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

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Backlogging in OTRS[edit]

I read c:Commons:Village pump#Backlog in permissions-commons OTRS queue (diff)), where the backlogging issue of OTRS queues is raised. This issue may affect all projects awaiting the permission queues to be verified. The projects depend on OTRS for proofs of permission, especially when the projects use images for illustration. I also see that OTRS also has management issues, according to comments there. From what I've heard, the number of volunteers declined. Pinging Pigsonthewing, Jarekt, and Multichill, so they can provide their viewpoints about this. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

toollabs:krdbot/otrs/permissions.png seems to be kept up to date and confirms the growth of the backlog. --Nemo 17:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
What can be done about the backlogging, Nemo? I see one person, who is blocked from meta-wiki, kindly responded and very dedicated to help out. --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Recruiting, either by invitation or by advertistement. Blocked users are often problematic to utilise, the situation that got them blocked usually is taken as an indicator of traits not wanted for the task.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
OTRS admin, views expressed are my own however. We are always looking for new agents, however; commons and OTRS don't always work very well together. My last call for volunteers on Commons was here, please read the ensuing mayhem and make your own call. I personally have no desire to contribute to commons after that little game.
If you know of someone who would be a good fit for permissions, please feel free to have them apply. OTRS/V is thataway, and we are always willing to accept new agents.
For a bit more transparency in the application process, an explanation may be in order. When a person applies to OTRS, they do a public post on OTRS/V and an email to a dedicated email address. The public post is a place to solicit feedback from other non-OTRS admins, which is included in the final decision. The email contains a discussion between OTRS admins on the suitability of the candidate. We require three supports on the email discussion, that is; three supports from OTRS admins. Then an un-involved (fourth) OTRS admin closes the discussion and handles the signing of the confidentiality agreements (L4 and L32). Then an account is created and they are given access.
I am available to handle any more questions or ideas, feel free to contact me here, via Email, or on IRC as nick "Matthew_". ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 03:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Matthewrbowker (shall I re-ping you?): To be honest, I haven't volunteered OTRS before, so I'll stay neutral about the process. Maybe we can use the "mailing list" to announce this discussion. Also, we can notify all projects about this, like Wikipedia. If OTRS has issues like Commons community said, probably OTRS needs to be reformed. I'm not confident that more recruitments and easing the backlogging would resolve whatever issues the OTRS has. I welcome more opinions about the OTRS. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Thank you for the feedback. Again, my personal opinion: the problem OTRS is running into is the same you run into when you're dealing with administrator backlogs on the English Wikipedia. We simply have more backlog than we have agents to handle it. Agents get burned out, overwhelmed, or leave. We've had to remove a few after careful investigation (full disclosure: I wasn't part of that process, sadly. I had a personal emergency going on). Our amount of emails is increasing as well. So, acquiring more agents who help us long-term will make the backlog more manageable. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 03:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Matthewrbowker: Okay, I fully understand your responses. Besides recruitment, what are your alternatives? --George Ho (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Matthewrbowker: Replies to that call for volunteers included these two comments, among others: "Now I think that this is quite an interesting call, given that OTRS administrators kick people out of OTRS without bothering to justify their actions at all. Perhaps changing that particular policy could help you get more volunteers involved in OTRS." and "What user:odder said. This needs to be sorted out, before you start asking for more volunteers.", made by User:odder and me, respectively. Perhaps you can tell us what changes have been made since then, to address the issues described? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Hi, Andy. Valid questions, though I may not be the best person to answer them. I'll give it a shot though.
Agents are removed from OTRS for one of two reasons. The first is inactivity. We give an automated email notice about 2(?) weeks beforehand, thanks to an awesome script by Krd. The second is if agent conduct becomes a concern. The standard procedure for that is via email to our email list, followed by a discussion among admins. If the consensus is strong enough, an admin makes the removal. For example, Ktr101's removal was handled about two days before his office ban, we had been approached that an office ban might be possible and made consensus-based action. It is worth noting, this system is not perfect. I understand mistakes are made, and sometimes the justification given isn't enough. On a personal note, I'm more than willing to attempt to explain removals if I'm contacted via email or PM on IRC.
Please feel free to contact me with any further questions, either publicly or via email if it's sensitive. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 18:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Matthewrbowker: I'll leave aside the inactivity scenario, which I don't think anyone has questioned. My question to you was about changes since our least exchange, and you seem to have glossed over that. But to clarify what you do describe (and please correct me if I'm wrong in any aspect): If an OTRS volunteer becomes "a concern" (not defined; no published criteria), a bunch of admins discuss the matter in private, without involving or notifying the volunteer. A decision is made, but not published, and as a result the volunteer may be dismissed from OTRS service, with no explanation, and no notification of any appeal process (none is publicly documented publicly), and no notification of what should be done to remedy the supposed "concern". As I said before, and quoted above, "This needs to be sorted out, before you start asking for more volunteers." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Matthewrbowker: No response? Anyone else? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging , Pajz, HJ Mitchell, Tuvalkin, Jkadavoor, FDMS4, Colin, and Multichill from the 2015 discussion for invitation. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Every time OTRS is mentioned on Commons I hear about the "Purge". I am not sure what happen or how many people lost they rights but I do not think we need to dig into it. We have a problem with a backlog now, and we are presently in a process of alienating people donating images. I ask many new users to send their permissions to OTRS, they dutifully comply and than their images are deleted. They might not be around to see them undeleted and I do not have time to research which pages they were removed from. So undeletion does not restore them to the article they were intended for. We need more volunteers, and at least for time being more Commons admins with OTRS rights, because in most cases we need images to get undeleted. --Jarekt (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Im willing to help. I already have OTRS rights on some projects, but not on commons permissions. I belive I shouldnt apply for commons rights here on Meta, but at I understood there was some problems regarding instructions what to do,do?I suggest you provide an easy ad how to help, 1. where to apply for the rights 2 link to instructions, in order to get more users working with this. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Dan Koehl, that is great you ask for access at OTRS/Volunteering. I am not aware of any instructions for that queue, and I am not an expert, as I only began helping there about a week ago. In the past I worked a lot with OTRS tickets, fixing files with incorrect OTRS ticket numbers and handling specific tickets when asked, but I am a newbie when it comes to handling a queue. I agree that we need instructions on how to handle a queue and I will look into starting one, although it might be better if some with more experience with permissions-commons wrote them. There are 200 people on c:Category:Commons_OTRS_volunteers list. --Jarekt (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I confess, I'm also confused about the "Purge," I've never heard that term. The only mass-removal I'm aware of is when we were required to implement an NDA (viewable here and here. I know we had some problems with the first drafts of these documents, and didn't handle questions very well at all. These documents have since been modified and updated.
@Dan Koehl: thank you for thinking about volunteering! If you already have OTRS access, go ahead and post on otrs-wiki requesting additional rights. If you don't have OTRS access, post at meta. Our training is not that good, however; there is some documentation on our agent wiki. One of my long-term goals is to improve our training, and I'm always willing to hear feedback! If you need help, we also have a mailing list just for permissions. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 18:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Matthew. However, the phab links you provided are restricted to only members of the phab; I can't access them without login. Would you summarize the documented links please. Also, how "not that good" is the training? --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Asking for more volunteers, while the problems that caused past volunteers to leave, whether willingly or otherwise, and in a singel "Purge" or otherwise, is ridiculous. The same problems will recur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Keegan, Krd, Mailer diablo, MarcoAurelio, and Sphilbrick about this. --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged, sadly I don't see on what. Please advise if there is any question. --Krd 08:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Krd: Shall the OTRS service be investigated? Shall we do the RFC on Commons OTRS? If neither, besides asking for recruitments, how else do we solve the backlogging? --George Ho (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Be investigated to answer which question? RFC to achieve what? The backlog is a well understood problem, easily resolvable with the right people who do the routine work quickly, consistently and continuously over time. Sadly there are always not enough people who do, and even if they did the amount of work would magically increase and setup a new backlog at another level. A structural problem like at all other backlogged places, i.e. the most admin tasks on all wikis, which often stabilize on some level defined by a non-understood principle. (I could give you a few dozens of examples what absolutely should be done regarding permissions and OTRS as soon as all backlogs are clear. Fortunately no need to discuss them as this likely never happens.)
So I'd suggest to think solution oriented here. What can you personally offer to do to improve the situation? --Krd 10:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Krd: I read there was a mismanagement, which led to the current backlogging issue. Also, I read that the training was inadequate. That's why I asked for investigation. As for the RFC, I would like a feedback on the OTRS in general. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Asking for recruitment would be the last thing I want to do. Like Wikipedia, OTRS is voluntary. Therefore, I think investigating or more RFC discussions would resolve the backlogging more efficiently than asking for recruitment. --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
You appear to have special insight and background information. Thank you for your work. --Krd 07:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. What shall we do next? --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
you could blow up OTRS and start over. we need a functional process design with training and feedback. the volunteer powers that be are incapable of providing the leadership necessary to run a process. you should expect thrashing and repeated dysfunctional conduct until adult supervision is provided. Slowking4 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I just want to give a small report here: I applied for permission on OTRS, and in my application mentioned I would search for a mentor, who could introduce me.I believe if I hadnt added that last sentence, my application wouldnt had been granted, because of my previously limited experience of copyright issues associated with OTRS. My application was however granted, on provision that I found some experienced user who would introduce me. An experienced OTRS admin offered me generously caching, and invested about an hour with me on IRC, with a number of selected tickets. Very considerate, step by step, we went through the different issues, and I learned a lot in this hour, and hope I have a basic understanding what to look for and checkup on permission tickets. I havnt done a lot of tickets since then, but this has other reasons, and I will soon continue to work on tickets and learn more. I even found a mail from a user who uploaded thre files in January, which had been accepted, and when reading through, discovered that those three files were not fully covered by the rules, and now they are deleted. (And may get undeleted, should the user return with complete permission records) In genera, I had a very positive experience from this mentorship, while the OTRS admin could also try me, and see to that I gave an impression of being qualified to continue going through permission tickets. I strongly recommend this concept should be developed, and maybe rationalized, so one coach at the same coach more than one user, in a semit teacher and class setup.Dan Koehl (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Can you offer such a coaching for new permissions agents? --Krd 09:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear @Krd:, I dont think that would be such a good idea, I have too less experinece now, maybe later. I suggest that the OTRS-admins locate suitable coachers, nd kindly ask them for support oof such a project. I just want to recomennd the system, since it will bring in more users who can help, instead fo waiting for that anyone learn by their own. For rather many Wikimedia administrative functions suffer from low number of participants, simply because interested users who request to help, are supposed not to have enough experience and competence. In my POV, it would be better to educate the users who are interested, if they dot qualify, when they request different functions. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your advice. This has been discussed as lot of times, but there is nobody with free capacity to do so. Also, although you have strong arguments, I'm a bit doubtful regarding the actual need when I take the fact into account that every account creation I handled since 2015, likely more than 200, contained an explicit hint to contact me at any time if there is any question. Guess how many questions in total I ever got. --Krd 11:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a submission for the Wikimedia Conference in Montreal to address issues with OTRS. Currently, the submission is reviewed for approval. --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

