Wikimedia Forum

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

Violation of the terms of use in Spanish Wikipedia[edit]

My problem is that I've been unfoundedly accused of harassment by various administrators in Despite the lack of evidence, I've been banned and my talk page has been protected forever (Taichi, the involved administrator who banned me, claimed that I had "confessed" the harassment for which there is no evidence—which of course I never did). After my ban, the unfounded acusations continued for weeks with an extraordinary insistence [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Nowhere does anyone provide any evidence for these accusations—there isn't; I've never harassed anyone.

I've tried to contact some of these administrators here in Meta. I have asked Jmvkrecords here and Hans Topo1993 here to please support their harassment accusations with evidence, or to take them back. Both have refused. They claim that I have no right to ask for evidence anywhere besides—where I cannot edit—so they can get away with repeatedly calling someone a harasser without evidence in a Wikimedia project.

But the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation state that users may not engage in Harassing and Abusing Others. Unfoundedly acusing someone of harassment is a personal attack, as expressed in en:WP:Harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. Therefore, by repeatedly and unfoundedly accusing me of harassment, these administrators are violating the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I would like the unfounded accusations of harassment, which are false and constitute a violation of the Terms of Use, to be taken back. How should I proceed? Thank you. Atón (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to offer the general overview of the case.
Notice the fact, I (we) did have reasons to make our statements about this user.
Not intending to engage in an argument, I won't write here again. Hans Topo1993 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

See what I mean? Hans Topo1993 and co. cannot provide a single diff. I will provide all the details necessary in a formal resolution process, I have absolutely nothing to hide. What is the proper venue to resolve a violation of the Terms of Use? Thank you. Atón (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Transwiki project[edit]


I am working in a project in for the development of the article of Fiódor Dostoiévski and all his works. In the research I have realized, that the different wikiprojects are not good connected, ex: with my research for the article from Wikipedia, I can help the Wikicommons, Wikisource, Wikiquote and the Wikibooks. I would like to start a transwiki project, first about this theme as an experiment. How can I formalize it?

Thanks, --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Some examples of transwiki: a) the quotations from Wikipedia, can go automatic to Wikiquote; b) articles from a specific project from Wikipedia (Russian literature, or Fyodor Dostoyevsky, etc) can go for a wikibook after some edition; c) Wikipedia can create an automatic link for the books (one link to each book) of Wikisource, (we add some links from free books manually), etc. Obs: We can use the transwiki project about Dostoyevsky as a test.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop working of Russian Wikinews[edit]

To attention the administrators of Russian Wikipedia: Indefinite blocking two experienced and active participants in the Russian Wikipedia (User:Леонид Макаров and User:Krassotkin) is an unprecedented case in the Russian Wikipedia. The stated reason for blocking as a violation of the rules of the Foundation Wikimedia for the article in Russian Wikinews does not reflect the principles of the Foundation and will not bring any benefit to the work of the two projects. Please analyze this situation once again and to speak to the Forum administrators of Russian Wikipedia, not to keep silent. Block with the motivation in the name of the benefit Foundation and to prevent possible damage to the Foundation is nonsense.--Леонид Макаров (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia, I believe, still has an Arbitration Committee. All such issues should be solved in the project.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: Wikinews is a sister project. It is not Wikipedia. Generally a sister project may operate on its own policies and governance, not on that of Wikipedia. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a Russian Wikipedia issue, not a Russian Wikinews issue. The users are blocked on the Russian Wikiedia, which has, at least on paper, working dispute resolution mechanism. Stewards are not allowed to intervene in the projects which have Arbitration Committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
My apologies; it sounded on first reading the other way around, persons blocked for BLP issues on ru.WN. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it is indeed so, they were blocked on Russian Wikipedia for some article(s) they created on Russian Wikinews. --Base (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
(Also if I get what article it was actually about right, it was an article about a recently deceased person, I am not sure if BLP Resolution applies there at all). --Base (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes to WMF Non-discrimination policy[edit]

Regarding this edit to WMF's Non-discrimination policy, made in March this year, changing "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of ..." to "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against staff or contractors on the basis of..." (changes emboldened for clarity); does this mean that WMF now allows discrimination against volunteers and readers?

