Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Forum)
Jump to: navigation, search
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
QA icon clr.svg

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
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy[edit]

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, quite messy discussion/options. As noted in the discussion, we may need some additional options from the W3C Candidate Recommendation authors. --Nemo 22:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted Relisted The discussion was moved to w:en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. Then I have relisted the discussion, i.e. gave the discussion additional 30 days. Therefore, more participants would be welcome to comment at the newer page there during the extended time. --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Search results from sister projects enabled in all Wikipedias[edit]

Just found out that search results from sister projects are now live in all Wikipedia language sites. Nonetheless, the results at English Wikipedia are limited to just Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage (title matches only), and Wikisource. Currently, some people aren't pleased with the enabling of cross-wiki results at English Wikipedia. BTW, what to do with the results at non-English Wikipedia sites? May we announce this on every one of them? Also, expanding cross-wiki searches to other projects is considered yet not implemented. When is the right time to consider it to every other individual project? --George Ho (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC); amended. 14:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Example search with results even from Wikiversity
Some nitpicking: what you said is not entirely correct (or relevant for all languages), for instance [1] finds a full text (non-title) match from Wikiquote and [2] finds a Wikiversity page as well as Commons media. It's just hard to find good matches for most searches on Wikinews and Wikiversity, which is why in many cases it's better to not show any result at all. (I'm not sure how exactly this desirable result was achieved.)
This is a long-time community-demanded feature which was disabled in 2009 only for performance reasons or whatever (see phabricator:T46420). Fixing such regressions doesn't require big advertising; moreover, the feature is quite easy to discover for anyone using Special:Search. :)
We can and should distribute messages if there is some action required from locals, but I don't know of anything (the icons used to be configured with system messages, now they seem quite ok; the project are referenced by their domain name so there aren't big localisation issues). Do you know of something we should ask/suggest? --Nemo 09:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently, an option to disable/opt-out cross-wiki search results via user preferences is proposed at English Wikipedia. Unsure about local wikis as I don't know the languages and which other language wikis have the results besides Italian, German, and Japanese. --George Ho (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I amended the OP to avoid misleads. --George Ho (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: I recently found out that Wikibooks was included in English Wikipedia by mistake, in contrast to the consensus against the inclusion. I filed a Phabricator task to suppress those search results. --George Ho (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
For an update, an opt-out option to disable the results via preferences is created at English Wikipedia per discussion there. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Nemo bis. I want to spread the notification to other local wikis about the interwiki search results implementation. Here's my draft:

Hello. For notification, the search results from the following sister projects—Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisource, and multimedia results from Wikimedia Commonsare now implemented and live. Simply type either (this one) or (that one), and you'll see the results. Neither Wikispecies nor Wikidata is included at the moment, but including the search results from those projects are considered. Please feel free to share your thoughts. You may propose which sister project to include or exclude. Thank you.

I already spread the message to German and Spanish Wikipedias with the help of Sänger and MarcoAurelio, to whom I thank (again). I plan to notify the communities of local Wikipedia language sites, like Italian Wikipedia, about this. At first I want to request translation at every other user talk page, but I wonder whether it would be a lot of hassle.

I would replace "(this one)" and "(that one)" with search terms for separate local wikis:

More examples to post as long as the above will have been notified. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I already posted custom notifications at w:zh:维基百科讨论:Guestbook for non-Chinese speakers#Need translation to post notification about interwiki search results and w:ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers#Need translation on posting a notification about crosswiki search results that need respective translators. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Results of the RfC discussion at Eng. Wikipedia regarding "Outing" policy and WMF essay[edit]

The RFC discussion regarding w:en:WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received substantial support; so did concrete proposal #1. Recapping the results already done at WP:administrators' noticeboard:

Milieu 3:

"The balancing COI and privacy/outing means that the only option is that people investigating COI must submit information in private to the relevant people. Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF, but other bodies could be considered if there is consensus for this."

Closing rationale: "There is consensus for the proposal with the obvious caveat, that this approach needs a lot more details and clarification.Many have clarified that other bodies shall only refer to editors who have been vetted by the community to handle sensitive and personally identifying information.There has been concerns about the use of the word only as it seems to nullify on-wiki processes based on CU and behaviorial evidence."

Milieu 4:

"We need to balance privacy provided to those editing in good faith against the requirements of addressing undisclosed paid promotional editing. To do so can be achieved with a private investigation with some release of results publicly to help with the detection of further related accounts. These details may include the name of the Wikipedia editing company with which the account is associated (such as for example the connections drawn here)"

Closing rationale: "There is consensus for the above proposal, with a condition that the proposal must be clarified to remove vaugeness, and that any information released must be limited to "employer, client, and affiliation".

