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 site 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


Why OTRS tickets are hidden for non logged users? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22 February 2014, 11:40 (UTC).

They can contain private information. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Good question. IMHO, it is needed so that people can contact Wikimedia privately and securely for things related to privacy issues (e.g. when reporting online harassment, or when reportingproblems with some admins or when someone wants to defend his position privately or appeal a decision; or when someone asks for the cration of a secret sockpuppet kept separate from another public account for editing some public contents, or when someone has had his privacy breached abusely about his current online account and wants a new account and have his old account deleted or blocked...). The OTRS team may then decide to unhide the ticket if it does not break a privacy rule and if the contacting person asks for publication of his ticket and his identity. The OTRS team may also choose to create an account (with a pseudonym) for that person asking for online privacy. If this possibilty is maintained in the OTRS system, it should be documented and the conditions to keep these tickets private should be governed by the privacy policy or the OTRS team policy. verdy_p (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Also IMHO, I think that all tickets for issues submitted to the OTRS team should be initially private by default, including tickets from logged in users (for exampel they may need to send private proofs of identity to the Foundation, while being logged on to assert that he is effectively controling the public account for which he wants to associate this proven identity. For exampel a loggen on user may need to assert that he is effectively the owne of a copyrighted work that he submitted, or may need to prove to the Foundation (by being logged on security to his account) that his account is effectively the one asking for some admin privileges: within the ticket, that person may reveal privately his real name, email address, and other data covered by the privacy policy, without revealing it publicly to the world (most Wikimedia users and even most admins, including most developers or members of the Board of Trustees) should not have the right to inspect this private data, except possibly Checkusers, and authorized users of the OTRS team who will collectively decide if the secret can be safely thrown on the ticket, or that could edit the content of the secret ticket to publish only a part of it. verdy_p (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, if a copyright holder sues a person for using his copyrighted material, then it is up to the accused violator to prove that he has permission to use the material in the way he used it. If he can't do this (for example because the evidence is confidential), then he would probably lose in court, effectively meaning that the material is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17, Verdy p, Stefan2: I think we should allow to set the OTRS tickets be public after review. We can form a policy for it. All private data could be hidden like this:
All work a n d no play makes Jack a dull boy,
All work and no play 
makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy...

Jack Torrance
Overlook Hotel, Colorado

And after:

All work a n d no play makes ■■■■ a dull boy,
All work and no play 
makes ■■■■ a dull boy.
All work and no play makes ■■■■ a dull boy...

Overlook Hotel, Colorado

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) .

@PiRSquared17, Verdy p, Stefan2: What do you think?--Rezonansowy (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you live in a lucky country which never had 20 years of fascist dictatorship, but at least in my country w:en:Secrecy of correspondence is a constitutional right. --Nemo 10:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you; that's very well-phrased. However I agree with Stefan2 that parts from tickets grating permission could be publicly accessible provided the sender's consent. Therefore suggesting amending our e-Mail templates in this direction. -- Rillke (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would anyone agree to this?
  • What practical benefit (other than satisfying people's curiosity) justifies creating a huge amount of work to the OTRS team? Protecting privacy requires human judgment. It can't be done through a simple script.
  • What would stop people from scamming this? Maybe I'd want to use this to discredit a politician, by sending in a damaging e-mail that, after "protecting his privacy", will still look like it was from him. Merely removing names from a statement like "I am Joe Politics, the leading candidate for President of Ruritania. Please remove the number of children I've had from the article about me, because I've actually got an illegitimate child that the media hasn't found out about yet" is not sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Guys, guys, actually I meant something like this proposed by Stefan2. I think the list of works with granted permission should be public. Also a little note about why tickets are hidden to the public (w:en:Secrecy of correspondence) would be nice. @Nemo bis: You're right :), I forgot this. --Rezonansowy (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@PiRSquared17, Verdy p, Stefan2:? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) .

