Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Metapub)
Jump to: navigation, search
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
Arabic Coffee.jpg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit

Change in renaming process[edit]

Part or all of this message may be in English. Please help translate if possible.

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 9. sep 2014, 18:22 (CEST)

On the three revert rule in the english wikipedia[edit]

"Being "right" is not an exception to the three-revert rule, and claiming that your version is the "better" version is not a reason that will get you unblocked." - WHAT

This is a huge flaw that is currently being exploited by a russian admin and several russian editors in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_crisis article. Please see the history or just take one look at the article to see a clear lack of neutral point of view.

The russian admin there (Ymblanter) is abusing his powers by precisely using the rules to block non-russian editors, while excluding the pro-russian propoganda edits from the rules. In other words, he's cherry picking based on his own pro-russian bias.

All of that makes me mad as hell. Especially that wikipedia is made so people who follow the rules, but have no good faith or understanding of NPOV can attain admin status unsigned comment by 86.13.221.231 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring. It's just like they said, being right doesn't give you the right to edit war. Grow up, grow a pair and maybe you'll be ready to edit with the big boys. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 21:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
3RR is a bright line. It does not actually require a block, because in the case of a new editor, a warning can be much more effective. But the real place to stop an edit war is before it starts - at 1RR. The best thing to do if someone reverts your good edit, is to take it to the talk page and find out why they were opposed to the edit. Sometimes you can make your edit more clear in the edit summary - it might just have been reverted because it just looked like an uninformed edit by an IPUser, when in fact it was a good edit warranted by a change in the world that needed to be reflected in the article. Everything needs to be supported by Reliable Sources, though, so without a source it is less likely for the edit to be retained. But use the BRD cycle - Bold edit, Reverted, Discuss it before going to even 1RR revert. Or if you had already reverted someone, avoid going to 2RR. Edit wars are very counterproductive, and do not allow for the collaborative editing that is required. Apteva (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Will the WMF help save the English Wikipedia by changing the RFA process?[edit]