Where was this announced, or discussed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome some clarification too. --Nemo 15:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I helped work on this policy update and can offer some clarification. The policy was not being applied to users even before the change, and the interpretation had been consistent that it applied only to Wikimedia Foundation staff. When we were going through to update the categories to bring it in line with modern standards, we felt that it should be clarified as a staff-focused policy (again, the way it already had been even before the change) so we updated the wording per the edit you link. Note that this doesn't mean that suddenly wikis are allowed to unfairly discriminate against people. Doing so might constitute a violation of the Terms of Use (such as harassing or abusing others, or violating their privacy in some cases), and there are a number of community policies on different wikis that likely prohibit discriminatory behavior in different contexts. We just clarified that this specific policy is one focused on Foundation staff. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
"modern standards" which standards would these be? "doesn't mean that suddenly wikis are allowed to unfairly discriminate ..." Wikis are inanimate. "community policies" - such policies do not apply to staff, in their off-wiki roles. Frankly, I'm less than reassured by your response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Category:Cooler heads, it seems on the surface there is no way to interpret this other than a possible error. I suspect the Board of Trustees was not consulted on this rather small change to a WMF-wide policy, because this edit really does exactly what the template at the top of the page says it must not: It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project, emphasis added. Although this NDP may not appear (to staff) to be in use within the community, it has in fact been cited multiple times in disputes, particularly certain cases where community administrators were acting in concert in opposition to this policy. This policy, like many WMF policies, are used as authority by community internal governance structures, undergirding local implementations and guiding community actions. It is part of our Soft Security - a guide post in that context.

    Saying there is one set of policies for staff and a different set for the community will likely have negative effects. - Amgine/meta wikt 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

How effective are global locks?[edit]

A while ago I wrote this:

":Locking policy 1.

The following is a list of common reasons for global locks. As a general rule, global locks happen rarely and almost always in clear-cut situations. There is no community-approved policy governing global locks, but this list represents de facto practice.

So the community has no say in the fact that my account is locked.

Locking policy 2.

Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock. Please include links to block histories or other evidence of abuse on other projects, and indicate where the account is still active. Accounts whose names are offensive or abusive are also eligible for locking, and may be hidden from logs as well.

One account I had made had an insulting name like that, and that account didn't even vandalise anything (well, the name counts as such).

“and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock.”

By the time my lock was requested no socks had operated outside of the enwiki, Commonswiki, or nlwiki for 2 weeks, and none of my contributions to the nlwiki were disruptive and on Commonswiki I had only made username violations in early July, so I only made non-disruptive edits that fall under WP:EVASION there as can be seen here.

So under what “continued crosswiki threat” is my main account globally locked? As a punishment? That doesn’t seem to conform to any community blocking policy.

Locking policy 3.

Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis, such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal information about others which may endanger them.

I have never threatened anyone, and insults and harassing alone doesn't seem ground as can be seen with Classiccardinal, I never published child pornography on any Wikimedia project, nor did I publish anyone's private personal information here either.

Locking policy 4.

Accounts that have been created to evade a community global ban.

Obviously doesn't apply here.

Locking policy 5.

Accounts that are suspected to have been compromised, as a temporary measure to maintain account security until the owner is contacted.

Obviously doesn't apply here.

What this lock bars me from doing.

Well, in the month that I’ve currently been locked I could've launched 5 new articles on Dutch Wikipedia, translated Chinese kèpèngs for Low Saxon Wikipedia and West Frisian Wikipedia, translated 清朝貨幣 for Cantonese Wikipedia, translated 長崎貿易銭 for Vietnamese Wikipedia, added numerous Chữ Nôm to the Vietnamese Wiktionary and English Wiktionary, add numismatic articles to Simple English Wikipedia, and a whole lot more.

However global locks do not prevent any disruptions, they might as well do the opposite as the moment an account gets locked cookie-block no longer works and new accounts can be created where cookie-block previously prevented this act, even if the IP is still autoblocked and only non-anonymous users can edit there are a total of 912 WMF wiki’s as of 2017 and you can make a total of 6 accounts per IP within 24 hours being roughly around 5000 accounts per day that one can make (reached 6 accounts at English Wikipedia? Then go to Simple English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons or Wikivoyage, Etc.), and those accounts can edit again. So does globally locking even prevent vandalism?

Well, you can see new 112 Alex, Fouadadan, and Nipponese Dog Calvero socks being requested for global locks on a daily basis, the people of the University of California at Los Angeles still harass PurpleBackPack89 on a common basis with new socks, and Ukrainian swearing usernames condemning Putin keep popping up at Vietnamese Wikipedia every now and then.

In fact my global lock has been used as an excuse to delete educational encyclopedic content, but doesn't prevent me from making new accounts (which I haven't made since my lock), or making any disruptive edits anywhere (which I also haven't made), so on what grounds does my continued global lock benefit any project?

One more minor note.

