Wikimedia Forum: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:19, 28 September 2017

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other 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.

Participate:

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Block on English Wikipedia

If i blocked as permanent. I just want to know, in this case I have the right to write an application for arbitration? If i blocked as permanent , is there any way to unblock? What can I do for that? Thanks in advance. Aydinsalis (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should read en:Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik, of course, What was written there, I did. But no results.You can check. What can I do now? Aydinsalis (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocke as well but i fought for it. I'm not blocked forever. I'm only blocked for a week. This admin Yunshui did this to me for abusing multiple accounts. He did that even when i was helping to prevent vandalism. poor me. Arepticous (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, really. You could contribute to another project and if that goes well, ask for another chance on Wikipedia. Say half a year from now. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting for 4 months. Will I wait for 6 months later? Or wait 2 months? Aydinsalis (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can always try approaching someone from enWP's ArbCom on their user page here at meta seeking guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been into the UTRS system and the system shows that they have responded to your enquiries to the email address that you have recorded within the system. Looking at the warnings on your user page and your block history, I would think that giving English Wikipedia an extended break would be the wisest choice. You should be aiming to demonstrate that the issues that you have experienced at enWP are not issues that exist at our other communities. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in other projects. There is no problem. English in Wikipedia admin has blocked me biasedly. In order to commit fraud. How can I defend my rights? You can check: reliable sources are deleted, fake sources are kept ( [1] ). Aydinsalis (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing with the wrong person. Multiple independent admins have reviewed your talk page, then more have looked at your UTRS requests. The separately disagree with you. Making those accusations is not helpful to your case. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That issue is no longer interested in me. I promise that I will follow the rules. But what do admins want? Nobody answers this question. Maybe you answer: what do they want? Aydinsalis (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what do they want? This is a very difficult question. Aydinsalis (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am surmising that at this point of time they want you to go away as they don't see that you are capable of change, which is usually the reason behind an indefinite block. They have responded to your UTRS appeal via your registered email address and that is what is to guide you. I have nothing more to say on the matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i can attest that no amount of "good works" on projects will make an admin reconsider. fresh start is a lie. and the idea that you can block people to encourage them to leave is a delusion. admins are power tripping, that is what they want. Slowking4 (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that, en:Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block it's a lie. billinghurst, if possible, help me in one issue: I want to cancel my account. Is that possible? If so, how can I do it? Aydinsalis (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts cannot be cancelled. They need to be retained as part of your contributions and the license that applies to your contributions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikisage, we run a dump account that other accounts can be merged to. The license doesn't prohibit that. It is mostly used to get rid of account creation spam, but it can be used to remove real accounts as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that we were talking about Wikisage accounts, or any other small wiki that does not have the complexity of 700+ integrated wikis.
Accounts cannot be cancelled. Accounts here will not be merged to a single user login account by the existing WMF policies and processes. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are not aware of many things, so who cares. Size or integration has nothing to do with it. There are no technical issues that prohibit merging accounts. That the WMF doesn't want to allow it, is purely by choice. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are completely right, and I speak without any knowledge of the information provided by the WMF staff to the community or to stewards back when. Your technical knowledge is superior to WMF staff, and I am not sure why I would ever believe them and I will now defer to your knowledge. Uncertain why I argue with your omniscience, and I will go back and hit my head against a tree.
In the meanwhile, accounts cannot be cancelled. Accounts here will not be merged to a single user login account by the existing WMF policies and processes. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is RTV, but at English Wikipedia that courtesy is specifically for users "in good standing" and, in any case, it is not possible to delete an account due to licensing of contributions under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, as billinghurst said. JGHowes ^talk - 12:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone rollbacker permission?