Over at the English Wikipedia there is once again discussions about changing the RFA process and once again people are arguing that the WMF will not allow changes. The RFA process is dying out folks, it needs to change if Wikipedia is going to survive. Last month was the second time there have been zero admins selected (the first was last September) and it looks like this month will be the third time. Additionally the project is losing admins at a rate much faster than can be replaced and the workload that remains is both increasing and causing the existing admins to become more stressed and more abusive to regular editors. Only one admin was selected in June, July and August of this year and none have been selected since. After multiple attempts over the last several years have failed, its pretty clear that any changes to the RFA process are going to need to come from the WMF. Is the WMF willing to accept that challenge and help save the English Wikipedia before its too late? Its pretty clear at this point that the community lacks the ability to do it themslves without intervention from the WMF. Reguyla (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess not! Reguyla (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for the WMF (since I don't work for them or anything), but wouldn't the enwiki community's reaction to a change to RfA "forced" upon them by the WMF be largely negative, especially considering all the failed proposals over the years? I'm also not convinced that having more admins will "save" Wikipedia. While admins are important and needed in order to keep the site running smoothly, having more admins probably won't influence whether or not old or new users stay. Anyway, what would the WMF do to make RfA more attractive? Perhaps imposing less strict requirements/guidelines or splitting the group up by rights? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
By some and I am not saying it should be "forced" but if the WMF stepped up the community with what they saw was a problem with some recommendations for the community to vote on, I think it would be well received. Plus, the WMF has showed time and time again that they don't really care about what he community thinks and this is one of those times when some kind of action is better than no action at all. The community has had years of opportunities to fix the problem. IMO, the time for democracy on the matter is coming to an end if they want to be able to have enough people in the site to do the tasks necessary to keep it working. Reguyla (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The expectation that the WMF would respond to you is rather incredulous. Banned on enWP, and blocked more than once, original account locked here as you demanded it, and then vandalised to get it locked when it was refused. I would think that even if I put forward such a demand, and my credibility ranking is somewhat better, then it too would be ignored. Solid proposals back by the community is what is needed, not the WMF sticking their metaphorical dick into a bullant's nest.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
billinghurst, I wrote this to be inentionally pointy to get the WMF to comment in some way, either its not our problem, maybe we need to look into that or something in between. If you aren't interested in what happend on ENWP, thats fine, just don't comment, but don't insult me in an attempt to discredit me because you don't care. I am tired of seeing the RFA process continually fail and the English WP community clearly cannot fix it. The ENWP RFA process has only promoted 3 people in 5 months. September and October there were zero promotions and that is only the 2nd and 3rd time in the history of the project there were zero new admins. ENWP is losing admins at a far greater rate than they are being added. Backlogs are growing into weeks or months in several areas and in some cases they are so long it breaks the templates designed to track them.
Now, with that said, if you are going to slander me, at least be honest in what you say. I was banned on the English Wikipedia, but that has only happened once and it was to keep me from criticizing corrupt admins and to send a message to the community of what happens when you question admins. And the conduct of several admins after that was reprehensible and should have been banned from the project themsleves for their conduct, but they are still admins. My block was overturned after a detailed and well done community review and converted to a 6 month block which ends in February mostly because of my conduct after the abusive ban was established and my absolute refusal to accept being bullied out of the project. Additionally, the ban was abusively done by a couple of individuals by repeatedly resubmitting over and over until they got the result they wanted and then on the last time they hurried and closed it quickly. Of course if you had bothered to look, you would have seen that. But I suppose if someone submitted for you to be banned 5 times week after week and they all came back no or no consensus and then they finally got one to stick and called that a consensus, you would be ok with that and consider that fair? I doubt that, but then again you are an admin and generally admins are exempt from the rules anyway so you wouldn't even have that problem. You would probably just do what many other admins do, accuse them of "attacking you", write some insulting response as you did above in an attempt to discredit them and block them to prevent them from criticizing you further. Your also right that I did request my account be locked and I posted my password to get them to lock it. I did also do a couple minor vandalisms to get them to do it. But frankly, why should I have too, why not just lock it if someone requests my account be locked? There is no reason not too other than laziness of admins because we do not have enough admins to do the work that needs to be done!