Anyone??? --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Isn't commons:Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed enough then? I agree that it's better to ask a public licensing statement where possible (e.g. on Flickr; update docs where it's not the recommended method) but that's a bigger matter. I asked to add the link.[1] --Nemo 12:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Enabling an opt-in VisualEditor preference on Meta[edit]

I would like to be able to use VE on Meta. I've started to use it regularly on other wikis, and find it quite handy. Is there any reason not to make this available as an opt-in preference here? I believe this means that VE tabs would not be visible to editors unless they opt in. SJ talk  01:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I would support this, but you're on the wrong page; this should be proposed on Meta:Babel. ;) PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Moved. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. I'd personally prefer VisualEditor to be (at least) opt-in on all Wikimedia wikis. (cc: Jdforrester) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah; I'm not sure why some people are so opposed to letting others use it. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with MZMcBride, Ypnypn, and proposal. There's no reason to prevent others from using it, the same goes for all wikis. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is a reason – until the Translate extension is fixed to let VisualEditor interact with it properly, wikis with lots of use of page translation (of which Meta is the pre-eminent example) will be really messy to use with VE. I was planning to offer it here after at least bug 50284 is fixed (so VE isn't offered on translation output pages). If the community are happy to put up with that bug, then sure, we can roll it out today… Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, PiR2, you are right of course! And thanks all including Jdforrester for the replies. I would be glad to put up with that bug. Only people who really want to use VE will turn it on, and active translators already know to use the translation interface instead. I imagine any misuses on translated pages, during the window that the bug is open, will be few and readily reverted. SJ talk  00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
[2] is allegedly ready for merge, I'd rather wait some more days and avoid bad moods over it. Some users get very confused and loud about such small things. --Nemo 00:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok. So long as it's clear there's an active request for opt-in availability. Warmly, SJ talk  00:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering, can we limit VE to a set number of pages? Like having some special parserfunc or switch similar to {{#useliquidthreads:1}}... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
VisualEditor can currently be configured per-namespace but not per-page. If anyone has suggestions on the namespaces to use/to avoid (all talk namespaces should presumably be avoided, but what else?), then this discussion would be a good place to post them. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatamidoing (WMF), possible to enable VE as opt-in for Grants and Programs namespaces? Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Sj, PiRSquared17, MZMcBride, Ypnypn, Nemo bis, TeleComNasSprVen, Whatamidoing (WMF): OK, the bug is fixed so we're ready to go; I will get VisualEditor enabled for opt-in here this afternoon, for the normal namespaces (main, user, file, category) and the Grants and Programs namespaces. As normal, I'm not enabling it for talk namespaces, or for the Project (Meta:) namespace, as that's discussion-focussed, and absent a request I won't enable it for Research, Participation, and Ibercoop namespaces. Change: 125774 Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks for the quick turnaround! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, James and Ori. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jdforrester (WMF). I'm not sure if there's a better spot to request, but could we also get VE opt-in enables for Research:? --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Halfak (WMF): Sure – will put it in the next config release push. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Very fine, thank you. SJ talk  19:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I'm looking for Lebanese Wikipedia contributors. If interested, Email: robertina.kouchian at -- The previous unsigned message was posted by (contrributions), 12:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place for such announcement. Why not posting this on Wikipedia itself (most probably the Arabic version, you'll find many there). Also you do not say why you look for them, I think there's no reason for them to be interested by you, only an anonymous user not explicitating why your need them and without presenting yourself correctly. verdy_p (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC closer required[edit]

Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons interwiki prefix#2014 RfC has now reached its closing date. Could an experienced administrator please assess the cross-community consensus on the proposal, taking into account the "Next steps" section that lists wikis which have participated in the preparatory clean-up effort. Thank you. — Scott talk 12:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken media link on strategywiki[edit]

See strategy:Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan Summary/Increase Reach Lugusto 21:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The file just doesn't exist locally or on Commons. What is the problem? And how is this related to Meta (Babel)? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, strategy wiki is locked, a logical place where to discuss fixes for it is its "parent wiki" Meta. That page can't have a red link, I thought I had already fixed it. I made a redirect on Commons, something even closer may still be found. --Nemo 22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Throttle on Emailuser - overkill?[edit]