Does Meta offer standalone rollbacker permissions, or does one have to be an admin to have rollback? I encountered some vandalism and missed the rollback tool to handle it. :-/ Asaf (WMF) (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asaf (WMF): You have to be an admin or be a member of a global group that has rollback permissions to use the feature in here. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Asaf having global rollbacker rights. I would also support WMF staff having rollbacker rights at meta by default. Which way should we progress, for the individual or for the group? I think that group would be useful as many WMF staff contribute here. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asaf (WMF) is neither on local or global groups restricted to WMF staff; and I would personally won't support creating yet another user group for such a limited scope. Asaf (WMF) is certainly okay to request global rollback permissions, but if he does not meet the criteria he won't be approved by the community. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally trust Asaf with rollbacker/admin rights. However, there is no grounds for creating an user group specific for that purpose. Should a WMF staff (not included in the aforementioned restricted groups) be in need of these userrights, he/she should follow the procedures as described here as any other regular community member would have to. RadiX ∞ 16:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm certainly not looking for any shortcut. I'll gladly apply for global rollbacker permission if someone can confirm I meet the criteria. Global rollback says "demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities (for example, as active members of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team) and make heavy use of revert on many wikis", which I do not seem to meet. I do visit many different wikis in the course of my work, and have many different pages on my watchlists on those wikis, so occasionally I encounter and revert vandalism. But patrolling is not a big part of my work. When I do encounter vandalism, having the rollback tool can save time, and I'd say I can be trusted not to abuse the tool. But I'm not looking for an exception, so if this occasional use doesn't justify giving the permission, I won't apply, and will continue to revert manually when I need to. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asaf (WMF):, I am in a situation pretty similar to yours, and I had no difficulties getting the global rollback flag (I collected some diffs showing vandalism reverts on smaller wikis).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:, thanks. I have now requested the tool. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind having a local rollback group here. Not sure how widely it would be used, but there's very little cost. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see here for last discussion about local rollbackers.--GZWDer (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this tends to be discussed at different places, I have created an RfC concerning creating such a flag here: Meta:Requests for comment/Adding a local rollbacker flag or alternatives --Base (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was successfully closed, we are to finalise the policy yet, but nothing substantial is to change. Asaf (WMF), you might be interested in requesting the brand new Patroller flag for your volunteer account via WM:RFH, or via internal WMF channels for you staff account — I guess JSutherland (WMF) or Jalexander-WMF may help you with that). The same applies to other experienced editors reading this who wish to help patrolling edits and reverting vandalism on Meta and understand how the tools work. --Base (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of IP addresses

@Tegel, Vituzzu, MarcoAurelio, and Trizek (WMF): I've received the following complaint from Sindhi Wikipedians over the social media regarding IP block. The users have sent the screenshots as follows: 1 & 2. I request you to please look into these and find a solution at the earliest. --Muzammil (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have the skills to help you on this case. I let Stewards having a look at it. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The global block that I placed is missing the IP-address, so that makes it difficult to investigare. -- Tegel _(Talk) 18:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hindustanilanguage: if the user cannot edit here at meta (global blocks do not affect meta), then the process is to email stewards via stewards

wikimedia.org, or login to their account and use the mail feature Special:EmailUser/Stewards — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special:EmailUser/Wikimedia Stewards or Special:Contact/stewards that is :) —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed on the message to the users concerned over the social media. --Muzammil (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WMF principal place in California but still registered in Florida?

Hello. I've been asking myself this question for some time and I though I could post it here so maybe someone could help me understand. WMF headquarters are located in California, and our Terms of Use do mention only California in para. 13.; but strangely for me WMF is still registered in Florida as the State of Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations displays. Their counterpart on the State of California confirms that. I am not an US citizen nor know about corporation laws there, so I apologize if this is a dumb question but why WMF is still registered in Florida when it's been years that their opeations are being done in California? Is it about taxes? More flexible corporation rules? I'm going to ping User:JVillagomez (WMF), maybe he can share some info. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarcoAurelio - it was incorporated in Florida because, at the time, Jimmy Wales lived there. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(To expand a bit, it's just a massive pain to reincorporate a nonprofit.) Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): Hi and thanks for your reply. I knew we all started in Florida but it looks a bit strange to have it incorporated there. Even if it is a pain, maybe the Foundation should consider reincorporating it in California or --if such a thing exist-- make it a federal nonprofit. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki of company ethics?

I've been looking for a database or website that provides information on company ethics -- I haven't been able to find one (please share the link if you know of one!).

Would this be a good theme for a wiki project?

Everyone has different ethics, so I don't think a one-size-fits-all ethical report would work. However we could define some standard categories (workers-rights, consumer-rights, environmental, equality, honesty, corruption, charitable-work, etc.), then list the good and bad for each. Readers can then focus on what matters to them.

On a related note: If anyone knows of an ontology that might be applicable for corporate ethics, please share the link.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm new to Wikimedia Forum -- If this is not the best place to post this, please let me know where I should.