Back to the point, your right, there does need to be a discussion and there have been no less than 2 dozen discussion over the last 6 years. Several are currently ongoing and its unlikely to lead anywhere again. Reguyla (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I did "oops" in my text above and I have corrected it to ... Banned on enWP, and blocked more than once ... Repetition repetition and repetition vociferously and voluminously doesn't make your argument different, just tedious. That it is something to which you feel passionate, doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't mean that we all have to feel that way, and hectoring us that we don't share your passion is an interesting form of engagement. If we had an absolute and overpowering passion for enWP, we would be there. That we are at this page at this place that discusses all WMF wikis, and WMF may mean that our passions are broader, or shared, and not solely committed to one wiki. So .. I was not trying to discredit you, more point out the bleeding obvious of why WMF didn't see fit to respond to you, a history that you created and seemingly expect to be conveniently forgotten. To the rest of your self-justification ... <sigh>  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I can only say that the WMF has nothing to do with it. Feel free to create a "Recycle bin" section on a discussion page about changing RFA, and throw [move --G.] such arguments there, as they are not to the point - so that they don't clutter the main discussion. Gryllida 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You may well be right that the WMF may not be interested in this and it may not be their problem. For all I know, the WMF may want the RFA process and Wikipedia to fail for some reason. I can't imagine how that would benefit them, but its possible. In any case, if the WMF is not interested in doing anything about the failing RFA process on the ENWP, which is the flagship Wiki BTW, then they may as well start looking for a new job. Because within the next couple of years, the number of active admins will have dropped to such a point that they cannot maintain the project anymore. At that point, vandalism and spam will go uncaught or at least stay longer and the credibility of the project will erode even farther than it already has. At that point, there will be no need for the WMF to maintain anything, because no one will be participating anyway. Personally, I would hope that the WMF would be interested in working with the community to fix the process or replace it based on the communities failure to do so. Regardless, its obvious to me at this point that the WMF doesn't care and neither do either of you. Reguyla (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
As has been said, this page is not the forum for the discussion, so why would we continue it? Take it / make it in the appropriate place and announce it here, then let us choose whether we wish to participate or not. However we so choose, that is our right. Take this subject elsewhere.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough and your right I have been blocked multiple times, but that is because I am passionate about the site as you say and I refuse to be run out of it by others who simply want to feel important and don't really care about the goals of the project other than they get to block people they don't like or agree with and protect articles they own. Its also true that this discussion mostly affects the ENWP directly, but it also broadly affects the other wiki's as well in general. All the Wiki's are symbiotic, what affects one generally also eventually affects the others..eventually. Since ENWP is the biggest, some things affect it less or more depending on what it is. In general though, many of the Wiki's have the same problem, more work than people and often the people that are there do not make it easy to get new people and keep them. What I am saying is that the WMF should care a little more about what happens to these wiki's rather than just pretend they don't exist until they need new software tested. Its no secret that the WMF wants to be a software development company more than a website maintainer, but they have an obligation to keep the Wiki's running and that includes being a stakeholder at least in a minimal way the cultural aspects of the site and in the policy of them. A Wiki cannot say that only White people can edit and I would assume that the WMF would intervene there, at least I would hope. But its been proven that many make it difficult for some races, genders or religions to edit. One good thing about the Wikia Wiki's is that there is a level above the local admins that actively police the Wiki's at an organizational level to ensure compliance with site policies and to help foster cooperation. No such thing exists at the WMF and there should be. It should also be noted that I do not have a high opinion of many of the WMF's approaches, so when I say the WMF should do something, it comes from someone who generally does not hold them in high regard. But they do need to work with the communities and they are a stakeholder and an owner in the individual Wiki's processes whether they choose to admit that or not. Regardless of their pretention for ignorance over the individual Wiki's they are ultimately responsible for their failure and even if its only for self preservation of their jobs, they should be interested in the largest one succumbing to its own weight due to a failure to keep and retain editors and admins. But clearly its more imprtant here that I was blocked or banned for not laying down to bullies, so I will let it go so that you guys can continue to pretend that there is no problem and it doesn't affect you in any way here. Reguyla (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Do Wikipedians understand the license under which they publish their work?[edit]

