Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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


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 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 (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)

German OTRS permission tickets[edit]

It seems that due to the recent Mediaviewer/superprotect gate, several or maybe all active DE-N volunteers at OTRS stopped responding to tickets. Currently there are 380 open tickets in the German permission queues (permissions-de / permissions-commons-de). Does the WMF have any ideas on how to get sufficient German activity back in OTRS? Jcb (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Mr. Möller would be a good replacement. Would teach him maybe also to be again humble towards the volunters, what would be a great extra ... --Julius1990 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for this very constructive message. Anyways. I think this discussion should be held on OTRS wiki so the OTRS admins can see if it is appropriate to (temporarily) close some of these queues until the matter has been resolved and avoid any further "packing" of the permissions queues. Elfix 13:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not see how closure of the queues would be helpful. If we close them, the general queue will be flooded with messages in German and we will have nowhere to store them separately. However if the backlog of the general queue is within reasonable limits, I will see if I can handle some with my DE-1 skills. I think there is only one direction in which we have to find the resolution: We need active OTRS volunteers with DE skills. The reason I posted this message here, is that IMHO the WMF has caused this problem with the way they enforced the introduction of the Mediaviewer. And yes, this is an issue for OTRS volunteers, because that annoying Mediaviewer is slowing down our work significantly. Turning it off for our personal accounts solves only part of the problem, because a lot of clients send hyperlinks to Mediaviewer windows. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
If you can, then take care of them. Otherwise, let's not let people continue to expect a response any time soon there: better direct them to the English-speaking queues (for permissions-commons-de at least), for example... Elfix 16:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Closing the queues is never something we would want to do because of backlogs. The admins (and the agents) are aware of the backlogs (and believe it or not - this is not the worst we've ever seen; though it is more elevated than average, of course) and are always looking for ways to expand recruiting efforts. So I would suggest that the discussion should be based on improving the response times rather than "closing queues". Rjd0060 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, of course, if you feel like getting some volunteers on these queues, do it. But if you don't... perhaps you should consider something which will be less of a waste of time for the volunteers, like temporarily closing the queue. Because over time, all the files without the proper OTRS permissions will eventually get deleted on commons. And getting them restored can be quite a bit of a headache for the poor volunteer who isn't a sysop on Commons. Elfix 14:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Closing the queues will not solve the problem as noted above. Suggesting not to write in German will do. But who would ask OFFICIALLY on German language projects NOT to send permissions and NOT ask questions in German, but use English / French / Italian / Polish / Russian instead? Ankry (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
We do feel like finding more agents. It is our job. ;-) We will never close a queue simply because of backlogs. Hope I've made that point clear. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Good. Good luck with that, then :) Elfix 19:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this more an issue for the German-language communities for how they wish to deal with their permissions? In online communities there will always be rises and falls in participation, and there will be (unfortunate) upsets. So time to stop pushing blame, and to look to solutions; and saying that the solution lies with other parties isn't going to be productive, nor owned by the community, and the solution does lie within the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Elfix: if you need a file to be (temp-)undeleted at Commons you can just ping an admin at IRC or ask for undeletion at Commons:Undeletions requests.... It's easy if you know what you are doing. Natuur12 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This still remains an avoidable waste of time (to a smaller extend, yes). Elfix 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

While the current commons-permission backlog is only 12 days, the German queue has a 102 days backlog, which is why I have added a warning to c:COM:ET/de.    FDMS  4    11:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Terms of use[edit]

I am looking for general WMF licensing policy as it was in 2009. Terms of use history starts in 2011. Can anybody point me to the older equivalent of this file? Ankry (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ankry: Here it is foundation:Terms of Use (2009).--Snaevar (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Romanian Wikisource[edit]