More specifically, the information that is to be clarified is:

  1. Who is doing the investigating? (this looks like it's covered by Milieu 3)
  2. What information is to be released? The proposer has stated in the discussion below (and other editors agreed) that the information that is released is to be limited to "employer, client, and affiliation". This renders the argument of wp:outing invalid, which really was the only argument brought up on the oppose side."

--George Ho (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't really dispute that there was consensus along those lines, the fact that all the key closes were done by non-admins of meager experience is not encouraging. Due to the significance of the disagreement, I would generally hope for a decision where multiple admins reached agreement on the outcome. As something meant to resolve a dispute between the most powerful community body on Wikipedia with the most powerful organizational body on Wikipedia this is sorely lacking in official legitimacy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate, why do you expect the Board to reject the rationales due to inexperience? --George Ho (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Re-pinging The Devil's Advocate. --George Ho (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
For the record, individual key closures were done because the team closers tried to close the whole thing, but the team closure was rejected. See history and separate section challenging that closure ([3]). I even individually closed the ones that easily lacked consensus. Casliber and Smallbones can clarify why the archiving was done without full closure. --George Ho (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I was aware of the abortive close, but even that was one non-admin (albeit one who has experience doing non-admin closures) and one admin. None of this changes what people said in the discussion, but part of the reason finding consensus in a formal discussion is traditionally the domain of admins is it requires a great deal of understanding and judgment regarding the policies as well as experience with closing contentious cases. Guess I just feel it would have been much better if the close had been done by more experienced members, especially admins. Hard to expect anything to come from the discussion when it is closed off this way. Smallbones was involved in the discussion as well so archiving without a full closure as requested is a bit improper.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if folks don't like my archiving - I did it only because we need a clear talk page for further discussions on COI. It looks to me like discussion went for a month or so and then has been left alone for over 2 months. Taking up the discussion again on the en:WP:Paid talk page looks fine to me. But it's really going to have to start at square one for several reasons. Smallbones (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that these results have already been violated with users, including administrators, discussing in public the suggested nature and motive of my perceived COI editing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Official statement of Wikimedia Switzerland issued (June 2017)[edit]

The official statement is posted at Wikimedia CH/Official statement of Wikimedia CH (conflict in French speaking area), written in German, French, English, and Italian. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, would you mind to point to the conflict you are referring to? For non-french speaking people like me it's hard to understand what it's about. Alice Wiegand (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh... no, no, no, Lyzzy. I was briefly posting a very short version of one whole statement made by Ilario. I initially thought re-summarizing it was unnecessary, but then I don't know. Something to do with "paid editing" allegations toward Wikimedia Switzerland, but... I don't know and don't get into it much. I was just here because someone else suggested posting the statement at Meta-wiki. --George Ho (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, George Ho. I come to it via the WMF board noticeboard. To be honest, it doesn't seem to be a board issue, but curious as I am, I was interested in what is is about as well as in what WMCH is expecting from the board. Alice Wiegand (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing projects[edit]

Talk:Closing projects policy#This is not working - I've opened that discussion in order to see how proposals in PCP can be better handled and not forgotten there for years. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 10:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Net Neutrality[edit]

Losing Net neutrality will open the lid of Pandora's box. The negatives outweigh the positives. If net neutrality is abolished, the damage will not immediately be visible. Once the dust settles, and the crowds fall silent, and the ownership of companies pass hands... then the damage will be known.

One day, when Greed will shake hands with Control, there will be none who could stop it. The people shouted with outrage, and Control swiftly disconnected them from the internet. Greed, who slowly purchased the Internet Service Provider companies, had finally achieved a Monopoly. Control, who had successfully secured the political permission to alter speeds, could effectively block anybody from the internet by slowing their connection toward Absolute zero.

Many Nonprofit Organizations and Companies are Joining the Day of Action on July 12: < https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/ >

I propose there to be a serious discussion on the participation of Wikimedia. While I do not wish Wikimedia placed in the crossfire, nor do I wish to see Wikimedia used for propaganda, I do not wish to see the Bystander effect occur based on the assumption that "somebody else will take care of it", or that "it's not our responsibility".

