From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 ← Index of discussion pages Babel archives (latest) →
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
  • You can comment here in any language.
  • This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
  • If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
  • For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
  • For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
  • To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
  • Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


This box: view · talk · edit
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.

Can I password protect pages?[edit]

Can I protect my user subpages with a password? Thanks! Wetitpig0 (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No. --Krd 11:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it could be possible, if a developer can reform $wgPasswordConfig (?) to allow it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should allow password protecting pages. Wiki should be open, user-subpages as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I'm having diffulties with Template:Proposed logo and its copyright provisions. On one hand, we tag most of those with {{GFDL-presumed}} and {{proposed logo}} which are both contradictory each other. On the other hand, WMF has freed their logos. What shall we do with this template? What shall we do with all {{GFDL-presumed}} images. I think that the template was being phased out several years ago. Meta image repository is a total mess... —MarcoAurelio 10:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

About the "proposed logo" template, reviewing each file to see if it's free or not would be one way to handle this. If it's free, pull the template and re-tag it with a free license. If it's not, the file should be deleted as non-free unless the copyright holders are willing to relicense it as free. "GFDL-presumed" I'll look at later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This seems not only affecting Meta-Wiki, but also a number of our projects. Maybe @Jo-Jo Eumerus: we should also ask users who active on the affected projects, especially the Italian users (because they still allow CC BY-NC-SA licensed files). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
How does it affect other projects? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: c.f. d:Q6689658. Only de, el, en, he, hu, huwb, ko, sr, and commons modified to say {{Wikimedia trademark}}+cc by-sa, zh directly redirected to zh:Template:Wikimedia trademark (unclear if fi is also modified or not), others are still saying "copyrighted by Wikimedia Foundation.../All rights reserved.../© & ™ Wikimedia Foundation.../not been licensed under the GFDL..."--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

How is the Arabic Wikipedia a Wikipedia?[edit]


The Arabic Wikipedia moderates all contributions by users. If you make an edit in any article, your edit will not appear to unregistered users. It will only appear after some administrator reviews it and approves of it. The review process seems to be complex and multilayered. If your edit is flagged by this icon FlaggedRevs-1.png, this means that it has not been reviewed. If it is flagged by this icon FlaggedRevs-2.png, this means that it has passed only the first layer of scrutiny. It will still not appear for unregistered users. Finally, if your edit is flagged by this lucky icon FlaggedRevs-3.png, this means that it has successfully passed scrutiny and "has been approved by an expert" (they say that literately تم تدقيق ومراجعة الصفحة من قبل خبير).

This approval process is extremely slow and often takes months to complete (if not years in some cases). I am quite unsure that they do really have "experts" qualified for reviewing all the edits.

My question is: how is this whole process consistent with a wiki project? A wiki project means that anybody can contribute. If there will be "experts" reviewing the contributions before they appear on the website, then this cannot be called a wiki project. This is just another encyclopedia of the traditional type. It seems to me quite misleading that the Arabic Wikipedia calls itself a "Wikipedia."

What is most surprising is that they have had this review system since 2009.--HD86 (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@HD86: Has there been discussion at that community about flagged revisions? What has consensus been? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked them once but they just tried to justify their review system without being able to answer my question.--HD86 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

They basically said the following: there are cultural differences and their review system is necessary in the Arabic culture, because Arabic-speaking contributors are more likely to vandalize than others and are less likely to contribute positively.

To me, this sounds like some racist prejudice; but in any case this does not answer my question. It rather confirms that the Arabic Wikipedia is not really a Wikipedia. It only uses the name.--HD86 (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to make something clear -- I do not say that the system is necessarily unjustified. Perhaps it is true that they get too much vandalism (at least in some sections of the encyclopedia), but regardless of the justification -- if you moderate all the edits before they appear on the website, then you cannot call this a "wiki." If what they say about cultural differences is true, then what should be done is to discontinue the Arabic project altogether rather changing its nature to something that is opposite to the original idea.--HD86 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC) and they cannot let the public
It's a wiki obviously, since anyone can edit. It's also a wiki, because the community has some element of self-governance in deciding how to patrol the contributions made to the site. Sorry if you don't like it, and yes there are some issues with lack of reviewers. You could always step up and offer to help review revisions I guess. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"because the community has some element of self-governance in deciding how to patrol the contributions made to the site."

