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

License policy abuse on votewiki[edit]

There's in these with unclear copyright status. Unfortunately common people can't even edit the wiki in order to report the abuse so I'm reporting it here. Please move it to Commonswiki or delete it for good. Such a display of spitting on own licensing policy by WMF is disgusting :P --Base (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Omg we don't even have an interwiki prefix for the wiki. --Base (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the uploader, Jalexander-WMF to discuss it with him? That's usually a good first step, esp. since he is one of only two non-blocked admin on the project. (Oddly, Reedy is still an admin, though blocked.) Alternately, Philippe (WMF) is also an admin on that wiki and could probably help. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The picture was uploaded under fair use and says such along with the author's name. There is no abuse of the license policy. It will be deleted over the coming week as we clean up from the election (probably over the next couple days) since it is no longer needed. I'm sorry that you don't like that it was done, however the image was deleted suddenly from commons (and, to be fair, it should have been) and not having the image or having a red link would have been an unfair disadvantage to the candidate. Jalexander--WMF 07:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
As James says, there's no long-term intent to keep or use that file. It was short-term, fair-use, and used to not unfairly disadvantage a candidate for election. Given the circumstances, and the fact that it's being deleted shortly, I think it's probably okay. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The file was deleted several times commons:File:Timbo-super-serious.jpg, however Jalexander-WMF'a makes sense (however I don't understand his comment that there was no license issue. Image source? Fair use rationale?). If the image is deleted now, I suggest to replace it with File:Example.jpg or "This image was deleted.jpg" (if there is any such file) in the original page where it was used by the candidate. --TitoDutta 10:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
In order to use fair use the wiki should have approved EDP — that's per the licensing policy again. Could you give me a link to the one on the votewiki? But still it'd be impossible to fairuse a pic of currently living person per the same policy. Well unless he is imprisoned, a hermit or whatever exceptionally case. As to not contacting the uploader directly — well I just thought it's clear enough case for anyone to act upon it. I still do. As to a candidate not having a picture of himself — well it takes a cam and 10 minutes in order to create one and upload it (another 15min if you use a friend+OTRS instead of a timer). Though active wikimedians usually already have some other pics of themselves on Commons. If they don't then perhaps they are not too much of outreach activity and it's a disadvantage in it's own. --Base (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The file is still there. --Base (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC) And still. It seems that WMF has absolutely no intention to fix its own abuse :P --Base (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"There are no pages that link to this file" on, there are also no pages using the enwiki picture. These uploads were erroneous, the red links were and still are here on Meta, not on or enwiki. All active admins for the 14 users obviously agree on "yes, we have an EDP, and we will figure out for what purpose", see above.:tongue:Be..anyone (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Allow admins adding confirmed user group on all WMF wikis[edit]

In phab:T101981, Bennylin fails to grant confirmed flag to a user in a wiki. This is because no one but stewards and sysadmins can add it defaultly. Confirmed users only have few extra rights and enabling this doesn't harm anything. So I purpose enabling this flag on all WMF wikis (See phab:T101983). Others' idea?--GZWDer (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • IMO All Administrator on all Wikimedia Wikis should be allowed to add Confirmed to user account, I see no reason why admin are not allowed to add confirmed status to user account that they could trust as by default Administrator itself are user who perform "administrative action" and can be trusted.--AldNonymousBicara? 09:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Totally in favor.--Syum90 (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Question I'm not sure I understand this. I'm an admin on the English WP and can grant this userright there. Are you saying that this is different on other wikis? Or are you proposing that someone who is an admin on a wiki, should be able to grant this userright on any other wiki, too? --Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's different; only few wikis allow admins to assign users to 'confirmed' group (enwiki is one of those). This proposal is about having that same configuration by default on all Wikimedia wikis. --Glaisher (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, original proposal is a bit wrong (per Glaisher). Note that an even smaller number of wikis only allow bureaucrats to grant this, not sysops - if this proposal succeeds, I expect we'll exempt those ones (and continue only letting bureaucrats grant it there, rather than open it to sysops). --Krenair (talkcontribs) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the person who report it. Thanks to GZWDer (Bugreporter) to start this discussion here. Also, I agree with Krenair to leave some wikis only bureaucrat can grant this right to user. Bennylin
  • Support Support Got it, thanks for the above clarifications. Makes sense to me. Support as amended by Krenair. --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we can trust sysops to add and remove this permission by default on all wikis they ain't able to do it already. Some wikis do have bureaucrats able to add/remove it, maybe we should leave them untouched. —MarcoAurelio 18:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Question: : Would crats inherit that right from admin? For example, would a non-admin bureaucrat able to grant/revoke that right locally? Bennylin 08:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Are there any projects with non-admin bureaucrats or are we playing "what if.."?
  • Support Support Has proven helpful on the English Wikipedia - should be available to all wiki administrators/bureaucrats (whoever each wiki decides shall control it - but by default, it should be admins). Rjd0060 (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems useless to me, big wikis which have a need usually have this configuration enabled already, while the majority of the wikis is likely too small to get involved with user rights stuff. It's definitely better dealt with by stewards on those wikis, in my opinion. Vogone (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Vogone: However it's useful for allow (trusted) users in new wikis to move pages. In addition, some wikis have wgAutoConfirmCount, where confirmed user group is useful.--GZWDer (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, there might be use cases, but I doubt it's a good idea to put this extra-burden on small wiki admins without them even having asked for it. Stewards would rather not handle this anymore if small wiki admins could, and as we all know, small wikis tend to be rather inactive. Vogone (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Vogone: However, in my opinion small wiki admins having this tool is not harmful, but useful when really needs. Probably we may allow stewards to remove unused confirmed flag (because of already autoconfirmed and/or inactivity) in small wikis, and allow stewards to add this flag if there're no active local admins or in urgent situations.--GZWDer (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I don't really see a huge need for this myself but I don't see anything wrong with doing it. If they get the right to add this right though, they also need to be able to remove it in case its done in error. Otherwise this seems like a logical change now that we are going to global accounts. In reality there are probably very few (in the order of a couple dozen) that would even do this. Reguyla (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


(I wrote about it. But there was no reaction ?! The reason I am writing again. Please avoid vandalism.)

