Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Editprotected and Editinterface for Translation Administrators

< Wikidata:Requests for comment


THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There seem to be no consensus for any changes, so I'm closing this as  not done.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation administrators are users trusted to deal with the administration of Wikidata translations. This RFC should gauge whether we should give them the ability to assist administrators with publishing translations to full-protected pages and/or to gadgets and message groups (e. g. Workflow states) in the MediaWiki namespace. Currently, most of the requests for ns8 are going through WD:TN which is mostly watchlisted by translation administrators.

Editprotected

edit

Editprotected is the technical allowance of users to edit pages which are protected.

Yes

edit
  1. Weakly. There is no big need for such a change, at the moment, but I think TAs can also be trusted with this permission. Vogone talk 15:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No

edit
  1. For two reasons: 1) Adminship is very easy to get on Wikidata, and 2) a reasonable claim could be made that people might have commented or vetted Translation Administrator candidates differently if the vetters knew in advance that TA would come with an admin-level right. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a small probably irrelevant note. Admins currently do not have the editprotected right, so it cannot be counted as an admin-level right. Admins have the protect right, which includes editprotected, but lets admins change protections actively. Vogone talk 19:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Could have gone for this had we kept the old five-day rule for getting TA, but not now with 'crats handing it out without the discussion process. Courcelles (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above. --Rschen7754 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose per Sven.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In my opinion, Workflow states should be translated on translatewiki as an part of the Translate extension. Translating them on each WMF wiki that has the translate extension is an unneccissary duplication of efforts. Also, the rights associated with an usegroup should reflect the role that that usegroup has. Translation administration does not have anything to do with gadget writing. With that written, I would not oppose an specific gadget makers group, which would include this right.--Snaevar (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everything can be translated on translatewiki. Legoktm (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the proposal, the whole discussion and the topics first, before commenting under a random section. Vogone talk 23:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Per User:Sven Manguard. Only 8 sup needs to be admin in wikidata.--DangSunM (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Editinterface

edit

Editinterface is the technical allowance of users to edit ns8 (MediaWiki namespace) which contains all site interface messages.

Yes

edit
  1. Seems reasonable. TAs are trusted and users only get this permission if they show high understanding of what TA actually is and how it is to be used. The required trust level is given, in my opinion. Vogone talk 15:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yeah, sure. Many interface pages need translations. — ΛΧΣ21 21:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of course. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Weak support for only use for translating gadjets.--DangSunM (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No