This is incorrect and does not apply to the Arabic Wikipedia. The definition of the Wikipedia community says The Wikipedia community is the community of contributors to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. This means that anybody who contributes is part of the community. It is most unlikely that the community of the Arabic Wikipedia have chosen to keep their contributions hidden until they pass the nonsensical review process.

Last month I received the following message via email from an administrator in the Arabic Wiki:

لقد وصلتك هذه الرسالة كونك مسجل على موسوعة ويكيبيديا بالنسخة العربية، وحسب الإحصاءات الأخيرة فإن الموسوعة تعاني من تدني نسبة المستخدمين النشطين مقارنة مع عدد المسجلين وهذا بخلاف الويكيبيديات الأخرى، ولذا نتمنى نحن مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربية أن نراك مساهماً معنا في الموسوعة بما يخدم المعرفة للناطقين بالعربية.

The message asks me to contribute in the Arabic Wiki, because (according to the message) the percentage of active contributors in the Arabic Wiki is low in comparison with the number of registered members, which is unlike the situation in the other Wikipedias. This is what the message literally says.

If most of the registered members are inactive, then nobody can claim that the "community" have decided anything.

I received that message on 8/8/2016. Since that time I have made many contributions to the Arabic Wiki (just because of the message), but guess what? Most of my contributions are still invisible. They are pending review. I do not think that the review process will be finished this year, and frankly I do not accept the principle of that so-called review. Who is going to review my edits? If I want to submit something for review, it will not be on that pity site. I do not believe that the people who are going to "review" my edits are qualified for that.

This is why I am quitting again. I just want to make it clear why I cannot contribute to the Arabic Wiki. I am a native Arabic-speaker but most of my edits have been in the English Wiki, not in the Arabic one. The reason is because contributing to the Arabic Wiki has always been too difficult. It is nothing like the English Wiki. It is not really a "wiki." It is a strictly moderated site that is hardly accessible for the general public.--HD86 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is what happened when I tried to rationally discuss the problem with the admins of the Arabic Wiki. One of them got so angry and started calling me names and accusing me with all sorts of unfounded accusations. I will translate what he said. Please note that I am not trying to "report" him or anything like that (so please admins, do not get mad at me because I am doing this).

We do not view the Arabic Wikipedia as bad or as a failure. It is only you who thinks so, and you try to make up unreal problems because you want to make a fuss. The flagged revisions system is implemented in many of the other [Wikipedias] including the English Wikipedia. So why do you insist on portraying it as a bad thing in the Arabic Wikipedia? One of the admins answered you with some facts but you ran away from the discussion and you said "I will not answer you" (sic),¹ and this proves that you are not a positive person looking to solve problems, but you are an argumentative person who wants only to make a fuss and create disorder.² I have dealt with so many people like you and I know how people of your type work, because I am not a fool. I interfered in the discussion initiated by you in order to put an end to that farce which had been wasting people's time, and [in order to put an end to your] creating problems out of nothing. You as a person mean nothing to me and I did not even consider having a direct conversation with you like I did before with other users.³

The message which reached you from [the admin] Badarin⁴ was only meant to encourage old contributors [to come back] in order to increase benefit [to the encyclopedia], but we do not suffer a lack of contributors, because Wikipedia now has much more articles and featured articles than it had years ago, and the number of contributors has multiplied. We do not need your help. Your absence or the absence of any other person will have no effect on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not owned by us and we are not employed by it. It is a website open to contributors⁵ for the sake of knowledge, and it is based on volunteering. We welcome contributors, but if they choose to leave, that will make no difference.

To summarize, and in order to settle this issue, I am going to talk to you in the same strict way used by the admins of the English or German Wikipedias,⁶ because it seems that the admins here are too lenient: what you do is trolling. If you continue shouting and creating disorder, you will be banned (and this is 100% legal). If you have a single clear problem you can start a discussion in the appropriate place.⁷ If you want to contribute, the door is open and no one will prevent you. If you view [the Arabic] Wikipedia as a failure, you can leave quietly and you do not even need to read it. Anything else is not allowed. I think that the matter is now clear.

