Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Forum)
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

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)
  • Just out of curiosity, were his sockpuppets appropriately named? :) Wnt (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Not really. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    At least he had q:User:Vishnu. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    en:q:User:Dattatreya would be another, but others like NEO are probably out of canon, even if he is the One. :) Wnt (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge assembly Platfrom Proposal[edit]

The knowledge assembly is a web tool which provides a infrastructure to assemble and provide knowledge, mainly focusing on knowledge which may be directly used in tasks. It combines concepts from Wikipedia (data created by users and provided to users for free, donation mechanism) with incentive mechanism of the open sources software community and other innovations of Internet based applications (simple voting functions - the like button - and ranking mechanisms).

I would welcome comments to the proposal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sguenter (talk)

Global user pages & bulk deletion of local user pages[edit]

Bulk deletions by Synchbot[edit]

Global user pages will let you edit your global user page from Meta, which will be shown on all wikis where you don't already have a local user page. With the extension finally set to launch on Wikimedia wikis on February 18th, many users are left with hundreds of local user pages which will hide their global page (you can check yours using the userpages tool). Synchbot is a bot which can delete your user pages on all Wikimedia wikis (subject to any exceptions or criteria you want), but the current practice is to reject such requests because crosswiki sentiment is unclear.

Should Synchbot delete local user pages on all wikis at their owner's request? Are there any cases where a user page should not be deleted (e.g., user is blocked on that wiki)? There will be many such requests when global user pages go live, so I'd like to settle the question before synchbot starts handling them. —Pathoschild 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Finally! Thank you for letting us know. I think the bot should delete local userpages but this might not be viewed positively on all wikis. I agree that a blocked page should be left alone because they often have a message about the block e.g. sock puppetry. [...] Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC) [Part of this comment was split into a separate section.]
  • This is definitely great news. I don't think it should be a big deal to have these pages deleted, upon user requests. --Diego Grez return fire 03:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • +1, I appreciate synchbot deletions and I believe there is consensus for them. --Nemo 06:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How will closed wikis be handled? --Rschen7754 06:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    User pages would likely be deleted on closed wikis too, since they participate in global user pages. They can be excluded on request, though. —Pathoschild 07:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete on request by non-blocked owners - a user may want these local pages to override the global ones (and may miss the warning that the pages will be deleted); and in cases of blocked users, there is frequently an administritave reason to keep them. However, barring these cases, I see no reason to not delete them. Note that many wikis (including English Wikipedia) have policies of deleting user pages on request of owner (in English Wikipedia, we call it CSD U1). Note that user talk pages are a different story, since they may have important discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Global user pages are now live, and letting users self-request deletion of their local pages (within some basic constraints) seems to be uncontroversial. I'll begin accepting requests to do so. :) —Pathoschild 01:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions about global user pages[edit]

[Topic split from previous section.]

  • [...] Is there a possibility of letting a user select which wiki to use as their central page e.g. their home wiki or perhaps a wiki where they spend a lot of time? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC) [Part of this comment was split from a separate section.]
    No, global user pages will always use Meta as the central wiki (just like your global.css and global.js pages). —Pathoschild 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What happens if the user page on Meta depends on a page on Meta, for example through linking, transclusion or redirect? For example, my Meta user page redirects to my talk page. Will my user page on other projects suddenly start redirecting to my talk page on Meta, or will they all be turned into redirects to my talk page on the local project? The latter would be less confusing, I think. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    mw:Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage explains how global user pages work. There are two rules you can apply:
    • content comes from Meta (including templates, {{int:}} messages, etc);
    • links are local (so links and redirects will point to the local wiki, unless you use interwiki links like [[m:link]]).
    Pathoschild 03:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    That does not seem to be correct: redirects seem to be relative to Meta, not to the local wiki. If you go to nb:User:Stefan2 (where no local user page exists), then you see my talk page on Meta, not my talk page on Bokmål Wikipedia. Edit links are missing, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, I noticed the same thing. The target of the redirect is rendered instead, so you can use any Meta page as your global user page. That may be a bug. —Pathoschild 15:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    You can also use any Meta page as your global user page by simply transcluding that page on your Meta user page. This redirect feature doesn't seem to add any functionality which isn't already available. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What color will [[User:Example]] and [[User talk:Example]] be, where (a) Example is a user with pages at meta, and (b) without? If User:Example exists locally, the answer would be blue, so my question refers to someone with no local user and/or talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    The links to the userpage would be blue if a global user page is shown on a local wiki (it only appears if there is a userpage at meta for the global user account) and if it's not shown, the links will be red. However, links to user talk would be red if it doesn't exist locally because GlobalUserPage works on user namespace only, not the user talk. --Glaisher (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How will requests for having templates transcluded on individual user pages on various wikis being imported to meta be handled? - {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Would it be possible to get Syncbot to import the user selected user page and transcluded templates to Meta (home wiki by default)? - {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's outside Synchbot's scope, but the Special:Import tool can import a page along with the templates it uses. That said, indiscriminately importing local templates into Meta would be problematic; at the very least you'd soon run into template name conflicts. I think that's a separate discussion for the Meta community. —Pathoschild 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Does this apply to User talk pages and/or subpages of either type of page? (The above linked "userpages tool" lists all of these.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    No, this only applies to your main user page. —Pathoschild 23:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll believe that this works at all when I've seen it. Potential traps I'm aware of: Templates available here might be not available on other wikis, or do something more or less different. Wikidata somehow managed a useful interpretation of babel languages (only the display sucks, it sucks everywhere, only here it is decent.) There can be CSS conflicts, what's plainlinks here can be plainlinksneverexpand elsewhere, user box widths vary; I had to adjust a simple substituted user box for each wiki where I used it. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    The user page is rendered on Meta before being shown on the local wiki, so local templates aren't used. Local styles may change how the page looks, as mentioned in the extension caveats. See mw:Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage for more information. —Pathoschild 21:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Not too bad, some of my links work as expected, some are hilarious (nl or ru users won't be interested in my subpages, logs, and abuses here, they'd want to check my crimes on their wiki ;-), pending protected edit requests on meta are also not globally relevant—is there some <noinclude> hack to hide local business?—and the bottom link of the babel box needs love from a translation administrator (red link on nlwiki). –Be..anyone (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    You can use <noinclude>...</noinclude> as in a template. --Vriullop (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, I've added my observations wrt page status indicators on the help page. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We should really incorporate these answers into Global user pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    I've been incorporating them into mw:Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage; should global user pages provide an overview and link to that page? —Pathoschild 21:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    I think there ought to be a notice, somewhere that is easily noticed, that if one creates a user page on this wiki it will automagically be displayed elsewhere, because this may not be intended by the page creator. It was certainly not my intention in creating one (subsequently deleted). I am not sure what the best place for such notice would be, because Meta does not seem to have a policy or guideline (or at least I have not found one) specifically devoted to the use of user pages. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    It would be easy for us to set up an edit notice here at Meta (MediaWiki:Editnotice-2). Even better, if we do it directly in the extension itself. --Glaisher (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    I filed phab:T89841 about this. --Glaisher (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks: an in-built edit notice is a good solution for new user pages going forward. Existing user pages are another matter. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites[edit]