Thank you & Kind regards, --Winterstein (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winterstein: I suggest you inquire about this at Wikiversity. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure I follow. Wikiversity is for teaching materials? This would be a place for collating data, much like Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winterstein (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Winterstein: I may have misunderstood what you had in mind, then. If it's a matter of collating data, but more specialized than what Wikipedia does, then you should consider Wikibooks. An important difference between Wikiversity and Wikibooks is in the projects' attitudes toward original research; I had thought you were describing something OR-ish, but if it's collating data, that sounds more like a wikibook.

Btw, to ping me, use markup {{ping|Pi zero}}, which looks like this:

@Pi zero:

--Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to other Wikimedia projects

On the Dutch Wikipedia, there is a discussion (again) whether it's possible NOT to link to Wikiquote or Wikinews if "we from Wikipedia" think the quality of the article on Wikiquote or Wikinews is below our standards. On WP-NL, we are quite strict in our "not too much external links"-policy, en for me, these are external links as well. Who agrees with me that this decision is up to the WP-NL editors? If not, why? Kind regards, Vinvlugt (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sticky issue, no doubt. Cooperation and self-determination, mixed together. My own opinion is that

we're all projects in the sisterhood together, and should support each other with links, whether between sisters within a language, or between languages; and
it would be deeply unwise for one project to try to judge the "quality" of articles on another project, both because

users on one project are statistically unlikely to be qualified to judge another project — for the most part, they will misjudge another project because they'll apply the goals, techniques, and context of their own project to another project where all those things may be different — and
a basic wiki principle is that increased exposure leads to increased quality, so it would be philosophically inconsistent for a wiki to seek to reduce the exposure of another wiki because it perceives the other to have insufficient quality.

A striking example of the differing-standards effect is that English Wikinews and English Wikipedia have different approaches to neutrality, so that it's quite possible for a Featured Article on either project to fail neutrality by the other project's criteria. It would be very silly for us to refuse to link to each other's articles on that basis.

Self-determination is a stickier question, though. Successful democratic societies have to evolve ways to protect minorities against abuse by majorities; and while the wikimedian sisterhood is imho rather weak on this sort of protection, one important principle we do have is that the different wikis don't tell each other what to do, which somewhat protects small wikis against bullying by large wikis. However, removing links from a larger wiki to a smaller one can be a form of bullying, or outright warfare, against the smaller wiki. So, perhaps basic interwiki links (provided they're aren't done intrusively) should be required as an anti-bullying measure? --Pi zero (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment each wiki is perfectly entitled to make their rules about linking. It also needs to be remembered that linking is a two-way street. So make your decisions wisely, not based on a rule alone. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linking is a local content matter. A wiki could chose not to use any links at all (zero external links, zero sister project links, and even zero [[wikilinks]]). Alsee (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

censorship on wikipedia and persecution

пишу українською буде бажання і головне спроба це вирішити перекладуть (I will write in Ukrainian it will be a desire and the main attempt to solve it will translate). Мене цікавить переслідування мене збоку адміністраторів УкрВікі. виявляється таке можливе Блокування. До слова я перед цим просив вилучити мою СО. Всі проігнорували моє прохання, а відтепер ще і пишіть мені на тій СО все що завгодно. --Jphwra (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Wikimedia_Forum#Why_can_not_I_remove_a_discussion_page_at_the_user.27s_request.3F enough? Stryn (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stryn But is there any result? Why is the opinion opposite from admins immediately blocked? And so to the word have achieved only the care of active editors. With further oppression of those who went. --Jphwra (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding "Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation"

There is currently a RfC open on Meta regarding "requiring those involved with paid editing on Wikipedia to link on their user page to all other active accounts through which they advertise paid Wikipedia editing business."

Note this is to apply to Wikipedia and not necessarily other sister projects, this is only to apply to websites where people are specifically advertising that they will edit Wikipedia for pay and not any other personal, professional, or social media accounts a person may have.

Please comment on meta. Thanks. Send on behalf of User:Doc James.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the terms of use in Spanish Wikipedia

My problem is that I've been unfoundedly accused of harassment by various administrators in es.wiki. Despite the lack of evidence, I've been banned and my talk page has been protected forever (Taichi, the involved administrator who banned me, claimed that I had "confessed" the harassment for which there is no evidence—which of course I never did). After my ban, the unfounded acusations continued for weeks with an extraordinary insistence [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Nowhere does anyone provide any evidence for these accusations—there isn't; I've never harassed anyone.