User page[edit]

Hello, Can we create a user page without it appearing in all others Wikimedia projects? Thanks! --Ghybu (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if you put the content inside of <noinclude> tags, content will be shown only on Meta. Read more at mw:Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage#Controlling_what_content_is_displayed. Stryn (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
however, FYI, this will make "blue" your username on local wikis, even if accessing your page users will not see the content of your meta userpage. --XXN (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is the problem, the name becomes "blue" and a blank page appears with a link to Meta (View on (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
See also phab:T90849 and phab:T90015. XXN (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ghybu: The answer is no. Things to note. 1) you can wrap part of a page in <noinclude> to not show xwiki; have a non-wrapped solution that is global; and have a component wrapped in <includeonly> which will only show on xwiki pages (as it is actually a xwiki transclusion). I wonder why you wouldn't want a global user page, or why it is problematic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It is possible that some users don't want to appear on the projects (or languages) that they haven't contributed to and they simply want to create a page only for Meta. This is not something really important but may be a useful option (only meta) :) Thanks for the answers ! --Ghybu (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It has been explained that it is not possible under the current design. If you don't believe that the present solution is suitable, then it will take a phabricator: ticket.

The conversation that could follow is that this is metawiki which is specifically the WMF's communities coordinating wiki, it is not a local content wiki, so what you are doing here is pertinent to all communities. That is clearly a conversation that can be had here, and you will need a stronger argument about your desire versus the communities' requirements.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Ah, I haven't seen initially, a patch resolving this problem was merged into MW core, but the documentation pages were not updated and this has created confusions. The __NOGLOBAL__ magic word is now available, which if present on the central (meta) user page, will prevent it from being displayed on remote wikis. CC Ghybu. --XXN (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks XXN, it works. Perhaps we should think of adding it here?--Ghybu (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Added, just before you hit the button "Publish changes" for your post :) --XXN (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Wanting to help out![edit]