Some people will ask, why do not you talk to him instead of doing this here? The answer is: I did try to talk to him. I posted twice on his personal discussion page, but he basically kept repeating the same things. He says that there is no problem and that I am a troll who is trying to "create disorder," and he keeps threatening to ban me.

1. What really happened was that one admin dismissed my complaint, just like this ones does, and he asked me to "keep following our discussions in order to see how much we care about the encyclopedia," and I responded by saying that I did not want to follow their discussions until they decide to do something about the very serious problem in their revision system which keeps my edits invisible for many months or years.

2. The total number of my posts about this problem in the Arabic Wikipedia is two. Both of them were short posts, but they apparently were sufficient to create commotion and disorder in that very orderly place.

3. It is true that he never wanted to talk to me directly. He interfered in the discussion only to close it, and to call me names, and to ask me to leave the Arabic Wikipedia if I did not like it. Despite his very offensive and arrogant behavior I left a calm and rational message on his personal discussion page, because I was hoping to reach a solution for my specific problem, which is that my edits remain invisible for many months or years because of their nonsensical revision system.

4. It is the message I translated earlier. Note that what he claims about the purpose of that message completely contradicts the actual content of the message.

5. True, it is open to contributors, but the problem is that their contributions will not appear on it.

6. I think he says this because in my original complaint I compared the Arabic Wikipedia to the English one.

7. Which I did, but he closed the discussion, called me names, and asked me to leave Wikipedia if I did not like it. He himself said that in this message.--HD86 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting, I didn't know flagged versions. I understand the issue of cultural differences, but this system is foolish, waiting months or years for reviews, without knowing who will reviews the edits, and what are experts, admins avoid discussing... this is foolish!--Luca Polpettini (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia administrators ban me because I am translating what they say to English[edit]

My account at the Arabic Wikipedia has been banned.

I will translate the most recent exchange which has led to this, because this really epitomizes my experience with the Arabic Wikipedia.

It started when I deleted a big part of my personal discussion page (the most recent thing I deleted goes back to February 2012). I know that many people will not like that, but it is allowed and there is nothing wrong in it. I made a quick search through the rules of the Arabic Wiki and could find nothing about it.

One user (who turned out to be an admin) reverted my edit in my own personal discussion page and wrote in the edit summery "do not empty your talk page of things you do not like" (لا تُفرغ صفحة نقاشك من الكلام الذي لا يُعجبك). He did not cite any rule in this edit summery (which has an offensive tone), so I reverted his edit and wrote in the edit summery "is there a rule that prevents me from doing so?"

What happened next was typical of the Arabic Wiki. He forced his edit again without writing an edit summery, and he also gave me a warning in which he reiterated what he said still without citing any rule, and he added the following important statement:

لا تُكثر الجدال والتزم بالمُلاحظات المُوجهة لك

Do not argue too much and abide by what you are told.

Next I wrote a message on his personal talk, in which I said:

أنا فهمت أمرا واحدا من تنبيهك الذي تركته على صفحتي الشخصية وهو أنك إداري وتملك سلطة التهديد والطرد، ولكنك لم تجب عن سؤالي حول القانون الذي يمنع حذف محتويات صفحتي الشخصية؟ ألم يكن من الأحرى أن تنورني وتبين لي ذلك القانون قبل أن تسارع إلى إنذاري بتلك اللهجة الحازمة؟

I understand one thing from the warning you left on my personal talk, which is that you are an administrator and you can warn and ban me, but you still have not answered my question about the rule which prevents me from emptying my personal talk? Wouldn't it have been better if you'd informed me about that rule before you hastened to giving me that strict warning?

I also quoted WP:OWNTALK with a translation to Arabic. Quoting rules from the English Wikipedia is something that I did there frequently, because I could not find those rules in the Arabic Wikipedia. It is not that they have other rules, they simply have no rules on those issues (I guess you do not need the rules if you are supposed to "abide by what you are told").