As you may know, Wikimedia projects have a mobile version which resides in domains like . Some devices are automatically redirected from the normal domains to the mobile ones, which are expected to absorb half of our total traffic by the end of 2015. What few know is that the mobile sites don't follow the standard permission system: instead, they override permissions and prevent unregistered users from editing at all.

I propose to remove this exception to the rule, which was meant to be temporary and looks now technically unnecessary. Unregistered users will be allowed to edit on the mobile subdomain for a wiki, if they are allowed on the main domain.

The Italian Wikipedia community has already decided to do so in October 2014. Thanks to several users who reported issues, as well as some committed developers, most technical issues have been identified and fixed: see phabricator:T55069 for a list. Other users have looked into the data and concluded that the change was definitely a net benefit, because contributions increased by some percentage point and they were as good as unregistered editing on the desktop site; the Italian Wikipedia community therefore achieved consensus to make the change permanent. See for details; if you have any questions, I'll forward them to the users who were involved in this analysis.

While the Italian Wikipedia example may not be representative of the results on all Wikimedia projects, we are currently not aware of any reason to think that restoring normal permissions would do harm. If you know an issue of the mobile site which makes unregistered editing less productive than on the desktop site, please report it with all details you know (you can login with your SUL account) and mention it here.

Process details:

  • This proposal follows the standard configuration change process; like many before, it's discussed on the Wikimedia Forum for the sake of all Wikimedia projects. Local communities were not given a chance to discuss the non-standard permissions of the mobile sites; they will now. Local requests for configuration changes will always be possible, as usual.
  • I'm going to link this discussion from Tech/News. If there is some support for the idea, I'll send notifications to all wikis and to the various mailing lists. I propose to close this discussion by 2015-03-15 and, if some configuration change achieves consensus by then, have it applied on the live sites by the end of March.

10:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Support Support as proposer. We can tweak the above text if needed, to reflect consensus in the discussion. --Nemo 10:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. Vogone (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    How you can? You are not an author! You are not one of those, who have to fix all the rubbish! Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    It's certainly true that I do not belong to the most active content contributors, yet I have contributed articles to several wikis, fixes of already existing content included. I do not believe enabling IP edits from the mobile domain will make much of a difference to the status quo, such edits are already possible when switching to "desktop" view. It may rather have a positive effect because of the for mobile users more appealing design of the editing interface, so that less spelling mistakes etc. are being made. Either we allow unregistered edits, or we don't at all. Since it was decided to allow them, I don't see any reason why we should disallow certain unregistered edits merely because a certain skin is used. Vogone (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yup, btw why not use RfC/Request for comment for this?--AldNonymousBicara? 11:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
what if I create Requests_for_comment/Restore_normal_editing_permissions_on_all_mobile_sites with a redirect here? Is it "correct" enough?--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems good enough, don't forget to move all comment from this section to there.--AldNonymousBicara? 09:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Please don't. As I said, global configuration changes discussions usually happen here. This page is followed more. You can however add a link from Requests_for_comment, of course. --Nemo 10:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
the comments on that page were in the form "\topic" see, so I though there was no problem in creating a page with such syntax, but consisting only ina simple redirect here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. Alan (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support per w:WP:HUMAN. Also per privacy policy; blocking all unregistered mobile edits is hardly a "rare circumstance". PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we should wait for talk page links first. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 17:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support with the caveat that we can always disable it again on specific wikis where vandalism becomes unmanageable. wctaiwan (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support with per-project opt-out option/caveat as suggested by wctaiwan, but I would like to see talk page links first as recommended by Krenair, but it isnt quite a blocker in my mind, as mobile users are going to tend towards quick-edit-and-forget rather than engaged editing. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment, mobile uploads on commons were an unmitigated disaster, thousands of low quality selfies etc. without any potential use, description, license, category, source, nothing. From that point of view "permit more mobile contributions" isn't an attractive plan. OTOH those crap uploads all had (single purpose) accounts, commons doesn't permit uploads without login. And determined vandals or spammers have accounts, so that's no valid reason to exclude mobile users without account. Remotely related, phabricator requires a login for editing. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, but that's entirely unrelated. The mobile uploads were using a specially-made upload software, separate from the standard Special:Upload and UploadWizard, with "calls to action" banners which encouraged random people to add random images in random places. The failure you mention was a failure of such banners (mainly) and of the custom software invented out of the blue. Here we are talking of the editing interface registered users use as well, and we are not talking of any call to action, so the two sources of the failure are eliminated: which explains the good results on --Nemo 08:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
in any case, it should be possibile, even if policy globally changes in a less rigid manner, to allow restriction for single project. I have always supported the idea that every community should modulate its own strategy if necessary. --Alexmar983 (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it would be still possible to change the configuration per-wiki :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Support, tnx for info (above+below). –Be..anyone (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I have seen no "disaster" on, but of course local exceptions are always possible. We are a "medium" wiki in terms of editors, activity and density of users with "flags", maybe for smaller communities specific restrictions are likely, I therefore suggest maximum fexibilty, but in general per PiRSquared17 I think that by "default" no "discrimination" should exists.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support we experimented it coherently with the perennial principle ("anyone can edit"), and the results were even slightly better than expected. Evaluating those anonymous edits we found more or less the same proportions we can see in other series of edits, perhaps a little more useful than the non-mobile editing. So, in our stats and observations there wasn't a "special" problem about vandalism, basically vandals come to WP in the usual proportions, there isn't a sensitive change.
    What is truly different, and to my personal experience is constantly growing in importance, is that many mobile users do not trust enough service providers and software/apps they have on board in their device, so they do not feel safe enough to log in with their credentials for security and privacy reasons. Actually, since mobile traffic is everyday more important for us, I believe that this is going to be a relevant issue and that we should care about it. --g (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I support any effort that attacks the awful anti-wiki behavior introduced under the guise of a mobile front-end. The MobileFrontend extension should be killed or, at a minimum, scaled back to be only a mobile front-end. It should never have been used to control site permissions. And this is unfortunately one example among many of the extension acting far outside of scope. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support – on Wikimedia, the rule is "allow editing," with exceptions made as necessary. I do not see a justification for an exception here. harej (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gerardduenas (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support obviously, VIGNERON * discut. 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes. Legoktm (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's completely incomprehensible to me that such a configuration was actually allowed to be made in the first place. The Foundation (rightly) opposes attempts to take away anonymous users' ability to create new articles; this situation should not be different. --MF-W 18:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • This statement is obviously incorrect and has nothing to do with reality and history. odder (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Wait, what? Am I missing something here? MF-W was referring to this Limits to configuration changes, back then there are wikis trying to take away anonymous/IP/non registered user ability to create and edit articles (example Indonesian Wikipedia, which is where I am an Admin), hence MF-W statement is correct.--AldNonymousBicara? 17:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • You all are correct. Limits to configuration changes was my creation (under this title and form). WMF enacted those decisions (which belong to the global community). --Nemo 18:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support "Anyone can edit." Yes. - PKM (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support (see also: phab:T54442) eranroz (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Green Giant (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Why was it ever done any other way? - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support, according to common sense and to empirical data. Is it a rare case of ACTUAL consensus? :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support It's one of our founding principles that we should allow anyone to edit without registration. 朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Why not. Soon all devices will be 'mobile'. Imagine if 10 years ago we were suggesting we not let laptop users edit because they're 'mobile'. Silly. 16:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support without any option to opt-out. We have been experimenting with temporary restrictions that directly contradict our founding principles for too many years. There is no reason why any wiki should want to opt-out of allowing mobile users to edit. odder (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support, a must-have feature. --Stryn (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support - absolutely necessary. Unless there are extreme and unanticipated problems with this, I would expect mobile permissions to always mirror non-mobile permissions for wikis (Commons being an obvious exception). To be clear, this is an exceptionally are case where there should be no local opt-out. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Austral blizzard (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Anyone should be able to contribute to the project. --Soujak (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jim Carter (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Nemo has provided absolutely no data about the supposed benefits or at least "no disaster". Last info at Research talk:Anonymous mobile editing in Italian Wikipedia/Work log/2014-12-31: "So, next step is to do a quality analysis of the edits that anons mobile users made before and after the deployment. I'd like to use content persistence strategies to see whether the content that anons add survives scrutiny or not. In order to do that, I'll need to gather a random sample of mobile web edits before and after the stitch was flipped." So there is no quality analysis of the edits by anons mobile users. And yet here you are, trying to impose global configuration changes on local projects by discussion in a disused lavatory in the cellar of the planning office. Beware of the leopard. --Atlasowa (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support SupportAbsolutely! I am an IP user which is actively editing en, sr, sh and soon, probablly, de. I sometimes need to fix mistakes from phone, but I am not allowed to.-- 18:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
sample: selective RC - 250 edits between 23 DIC 14:45 and 24 DIC 00:10
edit kind total % % good % bad % innocuous
Good 57 41,61% 41,61%
not good but in good faith 15 10,95% 10,95%
good, no sources 12 8,76% 8,76%
vandalism 12 8,76% 8,76%
kidding, pov, hagiography 10 7,30% 7,30%
test, innocuous, autoreverted 9 6,57% 6,57%
can't be evaluated 7 5,11% 5,11%
good but to be improved 5 3,65% 3,65%
birth/death dates 4 2,92% 2,92%
spam 2 1,46% 1,46%
source added 2 1,46% 1,46%
rant 2 1,46% 1,46%
total 137 100% 66,42% 21,90% 11,68%
  • Many users made their own analysis of mobile IPs edits, mine was here, but I copypaste the table here (roughly translated, feel free to ping me for better details). There are of course series of edits for each IP which count as 1 in this scheme (this is why the total edits is not 250), and for 3 or 4 IPs I'd say they were the same users reconnected with a different number (the interval covers 9 hours appr.). Please allow a 3% tolerance for eventual errors in identifying the series, and a 5% for eventual mistakes of mine in judging those edits: still the proportions are the same as usual, if not a little better than the average. Of course we don't have stats on "before the test", and we made no formal direct comparison with the average stats, even if we gave a quick look at them and found them in coherence. Please consider that these data are extracted from selective RecentChanges: mobile IP edits are automatically tagged as such, and we found no evidence of user agent spoofing in contributions' analysis and CUs, so we could avoid further study. Last but not least, misspells and typos were not considered as conditioning the judgement, for very practical reasons related to the material touch-typing and T9 issues. Tests were repeated with smaller samples, every now and then, with very similar results.
    Hope this answers to your kind question. Meow :-P --g (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your table, Gianfranco! I want to make it clear that i do like and appreciate this bold project on italian WP: Getting community consensus for a temporary experiment, proposing local configuration changes and fixes, watching the results and making the experiment a permanent change for mobile anonymous contributions. But what is proposed here is something different, imposing a global configuration change for all projects. It would be great if some other local wikis would be inspired by this itWP project to try this out too (maybe finnish, hungarian, hebrew WP?) and maybe this proposal here will lead to this - that would be great (and hopefully produce even more data for analysis, reliable data for evaluation).
The number of mobile anonymous edits per day is plotted with a weekly seasonal component modeled and the extracted trend overlayed. A vertical line is plotted on Nov. 1st. (Research talk:Anonymous mobile editing in Italian Wikipedia/Work log/2014-12-31)
Now to the table. This is a very narrow sample, "250 edits in 8 hours between 23 DIC 14:45 and 24 DIC 00:10". And look at the graph: mobile anonymous editing only really began 5 days before, 2014-12-17, with the fix for phab:T74852 (it required 3 clicks to reach the editor before). Therefor I really wonder if this day gives a meaningful sample, also the afternoon before christmas is not a typical editing day. And i don't see why you count edits that are "not good but in good faith" as "good" edits, they are "not good". I looked at the further development of the quantity of mobile anonymous editing by cloning Nemos quarry query: Daily anonymous mobile edits from Italian Wikipedia (2014-11-01 - 2015-02-24). Highest number is 566 edits at 2015-01-05, then it drops to nearly nothing after 2015-01-09 until 2015-01-25 (why? configuration changes? IP range blocks?). And 2015-02-12 it drops off again from +400 edits to ~60 edits, and stays there (gerrit:186591 made the "2 clicks" process more intuitive and was deployed on 2015-02-11). I don't think we have the data here to draw any reliable conclusions from. I am still waiting for the "quality analysis" from the fabulous WMF number cruncher halfak. Once again: If italian WP is happy with this, i am happy for them and i appreciate being bold, trying things out. I am sure the engaged italian wikipedians will watch how this develops in terms of vandalism, quantity and quality. But i don't think this is enough analysis now to force mobile anonymous editing (and its patrolling) on, say, the urdu Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to allowing mobile anonymous editing on principle. I am opposed to allowing mobile anonymous editing solely by ideological reasons without closely analysing vandalism impact and patrolling workload. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"not good but in good faith" means to me that I had in front of me a good newbie who wasn't successful in his attempt to help. Of course it's not a good edit, and in fact I didn't write anything different, it isn't a good edit, but I'm there to assist that user, help him to find his way to correctness just like others did with me when I was a newbie, and it isn't bad at all for the Project that we have met a new good user: rather, it's up to us not to loose this opportunity. This is good in my evaluation because I wasn't looking at the edits, I was looking at the users, since the opposition against free anon editing has always been "'cos vandals could come". I'm here from little after the Nupedia old times, and the point has always been this one. Now, I could say that we survived tragedies like when the first vandals came here with vandal-bots and there were no tools to stop them quickly, so vandalism is an issue, but it's not our core worry. But to be "modern" (:-) I'd rather say that my table shows that nothing changes in these terms depending on the device the users use, vandals come at the same proportions as always, so I can't confirm that there would be a difference in this. It's a matter of proportions, so if with anon editing we'll get double vandalism, we'll also get double "good edits", which is what we really are looking for. And I don't know why we should necessarily conclude that anon mobile IPs shouldn't give us more patrollers too, as it always has been.
The sample is small, I know, but I work for a living, and I just couldn't stay more on the topic, sorry. It was the day before Christmas' Eve, to be precise, and since with Eve Italian holidays start, it was the last moment in which the test could have been really meaningful (or easy to decipher :-).
Ideological reasons are not the only ones: thinking of how many users will move from desktop to mobile should let us start figuring a WP very soon made by half of its users on mobile devices. This is to say half of us. And since I'm not planning to go to mobile, it must be you who is going to that realm :-) I'm just kidding, but this is seriously what we should be prepared to. So, when half of the current users will be mobile users, would you still think that there will really be anything different between desktop and mobile users? I believe that this "lifestyle" changing is better to be compared with when (in my country) telephone companies changed their fees from a pay-per-minute basis to a flat-forfait fixed fee: when freed from a time-depending cost, WP users doubled themselves and doubled their time in the projects, and vandalism too, of course, doubled. Changing the habits doesn't change the mentalities, if you are ready to be a good user you would be it whatever the medium; and viceversa. But with that historical change about fees, contents grew up in a much much higher proportion tahn expected, and it was the time of the greatest WP's success. To resume, if one bad edit gives me three good edits, this is our constant proportion, if you want 30 good edits you need 10 vandals. We still have a lot to grow, so I'd say go procure me 10 vandals, please, and I'd add: hurry up :-D --g (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Hello Nemo and all. Great to see more excitement towards allowing more edits. I see @Alexmar983: has already suggested moving the discussion to Rfc, which didn't happen. Obviously, there would be a vandalism concern with allowing global IP edits, and naturally, projects with higher mobile traffic would be affected the most. If we need to allow a more through discussion with larger WP projects, to factor in their input, and to allow them to prepare accordingly, how do we do this? Thanks --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • saw you ping: i am a newbie on meta and I wasn't sure it was correct, than I went offline. Should I create at least that redirect in that form?