edit
  1. Per above vote. Isn't this what translatewiki.net is for? --Rschen7754 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the proposal first, before commenting. Especially the part "give them the ability to assist administrators with publishing translations […] to gadgets and message groups (e. g. Workflow states) in the MediaWiki namespace". Regards, Vogone talk 18:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't agree with this proposal, since editinterface is more sensitive than editprotected. --Rschen7754 18:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think a current TA cannot be trusted to hold the editinterface permission open a WD:RFP/R immediately, please. Abuse in ns8 can be easily reverted, abuse with the TA tool can't. Regards, Vogone talk 19:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too sensitive to give out without community discussion. Courcelles (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't this discussion and all individual RFTAs community discussions? Vogone talk 07:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that TA is now granted at the discretion of a bureaucrat, no it is no longer a community discussion. --Rschen7754 09:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true. There is still a comment section for community input. Bureaucrats are only closing if there are no objections for a while and they feel the user knows how to use the tool properly. The only thing which was removed is that requests have to stay open for at least 5 days. In doubt, there is always the ability to ask the community for more input via an WD:RFP/R. In fact, nothing has changed except that "no-brainer" cases can be handled faster. Vogone talk 10:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose - in my opinion these two rights go together and it does not make sense having them separate - even interface editors have both. If a translation administrator has a pressing need for this permission, adminship is easy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree especially to the last part. For managing and doing translations absolutely no community involvement is needed. Many translation administrators have this right almost everywhere, just because of their experience with the extension. They do not show the required community involvement for local adminship, but they do have the required skills and are globally trusted. Vogone talk 14:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Around 75% (31 out of 41) of translation administrators allready have access to this right, by being administrators. The rest of them can just apply for adminship.--Snaevar (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. - Hoo man (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Just noting that on the Wikimedia Incubator such a right addition for trusted translators already exists for years (see incubator:Special:UserGroupRights). According to MF-W, this system works pretty well there and almost no abuse happened. Vogone talk 09:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy goes without saying, for any user rights, in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I understand, not everything can be translated on twn.net (see this for some examples), so editinterface will be useful for translators. I think we've tried to make a clear difference between a "translator" and a "translation admin", so I'm liking Vogone's proposed group below as an alternative, rather than giving translationadmin permissions to someone who might not fully understand the tool but is a trusted translator. Legoktm (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I noticed I was mentioned, I'd like to add some points regarding the translator group on Incubator whose only right is editprotected. We introduced it in 2007 or so, since we had some features that relied on translation through the MediaWiki namespace. We have since then moved many of that to translatewiki.net, but the group is still useful for giving some users the ability to edit e.g. certain css/js pages without making them sysops (because sysop access would be neither be wanted by them nor justified for them to get). I don't have any statistics, but I think there were probably at least 50 translators in all the time. We had only one case of abuse: the user messed with Titleblacklist to prevent all editing except by sysops. That was of course very suboptimal, but the rights assignment was done a bit naively by us back then. – For Wikidata, from what I can see with my limited knowledge, it seems like it would be useful to also allow (trusted) non-admins to translate the Translate extension workflow states - and maybe also local modifications of other MW messages. Of course a risk of abuse like we had on Incubator always is there, because MediaWiki has all sorts of weird pages in the MediaWiki: namespace, but I guess it would be very very limited. Translation-admins are not the most unexperienced people and those abusing it will surely face being blocked. --MF-W 03:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

edit

If the rights are added, they should ultimately only be used for translation related work or uncontroversial maintenance (such as correcting spelling, removing outdated information etc.). After heavy misuse, the rights are to be removed.

Yes

edit
  1. Okay. Vogone talk 15:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. After any misuse the rights should be removed. I'm willing to give a tiny amount of leeway, but really not that much. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, removal if for anything other than translation work (with some leeway on obvious problem edits needing reverting, for example). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I opposed the whole thing, but what the hey. --Rschen7754 04:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With an cavecat that the rights should be removed after any misuse.--Snaevar (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support of course--DangSunM (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No

edit

Comments

edit
  • …

Translator group

edit

As people seem uncomfortable and not trusting translation administrators to hold the editinterface permission, I propose to create a new user group called "Translators". They would only be granted the permission "editinterface" and this right could only be assigned by bureauctrats after a 4 days long discussion without any votes to the contrary. Such a user group already exists on other WMF projects, so I guess it woould work well here as well. The policy proposed above would also affect this proposal. I hope this compromise is well enough. Vogone talk 14:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

edit
  1. Vogone talk 14:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No

edit
  1. In my opinion, editing the interface is too sensitive to give out to non-admins (interface editors are an exception because they are developers who know what they're doing).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If someone was gonna go through that, why not wait the extra 3 days and get the sysop flag? --Rschen7754 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See #No_2 oppose #3. Furthermore, I cannot really follow the argumentation. First you are saying it would be okay with the old 5 day rule for TA and now 4 days for a new group is too much? Vogone talk 19:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words: Why does a trusted translator need RFD experience to translate things in ns8? Vogone talk 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I never said that it would be okay with the old 5 day rule for TA, though other people have. --Rschen7754 19:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "Per above" and that's exactly what was said above. Vogone talk 19:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per Jasper Deng.--Snaevar (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per Jasper Deng.--DangSunM (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • …


Translator group access

edit

The "translator" right is always granted temporary for one year, as editinterface is partly an administrator right and should not be assigned to inactive accounts.

Yes

edit
  1. Vogone talk 18:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No

edit
  1. …

Comments

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Editprotected_and_Editinterface_for_Translation_Administrators&oldid=604386823"