Hello, I am administrator at the Romanian Wikipedia, and I am here to seek advice: we have blocked an user (BAICAN XXX) from Romanian Wikipedia, and this has migrated to the Romanian Wikisource where he started a campaign of creating non sense pages, as can be seen here. Considering that the Romanian Wikisource doesn't have an active administrator at the moment, a discussion has started at Romanian Wikipedia's Forum (ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea#Wikisource în limba română se degradează repede. Cum procedăm?) about what shall be done to stop this situation? The discussion is conveying towards the conclusion that the Romanian Wikipedia's administrators to be granted with sysops rights to all sister projects. The reason why the discussion was extended to all Romanian projects is due to the suspicion that as soon as we'll block BAICAN XXX on Wikisource this will migrate to other wiki project lacking in active administrators. Could you please provide your thoughts on this situation? Thanks and regards, Silenzio76 (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You can request assistance by stewards and GS. (SRM, VR) --Glaisher (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have placed my message at SRM. Silenzio76 (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I see this discussion and I think it has to be stated by a Romanian native speaker that are no nonsense pages like those mentioned by user Silenzio who is trying to present his personal opinions as fact. Also are some aspects which are omitted by the admin who has made this notification. The block of user Baican has been done abusively on grounds of opinion differences between Baican and Silienzio, this being a serious abuse from an admin to find alleged reasons to block a user with whom he had disagreements. This is a personal vendetta of user Silenzio whose main undeclared goal in his candidacy to an admin approximately a year ago was to block Baican on alleged mistakes which he persistently looked for and reproached them to Baican as grounds for long time block.-- 10:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Comment Romanian Wikisource is an independent community, and as such it appoints its own administrators, which be the same as the other sister sites. As such roWP admins would not be granted rights at sister wikis based on them being admins at roWP, only through local processes at each of the wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Billinghurst, in theory, you're right and I completely understand your concern and reluctance to take steps that might overrule a local community. In reality, there is no Romanian Wikisource community. The only recently active people on the Romanian Wikisource are a few Wikipedians, such as w:ro:User:XXN and w:ro:User:GEO. And, of course, our sockpuppet master, BAICAN XXX. Actually, they are the only ones who noticed BAICAN's actions. Luckily, so far, did not face too much vandalism, and did not require too much administrative attention. It wasn't obvious, for instance, that of the three sysops, one has been inactive for three years, one for a year and a half, and the most active one has last been seen with a single edit in July and has performed the last sysop action when he deleted a page in March. Now, this lack of attention is becoming a bit of a problem.Andrei Stroe (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Right in theory and right in practice. Administrators at roWS will be appointed based on request and activity, not on whether they are administrators at roWP. If there are concerns among roWS participants about the lack of activity of the current administrators, or the need for more administrators, then processes exist in that space for interested parties to take and express an interest in that role. Stewards and global sysops can act in lieu of local administrators where issues exist, and they are flagged. This is how the broader community has defined that stewards shall act on communities, irrespective of the language and the sister, and until there is a policy change.

So in summary, if there are concerns at roWS, then discussions should take place there and the solutions decided there, not at roWP. If the local administration is unable or unavailable to implement that community's decision, then stewards will implement for them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Billinghurst is correct. Also, if anyone over at is worried about this, then they could probably elect one or more of themselves as admins there. 16:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am BAICAN XXX (pseudonim). Ceea ce a scris aici user (utilizator) [] pe 15.10.2014 ( 10:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)) referitor la relația Baican - Silenzio sau Silenzio - Baican este după părerea mea, conform cu realitatea faptelor. Asta se poate vedea din pagina mea BAICAN XXX de la ro.Wikipedia: Acolo este clar redat o discuție de controverse purtată pe multe luni de zile, dintre mine BAICAN XXX și user Silenzio76 pe tema denumirilor împăraților Sfântului Imperiu Roman (HOLY ROMAN EMPERoR) în articolele de la ro.Wikipedia unde, până la intervențiile corective ale mele din 2011 și anii următori erau, considerați în mod simplu, ÎMPĂRAȚI ROMANI (ROMAN EMPEROR), deci nefăcându-se o diferență practic între cele două imperii istorice , cel antic, ROMAN EMPIRE și cel din Evul Mediu, HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (germano-catolic). Eu am procedat de unul singur la corectările a sute și sute de articole, deși user Silenzio (și alții) protestau la schimbările mele corecte. Astfel că, atunci când ulterior a devenit administrator la ro.Wikipedia, Silenzio76 a căutat să mă denigreze, afirmând tendențios că eu, BAICAN XXX aș introduce în articole informații false, și profitând de neînțelegerea de către masa de useri (utilizatori) a esenței de idee, - mizei - existentă în discuția pe tema amintită mai sus, adică diferența istorică dintre ROMAN EMPIRE și HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, a decis de unul singur blocarea mea definitivă, nelimitată la ro.Wikipedia. Ca dovadă că eu am dreptate și nu Silenzio76, este faptul că ultimele mele 6 articole propriu inițiate la ro.Wikipedia, despre care Silenzio76 a declarat tendențios înainte de blocarea mea, că ar conține "FALSE INFORMAȚII", sunt și astăzi (acum) neșterse, la ro.Wikipedia, cu datele inițiale neatinse. Căci, logic ar fi fost, dacă "BAICAN XXX" a fost blocat de Silenzio76 pentru informațiile false aduse de el în acele noi inițiate articole, atunci tot el Silenzio76 ar fi trebuit să corecteze sau să șteargă (DELETE) articolele respective de la ro.W. Atât.BAICAN XXX (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Logging problemens with my global account[edit]

Hi, I have a global account as User:Salix but still encounter two problems to solve :

