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

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)

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.

Local admin's action overridation by stewards[edit]

One says it's not possible and the other one actually do it, is there any policy about it? Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 11:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about different things. Stewards have the ability to grant rights, they just cannot grant minor rights to a wiki; there is a standard set of rights that we can allocate from meta, and that is due to the configuration of meta not knowing the scope of rights at any other wiki. The rights that stewards have are shown at Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/steward. Re the protection, there was no requirement to protect that page, no clear alignment with a policy, so it was undone. Closing of RFA is usually sufficient at other wikis, and protection is usually not the means to manage normal things. You seem somewhat set on being antagonistic about a number of issues, there is no conspiracy, there is just standard management.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused, did I ask anything about that action in here by any chance? Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 13:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
For the policy regarding Stewards, see Stewards policy. — Revi 11:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

What should I do and where should I go to get autopatrolled right in small wikis, which don't have their local policy, such as Esperanto Wikiquote? --Ochilov (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the small wikis don't have autopatrolled user group. eowikiquote also doesn't have it. Only admins and bots have the 'autopatrol' right. --Glaisher (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

shared ip block ban base source[edit]

How can I start a RFC for 2015 I am asking this as seems some sections of wikimedia and wikipedia do not share the same ip block ban system. This seems a weakness in the system as I thought thought be a good enhancement.

ie a ip block in one project would be shared across the projects.

We have global IP blocks and it can be removed on specific wikis. --Glaisher (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So why does meta not use the global blocks by default and other projects use the global blocks by default

The user can't edit the talk pages on any wiki so this is the only way to request a global unblock. -- Tegel (Talk) 18:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
So the reason the meta project does not use global block is to request unblock via web, I think a better enhancement is to request unblock by email.

Also if the reason is for above then arbcom submission should be hosted in meta and not wikipedia then ?

@81.129.229.15: a) I suggest you to creates an account b) Stop spamming user talk pages c) Why you revert edits made by sysops or Stewards and add your rfc on inappropriate pages ? --Grind24 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to use the system as a normal user, RFC would be a good enhancement

So why cant arbcom be hosted in meta then ?

you are making it too difficult to report abuse

There are multiple "arbcoms". Each one is set up by its own local community. Most (>95%) of language editions and projects do not have an arbcom, and most of them do not want an arbcom. The community here at Meta could create its own arbcom—if it wanted to. It is possible to report abuse at any project. Most types of abuse should not be reported to arbcom. Most abuse reports should be sent to admins (sysops). The page on Meta for contacting Meta's sysops is Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. This is the place to go if you want action taken on Meta.
However, if you are worried about someone abusing one project, and you want to see that person blocked at 800+ projects (e.g., just in case the person might try to abuse them all), then you don't want a Meta sysop or any group on Meta at all; you want a global steward. Talking to a steward is like talking to a person who is a sysop at all 800+ projects. If that's what you need, then you should follow the link to Global blocks that Glaisher gave you two days ago, and see whether a steward agrees with you that such a block is actually necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A new article ...[edit]

Hello, just to inform people about my post. An Essay and report concerning wikimania London 2014. The title Wiki Onlin - Wiki Offline the original text in French is Wiki En ligne - Wiki Hors ligne.

A nice day for everyone, Lionel Scheepmans Wiki ou eMail 21:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

I'm not sure if it's correct place to start this discussion, but gathering votes this way is okay? Amir (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't take issue with Arabic communities being informed of the potential to create another Arabic-language project. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That isn't a vote, and seeking input potentially attracts editors for this new project which can only be in our interest. Vogone (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Monster block of main German IP range[edit]

"Editing from 91.9.96.0/19 has been blocked (disabled) by Courcelles" - what issue justifies this? Now visitors from Deutsche Telekom (thousands?, millions?) that are not logged in (thousands?) cannot easily fix mistakes and not even easily create an account. The block has been set at least in the English Wikipedia and in Wikidata for three months. After three months, will the reason be away with any probability about 10%? What is the benefit? There is editor decline since 2007 and admins still run wild. 91.9.97.136 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It says checkuser block, which indicates that there is a problem user. If you have an issue with the block, you can contact @Courcelles: here, or you can utilise the process described at w:Wikipedia:UTRS.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A Wikimedian ambassador in south of India[edit]