    • Thanks for the comment. Broader communication was already planned, see above; we're doing this in steps. There are two things to do: 1) communicate the current exception (which should have been done years ago); 2) involve in this discussion. I just sent a global notification doing both for ~600 wikis. On ~100 administrator noticeboards I also notified (1), while forgetting a functioning link for (2) :|... I apologise; well, each wiki got one link or more. --Nemo 23:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment if someone need additional data to decide, a possible solution is to target the "medium-large" wikipedias (>500000 articles) with the highest ratio of patrollers (let's say the sum of active administrators and rollbackers) and non-autopatrolled changes and propose a second test. Or just compare them with itwiki, you would probably discover that, even after the selection of new rollbackers which I supported starting this January, we have less "patrolling efficience" than other platforms. If we had no disaster, I hardly doubt more "controlled" wikipedia project will.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support As simply following what the established principles of the wiki are. This is not the time to have the debate about whether anons should edit at all or not, for that will require much wider and bigger consensus. KonveyorBelt 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - ca. 50% unusefull edits. No, too much work, mostly to be done by those people who not say "support" here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • How much reverts do you have in your wikipedia project for unregistered users using the desktop site? :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support The risk is not in the media but in the specific IP anon user regardless of the mobile or desktop equipment used to connect. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Marcus Cyron. -- M\A 22:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support. It seems to me that discriminating against all mobile users is way too broad a protection. Any wiki that has trouble with vandalism can presumably block the vandals, use range blocks where needed for persistent vandals who use dynamic IPs, and use filters for specific words or phrases a vandal tends to use. Am I missing something? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support, IPs are human too and everyone should be able to edit Wikipedia. Some exceptions are always possible but its should be justified. --The Polish (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support: There is no reason for such an exception. Logically—because of the up-to-now policy—we have no data that the anonymous mobile edits would be good, but we have also no data that the anonymous mobile edits would be bad. We should make them possible (and we shall see if there will be problems). --Mmh (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support It's even hard to understand why there was an exception in the first place. The whole Wikipedia editing model stems from the principle that anyone can edit: having more contributors certainly means more mistakes and vandalism, but it also means more corrections and useful contribution; that's the classic equilibrium of wisdom crowd… Alexander Doria (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Alexander Doria. Jules78120 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support per PiRSquared17. Ruy Pugliesi 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Pi. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I would even call it essential for anonymous users of Wikivoyage. If you arrive at a restaurant listed in Wikivoyage at 17:00 because the times of that listing says 17:00-22:30, but you discover that it should be 18:30-midnight, you must be able to correct that at once on your mobile device. Needing to register first, then logon, then correct, is too time consuming for an average anonymous user. --FredTC (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
To those who fear more vandalism: Anyone who tries to find the "edit" link can find the "Desktop view" link at the bottom of the page, click it and do an edit. So, there is no real protection by not allowing edits from mobile pages. --FredTC (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I don't see a difference between user behaviour of mobile users and other users. There must be a possibility to edit from mobile without creating an account, let it be less prominent but clearly it must be there. Of course there will be a percent of vandalism, but I don't see why potentially useful edits from IP editors are rejected without reason — NickK (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support -- Stephan Kulla (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nowadays many new users are mobile users. We should let them edit even without registering. There is no problem even if they make mistakes. They will learn only after using it. Then they will automatically create their own account. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Being a free encyclopedia means that it should be editable from any devices.Ionutzmovie (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Possible strongest Oppose Oppose I believe enabling IPs on mobile will increase maintenance work, and it will be our duty to clean up the mess created by anons. I already have to cleanup the mess created by others, and this will increase local admins and countervandal people's work. — regards, Revi 04:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • So you think the result will be different from's? On, anecdotally, I see the opposite: for instance, unregistered mobile users clean up broken visualeditor edits by desktop users and reduce maintenance work. :) --Nemo 00:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
      • itwiki guys and enwiki guys are not same, and enwiki guys and kowiki guys are not same. If it is done per-wiki basis, I feel fine, still big NO-NO for kowiki. — regards, Revi 00:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Revi. Way to much spam and vandalism is entering wikipedia if we allow this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saschaporsche (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2015
  • Support Support as proposer. --►Cekli829 06:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose for now. As more vandalism is to be expected, talk page links have to be fully viable before this is implemented. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 06:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just meant as an "oppose" for general implementation in all the wikiverse, without prior community consultaion in the respective projects. If some community wants it this way, it should be implemented there definitely, the communities of course should have the last say on this. So for deWP: not without MB beforehand, for others whatever the consensus method may be there. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 08:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
So, can we start a MB on dewiki? ;) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Es hindert Dich niemend daran, eins zu starten. Ich würde ohne direkten Diskussions- und Metaseitenzugang dagegen plädieren, eine Plattform ohne direkten Zugang dazu taugt imho nicht zum editieren, aber wenn es eine entsprechende Mehrheit gäbe, dann sei es so. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Prinzipiell nicht, allerdings halte ich persönlich ein MB in genau der anderen Form für nötig, also nicht, ob nicht-angemeldete Nutzer editieren dürfen, sondern das nicht angemeldete Nutzer nicht bearbeiten dürfen, da deWiki dann entgegen der globalen Konfiguration handeln würde/möchte (vorausgesetzt, hier wird entschieden, dass anonyme Bearbeitungen erlaubt werden würden). Grüße --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Wenn der Status Quo, also das Nichteditieren für IPs, in der deWP geändert werden sollte, bedürfe das eines MB in selbiger. Das hier sollte der deWP nicht so etwas vorschreiben können. Das Wikiversum ist schließlich keine zentralistische Veranstaltung. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 18:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Das die WMF-Wikis keine zentralistische Veranstaltung sind, musst du mir nicht erklären, ich bin zufällig auch ein kleines Licht in der Community. <Wenn der Status Quo, also das Nichteditieren für IPs, in der deWP geändert werden sollte> -> meiner Ansicht nach würde genau das eben nicht geändert werden, sondern der von der Community akzeptierte Status "jeder kann editieren" (wie übrigens auch in den Hilfeartikeln ausgewiesen, die auch für mobile Nutzer zugänglich sind) für alle Geräte (wieder)hergestellt werden (und damit nicht zuletzt den Grundprinzipien der WMF-Wikis gleichzukommen). Aber das ist natürlich, wie bereits gesagt, meine persönliche Ansicht :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support anon editing is one central feature of Wikipedia, and as mobile units tend to gain more and more use this change would change one of the root Wikipedia philosophy. I strongly disagree to "hide" such a change behind a feature which was started simply as a helper for those users. --grin 06:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support That's what a wiki should be : anyone can edit from anywhere at anytime. Kropotkine 113 (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. No benefits expected. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 07:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support -- 08:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support The WMF lets the local communities decide whether logging in should be an option or not (and whether "flagged revisions" etc should be enabled or not). Some projects (including sv.wikipedia where I edit) have actively decided not to require logging in. Then this decision should not be overridden for unnecessary technical reasons. The same should go for the Wikipedia apps for cell phones. /NH 10:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I cannot add nothing else to what has already been said. imo "Anyone can edit" is one of our most important principles, which we cannot disappoint. --Nastoshka (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I see absolutely no reason to discriminate against mobile unregisteres users, compared to desktop unregistered users. --MB-one (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support. As long as unregistered anons are allowed on desktop version, same must apply to mobile version. Exceptions can be made on individual project basis if significantly larger vandalism on that project from mobile unregistered users. Nahum (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning to oppose. Arguments of freedom, trust and vandalism all make sense, but editing a mobile version doesn't. Stripped-down mobile pages are barely usable for reading, and outright unusable for editing. They cannot visualise the intended final page layout with all the tables, template and stuff - so what's the point of editing blind? Why not simply prompt the user to edit from a real computer, or at least switch their tablet from mobile to plain page view? It's just one click away. Retired electrician (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    •  ??? You can edit in mobile, like on desktop, the source code of the page. If you attempt to save the edit, you will see a preview of your edit, which is generated by mediawiki's own parser and includes all tables, templates and so on. If it doesn't fit into mobile, you probably shouldn't save this edit and better rework it, to fit mobile. I see no point, why this should prevent mobile unregistered users shouldn't be able to edit, especially because this problem applies to registered users, too. --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Registered too, precisely. Make mobile read only. The idea of reworking for mobile could have a chance if wikipedia allowed content forks for different platforms. It doesn't. Checking for mobile compatibility is desirable, enforcing it on existing content equates with vandalism. Retired electrician (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Make mobile read only -> sorry, i don't understand why (to explain: i try to find out, what we can do better to make mobile editing possible for all users :)), so maybe you can explain, why you think, that mobile anonymous editing shouldn't be possible :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I see no reason to keep this restriction. Mathis B (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Have faith in mankind! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Serkanland (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Well, let's. Let's see what can be created with touchscreen. It will be fun. — Green Zero обг 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Wikipedia is the site that anyone can edit. But we are talking about a full desktop version. Those who wants to edit Wikipedia anonimously, can switch to full version and do it. Mobile version should be only read-only.--Soul Train (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • But we are talking about a full desktop version -> are we? And if so, why? Why is mobile more bad as desktop (or why is desktop better then mobile?). Maybe i misunderstood your comment, but the mobile editor isn't much different from the desktop editor. You edit the source code of the page and see a preview (by the way: mobile editor forces the preview to prevent possible styling issues or type errors), so the mobile editor does exactly the same as the desktop editor. And mobile apps can already edit without register an account (see e.g. Why no-one complains about it? Why is mobile apps different from mobile web? I would like to read some arguments, instead of just "mobile editing is bad" :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Blue Elf (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support The type of device that someone is using is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to edit. --Cgt (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Strongly agree. I'm honestly surprised that this is not the case already. "Anyone can edit" is critically important. HiDrNick! 14:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Please not on WikiquoteNL! We have only one active sysop and a few ( Two ore three) editers. We can't handel this, I am affraid. Anonymous edits are very rear usefull, 99% is complet nonsens. (nonsens artikels, etc.) Graaf Statler (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I absolutely agree. --Uğurkenttalk 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support What a good idea. --Turgut46 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I think this is great in theory. In practice, I have a number of problems with this:
    1. Individual communities must be allowed to opt out, as stated above.
    2. Talk page access must be fully implemented, as stated above. Ability to discuss possibly controversial edits on talk pages is one of the things that makes otherwise open editing access work.
    3. What type of device does make a difference. Typing on a device as small as a phone certainly leads to more typographical errors than typing on a computer or tablet.
    4. Especially because of the last two points, I would tend to favor limiting mobile editing to autoconfirmed editors. I want to make sure editing gets done by people committed enough to the project to be responsible in discussing edits and responsible in correcting technical errors.
StevenJ81 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose No reason why not to log in when using mobile. Remember the problems with mobile uploads disabled on Commons.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Mobile uploads had a number of specific issues which can't be compared, see above comment 08:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC). --Nemo 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Our experiment in allowing the uploading of images from mobile devices was not successful because of the vast amount of junk uploads, and has been disabled. Many projects already suffer from almost-overwhelming spamming and junk edits from *desktop* unregistered users. I would suggest that if editing by unregistered users on mobile is enabled, it occur only as an *opt-in* following a well-documented discussion on individual projects. The ability of individual projects to manage increased problematic editing will vary significantly, dependent on availability of recent changes patrollers (or equivalent), the use of pending changes/flagged revisions, and other factors. Keep in mind that range blocks to manage serially problematic editing from mobile IP ranges may have a significant impact on *all* editing from those ranges and may actually have an overall negative effect on the number of edits being made through those ranges. Risker (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per -revi --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Should be the norm. — Arkanosis 18:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose: Editing on mobile without breaking the syntax or page layout is already difficult enough if you've got the time to log in.    FDMS  4    21:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Can you clarify what is made easier by logging in? If some feature is lacking, that can be solved. --Nemo 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support. It makes no sense to require an account for mobile edits and not for desktop edits. Opraco (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support 'Anyone can edit' to promote Wikipedia. --Kumincir (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It depends on which site.
    • For the majority of sites , I Support Support it. There shouldn't be any problem with allowing it , applying what we do for non-mobile devices in the event of vandalism.
    • For Commons , I Neutral Neutral it. While it is still useful(as mobile cameras are being better , photographs of landscapes or animals can now be added faster. But there are issues are this.
    • My previous benefit stated would only apply to high - top end mobile phones. I don't think adding photos from a cheap 2 MP or 3.2 MP basic phone would help.
    • And , as some other users would have stated , what about selfies and the like? If they are also uploaded to Commons and shared , it may end up being something like a photo-sharing website(contrary to what I think that Commons is the database for Wikimedia in images , correct me if I'm wrong).
  • I also have a few questions to this.
    • How would warnings be displayed to users through templates? I do not exactly know , myself using Wikibooks on Windows(laptop) , but these templates look quite small for a 12.5 cm device.
    • How would you make sure that users do not edit by mistake? Again , I do not know much about the experience on a mobile.