My previous global unlock request was denied because of a username I shall abbreviate as “BMOOH30”, this account purely existed on the enwiki and never operated anywhere else, I have already been appropriately blocked locally there (though I care little much about there as I had basically “retired” from mainspace edits mid-July to move on to Dutch Wikipedia, commenting only on AfDs), for this a local block would normally be sufficient.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC) (You know who I am.)"

In which I referred to the fact that some users constantly return such as Nipponese Dog Calvero and the Inoccigible (or however that is spelled) Troll, Etc. Though I am personally of the opinion that locks should have a process of appeal in attempting to rid Wikimedia projects of let's say Nipponese Dog Calvero they seem ineffective, wouldn't a global version of cookie block be more effective? I don't know how the likes of Nipponese Dog, Etc. Operate so maybe it's not device or IP based, but are locks really the most effective way in these cases? --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Donald, you have clearly not recognized why you were blocked in the first place, and why you were locked, and you add extensive -- and uninformed -- "facts" that are not relevant. See the unlock request, the comment of MoiraMoira, and then this "rant," here, for a major cause of the block, I'm sure, without further investigation. Obvious is obvious. You were locked for massive cross-wiki sock puppetry, checkuser-confirmed. This had nothing to do with local behavioral issues.
Clue: for wiki survival, stop arguing about any of this. Take the unlock warning seriously, and the commitment you made, because you got your one chance. There are places and ways where you can write at length, such as on en.Wikiversity -- but only in some places there. Most projects, it will severely irritate users, and when users are severely irritated, blocks are likely to follow. This post was a rant. Your situation actually contradicted what you wrote. Clean it up, your brain will thank you, and everyone else as well.
There are many issues around global locking. Policies are obsolete, I've been pointing that out for years. But wikis are not actually run by policy, they are run ad hoc by users and administrators and stewards who do what they think will benefit the project. You got to see how it actually worked. If you want to work on policy, I suggest you come back when you have a few years of experience cross-wiki. There is lots of work to do, where, if you are careful, you will not get into trouble, and if you watch activity, you will learn. This was guaranteed to get you blocked, if the rest hadn't been enough. What were you thinking? I'll tell you: you were thinking only about yourself and what you wanted, not about others and the community. That will get you into trouble everywhere in life, not just on wikis. And we don't need to know your computer and OS. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
It was even worse than I'd seen.
  • 14:46, 1 August 2017 blocked on Wikipedia for sock puppetry
  • Unblock request 02:56, 2 August 2017 totally clueless. Guaranteed failure. The independent decline links to frivolous unblock requests for two IPs and a sock.
  • 03:14, 2 August 2017
  • UTRS appeal #18891 was submitted on Aug 02, 2017 05:57:59
  • UTRS appeal #18901 was submitted on Aug 02, 2017 22:49:26
  • UTRS appeal #18906 was submitted on Aug 03, 2017 14:58:22.
  • There was an email to ArbComm. Talk Page Access was restored for the IP range. Block maintained. (Congratulations for thinking about others. That's the one bright light here.)
  • 13:20, 2 August 2017 Global lock request filed.
  • 15:10 - 15:26, 2 August 2017) spammed 23 steward pages (yes, that is called "spam.")
  • 15:26 blocked for 36 hours. Account locked 19:27, 2 August 2017
Basically, the most urgent matter to attend to was the global lock request, and spamming the stewards would not change what was probably an open and shut case. The only hope at that point would have been to respond on the steward request page, admitting and accepting a lock for all socks and requesting that lock on the main account be held off, as you would not sock any more, period. (And if they decided to lock, ask for a time to wait before appealing. Maybe three or six months. No socking for that time, you would then be set up for easy unlock. They will *not* monitor you.)
More deeply, the commitment that would save you, big time, would be to notice when you are upset, when you think there is an emergency, and get that there is no emergency on a wiki, it can wait. Take some time, breathe. Often, when we were children, we learned that if we made a huge fuss, our parents would give us what we wanted. Sometimes that works, people might give you what you want just to shut you up. But more often, as adults, it backfires. It definitely backfires dealing with WMF functionaries. In this case, you got lucky. If, however, you do not address the underlying causes (not just the specific list of mistakes you made), the prognosis is poor. If you do, congratulations, you will have a better future in front of you. in many ways. All the best, again. --Abd (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for Certified Wiki Reporters[edit]

I propose that Wikipedia create a process whereby interested individuals could complete a certification course that qualifies them as 'Certified Wiki Reporters', essentially a short online course in adhering to fact based journalistic standards. As we enter a world with ubiquitous smart phone enabled citizen reporters, we are also running into the 'fake news' problem, and it would be comforting to see reports by individuals with some kind of certification. I find myself increasingly going to Wikipedia for serious emerging news events, as it seems to make a real effort to report only that which is verifiable. It would be even better if some of the reports came from Wiki certified people on the ground. No doubt this would entail some expense, since there would have to be some continuing validation process to make sure standards weren't violated by existing certified reporters, but it would also be a great achievement, and one that strikes me as fully in the Wiki philosophy.