I've just finished an article intituled A Wikimedian ambassador in south of India. If somebody is interested, just click. A nice day to every one. Lionel Scheepmans Wiki ou eMail 20:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How to set-up Huggle[edit]

Can somebody show example of Special:MyPage/huggle3.css ?--Ochilov (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that page is usually edited manually. It's used to store the preferences for the Huggle application for that user, like Twinkle. --Glaisher (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Glaisher, I exactly need this one, to enable application. --Ochilov (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
See mw:Manual:Huggle/Installation. You need to add enable:true to Special:MyPage/huggle.css to enable it. --Glaisher (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing Username[edit]

I would like to change the username from "Jainan' to read as "Poets of Fiji". I have some more poets profiles to be entered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jainan (talk)

Please, file a request at Steward_requests/Username_changes. Ruslik (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Status of WMFOffice user account[edit]

Hi,

what is the status of User:WMFOffice#WMFOffice user account? What kind of rights this user account has? I can e.g. see they can get stewards rights, which means they should have higher rights than steward.--Juandev (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That account is an official role account of the Wikimedia Foundation (as its user page states). We use it to create a single repository for logged actions, for historical reasons (so that all WMF Office actions happen in one place, for instance, rather than scattered among several staff members' personal accounts). It has the "Staff" global group rights. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
See Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/staff. Note that it doesn't have the right userrights-interwiki though can grant itself that right as needed. This right is needed to remove rights on other wikis, including the steward right locally for rights that can only be removed on-wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The info above should be copied to the user page, I just spent some hours checking today's Special:Log to collect some basic evidence for an entry on Meta:Suspected sockpuppets. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I have added that the account has staff rights.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but the complete answer by Philippe explains why this is not some odd case of "anonymous coward" or similar, but a WMF staff account for various technical reasons. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sockfarm user of 200 plus sock accounts going up for admin[edit]

  1. Brief chronology at q:User:Cirt/Kalki Restrictions.
  2. Requesting adminship at q:Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request).

Is it appropriate to allow someone to become an admin that has a sockfarm of over 200 plus sock accounts, and has repeatedly refused to stop socking and refused to help Admins and Checkusers identify his socks? -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You have already asked this question before... Perhaps the Wikimedia Forum is more appropriate than the talk page you used last time, but repeating the question/argument is unlikely to produce new findings. --Nemo 07:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing this page is more appropriate. If you know of another more appropriate place for this discussion, I'd be happy to discuss it there. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is appropriate that the user who has contributed the most to Wikiquote (11+ years, 100,000+ edits) be made an admin there. Please stop canvassing. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Nope, not canvassing, posting to central noticeboards. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not a central noticeboard, the issues are not central, they are Wikiquote business. It is completely up to a local project what standards to apply for adminship, unless an overarching issue arises, which has not been raised above. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that the issue of adminship is a decision for the wiki in question. That said, 200 alternate accounts is a PITA and unnecessary in the wiki world, and is pertinent to the broader community. The conditions set by the local community does seem the means to manage it and I don't see the need for the reiteration and rehashing of a previously resolved issue. Best discussed on your community how you wish to manage it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that the user has socked in the last 4 years. Cirt has been dredging up very old stuff. Looking at past RfAs, I see signs that he has effectively canvassed votes and comments from meta by posting things here. This is not good, but this is primarily for Wikiquote to address. Thanks, Billinghurst. --Abd (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Kalki to date refused to identify all of his socks. As FloNight put it: "... as a neutral person who closely evaluated Kalki's use of multiple user names on this project and others. The use of this many accounts was disruptive and had to be evaluated by checkusers and other people experienced with evaluation socking. And I stand by my assertion that the accounts were used in a deceptive manner." So, in FloNight's words, not mine, this activity was disruptive across multiple projects. And Kalki hasn't even yet to this point in time cooperated in identifying all of his socks. That is a problem. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Cirt, I'm gonna have to concur with you all the way. Kalki, whilst indicating himself to be a good faith user, has definitely not proven his innocence to all those involved within the wikiquote society. I believe we're experiencing a crisis so far as trust is concerned, and as far as I am concerned, a sockpuppet "expert" such as Kalki should never regain the admin tools he once had. That's, that's just it. Hope my argument made sense, or at least whatever sense I was able to make out of this. 2601:3:3A00:270:9116:FC91:E69A:2831 08:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)