--Leaderboard (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • We're not talking about enabling uploading from mobile devices :) It's just about editing pages, if you want to use pictures you need to upload you still need the desktop site. So enabling editing will not enable uploads :)
for your second question: If you want to edit pages, you still need to "tap" the edit pencil (like "edit" link on desktop) to come to the editor, so there shouldn't much space to edit by mistake :) Templates, the other way, aren't visible in mobile (for logged in and logged out users), because we use our own editor. Hope that answers your questions :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
      • How , then , would you notify users about vandalism?(like we do on desktop , issue a warning template)?--Leaderboard (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Have you an example? I'm not sure, if we're talking about the same thing :) If you mean notification templates on a user's talk page after vandalism-edits were reverted: They will be visible and the user should see a notification, that there are new messages on the talk page. Is that, what you mean? --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support This is good! Regards, Fenerli1978 (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose No for Wikisource, proofreading is a time-consuming process requiring dedication. Persons having no time to log-in better stay away. --9xl (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This argument seems to be not mobile specific, but i still can edit without logging in when i'm on desktop? --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --minhhuy (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support but no major objection to allowing individual wikis to opt out. Rich Farmbrough 02:06 4 March 2015 (GMT).
  • Oppose Oppose IP users are second only to more trouble than vandals become You can't be easy to tell them what wrong they have when They do something wrong.And Create a new account is so easy. ——Cwek (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Allow individual wikis to opt-out (especially small ones), maybe even only allow it for the bigger wikis at first (so maybe opt-in ?). If things don't go well, it will always be possible to disable it later. Darkdadaah (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Anyone can edit --Kippelboy (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Epìdosis (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support IPs are usually good users and not only vandals (File:Edits by user type (SVG version).svg). Wikimedia has always worked with and by everyone's help and it can't become a private website. --Tn4196 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support, but wikis should be able to opt-out. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment: I mostly support this, but think it should be off by default with the option for wikis to opt-in. I shudder at the thought of allowing mobile unregistered edits on en.Wikipedia or any Wikisource. Hazmat2 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This could become another shit magnet (like mobile uploads – phab:T64598)--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Because we already able to edit with PC version even it is on mobile (I am editing this way always). However software should make like local community can opt-out this function. Regards,--DangSunM (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose --PaulaMeh (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose It is too early, we should make it easier before applying...☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