  1. From one Wikipedia to another, the global account is working, but I am sometimes asked to log in. When I clic on "log in" three times (eg. from fr.Wikipedia to Commons or Metawiki), my user account is switched on automaticaly at last, but it doesn't work everywhere (eg. from fr.Wikipedia to Wikidata or Mediawiki). Is it normal ?
  2. As I registered a long time ago, users of a few languages are using the same name, but do not seems to contribute anymore. I have usurpated the english one, but have no idea how to ask for the same process in other remaining Wikipedia langages. Does an admin could help me please ? --Salix (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Salix,
  1. This is not a normal experience that I'm aware of. What browser and operating system are you using? Do you have cookies enabled?
  2. The bad news is that if the accounts that you do not own have made any edits, the accounts are currently stuck at that name as we work on SUL finalisation. All local renaming has been turned off and all rename requests are now handled here on Meta. Unfortunately, there is still no agreed upon global usurpation policy, or if there even should be one. The good news is that work toward single-user login finalization continues, and when it is completed at some point early-ish next year you will likely "own" the name Salix in finalization and the other accounts that are not you would be automatically renamed at that time :) So we wait...
In the mean time, if there are accounts that are not you that have zero edits, you can visit this page and request to have the name. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Keegan (WMF). It may be a cookies problem as my Firefox is erasing all of them when I close it. Concerning the global account, I will check ringht now how many edits other users did. --Salix (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I have this problem too, since a few weeks or months. Autologin has always been unreliable since mw:SUL2, but got worse; and I see several cookies are set to expire at the end of the session despite the sites are in my whitelist. (Yes, I uninstalled Privacy badger as well as disabled Self-destructing cookies and Cookie Time. I didn't try disabling NoScript and Adblock plus, nor I'm willing to.) I didn't even try reporting these CentralAuth bugs because last time it took many hours of work; but I encourage any brave user to do so when they have some spare patience.
On the bright side, this allows me to share the terrible pains of the unregistered user proletariat: particularly the always-on obnoxious fundraising banners which consume more than half the screen and similar amenities. --Nemo 19:41, 25 October 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)

Suggested change to Special:Watchlist[edit]

I propose that on the watchlist, under the line for selecting a namespace, their is a box that can be ticked so that only unveiwed changes appear. - NickGibson3900 (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. Someone should file a bugzilla report for this, if there isn't one. --Nemo 19:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Implement Global_deleted_image_review[edit]

I'm not exactly sure the right procedure for this, but I'd like to open discussion on implementing Global_deleted_image_review global group. This proposal previously gained consensus in 2008 (and most of the objections are about how oversight used to work and no longer apply today), but was not implemented due to technical restrictions at the time. With the introduction of viewdeletedfile right, stewards now have the technical ability to create such a global group. The viewdeletedfile right grants people the ability to look at deleted files and deleted pages in the file namespace (Note: this includes revdeletion. Oversight is obviously not included). The proposal is to give all commons admins such rights across all wikis (Allowing individual wikis to opt out if they don't want that for whatever reason). Initial response at commons is that they still want such a right.

So does this need another discussion at meta to show global consensus (2008 is a long time) or what is the next steps needed for this? Bawolff (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think another discussion is in order. A lot can change in community opinion after 6 years, so I think this is only fair. An RFC might be a good venue for such a discussion and then vote. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. A short global discussion on this matter would not harm and I think satisfy every party. Vogone (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
+1 It needs to be a fresh conversation as an RFC, and its existence should be fully communicated to affected wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
+1 Ajraddatz. Six years is a pretty long time. ~ Nahid Talk 23:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I create a global group for test purposes, but I can not see deleted revisions of Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Re Ruslik - What error message did w:Special:Undelete/File:Richmond_Public_Library_Shelves.jpg give? I should note that at the moment, "View X deleted revisions" link will not be shown to users with this right. (May change in future Will change on November 5). Bawolff (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I did some testing on the labs cluster, and found that users in this group would need to manually navigate to Special:Undelete/File:name, since there is no link from the page to the undelete page. Other than that it works fine. (After three edits I finally realized that what I found is the same as what Bawolff said... :P) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Some things to keep in mind if you do plan on starting an RfC:

  • Is this group still needed? Are the problems listed on the page still around, and will this still solve them?
  • Should there be an additional approval procedure for commons admins to get this global right?
  • Could stewards perform this role upon request instead of a new group being made?