At least, not all of them. I've opened an RfC to discuss this: Requests for comment/Wikipedians and the CC-BY-SA license. Elfix 19:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The real question is Does Wikipedia understand it ? See, the text of that license gives us , the copyright holders, the right to void that method and use a different method of copyright , but Wikipedia doesn't seem to think so. They seem to think that they can use the license, but just ignore parts of it. Just my .02 Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Phabricator signup dead for weeks (at least)[edit]

I've been trying at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/auth/start/ (in response to warnings that the MediaWiki Bugzilla is going to go offline after transition to the new Phabricator server) to sign up for a Phabricator account, following the instructions to use my single-login ID and password for this process. Every time I attempt this, I get the ...

Wikimedia Foundation
Error

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

... error message (sent from https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/auth/login/ldap:self/), indicating that whatever process this account signup form depends on is not responding.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange, I cannot reproduce this. Have you tried the "MediaWiki" log in already? It can be found below the LDAP log in box. Vogone (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@Qgil-WMF: one for you to field if you wouldn't mind. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: strange, I can login both via Wikimedia SUL (the sunflower button) and Wikitech/Labs/Gerrit (the LDAP form). Also, several people are registering every day. If you still find problems, please join #wikimedia-devtoolsconnect and maybe we can help you live, step by step. Finally, check mw:Phabricator/Help and its talk page, the official channel to ask Wikimedia Phabricator questions. Thank you for your interest in Phabricator!--Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I had a similar problem but then I gave it Oauth authorization and it worked. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Officially implementing the global rename policy[edit]

See Talk:Global rename policy --Glaisher (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation problem[edit]

Hello, I can't save my changes for the translation of this page in french. Is this normal ? Thank you :) Rome2 (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to translate those messages as stated on the page. You can write up those translations at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat so then admin can add the translations. Stryn (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer, I hadn't paid attention to the message. I'm going to make the request. Rome2 (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project[edit]

Forum readers have likely seen the link on the main page, but in case not, all are welcome to contribute to the ongoing discussion regarding a possible Wikimedia genealogy project. --Another Believer (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia can develop a new world language[edit]

In addition to Wikipedia's language segregated databases, we also need a single Wikipedia database that allows every language group to participate. Editors should be encouraged to create and edit articles using words from as many languages as they know. This will help to develop a new world language as editors and readers work together to includes words from various languages into a common articles.