Hi all. I've been organising an event as described at Wikimedia Conference 2014/Social events, and have been using the emailuser function to contact those that have signed up. I sent the first batch of emails at around 10:30 UTC today until I ran into the message "As an anti-spam 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." I've just tried sending another email now (at 18.20 UTC) and I *still* get that message. That's rather longer than just a few minutes! At the very least the message should be updated to explain that it will be many hours rather than a few minutes, but really the length of the limit seems far too long, and shouldn't be longer than 10 minutes or so. I'm not sure how to propose that it gets reduced apart from posting here - can anyone help? (I've now sent all of the emails I need to, via enwp, so this is no longer an urgent problem for me.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This might come from here. It was lowered from 200/day. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! So maybe I should take this to Bugzilla? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an important rate limit to have, and I really hope it isn't changed. The emailuser function is often abused for harassment. This rate limit can be overcome with the 'noratelimits' right - perhaps a global group could be created with that right for temporary use in cases like this, if the sender isn't a sysop on the project they are emailing from. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Ajr above, removing such a limit in benefit of the seldomly positive mass mailing is not what we want. Could admin, or even bot flag bypass this problem? Savhñ 12:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Here locally admins, crats, stewards, bots and members of the "accountcreator" group (which, for reasons everyone can imagine, exists everywhere but is only assignable locally on wikis where that has been specially set up) have the right Not be affected by rate limits. --MF-W 17:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Users are being forced to log out[edit]

Wikimedia users (Meta included) are being forced to log out and log-in again due to a vulnerability discovered in the OpenSSL implementation of the SSL and TLS protocols.

Wikimedia Foundation servers have been affected, and had their OpenSSL version updated earlier today; as a precautionary measure, all user session tokens will be reset — which causes the loss of session and forces users to log-in again using new, secure tokens.

Wikimedia Foundation also recommends that users change the passwords they use to log-in to wikis. Read more. Sincerely, odder (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Attribution of translation for :wmf:Terms of Use/de[edit]

Hello, readers of any German wikipedia page are redirected for "Nutzungsbediungen" to the page wmf:Terms of Use/de. As far as I can see, the page was created by My impression is, that the text is a copy and paste from, (with the displayed page title "Nutzungsbdingungen", I don't understand which is the actual page title).

A first draft of the German translation was created by me (my last edit there seems to be at 29 October 2011), later the translation was revised by other contributors.

I can't log in at the wmf-wiki. My request is, that the revision history of should be exported to the wmf-wiki, and added to the revision history wmf:Terms of Use/de, in order to comply with the free license (probably Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License), so that the authorship of the creators of the translation, among them myself, is documented and e.g. visible to the readers of of the German wikipedia, Rosenkohl (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In this edit summary, a link is provided to the Meta page the text was copied from. "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I would prefer to talk about this with someone official from the Wikimedia foundation. However, of course this edit summary you cited would be no sufficient attribution at all. Neither will any reader who is looking for the authors of the translation find this edit summary; nor does this edit summary say that in fact the whole original page is a paste and copy. On the contrary, the page history invokes the impression as if it was originally created on the wmf-wiki, Rosenkohl (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. For Foundation wiki feedback, see Foundation wiki feedback. Meta:Babel is for Meta-Wiki issues. I'm not sure what you mean. It is common practice to put "copied from [[link]]" in edit summaries, which seems to comply with the attribution requirement. Pinging Mdennis (WMF). PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, then I will try it at Foundation wiki feedback. "this edit summary" you cited refers to an edit were 1,011 bytes are deleted from a page with 48,196 bytes. So the edit with this summary does not create the content, but only changes parts of it. But the license requires the attribution of the content which was originally used to create the page in the first place, Rosenkohl (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Rosenkolh. All editors to our projects agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license, as per the Terms of Use itself and the "save page" text. Unfortunately, my note in edit summary acknowledging that the page was "created from the meta version Terms_of_use/de, which see for atttribution" failed to provide a working link (I forgot the prefix, it seems, not to mention adding an extra t to attribution), so I've added another note in edit summary with a working link, here. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)