Hopefully my heavy use of symbolism in this post got the message across. Popcrate (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh-oh-wikipedia-is-not-part-of-your-plan.png
Hello again, Popcrate. Three days passed after the schedule. How was the protest? --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
WMF's Wikipedia Zero initiative is firmly anti-Net Neutrality. I contacted several news organization with exclusive data, but none were interested in it. —Dispenser (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Cycle 3 of 2017 Wikimedia movement now started[edit]

The Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 3 has started. Feel free to comment at Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 3. --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

The MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-Strategy2030 Cycle3 banner hasn't appeared >3 days after translating it into cy. This is now happening very often, and as i have said here before, it's NOT nice. Can someone please tell me why do they not appear immediately / automatically after the translation is done? The alternative is to ban all banners. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Llywelyn2000. I changed the drop-down menu at the top of the page from "State: Ready" to "State: Published". I also clicked the "review" button and then clicked the hollowed-out checkmark next to the message text. One of these two actions seems to have created the page MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Strategy2030 Cycle3-text1/cy, which may be what you need. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks! For some reason I'm not given the option to publish. Also typo corrected but I can't access MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Strategy2030 Cycle3-text1/cy, to change it as the page is locked. Any ideas? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If you use Special:SearchTranslations you will find where the message is translated. This campaign should be disabled because it's not listed on CentralNotice/Calendar, making it impossible for users to communicate with the banner admin. --Nemo 07:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nemo. If it's not on the calendr it shouldn't appear on wikis, imho. I see that it was @Seddon (WMF): who created the banner - can you comment please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Only translation administrators and admins can mark Central Notice banner translations as "published" as they appear on the MediaWiki namespace, so normal users can't publish them. Stryn (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Any admin or bureaucrat of a local wiki should be able to do that, as they can check the language! Your 'translation administrators and admins' do not, often, understand the language in question, which makes it nonsense! If this can not be changed, then we might as well do it ourselves, without going through 'translation administrators and admins'. At least the banners would appear within seconds not days - 4 days past with this one, without it being published. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately translations can be marked as published only by some user groups that exist on Meta-Wiki. We don't have a user group "All Wikimedia admins and bureaucrats", so it's not possible. Yep I have noticed. Before marking them as published we need to be careful to not enable any nonsense translations. You can always ping admins if something should be published. And I agree that the current behavior is not the best, as we have a limited number of users publishing translations. For example I'm mostly checking just Finnish translations, sometimes randomly other languages. Stryn (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks Stryn! I understand that (at present) we can not give all Wikimedia addmins and bureaucrats this right to publish, but we need a solution. Can we give that right automatically when 1,000 edits have been made? Pinging every time is reactive, and a form of 'who you know'. By the way can you tell me why this banner is not on CentralNotice/Calendar, so that we could pre-empt? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have answer to your question. It seems User:Seddon (WMF) is behind of it. I think users working for WMF don't always follow the guidelines. Stryn (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your time and guidance. I've requested Joseph's input. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: ymddiheuraf, apologies for the delay in the appearance of the Welsh translation. The translation admin right is one that is associated with the translate extension which is then itself embedded within CentralNotice. As such changing the requirements about how that particular right is granted has a much broader ranging impact than simply CentralNotice. Given that, I don't want to preclude any opinions the meta crats might have (@Barras, MF-Warburg, and MarcoAurelio). However I would be more than happy to participate in a community discussion about your proposal to make the right more accessible. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a signle "incident" justifies a site configuration change, which on the other hand will be rejected by the security team. Publishing translations for CN into the MediaWiki namespace should be restricted indeed to administrators or people who can write to the MediaWiki namespace to avoid security issues. The editinterface permission is extremely sensitive to grant it out, let alone to any user with more than 1000 edits. —MarcoAurelio 15:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not a single incident on cywiki, and I doubt that we are the only language where this has happened! It is very difficult for smaller languages to find out who the instigator of the banner is, and are unable to complain or even translate (no link). As I said here a few months ago, if you are unable to stop English language banners appearing on cywiki I'll start discussions about banning them altogether. Do you think the French fr-wiki would allow English banners to appear even though they have been translated 4 days previously? I doubt it! And en-wiki would be VERY unhappy if French, Welsh or Swahili banners appeared on their wiki. Viva la diffence! John Jones (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! We could ban now, as the community have already discussed. But let's wait a while and see if there's a solution. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: I hope that I haven't got the wrong end of the stick. The argument appears to be that a person who has invested the time and effort to make thousands of edits to the Welsh language wiki can't post translations of banners, because it would be a security risk; security is ensured by seeking approval of the translation from a person who doesn't understand a word of the language! I'm sorry but that is nonsensical and illogical. The only way to ensure that a translation is both correct and secure is to enable one or more of us who have invested many hours into the expansion of cywiki to post translations. If that is not acceptable, I suggest that we block banners from appearing with immediate effect AlwynapHuw (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000 and John Jones: All banners are done in English by default (except few ones targeted for a single language) therefore if a banner is not translated, or the translations not published for that language, yes that project will see the banner in English. Please do not bring here political nationalism to what it was an oversight from the person managing the translations. We're happy to publish as many translations as we got if we know they exist. Next time you can leave us a note at WM:RFH if you are so concerned that the Welsh translations might be lost so some of us can have a look and publish them. Note: I do not know which banner are you talking about, nor I actively patrol CentralNotice changes, but if I can be of any help next time, poke me and I'll happily publish the translations for you. —MarcoAurelio 11:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@AlwynapHuw: You totally got the wrong end of the stick. Editting the MediaWiki namespace (interface message) is dangerous and cannot be granted to everyone. Nobody is saying that it is a security risk to translate into Welsh, but that it is a security risk to let anyone to edit MediaWiki:Edit/cy, for example. —MarcoAurelio 11:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio, Aurelio, Llywelyn2000, and John Jones: Giving the authority to publish banners in Welsh to a non Welsh speaker who cannot tell if they are correct, profane, neutral, libelous etc is too much of a risk to the integrity of cywici, so it is probably best if they are not published at all. Incidentally, discussing the best way of ensuring that banners match the language of the sites on which they appear is NOT political nationalism, it is just common sense. AlwynapHuw (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This is how the system works now, and the same happens for every other language. Maybe it's not optimal, but it is what we've got. Please let us know at WM:RFH each time you create or modify a Welsh translation so it can be ported by an administrator proptly. This is sadly the only solution I can offer to you. We will be more than happy to publish translations, for Welsh or any other language. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 12:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: - We know how the system works (All banners are done in English by default...) What we're asking is for you to change the system. As @AlwynapHuw: says, it makes more sense for a translator with nearly 2,000 edits to publish than it does for a non Welsh speaker.
political nationalism - this is way out! Please retract immediately. Looking for solutions for banners to be in the language of the wiki has nothing at all to do with "nationalism". You have also wrongly implied Alwyn of saying "that it is a security risk to translate into Welsh" where in fact he said that the posting of banners would be a security risk. He had the right end of the stick, absolutely. You say: "I do not know which banner are you talking about", which shows that you haven't read the above thread.
I'm also waiting for an answer to my question: "can you tell me why this banner is not on CentralNotice/Calendar, so that we could pre-empt?" If all banners were on Central Notice, then they would be translated into Welsh (and any other language) well before they appear on WP. Another possibility is that a translator Admin is nominated from each smaller wiki. Or both. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, editting the MediaWiki namespace, where all CentralNotice final translations are posted is restricted to administrators. Banner translations happen on CNBanner namespace and have later to be ported to MediaWiki namespace and only administrators (translation adminship is useless for that) or other users with 'editinterface' permissions are allowed to edit that. Is that hard to understand?. Where did I say that translating into Welsh is dangerous? That's preposterous. If you wish to change how the system works, that'll be the correct place not here. Nobody in the whole Wikimedia Foundation has made a storm out of a cup of tea because a translation of a banner didn't appeared for some time, except you all. That surely has to be outrageous. If I were to complain for the crap-machine-translations I see for my language I'd have already ran out of words. And I am not required to know to which banner you're talking about. I am not the manager of that CentralNotice nor participate in CentralNotice management. I was asked by Joseph to give my opinion, and that's what I did. If you'd like to know why the banner was not in the calendar, etc. please ask him; not me, because I have nothing to do with that banner at all. My solution still stands, have the banners translated and ping any admin so they can smash the button and publish them up. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Whow! I rest my case! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
For info: phabricator Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: I'm sorry for my curtness above. I understand what do you mean, but still, as things stand now, only administrators will be able to publish translations in CentralNotice, and it is likely that they'll continue to work that way if translations rely on the MediaWiki namespace as of now. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Your responses suggest that you are an imperialist who hates smaller languages and are using your position to block smaller languages for political reasons! You just don't want Welsh, or Catalan, Gaelic or Basque to have any rights on Wikipedia. You are raising problems that speakers of our languages could overcome, whilst making sure that "rules" can't be overcome. If banners are published in English and need to be translated into other language sites you need to trust people who are committed to those sites to make true and fair translations. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial, your response stinks of "we can't trust smaller language users" AlwynapHuw (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