Hi, I've been on Wikipedia (English) for awhile and would now like to help out on Meta-Wiki, could someone guide me in the right direction of what I could do here on Meta? I have no idea on where to start? I think I can be of great help here on Meta if I knew what to do.... Regards StewartLittle 11:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Steward Little (hmm... named after the movie ;) ). You can go to Help:Help and look at things. Alternatively, go to Meta:Babel and ask how to contribute to Meta. --George Ho (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. You can go to Help Forum and ask there. Meta:Babel is just for general discussions about Meta itself. --George Ho (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Shoot, re-pinging Stewart Little. --George Ho (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Stewart Little: This is a coordinating wiki, rather than a content wiki. So most actions here are for Wikimedia Foundation contributions (to and fro), and administrative in nature. Most would come here with things in mind of what they want to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost going stale? Any substitute or replacement for Signpost?[edit]

Signpost skipped March 2017 and is going to skip April 2017. Also, reporting on Wikipedia by Signpost has gotten... I don't know, but it's not producing any more articles. Seems that reporting on Wikipedia and Wikimedia within a project, like Wikipedia Signpost, is becoming a harder job anymore. Moreover, the staleness of Signpost is discussed at w:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost. What to do with the situation? Also, are there suitable substitutes or replacements for Signpost? --George Ho (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Signpost has the :en: in front, not the :m:, it's not something for here but for the enWP. I wouldn't come here if the Kurier would be in shallow water. This ain't an appendix for the enWP, enWP is just one project of a few hundred, no more, no less, but with no special treatment from here (if all would go right). Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 06:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It also has the w: link which in combination makes it one in many wikis, even if it is the 300lb gorilla.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights is also inactive for years. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Which process for administrators tool access ?[edit]

Hi, I'm seaching and not finding the place on meta for posting administrator candidature. Is there some one to guide me ? Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 14:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Steward_requests/Permissions. Stryn (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lionel Scheepmans: hi, to request administrative access here at Meta go to Meta:Requests for adminship, to request administrative access at any other wiki with no local bureaucrats you should make your request at Steward requests/Permissions after getting community consensus at the considered wiki. Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ! Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 16:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Recognition of contributions in Wikimedia.[edit]

How does Wikimedia rate test projects in incubator and the procedures for it to be approved. Also, are there ways in Wikimedia to advertise a test project or seek contributions in it?

The Language Committee does evaluate the status of a test project upon request and approves it in case it meets the criteria outlined in the Language proposal policy. --Vogone (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Uzoma Ozurumba, do you plan to start a new test wiki or you have a test wiki in mind that you like to work on? If you have a knowledge of a particular language which currently has a test wiki on incubator, you are welcomed to contribute to it. As Vognne rightfully said, it would be approved by the the Language Committee if it meets the criteria stated here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikicology, I have a test wiki in incubator wt/ig already, it is just 3 weeks old. Thanks.--Uzoma Ozurumba (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (May 2017)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:


  • Gale – Biography In Context database added
  • Adam Matthew – all 53 databases now available

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, EBSCO, Taylor & Francis and

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Aaron.
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


I posted this initially on english wikipedia, but seems like this is a more appropriate place for it. Essentially, I feel the Wikipedia logo a bit dated, and wanted to see if anyone else feels likewise. I reached out to a member of WMF to see if this is even possible and have yet to hear back, so any feedback would be appreciated! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I love our logo. It is widely recognized. What changes are you thinking of? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
+1 to the Doc. What's wrong with the well established and fine looking logo? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
First off, hi Doc! Glad to see ya over here. So from a technical point of view, its very "busy" and difficult to discern from a distance which are qualifications for a good logo. Walk across the room and look at the Wikipedia logo vs. Wikimania. I know everyone loves it, even I do, but I think it can be improved upon. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It's an iconic logo, extremely well-known and even part of the Wikipedia Monument. I don't see a need to change it. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
When will "visibility from a distance" ever be an issue? We're a website, not a drive-in; by definition the only time people will see the logo is when they're using the screen on which it's displayed.Iridescent (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It's to simulate people with poor eyesight. A gaussian blur being another method. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Nohat has a redesign ready to go with a number of improvements. Its quite an improvement from the Original winning logo from the international logo contest.