Thanks for your consideration, David E. Cooke

Tjis is better suited for Wikinews than for Wikipedia. Ruslik (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of which The Wikinewsie Group had similar ideas, also some Wikinews, for instance Russian Wikinews have collaboration with a local media which provide them with official reporter's certificate which enable them to act as full-fledged journalists in all situations they want. --Base (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Editors with Asperger's[edit]

I happened to come across an editor who says on their user-page that he/she has Asperger's. I don't believe this editor is aware of the existence of the list of editors with Asperger's somewhere here (I forget where it is btw). What options exist for bringing the list to the editor's attention without getting into trouble or drawing too much attention? - I do not use email. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) please ping me

Ottawahitech, are you talking about Aspergian Wikimedians page? Well, without email and without using any other external means you can for example write him on random wiki's talk page where he has an account or ping him in a random wiki he has account in. But, I suggest you assess whether it is that important. I think with user page they have communicated what they wanted already, and there is no need to list themselves on a global page especially if they are not active cross-wiki. --Base (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

New global ban RfC for user INeverCry[edit]

Please share: Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry. -- 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This RfC is way premature, at best. INeverCry does not meet the Global bans criteria. INC has many enemies and many friends, and a global ban discussion will simply waste a lot of time without benefit to the projects. I will explain in a few minutes. As well, anons should not be allowed to start a global ban RfC and probably not any RfC. On Wikipedia, I haven't looked lately, two registered editors signing on were required for a User RfC, which makes sense. --Abd (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Let the anon recruit a registered user if he or she wants to remain anonymous. If he or she cannot, there is no hope for the ban. --Abd (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this RfC can't validly start/proceed as it stands now. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for your feedback! Yes, I am not experienced in starting a GB-RfC, therefor I added the section "Further evidence (to be added by other users)", hoping that this would bring posiive collaboration. If starting it logged-out via IP is forbidden, then please close it or re-start it whoever wants to; I will not burn my account, I have seen too much what happens to people who speak out against harassment publicly. -- 12:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I have opposed harassment publicly. I'm still alive. This IP has admitted socking. If he were legitimately afraid of blowback, he could find a registered user willing to file. A meta user global ban RfC is not a process recommended for any new user, if he is actually new, it should be someone with experience -- and courage. Frankly, if the IP continues arguing tendentiously, I'd be tempted to file a global checkuser request, this is global disruption. However, my suspicion is that this user is already banned in some way or other. People do not dive into highly disruptive process like this, out of the blue. --Abd (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I have seen a blocked user file disruptive process as IP or a new SPA, pushing a hot button, creating what was effectively a riot. Nobody noticed that the process was filed by an anon, with misleading evidence. They simply started shouting about the "outrage." INeverCry was not, as far as I've seen, harassing anyone (other than possibly, I haven't been following it, Russavia, global-ban evading, who has many friends. One of them has been Fae, who has asked for the RfC to be speedy closed.)--Abd (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
As I said at the other page, the global ban policy does not require discussed bans, it can be two infinitely blocked accounts. I think that the global ban policy should require two community bans to be able to proceed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
In agree, as a bare minimum! (however, there can be exceptions, which is why the current policy is vague on this. The global lock is routinely used for detected spammers with no discussions, and nobody is worried about that, support is nearly universal.) The intention of the policy was to make global bans of possibly good-faith users, especially users with high contributions, difficult and rare. Simply being indef blocked on two wikis can happen fairly easily (and transiently), and sometimes these are linked (and sometimes based on an error that propagated). The intention of a global ban is to protect the many wikis from deja vu all over again. Where blockable behavior is not likely to propagate, the basic purpose isn't there.
Further, different wikis may have different purposes. As the example I best know, en.wikiversity is not an encyclopedia, and rarely experiences revert warring, conflict over space, whereas this can be a major difficulty with encyclopedia projects, with one article per topic. So users who got into trouble on Wikipedia may do just fine on Wikiversity. Commons presents different conflicts, but conflict remains routine there.
Global bans, enforced by a lock, are highly intrusive, the tool is crude. It used to be that a local 'crat could effectively undo a global lock, which did sufficiently protect local wikis. That all changed with SUL. A global ban can interfere with the right of a local wiki to decide to allow or disallow participation. Defeating a global lock with a new allowed local account is not a problem, if locally accepted, but once a "global ban" is in place, then it is common that any new accounts are detected and locked, regardless of local wishes. So this is a loss of local autonomy. Some don't mind that. --Abd (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Now accepting applications for 2018 Ombuds Commission[edit]

Hi everyone! It's coming close to time for annual appointments of community members to serve on the Ombudsman commission (OC). This commission works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, and to mediate between the complaining party and the individual whose work is being investigated. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Executive Director or the Board of Trustees in investigations of these issues. For more on their duties and roles, see Ombudsman commission.