This is the response I got:

Hey you, watch what you say and read the things I told you [in the warning] above about not deleting talk pages. This warning is given to every unruly user who does much annoying, problems, arguments and vandalism. The first three of those categories apply to you.¹ You must know that this warning is the last chance for you to stop arguments and annoyances and attacks on the encyclopedia. If you wish to build the encyclopedia with the rest of the users, then welcome. If you only want to be a troll, then we will deal with you as a troll.

The following is his response to my citation of WP:OWNTALK:

We are not the English Wikipedia. The laws and policies of the English Wikipedia have no effect or influence on us. I will restore your talk page if you delete it as long as you do not archive it, especially the discussions which are related to your problems with the encyclopedia. The warning I gave you is still valid. Stop your useless arguments, please.

1. He means that I do much annoying, problems, and arguments, but not vandalism.

This was the end of the discussion. Note that in all of the discussion he never referred to any rule (he neither mentioned the name of a rule, nor he provided any link). You can tell that he probably does not know any rule from his response when I cited WP:OWNTALK. In that response he said "especially the discussions which are related to your problems with the encyclopedia." In this statement it appears that he was making a concession by suggesting that I may delete things that are not related to "my problems with the encyclopedia." This wavering suggests that he does not know any written rule. If he knew one, he should have cited it.

Next my account was banned for the following reason:

(حساب للتخريب فقط: الحساب أصبح عبارة عن ترول لا يهدف سوى للإساءة للموسوعة وتخريبها وإثارة الفتن)

An account only for disruption/vandalism: the account has become a troll that has no purpose other than doing bad things to the encyclopedia, disrupting/vandalizing it, and arousing fitnah (sedition).

The real reason for why they banned me is probably because I am translating what they say to English and posting it here. They know I am doing this because I told them after I started doing it. I did not mean to threaten them or offend them. I just wanted them to change their behavior. I resorted to this only after I lost hope of reaching a solution with them.

Why would anybody get angry from translating their talk to English? This should upset nobody.

In the end, I wish if Wikimedia adopts some general guidelines (or enforce them if they do exist) for the all the projects, including the Arabic Wikipedia. The admins there repeatedly told me that they do not care about any rules from the other projects. This does not make sense. The essential characteristics of Wikipedia must be the same in all languages.

In the English Wikipedia, disputes are resolved through consensus building. This philosophy does not seem to exist in the Arabic Wiki, where you are expected to "abide by what you are told" and not argue too much.

In the English Wiki, when somebody would revert my edit I would start a discussion with them. This procedure does not seem to exist in the Arabic Wiki. What happens there is that you "deposit" your edits into the revision system, and many months later one reviewer (who is not an expert on the subject) will decide on their own whether to keep your edits or strike them down (the latter possibility does not seem uncommon, which is natural since the reviewers and admins seem to have a low opinion of edits that come from outside their circle).--HD86 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Requests for site rename from nowiki to nbwiki[edit]

I wrote a proposal for site rename; Requests for site rename/nowiki to nbwiki. It should probably be formatted more properly, added some templates etc, but I have a small problem figuring out where everything is located. I guess the request will create some noise, especially from the community at nowiki as the no/nb discussion is highly unpopular in that community, while the nnwiki want equally much a solution whereby the site is renamed. I'm not surprised if users from the nowiki tries to block the discussion altogether. — Jeblad 23:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If nowiki wants to stay at that domain, why start the discussion? – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jeblad: Have you filed a bug at phabricator:? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
To make it very clear; the language code no imply a site covering Norwegian, that is both Nynorsk and Bokmål. But it is not covering both language forms, it is only covering Bokmål. There is a separate site for Nynorsk with correct language code, nn, but that site lose a lot of traffic because nowiki claim it is Norwegian that is the only Norwegian site. The correct code for nowiki is nb and thus the site identifier should be nbwiki.
No, I have not set up a phabricator bug, but I can do so. (Added as Site identifier and subdomain for nowiki should be changed) — Jeblad 23:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jeblad: I'm familiar with the standards for written Norwegian (but I don't know your language). As an aside, "loose" is the opposite of "tight"--like clothing that is too large. "Lose" is the opposite of "win". —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of misconception about written Norwegian, I don't assume anything, I'm only a Norwegian trying to describe the current situation and propose a solution. — Jeblad 23:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
And the fact that you are currently blocked on nowiki has nothing to do with this request? -- Tegel (Talk) 00:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The dispute on nowiki is about blocking of a whole subnet for a major telecom provider, and no I did not do it, I told them not to do it after they did it repeatedly over several days. But then, what does that have to do with solving a several year old dispute involving use of language codes? I can hardly create a language dispute over a few hours that started before I even registered an account more than 10 years ago? And, yes I have also questioned the validity of the claims made by CU and the involved users. Several times actually. Go look it up! — Jeblad 00:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to change Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål from no to nb I think there's not much resistance against that. We have two official languages in Norway, Norwegian and Sami. Within Norwegian there are two equal written versions, Nynorsk and Bokmål. At the same time there has not been any request for changing Wikipedia Bokmål/Riksmål from no to nb in the last years, as I remember that was a discussion that largely fizzled out around 2005-2006.