User:sefer azeri' is engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out.), 2 (Without any major wiped out the picture., , ) , 3 (Fraud. Map changed. 100 years have reduced the state's history.), 4 (Insult.)... Requires block it for at least a year. But it was never punished for their work. Sortilegus always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out), 2 (The name of the state, has been removed.), 3 (Reliable sources wiped out)... Wertuose always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Picture of the article - az:Bakı xan sarayı), is deleted.. 2 (insult; Əxlaqsız ifadələrə görə...). The 3 users blocked me, without any reason! We do not have arbitration and appellate courts. Therefore, administrators dictator. No one can give me an answer?! To whom should I complain? -Idin Mammadof (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course you won't get a response, this is not a place to make this report, Request for comment is the correct place to ask about sysop abuse.--AldNonymousBicara? 23:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps now would be the reaction?. -Idin Mammadof talk 07:55, 14 Yune 2015 (UTC)
Comment regarding that RfC will be made by anyone who read and care about the case. But on the most part other uninvolved admin from local projects should be the one who decide and solve it instead of people from meta.--AldNonymousBicara? 09:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course. But our adminstrators will not see any action. -Idin Mammadof talk 05:44, 16 Yune 2015 (UTC)
AldNonymous, there is no reaction. What do I do? talk 18:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (June 2015)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

Today The Wikipedia Library announces signups for more 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:

  • Taylor & Francis — academic publisher of journals. The pilot includes two subject collections: Arts & Humanities and Biological, Environment & Earth Sciences. (30 accounts)
  • World Bank eLibrary — digital platform containing all books, working papers, and journal articles published by the World Bank from the 1990s to the present. (100 accounts)
  • AAAS — general interest science publisher, who publishes the journal Science among other sources (50 accounts)

New French-Language Branch!

  • Érudit (en Francais) — Érudit is a French-Canadian scholarly aggregator primarily, humanities and social sciences, and contains sources in both English and French. Signups on both English and French Wikipedia (50 accounts).
  • (en Francais) — is a Switzerland based online web portal of scholarly materials in the humanities and social sciences. Most sources are in French, but some also in English. Signups on both English and French Wikipedia (100 accounts).
  • L'Harmattan — French language publisher across a wide range of non-fiction and fiction, with a strong selection of francophone African materials (1000 accounts).

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including an expansion of accounts for Royal Society journals and remaining accounts on Project MUSE, JSTOR, DeGruyter, Highbeam and British Newspaper Archive. If you have suggestions for journals or databases we should seek access to make a request! Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 22:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We need your help! Help coordinate Wikipedia Library's account distribution and global development! Please join our team at our new coordinator signup.
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List

An open letter to Wikipedia and the WMF.[edit]

It's a long time since I have done any work here, due to some problems in the past. I have been getting a lot of questions about my issues, from people across various Wikis, so in an effort to close my book, I've written an open letter to the staff of the WMF and to Wikipedia. I think it's best I direct people to it, so I can say what I have to say and get it over with. If you wish to read it, or you have some knowledge as to why I was away, you may find the page here. My apologies if this post is in the wrong place, any meta admin please feel free to move it to where it should be. Thanks! BarkingFish (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


[Labs-l] NFS outage in progress, [Labs-l] [NFS outage] Tools is back
[Labs-l] NFS outage in progress, Adminnotizen deWP

Why has the Tool-Labs server broken down again, while the WMF is hoarding tons of money and personnel, and this server has to be one of the main concerns for the WMF. The WMF has to make sure that it's up at best all of the time, at worst 99,5% of the time. It should spend far more money and personal on the tools then on fluffy stuff like Flow and other unwanted bling. It's one of the core duties of the WMF to have it up and running, like all the other servers. The keep-up-running of the servers is the main job of the WMF, they are the service agency of the communities to do this with its paid staff.
One question regarding this: How is the ratio of spent money to essential things like running this server and perhaps-nice-to-have-stuff like Flow and other bling? --Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden)superputsch must go 05:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


21:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Who we are ?[edit]

Presenting myself, I'm curious but curiosity have to be canalised. So, i let this bottle in the websea, looking for the parot and his third eye.

Knowledge is a trap. Symbols is a trap. Some people build this babylon tower of knowledge ( fondation and all allegories than you can imagine)

We follow symbols. I do it. But I want to surrunder it. I'm looking for the community thinking by the same way. I'm looking for a team.

NB : I don't like so much screens, I prefer Light from the sun.



—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plumoo (talk)


Innovation seems important, being one-third of the Call to Action, but did not have its own page, so I have boldly started one. It wasn't clear to me which department or team in WMF oversees innovation, but I invite them to build on that page as a foundation. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Some of the answers seem out of date or indeed have never been written. Is there a member of WMF staff responsible for maintaining this page? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No. See mailarchive:wiki-research-l for past discussions of the matter. --Nemo 11:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Then I propose to radically revise the page, mark it {{historical}} or just {{delete}}. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

General requests[edit]

Has the time come to close that page down and merge into this Forum? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. --Glaisher (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)