How about the official Wikipedia apps for smartphones? Do they require logging in to edit pages? One editor said somewhere the apps required registration an logging in to read pages, but that was maybe a misunderstanding. I don't own a sufficiently smart mobile phone to investigate this myself :-/ /NH 14:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't need an account to edit or read contents in Wikipedia apps, see: --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there another step to protect pages for mobile edits? Because there is a need to make different protection level for mobiles.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should a page be not editable by mobile, but for desktop users? --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Because, on hiwiki, I saw that in comparison to desktop, mobile user does more vandalism. (this is relative comparison.)☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That might even be because they are forced to login. :) Seems a paradox, I know, but past research shows that can reduce average productivity. Either way, better not trust intuition for such things. --Nemo 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as i know: MobileFrontend will not introduce new rights or protection levels (i know one, who maybe like this @MZMcBride: :)). The goal should be to make mobile more like desktop (minimize special handlings from MobileFrontend and not increase them :)) and "just make MobileFrontend a mobile view", not a mediawiki inside mediawiki (if you understand, what i mean :P) :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If enabling anonymous editing generates lots of spam and strain on our existing users, how will we respond to this? To be clear the core mobile web development team is currently oversubscribed with various pieces of work and cannot spend time code reviewing/improving interfaces to reduce vandalism so we would be leaning heavily on support from existing tools such as AbuseFilter. In this worse case scenario would we simply turn off anonymous editing or do you have a team of developers familiar with MobileFrontend to improve the interface to support this initiative? I agree it should be enabled but this is the reason it is currently disabled. If the former can we clarify how we would measure success of anonymous editing on mobile and under what conditions we would switch this off? Jdlrobson (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-per-wiki exceptions[edit]