I've tried to contact some of these administrators here in Meta. I have asked Jmvkrecords here and Hans Topo1993 here to please support their harassment accusations with evidence, or to take them back. Both have refused. They claim that I have no right to ask for evidence anywhere besides es.wiki—where I cannot edit—so they can get away with repeatedly calling someone a harasser without evidence in a Wikimedia project.

But the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation state that users may not engage in Harassing and Abusing Others. Unfoundedly acusing someone of harassment is a personal attack, as expressed in en:WP:Harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. Therefore, by repeatedly and unfoundedly accusing me of harassment, these administrators are violating the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I would like the unfounded accusations of harassment, which are false and constitute a violation of the Terms of Use, to be taken back. How should I proceed? Thank you. Atón (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to offer the general overview of the case.

Notice the fact, I (we) did have reasons to make our statements about this user.

Not intending to engage in an argument, I won't write here again. Hans Topo1993 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? Hans Topo1993 and co. cannot provide a single diff. I will provide all the details necessary in a formal resolution process, I have absolutely nothing to hide. What is the proper venue to resolve a violation of the Terms of Use? Thank you. Atón (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki project

Hi,

I am working in a project in Wikipedia.pt for the development of the article of Fiódor Dostoiévski and all his works. In the research I have realized, that the different wikiprojects are not good connected, ex: with my research for the article from Wikipedia, I can help the Wikicommons, Wikisource, Wikiquote and the Wikibooks. I would like to start a transwiki project, first about this theme as an experiment. How can I formalize it?

Thanks, --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of transwiki: a) the quotations from Wikipedia, can go automatic to Wikiquote; b) articles from a specific project from Wikipedia (Russian literature, or Fyodor Dostoyevsky, etc) can go for a wikibook after some edition; c) Wikipedia can create an automatic link for the books (one link to each book) of Wikisource, (we add some links from free books manually), etc. Obs: We can use the transwiki project about Dostoyevsky as a test.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop working of Russian Wikinews

To attention the administrators of Russian Wikipedia: Indefinite blocking two experienced and active participants in the Russian Wikipedia (User:Леонид Макаров and User:Krassotkin) is an unprecedented case in the Russian Wikipedia. The stated reason for blocking as a violation of the rules of the Foundation Wikimedia for the article in Russian Wikinews does not reflect the principles of the Foundation and will not bring any benefit to the work of the two projects. Please analyze this situation once again and to speak to the Forum administrators of Russian Wikipedia, not to keep silent. Block with the motivation in the name of the benefit Foundation and to prevent possible damage to the Foundation is nonsense.--Леонид Макаров (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Wikipedia, I believe, still has an Arbitration Committee. All such issues should be solved in the project.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikinews is a sister project. It is not Wikipedia. Generally a sister project may operate on its own policies and governance, not on that of Wikipedia. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Russian Wikipedia issue, not a Russian Wikinews issue. The users are blocked on the Russian Wikiedia, which has, at least on paper, working dispute resolution mechanism. Stewards are not allowed to intervene in the projects which have Arbitration Committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to WMF Non-discrimination policy

Regarding this edit to WMF's Non-discrimination policy, made in March this year, changing "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of ..." to "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against staff or contractors on the basis of..." (changes emboldened for clarity); does this mean that WMF now allows discrimination against volunteers and readers?

Where was this announced, or discussed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
 :: Note: Wikinews is a sister project. It is not Wikipedia. Generally a sister project may operate on its own policies and governance, not on that of Wikipedia. - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]]/<sup>[[User talk:Amgine|meta]] [[wiktionary:User talk:Amgine|wikt]] [[n:User talk:Amgine|wnews]] [http://vanislecirc.wordpress.org blog] [http://standingoffandon.blogspot.com/ wmf-blog] [http://news.google.ca/ goog news]</sup> 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
+::: This is a Russian Wikipedia issue, not a Russian Wikinews issue. The users are blocked on the Russian Wikiedia, which has, at least on paper, working dispute resolution mechanism. Stewards are not allowed to intervene in the projects which have Arbitration Committee.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 13:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 == Changes to WMF Non-discrimination policy ==