Those are all questions that I'd imagine would come up on any discussion about this; it would be a good idea to nail those details down first, or have discussions on them ready to go when an RfC starts. My own 2c ofc Ajraddatz (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Created Requests for comment/Global deletion review (Ajraddatz: Thank you for your suggestions. I read them after I created the RFC page. I personally think it would be easiest if it was automatic on commons adminship, but have no strong feelings either way). Bawolff (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
There are some Commons admins that I think wouldn't be trusted on other wikis. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted, that if anyone is really controversial and gets themselves blocked, the blocking would prevent this right from working on whatever wiki they are blocked on. Bawolff (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this need to be advertized elsewhere (MassMessage?), I'm not sure what level of advertizing is usually done for this type of proposal which could affect all wikis. Bawolff (talk)

MassMessage would seem to be the ideal way to notify every community of an RfC affecting every wiki by default (opt-out), and is usually used for such RfCs. I think CentralNotice would be overkill unless (perhaps) it is only shown to autoconfirmed users. Even then I doubt most would be interested in the RfC. Please make the message neutral, containing a description of the proposed group and a link to the discussion. You could also mark it for translation, but that's not required. You can either ask your co-proposer (sorry, thought he was) Legoktm, a local "MassMessage" sender whose scope includes this RfC (I don't think there is any), or a local admin (such as myself, or on RFH) to send it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Generally such discussions are held and/or advertised here at the Wikimedia Forum, but a specific page is also fine; I commented there. Mass messages to the village pumps are the easy thing, but even better is to figure out specific places where the signal:noise ratio will be better, perhaps talk pages of d:Q5525438 or similar. --Nemo 19:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

New project: Wikinotes[edit]

I want to create a new Wikimedia project called Wikinotes by taking the literature notes from Wikibooks and setting it up as its own. The main reason I want to do it is because I have always wanted a notes wiki and I only discovered that Wikibooks had it by accident.

It would be difficult (especially considering there isn't exactly a special category, namespace, template, etc. for notes) but it would work a lot better for users in the long run.

What do you think? --XndrK (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a reason to set up a separate sister; the problem you describe is one of drumming up publicity. --Pi zero (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I just think it would be a heck of a lot easier if we had a separate project, because while I can see how Wikibooks got the notes project, I don't think it's a logical place to put it. I wouldn't really call literature notes "books" in the Wikibooks sense. --XndrK (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That seems an artifical narrowing of Wikibooks scope; and if anything Wikibooks should expand its scope. Anyway, speaking from experience, no, a small project is not easier. Wikibooks, which is already a small project, is in a real sense a confederation of a large number of microprojects (individual books) most of which are each far too small to support a whole project on their own, all banding together to share support infrastructure. Splitting up the support infrastructure further would only damage the infrastructure. --Pi zero (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a thought, but maybe this could be done in Wikidata using wikibooks info. It could be possible to create a reference template that draws on the Wikidata about the books, then instead of the user having to fill out all the data in the reference, they could just say something like {{Cite web}} and the template would populate based on the Wikidata's data. Reguyla (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The University of Jordan Community service[edit]

Arabic Wikipedia community is at its final stages of negotiations with the University of Jordan. We are now talking about adding a photography tasks that would be considered as community service by the university. Each student should fulfill certain hours per semester doing some kind of work that would reflect back on his/her community. Arabic Wikipedia community suggested that each student should get and upload 50 photos covering different aspects within Jordan.

The photos are to be owned by The University of Jordan, and the idea is to release all this work under a free license. The University of Jordan are talking about the use of their own JU_USE license that only permits non-profit usages, but hopefully we will overcome that in a few days. In the meanwhile I will work on a few templates that will encourage them, it seems colorful templates with BIG-CABS names are charming. I will also create a campaign page on commons to make it easier for the students to upload the photos here.

What I need help in is: A way to figure-out and count images uploaded by each student for each semester, so we can email the results back to the university at the end of each semester as a prof that the students did that part of the C.S.

Keep in mind we are talking about 43000 student.--Tarawneh (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is uploading files to Commons, the students directly? You'll need a so-called "campaign", as for WLM, to ensure they use the correct templates and not get lost in forms. --Nemo 12:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Why should the University own the copyrights? You really don't want that: if the University owns the copyright, then you'll have to do OTRS paperwork for every single one of those photos. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would grant them autopatrolled rights on all wikis except those who opt-out. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify one point by Ajraddatz: The OTRS global group proposal does not grant any new or additional rights to its members. It is solely for identification purposes and will include a right that all users already have (such as the ability to read a page). The image review proposal on the other hand would grant users a sufficient amount of new access. Please don't confuse the two. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
And now post that message on every noticeboard the first message has been posted to... -Barras talk 18:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Already done by me (for the large projects anyway). I didn't realize that the RfC didn't include any new rights, which the original proposal (that I read) did. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note, when I've been doing AAR I've noticed that there are a few random projects not on the GMD lists. I'm hoping to fix it when I get a chance. --Rschen7754 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I've been trying at (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

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, 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.


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 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)


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, 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 (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

@Gsweeney: Hi George. The site is indeed called RationalWiki ( 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 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.