The list below tries to show wikis (or better: (some) users of these wikis), who requested to except these wikis from enabling IP-editing in MobileFrontend (aka mobile view), if enabling should be the global default. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 06:34 3 March 2015 (UTC)


I removed the list because it would be confusing. The violation of standard permissions never gained local consensus and can't be affirmed by individual users. As for "pre-per-wiki exceptions", local wikis can express a local wish with the usual process for Requesting wiki configuration changes. In other words, this list must be kept in Phabricator tickets with associated consensus.
Such requests will be dealt with all together and together with the (probable) request coming out of this discussion. There is one month to achieve local consensus and file tickets, it should be enough: if some policy requires more time in your wiki, let's adjust timings. --Nemo 07:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the Requesting wiki configuration changes-page :) I totally agree with this process (and like you explained), my list was just because it seems (at least in my personal understanding of some discussions here) that some wikis want to pre-opt-out :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Will work? --Дагиров Умар (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It will work now. I just published it. Glaisher (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cannot login to Wikipedia[edit]

My IP address is blocked from editing, and, since I created my new account, Bigwill91, I can't login. Instead, I get an error message:

Cannot create account

Account creation from IP addresses in the range 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:0:0:0:0/64, which includes your IP address (2602:306:cc2e:efb0:1824:5c87:d994:1a05), has been blocked by Elockid.

The reason given by Elockid is Block evasion:

Could someone ask an administrator on Wikipedia (both English and Simple English) to unblock my IP address, because I registered my new account? Thanks. Regards, Bigwill(History) Timestamp: 00:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to log into your Wikipedia account and request an unblock via the instructions provided. A checkuser will have to look into your request. Unfortunately the meta community is not able to assist you. Mike VTalk 01:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I am having login issues on Wikipedia (both and Please unblock my IP address. Regards, Bigwill(History) Timestamp: 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
As it was explained in Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Global_account, it is up to the local admins who know the reason for the IP block to evaluate the unblocking. Maybe you are just using an IP from a shared connection (e.g. in a college) which shows a long history of attacks/trolling and before exempting you from the block needs to be sure you are not related.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
My IP address, however, is still block on enwiki/simplewiki and I still can't login to Wikipedia. Any suggestions? Thanks. Regards, Bigwill(History) Timestamp: 01:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case, you'll need to file a request at UTRS. We won't be able to unblock the IP right away. Mike VTalk 01:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you can restore talk page access for my IP address. Could you? Regards, Bigwill(History) Timestamp: 01:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The talk page access is irrelevant, as you stated you can't log in. Please use the UTRS process. Mike VTalk 01:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
[1] [2] are these shared? Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 02:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"All IP addresses withing this range are allocated to one customer". That's the reason. My IP address was blocked until next year. If I wasn't evading a block, can I still contribute constructively on Wikipedia? Regards, Bigwill(History) Timestamp: 02:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You can check where these users who blocked that IP in other wikis there are active using Special:CentralAuth and leave them messages in other wikis you can edit. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 02:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BigWill91/William Pina, you have been blocked on the English Wikipedia for your conduct and you are also globally locked for disruptive editing across wikimedia so its in your best interest to not create sock accounts or else you will be blocked from all wikis for good. ..--Stemoc 03:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Stemoc: William Pina is my former account. And, since I don't use it anymore, I promise I will not disrupt anymore. So, I can make constructive edits now, since I was editing anonymously. I can stay calm, and I will not vandalize pages anymore. Thanks. Regards, Bigwill(History) Timestamp: 03:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There are more abuses afaics. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You were recently given a month block by another English Wikipedia admin for trolling. In July you stated "I'll never be disruptive any more." Now what do we have here, in September, you were vandalizing and causing disruption yet again (and was blocked for it too). I see absolutely no reason to lift your block. Elockid (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Bigwill is now blocked on en.wikipedia, for Obvious, and possibly resulting from this discussion. William Pina is blocked, so any new editing by IP or by a new account is block evasion. Disruptive. Therefore a promise "I will not disrupt any more" is broken from the start. You will need to be unblocked as William Pina. And now, you are creating all this fuss here. That is also disruptive. William Pina was globally locked, as noted. That is not a global ban, in itself. However, it creates a problem. You cannot request unblock of William Pina because of the global lock. Basically, by being disruptive cross-wiki last year, you created a mess for yourself. If you want to recover from this, I suggest this: register an account on That is not ban evasion, because you are not blocked from Wikiversity. You are not required to disclose who you are. But if you want help, you can ask for it privately; with an account, you will be able to send email. Take an interest in developing educational resources. Learn to behave cooperatively, to help out. Wikiversity is a good place for that, we will allow you to make mistakes. But if you become disruptive, and ignore warnings, you will be blocked there the same as anywhere. With some positive Wikiversity history, you may then be able to ask for global unlock and then clean up the Wikipedia mess. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
My request is getting declined because of a reply on Steward requests/Global permissions#Global rollback for Bigwill91. Regards, Bigwill(History) Timestamp: 01:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalised Etherpad[edit]