Language is meant to evolve and change as people mix and migrate to new places, but the internet (and particularly Wikipedia) is preventing this intermeshing of languages by segregating databases by language. The solution is to create a database where languages can mix and mesh. Waters.Justin (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose we call the language that develops out of this project, Wikipedia. ;) Waters.Justin (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe something like Wikidata or A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia which is language-neutral could work, but Wikimedia (and Wikipedia) should not try to make another Esperanto, Lojban, or Klingon. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
What I am proposing is different than A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia because I am proposing for articles to not be translated into another language. The idea is that people who edit and read the page will begin to learn new words and phrases from a variety of languages. English is a mixture of French, German, and Latin. It is possible that a new online language that is a mixture of a variety of languages could develop as editors establish a preference for words in some languages over others. In the Talk pages editors could negotiate what languages to use for different words, and the language used could evolve as the Wikipedia database grows. This would not be like Esperanto, Lojban, or Kingon because it would not be a language with fixed rules and perimeters; it would be an evolving language made of all the world's languages. Learning words from all the world's languages has a greater benefit than learning Kilingon, so editors and readers will have a greater incentive to participate. The only problem I see is that not all languages use Latin characters and some languages start from the right side of the page. I think these differences are minor and can be part of this world language experiment. This would develop into a Wikipedia pidgin language Waters.Justin (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
How does creating a conlang (even if it is a 'living' or 'evolving' one) help to fulfill Wikimedia's mission: to spread knowledge? If anything, it would just make it harder, since readers would have to learn another language (if I understand you correctly). Esperanto and Lojban already tried to do what you're proposing to some extent. They use words from a mixture of other languages. Esperanto does have a fixed grammar, but it can have new words. I'm not sure what you mean by a language without fixed rules; it needs to have at least some grammar. I just don't see the point. Adding new words to existing languages makes sense, but creating a new one from talk page comments does not (to me, at least). Besides [since you keep referencing Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia] original research is forbidden. I doubt it would ever be taken seriously by non-Wikipedians. If you were to attempt something like this, you'd probably transliterate everything to one script (e.g. Latin), so the writing system and directionality of the original languages wouldn't matter. By the way, even though English is Germanic, it did not come from what we call "German" per se (it's a descendent of Old English, whereas German came from Old High German). I'm not sure if you're trying to reference the Middle English creole hypothesis though. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
In other words: Assuming Wikipedia can develop a new world language, why should it? And creating a new world language reminds me of this comic. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, and one of the greatest obstacles to sharing knowledge is the language barrier. If Wikipedia can find a way past the World's language barrier it will fulfill its purpose and create a new network or language of knowledge that may one day transcend past the Wikimedia experience. Does Wikimedia want its legacy to be the segregation of knowledge based on language or does Wikimedia want its legacy to be that it took every effort possible to transcend the language barrier to share knowledge? Waters.Justin (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem is an important one. We can probably all agree on that. It doesn't follow that a certain strategy will help solve the problem. Inventing a new language to help with translation merely creates yet another language to try to translate into and out of. Esperanto seems to be about as successful as one can expect an international auxilliary language to be; but from what I hear, it doesn't solve the problem of translating between languages. I'm told you can translate great literature from many languages into Esperanto without much loss of nuance, Esperanto readers can read it in Esperanto with full impact, and it can be translated back into its original language and be pretty much what it started as — but if you translate it from Esperanto into some other natural language, something is lost. --Pi zero (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
My hope is that this language project will add words from other languages to the English language and other languages. This multilingual Wikipedia database can be the flower that seeds the world with words from many languages. In other words, the primary goal of this project is not to create a new world language, but to create a project that will allow the flow of new words into other languages. Translating in and out of the Wikipigin language would not be an issue because the primary goal of the project is to seed the world with new words and create a forum where language can coevolve unrestrained by language segregation and the fixed rules of grammar. People like puzzles and many people half know a language, so writing by mixing languages would be fun to a lot of people. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I like this idea, but I feel like it is perhaps too ambitious; and a similar project is underway, otherwise known as English. English has become such an international language in large part because it is a common sewer of languages, fairly readily accepting loanwords from many sources. We've had a Simple English Wiki and novelty Wikis in everything from Volapuk to Klingon -- maybe it's time to have one where people work out a new English orthography that is vastly simplified and phonetic, while simultaneously exploring ways to simplify the language and even its grammar... though the latter is a bit difficult, since you can already verb just about anything, for example. :) Also perhaps to regularize the language and encourage the full range of logical correlates of every word (line seed and flaxen cloth; perhaps have both floors and TV ratings sweeped). Wnt (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
On the peculiar character of English, the quote that comes to mind (well known in some circles) is
We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. — James D. Nicoll
Trying to standardize English orthography is one of those things that sounds (irony there) like a good idea until you try to do it. Another occasion to cite this comic (which someone also cited above). --Pi zero (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that directly applies, so long as the new orthography is used by itself rather than for a subset of words. Really, I'd like to see it start all the way back with the alphabet - is there a way to research the most distinctive possible set of letters to accelerate reading and writing as much as possible? Wnt (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The fundamental flaw in this proposal is that Wikipedia does not create the world, Wikipedia describes the world. If someone in reading 200 languages comes up with a 201st language, and it becomes popular, Wikipedia will simply create a new wiki for it. Languages are created and evolve all the time, so there is nothing new about the process, but our responsibility is to report those changes, not create them. What I would like to propose instead, though, is to create articles on meta-wiki (here) that are translated into all languages, using the drop down box at the left, instead of clicking an interwiki link. All articles would need to have a uniform structure in every language, and could display a box saying "translation pending" for every section that has not been translated yet. I would strongly suggest avoiding a language block at the top of each page, as that is not the easiest way to get from one language to another, and I also would strongly suggest restricting the number of articles to roughly the 500,000 most important ones for every encyclopedia to have, instead of just allowing anyone to create any Pokemon article they wanted (make a list of proposed articles, similar to the manner we propose featuring an image or article on the main page). In kicking off this project, I would suggest creating an article about every country of the world. All articles in this meta wiki would have the same content and depth in every language, instead of some being stubs and some having 200,000 bytes, which is what we have today. By limiting the number of articles we can focus our work on articles one at a time instead. Apteva (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    That's not really what Meta-Wiki is for, but you could create an example page if you wanted to show what you mean. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
True, this is off topic for a Wikipedia, but I would like to see the WMF sponsor a broader range of small creative projects. Really, this is a special case of what I'd like to see, a "Wikidea" where people try to collectively develop free inventions. For people who aren't willing to spend thousands on a license to be sued, aka patent, there are few options for proposing ideas; it's amazing what kind of scam artists prey on the public. This would be one such item for such a hypothetical project. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
In Lila's keynote at Wikimania she said (in flowery words) that the non-Wikipedian sisters don't matter. But, if you're willing to treat the Foundation as the obstacle-best-ignored that it aspires to be, there's Wikiversity. --Pi zero (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I really don't keep track of what any would-be leaders are up to; though it is clear that if a language project were ever to succeed it would take some leader, a committed individual willing to really put in the effort to try to get the fire kindled in the first place. Certainly I hope that WMF doesn't start eating its young though; if they contribute little they also cost little, and they provide a nebula of useful cover. I mean, if Fox News starts complaining that the Arabic wiki has an article on RDX, it wouldn't hurt if we can say our Klingon wiki has an article on photon torpedoes. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Set $wgCheckUserForceSummary to true on Wikimedia wikis[edit]