If there is a demand from the active contributors on Wikipedia in Nynorsk about such a change I don't think there will be much resistance against it from the active contributors at Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål. In general many of the active contributors at Bokmål/Riksmål both support Wikipedia in Nynorsk and also see its growth as an asset, so a request from the Wikipedia Nynorsk community I assume would be met with interest and understanding. Regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing deleted pages and the WMF's stand[edit]

I believe that I have read somewhere (on Meta) that the Wikimedia Foundation excplicitly requires a community-wide election process for all user groups that are able to view deleted material. In other words, it is almost forbidden to give such a user right to someone, who has not been approved by the community concerned, as allows them to view deleted text or hidden revisions. Could someone please point me to the relevant decision or discussion? Note that this is different from the Access to nonpublic information policy, which does not apply to administrators. --Pxos (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

en:Viewing deleted content is one page in question, it's been also discussed on en:User talk:Mdennis (WMF). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
This was a very useful answer. Thanks! --Pxos (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no actual policy on it, only a suggestion from WMF legal. As I have said for years now, if they want to enforce it they should work with the board and the community to make an actual policy, as they did with CU and OS rights. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually w:WP:Viewing deleted content is the right link. I agree with the Foundation position. There's a lot of nasty stuff buried there, as well as copyright infringements, and having someone passing a vote to see deleted stuff is just fine. Whether if they should make a policy for that or not, I don't know. When every general counsel of the Foundation have said that they're not confortable with handing this out liberally I trust they have legal reasons to oppose such a change. Anyway, I'm sure they won't deploy code to WMF sites if WMF legal is not content with it, and I recall seing some requests denied because of that, and that's reasonable: it's their liability as corporation what can increase, by millions of USD in some cases. They won't take that risk. —MarcoAurelio 20:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, I do as well. I object on two grounds. From a procedural perspective, I see the WMF as a partner organisation to the community - they get paid to develop the software and run the servers. Therefor, they might have good reasons for wanting something to be some way, but they should express that desire through collaboration, rather than fiat. Second, there are many examples across Wikimedia where people with deleted content access are not elected strictly by an RfA, yet these cases seem to just be ignored by the Foundation. Why should these processes not be allowed to continue? Even as a steward, I grant temporary admin access to people who open requests that have no comments on them. While I do some review myself in those cases, such a case cannot be held at the same level as a full RfA. Nor does an RfA necessarily remove all risk associated with granting access to the deleted revisions, but I'll trust legal's calculations on that one. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

17:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I want a lot of kind of Wikipedia Month[edit]

Why Wikipedia Month have only Wikipedia Asian Month? I wanna a lot of kind of Wikipedia Month. For example,stub,Europe,Africa,America,Sciences,Art,History,Philosophy,Culture,Technology,Wikipedia:Portal,and ete... --RJANKA (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@RJANKA: There is also w:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Africa/The_Africa_Destubathon on the English Wikipedia. We have a lot of work still to do to improve many topics across all of our sites, so if you want to try to organize more editors, that is welcomed. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania wikis[edit]

Moved to Wikimedia_Forum#Wikimania_wikis. --Rehman 09:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)