is a handbook and not a guideline. Feel free to edit or add yourself as well (Pine or others, but please keep it to general advice...). – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Good idea. Not sure how well read the handbook is (I didn't realize it existed lol) but I think a paragraph on dealing with experienced users from other projects who might not know the ins and outs of Meta could be boldly added under the blocks section. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Discussion of whether to require training for administrators
edit- Thanks. It also may be good to ensure that new admins actually read that guide, and that existing admins review it periodically. Perhaps admins should get a "continuing adminship education" requirement that involves a quarterly review of the changes to that guide and other Meta policies. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: the more that I've been thinking about a "continuing adminship education" requirement, the more that I like the idea of requiring quarterly training for changes and reminders, for all admins in the Wikiverse. What do you think about this idea? And if you agree that it would be good, how would you suggest that it be proposed as a global requirement? Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 20:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- This might make sense for admins on certain large content projects but elsewhere admin policies and practices tend to be pretty stable, conflict is relatively low, and quarterly training requirements would appear to me to be overly burdensome compared to the problem they are trying to address. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- That sounds like an overly onerous idea. We have hundreds of projects and languages were someone could be an 'admin'. — xaosflux Talk 00:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- *gets flashbacks to mandatory admin training discussions from the first UCoC Enforcement Guidelines ratification attempt* Ciell (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ciell: I can understand that mandatory training specifically on a controversial document would not be well received. I would hope that most admin training could be uncontroversial and on topics such as "There is a new tool which will help administrators with regularly used workflow X", "The way that tool Y works will be changed next month so that it provides better summaries of talk page interactions", or "Law Z will come into effect next year and this will have the effect of changing copyright rules for millions of photos from the European Union, so please familiarize yourself with the new rules before next year if you will be involved in copyright patrol." ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Pine: Mandatory training is not a good idea for Wikimedia projects in any context. We are all just volunteers here. Count Count (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Count Count: how is it not a good idea? Mandatory training is very common for a large variety of volunteer roles in the non-wiki world. I would not expect that a hospital would accept me as a volunteer for a simple task such as providing directions to visitors unless I complete the hospital's volunteer training program which probably would include topics such as the layout of the hospital, the most common services provided, how to use the communications tools, laws regarding patient privacy, and basic safety skills including infection prevention and how to act in several types of emergencies. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Pine: We are not working in the medical profession. No lives are at stake here. And in most projects we are short of people wanting to take on administrative roles. Adding work-like requirements such as mandatory trainings makes attaining extended rights even less attractive for volunteers. Furthermore projects have autonomy in what requirements they place on adminship besides the minimum voting requirements and if the community in a project decides that mandatory training is a requirement for adminship they can do that already (spoiler: they will not). It is not for Meta-Wiki to do decide this for the whole wikiverse. Count Count (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Count Count: in some circumstances, I would guess rare but not zero, editing Wikipedia is a high risk activity. See the English Wikipedia article en:List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. Also see en:Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, and consider the many copyright and privacy laws that could intersect with Wikimedia projects. On larger Wikimedia projects I believe that many candidates for adminship are familiar with many of these risks, but I would disagree that "No lives are at stake here". Additionally, consider that some people's employers may scrutinize their social media activities, including Wikipedia, and may be willing to fire employees who, even outside of work, do something that their employer dislikes. And consider that people may rely on Wikipedia for medical information. Wikimedia and Wikipedia are not low complexity environments, and in a small but not zero percentage of cases, consequences may be very significant. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 06:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Pine I am not aware of any cases were mandatory admin training would have prevented imprisonment or litigation against users. In fact following your argument wikipedians editing (in high-risk areas in particular) would need mandatory training e.g. on how to keep their real-life identity secret much more than admins. Count Count (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Count Count: I would agree that training for contributors who want to contribute in high risk ways would be good. However, I believe that the same should go for administrators, including but not limited to checkusers and oversighters who may routinely become aware of nonpublic information about other contributors that could be used against them, but also regarding many other issues and tools which administrators may encounter, benefit from using, or need to risk-manage. Changes to copyright law or changes to tools could be two of many topics which could be included in regular ongoing admin training. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 06:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Pine giving admins training isn't a bad idea, but shouldn't be mandatory, especially when we are voting for admins, we depend on their experiences by looking at their edits, then directly voting with no extra requirements (no pre-training, ...). and making it optional and open for everyone (in case there are no confidential actions), this can help users that want to be admins in the future gain more experience. RH🦋 (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Count Count: I would agree that training for contributors who want to contribute in high risk ways would be good. However, I believe that the same should go for administrators, including but not limited to checkusers and oversighters who may routinely become aware of nonpublic information about other contributors that could be used against them, but also regarding many other issues and tools which administrators may encounter, benefit from using, or need to risk-manage. Changes to copyright law or changes to tools could be two of many topics which could be included in regular ongoing admin training. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 06:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Pine I am not aware of any cases were mandatory admin training would have prevented imprisonment or litigation against users. In fact following your argument wikipedians editing (in high-risk areas in particular) would need mandatory training e.g. on how to keep their real-life identity secret much more than admins. Count Count (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Count Count: in some circumstances, I would guess rare but not zero, editing Wikipedia is a high risk activity. See the English Wikipedia article en:List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. Also see en:Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, and consider the many copyright and privacy laws that could intersect with Wikimedia projects. On larger Wikimedia projects I believe that many candidates for adminship are familiar with many of these risks, but I would disagree that "No lives are at stake here". Additionally, consider that some people's employers may scrutinize their social media activities, including Wikipedia, and may be willing to fire employees who, even outside of work, do something that their employer dislikes. And consider that people may rely on Wikipedia for medical information. Wikimedia and Wikipedia are not low complexity environments, and in a small but not zero percentage of cases, consequences may be very significant. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 06:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Pine: We are not working in the medical profession. No lives are at stake here. And in most projects we are short of people wanting to take on administrative roles. Adding work-like requirements such as mandatory trainings makes attaining extended rights even less attractive for volunteers. Furthermore projects have autonomy in what requirements they place on adminship besides the minimum voting requirements and if the community in a project decides that mandatory training is a requirement for adminship they can do that already (spoiler: they will not). It is not for Meta-Wiki to do decide this for the whole wikiverse. Count Count (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Count Count: how is it not a good idea? Mandatory training is very common for a large variety of volunteer roles in the non-wiki world. I would not expect that a hospital would accept me as a volunteer for a simple task such as providing directions to visitors unless I complete the hospital's volunteer training program which probably would include topics such as the layout of the hospital, the most common services provided, how to use the communications tools, laws regarding patient privacy, and basic safety skills including infection prevention and how to act in several types of emergencies. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: the more that I've been thinking about a "continuing adminship education" requirement, the more that I like the idea of requiring quarterly training for changes and reminders, for all admins in the Wikiverse. What do you think about this idea? And if you agree that it would be good, how would you suggest that it be proposed as a global requirement? Thanks, ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 20:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. It also may be good to ensure that new admins actually read that guide, and that existing admins review it periodically. Perhaps admins should get a "continuing adminship education" requirement that involves a quarterly review of the changes to that guide and other Meta policies. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- We already have a process for periodic review, it's Meta:Administrators#Inactivity. Admins who fell out of practice typically relinquish their rights. Is there any reason to believe they don't? Nemo 13:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Nemo bis: the goal is to train people in an ongoing way, hopefully without actually pushing out anyone. Thinking about this more, English Wikipedia has an administrators' newsletter which is well aligned with what I have in mind. Reading it is optional. Perhaps something similar on a global scale, also optional, would be considered more acceptable than making ongoing training mandatory. Agreed that most administrators on large projects do not seem to need outside encouragement to keep up to date with changes, but I am unaware of what happens on small projects. Perhaps someone from the SWMT could advise. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 06:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- And why global? Global policies change very rarely and we should not interfere with project policies and community – they are independent after all. Such proposal is hard to implement in any way. A09|(pogovor) 07:49, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Also this wouldn't be an SWMT matter either – SWMT rarely get involved with local community matters, which includes project policies. (To be clear, this isn't a comment against the idea of a potential global newsletter; my point is that this is not an SWMT matter) //shb (t • c) 01:22, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- And why global? Global policies change very rarely and we should not interfere with project policies and community – they are independent after all. Such proposal is hard to implement in any way. A09|(pogovor) 07:49, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Nemo bis: the goal is to train people in an ongoing way, hopefully without actually pushing out anyone. Thinking about this more, English Wikipedia has an administrators' newsletter which is well aligned with what I have in mind. Reading it is optional. Perhaps something similar on a global scale, also optional, would be considered more acceptable than making ongoing training mandatory. Agreed that most administrators on large projects do not seem to need outside encouragement to keep up to date with changes, but I am unaware of what happens on small projects. Perhaps someone from the SWMT could advise. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 06:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- en:Hard cases make bad law – I don't think it's a good idea to call for policy changes unless we're seeing a repeat of this U4C case. --Johannnes89 (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- The goal is to not have a repeat by getting ahead of it proactively. ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- To get ahead proactively, documenting standards would be a helpful step, but only a small one. The recent U4C case and the incidents preceding it demonstrated that Meta-Wiki accepts a culture of sysops as the ultimate insiders, who are right by default, and can disregard disagreeing views as prima facie evidence that it comes from an outsider. Sadly, I believe that any training or guidance intended to spark reflection or develop / foster genuinely inclusive approaches / perspectives would be rejected as manifestations of outsider interference. Consequently, those who could benefit most from Pine's approach of codifying sensible guidelines and inclusive practices are likely to be those who will most readily disregard them. While there is a culture that allows outsiders to be warned / threatened and even (potentially) arbitrarily sanctioned for alleged breaches of unwritten norms known only amongst insiders, the problem is much greater than a lack of guidelines. That this comment from Fram is apparently not a near-universally endorsed and uncontroversial description of standard practice at Meta-Wiki is a much bigger issue than the fact that this common-sense advice is not codified in a guideline. ~2026-33630-51 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- The goal is to not have a repeat by getting ahead of it proactively. ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Request for translation: Education Newsletter August 2026
editThe August 2026 education newsletter has been released for translation. Please help our readers to read education newsletter in their native language. The latest education newsletter is ready for translation: here Newsletter headlines link for translation: here, to read individual articles check out: Category:Education/Newsletter/August 2026. Your support in making this newsletter multilingual means a lot. Thanks for helping share knowledge across borders! Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:56, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
What is “ Translation of this page has been discouraged”?
edithello evryone. I frequently encounter messages displaying
"Translation of this page has been discouraged
A translation administrator has discouraged the translation of this page. You can still translate the page but the translations may not be useful."
while working on translations. Could you please explain what this message means and whether it should be left as-is without being translated? Hdialk (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- That is usually a mark that a page isn't worth volunteer time to translate, as it is unlikely to ever be read. An example would be a page making an announcement about an event that has long past. — xaosflux Talk 13:12, 10 September 2026 (UTC)