AlwynapHuw LOL! Is that the best you've got, an ad hominem? Since, according to you, I hate small languages then I am not sure why I edit, and still provide bot services to several of them, included wikis in languages you've mentioned. We do trust people translating the CentralNotice messages, banners can be translated to any language MediaWiki supports, and we're happy to publish translations for any language. I am not sure how can I make that more clear. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Re "best if they are not published at all", I sort of agree: the correct implementation (which you can add tokens for) is phabricator:T96552, i.e. not showing a banner when it's not available in the "local" language. Once that's implemented, CentralNotice admins will have no excuse for pushing English banners on non-English wikis and translators will be able to translate without hurry, focusing on what they consider most important for their communities (which addresses worries about translation quality). --Nemo 12:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: For some banners, I sort of agree as well, provided that we could notify in advance translators. However for important announcements (and I feel that the Wikimedia 2030 was one of them) I feel that if we don't have a translation, we could display the English one until a translation is provided (question: what about a MassMessage list for translators to announce that a new "universal" banner is up for translating in the meanwhile?) If banners ain't displayed to languages that do not have translations we risk, however, that such announcements ain't noticed by the communities though. As for fundraising banners, I feel that they won't care the message is translated or not. I still do not understand why some people feel so strong about this. They try to deliver an important announcement to the people, and if by the deadline the message is not translated we have no other option but to display an English message. There's no bad faith here. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Action throttled message[edit]

Hi!

Yesterday evening I sent out emails to a bunch of people that has stated their interest to participate in the Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2017. After 10 emails I got an error message: "Action throttled As an anti-abuse measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes. Return to Main Page."

As you can see it says to try in a few minutes, however, when trying today (16 hours later) I still get the same error message. I can still send emails from other wikis. Any advise how to solve this here on Meta?

Best,

John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Users are generally limited to 20 e-mail per day per wiki. You need 'noratelimit' userright to overcome this limit. Ruslik (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Ruslik0. John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Two things seems not working ?[edit]

1) I could not see links in other languages working https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use . Please some one do cross check.

2) https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy page makes mention of https://freedomdefined.org but that website is not opening. Either linked website should open or text should be made available at alternative location

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This would fit better here: Foundation wiki feedback. Stryn (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Resolved 2) by adding a cached link. 1) will need an admin, looks like they will need to move the page over the /en redirect @Jalexander-WMF:  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt response.
2) https://freedomdefined.org webpage also seems to have started working again. Definitions with translations and licenses both aspect are importatnt, I belive.
1) looks resolved.
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrats in Persian Wikiquote[edit]

Moved from Meta:Babel.--Syum90 (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We're trying to improve Persian Wikiquote but there are problems, there is only two bureaucrats (one bureaucrat, one steward) in that Wiki and the bureaucrat is been inactive for half a year while the steward is yet too busy and doesn't check on with requests frequently, now I need bot flag in the mentioned wiki but I'm not sure if I can ask that in Meta. Mohammad (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask for that bot flag in Meta though I'm still willing to hear an answer for this problem. Mohammad (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Always step through the rights discussion in your local community, then when there is no decision by your local bureaucrat, and you have pinged them, then simply put a request to SRP and stewards are able to intervene/act as a crat.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Random blocks on English Wikipedia[edit]

On en:Wikipedia, two users have been indefinitely blocked on the accusation of being me, which appears to be a most horrendous crime. They are not me, I don't know them, they were just interested in one or two of the same topics and one of them - how awful - even shared an opinion with me. No attempt to investigate was made. The consensus among administrators seems to be that nobody in their right mind would be interested in my topics or something remotely related, so if they are, they naturally must be me, case closed.

This is far from the first time it has happened, and it has happened with other banned users I know as well. When CU results say otherwise, they switch to saying 'but then they are of course following your instructions' or they just ignore the results altogether and keep saying it's me. This time there isn't even so much as a CU request. Asking for one yourself is not allowed, and in fact when I asked for an investigation all the channels of communication were rapidly closed to me.

I can't imagine that this is how projects are supposed to behave, but I'd like to hear opinions on due process and solutions for when things go wrong, which currently don't exist. Guido den Broeder (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Guido den Broeder: This is not the place to complaint or inquiry about potential misuse of the CheckUser tool on enwiki. You should email Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org instead.--GZWDer (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)