This is a call for community members interested in volunteering for appointment to this commission. Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the willingness to learn them. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict.

Commissioners are required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation and must be willing to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation board policies (such as the access to non-public data policy and the privacy policy). This is a position that requires a high degree of discretion and trust.

If you are interested in serving on this commission, please write me an email at kbrown(at) to detail your experience on the projects, your thoughts on the commission and what you hope to bring to the role. The commission consists of nine members; all applications are appreciated and will be carefully considered. The deadline for applications is end of day on 18 December, 2017.

Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be qualified and interested. Thank you! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

How can i create an account on Arabic Wikipedia in turkey? i mean i'm forced to use a proxy so i can browse the site and when i'm trying to create an account it won't work because i'm using a proxy. i have been trying for a long time, i just want to join the Arabic Wikipedia and help. --AhrimanAmmaneh (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@AhrimanAmmaneh: You have an account. As you are logged in here, it should just create when you head over to w:ar:User:AhrimanAmmaneh. In fact if you pop top special:centralauth/AhrimanAmmaneh you can see what exists for you. If that does not work, then Arabic Wikipedia will need to change their settings or grant you a work-around. They control their local settings, not us.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Noting that we don't know the IP address, so we cannot advise specifically on that issue. You can always look at find an active admin at arWP, and ping them here asking for their intervention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Mirror page from Meta[edit]

Hi, is it technically possible to have a page in Meta (or somewhere else) that can be seen from a local wiki depending on the language? I want to create a page here about how to download Kiwix (the offline project) but can be seen from any wiki inside it without being redirected to meta (something like commons pages in wikis). Now the page exists separately in all Arabic projects, but I want to have a unique place for the content so that I'm not going to update them manually. Also, is there a possibility that the shown language depends on the local wiki. Let's say the Swahili Wikibooks accept to translate add a link for the page when you click on the link in that language you see the page there (Swahili wikibooks) in Swahili, not in Arabic or English?--Helmoony (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No. Userpages are seen from other wikis when local userpage does not exist, and with some #switch magic it is possible to make it appear in wiki's respective language, but not other pages. The best you can do is put {{softredirect}} template on local wikis pointing to Special:MyLanguage/Kiwix/Download (Special:MyLanguage will show the page in the language the user has set up as the interface language on Meta if the translation exists) or something like that. --Base (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Base:, the name space in Arabic projects is Wikipedia not User. Thank you for offering a solution. But how about commons files that can be viewed in local wikis without being redirected to. If it's possible for a commons file, why isn't possible for a meta page. --Helmoony (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Return to after long time off[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm not sure if I'm in the right place, but I'll give this a whirl. I was one of the original co-founders of back in Oct 2004, and the first sysop, but have been away from it for a number of years. Now that I have plenty of time on my hands, I would like to return to it. I lost my admin rights two years ago, which is fair enough, but for the past week I have been the only user, apart from some vandalism. I think needs another admin straightaway, and would like to return to my old role, but at the moment, since there is minimal activity on, the usual processes are in hiatus. Is there anyone out there who can help me? Hopefully someone will still remember me from back in the day. Regards, Pippu d'Angelo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pippu d'Angelo (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to create an RfA discussion on scnwiki, either on an existing RfA page, or on a well-established Community Forum/​Café/​Village Pump page. Keep it open a week. Assuming nobody objects, then go to SRP and ask the stewards to give you sysop rights, with a link to that discussion page. They'll give you limited-term rights to start with. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, it doesn't matter if nobody else is active there; you still need to go through that process. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bentornato! Mi aspetto che non sia troppo difficile seguire la procedura suggerita sopra e ottenere qualche voto da altri italici. Ci servi anche in translatewiki:Portal:Scn eh! 16:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Why I do not make a financial contribution to Wikipedia.[edit]

The way Wikipedia took sides in the copyright case of the Monkey selfie photos taken by British nature photographer David Slater was disgraceful.

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to take a "neutral point of view". How is this compatible with your stance of taking sides against the photographer in this dispute? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ad1mt (talk)

Note that there is no [incorporated] entity named "Wikipedia". Wikipedia doesn't receive any donations. Nemo 16:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)