user:Resident Mario has noted that is vandalised. I cant see how to restore it to its former glory. Help? John Vandenberg (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Related: Etherpad developers have a strong hostility towards basic version control tools, from what I gather. --Nemo 12:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why whatever was present in that document was published using Etherpad at all, though I also don't actually know what was written there in the first place. Resident Mario (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I was able to restore the content that was removed. Everything that was there previously should be there... minus any coloring which was specific to the author who had typed the text originally. --Az1568 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Join Let's Talk Diversity![edit]

I love Wikimedia Diversity Flyer

Hi all, my name is María, I am community liaison for Learning & Evaluation team at the Wikimedia Foundation. I reach out to spread the word about a campaign we launched a few days ago, Let's Talk Diversity. this initiative aims to generate a pool of knowledge around bringing diversity to Wikimedia projects. We want to capture the learning processes that stem from these experiences. Users can contribute a problem, a solution, or write a Learning Pattern that addresses problems and solutions proposed by others. We would love to see many voices represented in this campaign!
Go to campaign page now.
Contributors will be awarded a Learning Pattern Barnstar. Happy editing, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Response Team / OTRS Annual Report 2014[edit]

This year's annual report on Wikimedia's OTRS and specifically the Volunteer Response Team's activities is now available here. If you have any questions or comments, please leave them at Talk:OTRS/Reports/2014. — Pajz (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

SUL issue: cannot log in on some projects[edit]

Hi. My account is a SUL account, and has been for a long time. It happens that on some projects, like wikidata, I cannot log in with my SUL account (and my "logged in" status is not recognized when I have logged in on some other project). I have checked that there is no local account with that name (the user page says the username is not registered, when trying to register it says my username is already taken as a SUL account). Is it some known issue about wikidata, or is it only me? Thanks in advance, --Eusebius (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Usually this happens when the autocreation of the local account upon login is prevented by something. You have created only 2 local accounts in a year but the most recent is today. Do you manage to login, say, on wikt:it: or outreach:? --Nemo 08:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Problem solved, of course it was a stupid one: I changed my password a while ago, then forgot that I did, and only one of my browers recorded the change, the other ones apparently kept running on prior authentication cookies... Sorry to have wasted your time and thanks again. --Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Since the inception of the Outreach wiki in 2009, SUL has never worked properly for me there. Recently, it is less bad -- when I go there, I am not logged in, but when I click "log in" it recognizes that I am already logged in and does not request my username and password -- it simply refreshes the page, now showing my logged-in interface. I don't know if this is something specific to Outreach wiki, specific to my account, or what. -Pete F (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Outreach was special. It is no longer. See gerrit:58924 and phab:T16407#194365. cc Anomie --Jeremyb (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2015)[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 new accounts and research materials from:

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Help us coordinate Wikipedia Library's distribution of accounts, communication of access opportunities and more! Please join our team at our new coordinator page.
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Revert notifications encourage revert warring[edit]


Why are reverted edits included in alert notifications and enabled by default? A sudden notification of a revert by another editor feels like a slap on the face, and only serves to encourage or even increase the speed of edit warring between editors. I have changed my own settings, but I think in the interests of the wider community across WMF projects the default settings should be reconsidered. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Notifying a user about edit reversion is actually helpful to me. This is because it helps to notify the user that someone has reverted the user's edit. This gives the impression to the user that he has done something wrong , otherwise why would his edit be reverted? But for this to work fully , a reason should be provided , which is not so when an edit is reverted.--Leaderboard (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that this notification does not appear unless you are logged in to an autoconfirmed account. In theory, anyone who is autoconfirmed ought to know better than to edit war. Of course, the best way to prevent a revert war is for the person who is tempted to revert to edit collaboratively, by trying to salvage something (no matter how small) rather than reverting wholesale and thus triggering the revert warning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you are confusing "getting a message" with "getting a notification", Reguyla. IPs are "getting a message" about reverts by a bot (or a user) to the IP talk page (at least on enWP, not on many Wikipedias!), which triggers the good old "orange bar of doom", OBOD. IPs are definitely not getting "notifications", the red number thing, this feature is only activated for registered users (all registered users, autoconfirmed or not). --Atlasowa (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
After testing it I think your right. I could have sworn that it was the alert but when I just tested it the OBOD showed up and no the alert. Although I haven't checked the actual ping function to an IP, perhaps that's what did it before. Reguyla (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I like the idea harej and Vriollop bring. I know that I'd be off-put if I were to receive a message like this. Lessening the blow, so to speak, would be nice. Killiondude (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)