This discussion affects every CU on every wiki. Please feel free to report it in the local CU village pump, where existing. Please note the issue has already been notified to the CU mailing list by Rschen7754 (with a link to the bug, not this discussion).

It has been proposed in bug 71457 by Filzstift to enable the $wgCheckUserForceSummary setting by default on every Wikimedia wiki.

This setting has been introduced in May 2009. It has already been enabled for en.wikipedia some years ago.

Filzstift describes the feature like this: “When doing a Checkuser query a "reason" can be entered. Normally for each CU query a reason _must_ be entered, but sometimes they got forgotten.”. It forbids to perform a CU without entering a reason.

This is supported by Glaisher, Rschen7754, billinghurst and a CU I can't match the mail to a wiki username according the bug report. Arguments given in support are it allows to avoid distraction omissions and to help the transparency for the Ombudsman Commission work.

Do you agree with this proposal? --Dereckson (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be @NativeForeigner:. If someone could notify all the wikis with CUs, that would be helpful (except enwiki, I suppose, since it is already enabled). --Rschen7754 17:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Notifications done on fr. and commons. --Dereckson (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note. The Bugzilla request is for the technical implementation of the mediawiki feature set that requires that those undertaking use of Checkuser tool to complete the Reason: field, (cf. enforcing an edit summary to undertake an edit). This discussion is not about requirements for validation for undertaking a checkuser which should occur against community norms, and prior to the technical act of a checkuser process.


  • Weak Support Support. I do not disagree. --Krd 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dereckson: - FYI your link to the bug is non-functional. Anyway, strong support if it gives the option to use no summary if entered a second time (like overriding forced edit summaries); weak support if not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The proposal makes sense in principle but I didn't look into it enough to have a definite opinion. --Nemo 21:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please explain more clearly what this is about? "Force summary"? Summary by whom? Where? Is this to force the person requesting the CU to summarize why he wants it? Or to force the CU to enter a reason on Special:Check user?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The last. Summary by CU on the check user special page. --Dereckson (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support it is a no-brainer for what is usual practice. Field should always be completed as demonstration of due diligence for why check was undertaken, and where I have not, it is an accidental omission. It will create no extra work for those undertaking the practice of documenting why they have undertaken a check.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support (not because I support it, but I don't disagree, either). Documenting a check is one thing, but properly documenting a check is another. On frwiki, we put a link to the local CU request, but I've seen many wikis where something like "vandalism" or "sockpuppet" is commonly used, which is very unhelpful if you need to remember, 6 months later, the exact reason you did that check. Forcing people to put reasons will lead to this. But this is no reason for me to oppose it. Elfix 08:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist with watch/ignore talk page threads and global watchlist[edit]

As an IEG proposal, I have proposed making a user script which permits you to watch or ignore threads on talk pages. With this script, for talk pages your watchlist will only show the threads you have chosen to watch. Alternately it will show all threads except those which you have indicated you desire to ignore. In addition, the script will permit you to display entries from your watchlist on other Wikipedia projects and languages. Discussion is encouraged at the IEG page. — Makyen (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.23:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Staff[edit]

Is the use of the word "staff" in templates like Template:User CVN staff allowed? It creates the impression, on first reading, that the user is a WMF employee. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The link goes to the CVN website and the userbox clearly says CVN not WMF. I don't think we have (or should have) any policies forbidding people from writing possibly confusing userboxes, but feel free to suggest another wording. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK, WMF has not yet trademarked the word "staff". --Nemo 20:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I find the idea that the WMF should have a monopoly on the word "staff" on meta ridiculous. Also, I disagree that it creates any such impressions, the template doesn't say "This user is a staff member of the WMF", it says "This user is a staff member of the CVN". Snowolf How can I help? 18:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

where to complain about an administrator who abused his rights?[edit]

I want to complain about an administrator of bar.wikipedia.org who abused his rights. Where can I do a request for desysopping this admin here in meta-wiki? An admin complaint on bar.wikipedia-org is useless beacuse there are only two active admins or so and they're biased (and the abuse is too heavy).-seko- (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You could start an RfC, but have you tried discussing it locally? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

mirroring Philippe's words elsewhere  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

<<note: legal threat redacted. If you wish to reach the WMF regarding an actual legal issue, please feel free to write legal@wikimedia.org, but don't leave this on my talk page. It will be an inefficient path to resolution.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) >>

Community Liaison job openings at WMF[edit]

Hello! There are currently 2 job openings, and I thought someone here might be interested. Specifically:

  • Community Liaison - this position will initially focus on working with the Flow team and also with the Editing (VisualEditor) team, mostly at non-English wikis; however, a lot of smaller or short-term tasks continually come up, so the WMF is particularly looking for someone who is adaptable, and with diverse interests.
  • Community Liaison (Part time contract) - this part-time position will primarily focus on working with the Mobile teams, as the link explains.

If you need further information, feel free to send an email to cep@lists.wikimedia.org (but do not use this address to apply). Please pass it along, if you know someone who might be interested or a good fit for the Community Engagement team. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia "look alike" - is it connected with this wiki?[edit]

Recently I came across a page with all the appearance of a wikipedia page, with one exception. Instead of the normal WIKIPEDIA logo in the upper left corner, there was a representation of the human brain. My recollection is that this site was called "Rational Wiki", but I'm not sure of this.

The content was much more casual then normal WIKI prose, including some humor. I'd like to look again for this site, but I must have something wrong in my memory of it, as I cannot find it again.

Does anyone know of this site, and is able to give me its URL? Many thanks if you can.

George Sweeney gsweeney859@gmail.com

@Gsweeney: Hi George. The site is indeed called RationalWiki (rationalwiki.org). It looks the same because uses the same free/open-source software which was originally created for Wikipedia (MediaWiki), but it is not associated with Wikipedia or Wikimedia at all. Wikipedia does have some sister projects however (see wikimedia.org for a list), but RationalWiki is not one of them (neither are the unrelated sites Wikileaks and Wikia, FYI). I think RationalWiki was created as a more secular/progressive response to the conservative wiki Conservapedia, see here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

New PlaceBook Wiki Project Proposal[edit]

I've just created a new project proposal that I'd really welcome any feedback on.

I recognise that the overall aims are ambitious in scope, but it is all definitely achievable with current web-based technologies, so it's more a question of ascertaining whether there would be sufficient willing and enthusiasm out there to give the idea wings. Obviously, comments favourable and unfavourable would all help to gauge this, so thanks in advance.

History or timeline of WikiMedia Projects[edit]

Is there a timeline of when Wikimedia projects have been started and ended? This is mainly an issue of curiosity for me. I noticed that the number of wikis listed on List_of_Wikipedias has recently changed from 287 to 288, and was wondering what got added. Obviously the same question exists for the other project types as well. Thanks. Rwessel (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

See Incubator:Incubator:Site_creation_log. Ruslik (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Just what I was interested in. Rwessel (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Greek wikipedia duplicate articles[edit]

Anyone know how to let the Greek wikipedia know that they have duplicate articles? Νταν Μ. Κνούντσεν and Νταν Μάικλ Κνούντσεν. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a merge template. --Stryn (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising banner[edit]

Hello,

First, sorry for my english (feel free to correct my message). For information, the french community considers the CentralNotice banner used for fundraising as problematic: it doesn't reach the two first goals listed on CentralNotice/Usage guidelines:

  • "Be as unobtrusive as possible."
  • "Be as narrowly tailored as necessary."

All feedbacks we have (on OTRS, Village pump, Newcommers forum, through our real life colleagues or family...) are very negative about the fundraising popub, which is very intrusive, not very well translated and looking like Phishing. In our view, it's counterproductive.

The French community is unanimous about this, as you can see on this community vote, and asks to go back to the classic banner used the last years.

Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done This issue has been resolved .I have notice Fundraising team. See here .Regards --Grind24 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure it "has been resolved": [1]. But thanks. Jules78120 (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Some examples (not clear which were used widely; I wish there were public updates on fundraising activity):

How to interpret https://metrics.wmflabs.org/static/public/dash/#projects=frwiki/metrics=RollingNewActiveEditor (definition)? --Nemo 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In the meanwhile I removed some "promises"/statements, contained in Fundraising, which were apparently superseded.[2] --Nemo 13:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Local administrators should be able to view Commons deleted file history[edit]

Regularly, Commons deletes an image that is used on a local project and conforms to the local project's image inclusion criteria, which are almost always more inclusive than commons. So it's worth retrieving the image for the local project, but the hassle of having to make the request at Commons, the processing time, the language barrier, the impracticality of the transfer, etc, means that local contributors are dissuaded from doing so. Therefore, the local administrators should be able to view the commons file deleted history, and description as well, so that they can retrieve it when necessary. This shouldn't pose a policy problem since they have already been trusted to be admins on local projects (if this is really such an issue, there could be a delete option for commons admins to prevent viewing by local admins, and if this is really, really a big issue, they could be prevented from viewing previously deleted images). I do not believe that a global usergroup would solve the problem, since there are too many wikis and they would be confronted to the same problems. A global group works for the reverse situation, as in Global file deletion review, but not here since all projects would need the access, and I should note that variants of pretty much all of the issues raised for justifying this global group apply here as well. Cenarium (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. This has been a problem on en.wn for many years; our archive policy does not permit replacing images, and we've got some hundreds of broken image links, some unknown number of which would be admissible under our local fair-use policy if there were a tractable way to check them all (without hassling Commons admins to investigate each one for us). --Pi zero (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)