In seriousness, What you're describing sound a lot like Wikipedia Redefined and inside the foundation have been some redesigns. Many people redesigning tend to removing or crippling functionality, like removing language links (WMF did this due to low usage). Dispenser (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Drewmutt, What is broken or needs fixing? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think it needs changing? "A bit dated" is a feature, not a bug; the Wikipedia "incomplete globe" is one of the most recognised logos in the world. The fact that it's so ubiquitous you're getting bored of its appearance is proof that the existing design is working. Iridescent (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for all the great feedback, I really enjoyed the Wikipedia Redefined proposal, but it sounds like it didn't get much traction, which I feel is unfortunate. I get a lot of this in inherently subjective, so I'll stick to technical requirements. Firstly, it's generally agreed upon that a logo should scale down (seen from far away) and still be distinguishable. I made an example page to compare this quality between the globe and the Wikimania logo. I believe it's quite obvious which is more identifiable. This seem particularly important because of the "accessibility" Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Раздельный бан[edit]

<с русскоязычной Википедии меня перенаправили с этим вопросом сюда>

Считаю очень важным сделать блокировку раздельной: блокировку на редактирование страниц обсуждения и блокировку на редактирование страниц статей. Ведь если человек не брезгует послать кого-нибудь на 3 буквы или ещё что, то это совершенно не означает, что участник вандал, ровно как и наоборот. Я считаю верхом абсурда ситуацию, когда я после очередного конфликта с википедийными аборигенами не имею возможности поставить в статью недостающий пробел, знак препинания, поправить орфографическую ошибку, проставить шаблон или добавить актуальную информацию. Несмотря на мою богатую историю блокировок за всякие смешные вещи, кот. некоторые по ошибке интерпретируют как оскорбления, ко мне ни разу не были применены блокировки по причине вандализма, а потому считаю крайне необходимым отделить мух от котлет. Как я понимаю, технические возможности для этого имеются. Nad.Chel (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Википедия это проект основанный на сотрудничестве. Поэтому участник, который не может участвовать в осуждениях, не сможет нормально сотрудничать с другими участниками и, следовательно, не должен иметь возможность делать какие-либо правки в статьях. Ruslik (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Абсолютная и полная чушь. Для того чтобы править ошибки, проставлять шаблоны, добавлять информацию навык социальной адаптивности не требуется. Нужно лишь понимание того, по каким правилам живёт русский язык, как и где применяются те или иные шаблоны, как формулировать текст. Nad.Chel (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Лично я Symbol support vote.svg За. Полезная была бы вещь.--Арсений1 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik, но ведь для редактирования не слишком конфликтных статей совершенно не нужно, например, участие в общих форумах (в руВики они находятся в пространстве Википедия:), достаточно основного пространства и его обсуждения; если участник постоянно пишет плохие шаблоны, это не значит, что он не сможет писать хорошие статьи; навязчивые просьбы о помощи в обсуждениях участников будут вполне уместны в обсуждениях статей и на форумах, и так далее, примеры можно приводить долго. Направил коллегу сюда именно я, ибо полагаю (возможно и ошибочно), что столь трудоёмкой работой, требующей написания отдельного расширения, для одного из разделов одного из проектов никто не станет заниматься, но идея о "раздельных блокировках", то есть фактически - о технической реализации topic ban на пространства имён, довольно любопытна и имеет шансы на поддержку всего сообщества Wikimedia в целом.--Фил Вечеровский (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Фил Вечеровский технически уже все давно реализуемо с помощью фильтров правок. Осталось всего ничего: уломать разработчиков, чтобы они подняли лимит количества условий. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Well-Informed Optimist, вот именно. И как ни уламывай, фильтр резиновым не станет, а дополнительные условия всё равно на тупых вандалов уйдут.--Фил Вечеровский (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Например в укрвики это реализуется таки фильтром, в рувики да, не получится. Тут два варианта, или участники смирно придерживаются топикбана (в конце концов обойти и фильтр можно, например зачастую переименовався ибо фильтры часто на ник завязаны, это не говоря об использовании виртуала). Или в принципе есть phab:T2674 об отдельных статьях, возможно можно предложеть и баны на целые пространства имён, но вот тот баг делают 13 лет уже как, не стоит надеятся что новое предложение выполнят быстро. --Base (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiSandy (Contextually Enhanced Search)[edit]

WikiSandy proposed project

Provide a Wikipedia search service that indexes Wikipedia data semantically, based on sentence structure; subject, subject complement, or direct object, etc. versus just key words. Recognize information that is not directly communicated by the author, by relating acronyms, abbreviations, and compound nouns to appropriate subject matter within an article. Results will be ordered and prioritized by the strength of the correlation of search term to the sentences returned. Results will provide full sentences where possible, with deep links to those sentences, making it possible for users to jump directly to those sentences of interest. Such a tool will improve the search experience within Wikipedia and increase the value of the Wikipedia data.

See a demo at The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandypondfarm (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 May 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC)

Old proposed project Wikichem[edit]

I found this proposed project, Wikichem, which has been proposed since 2014. This needs more attention and interested people to discuss Wikichem, the proposed project that would collect information about chemistry. Five users declared themselves interested in the project. Somehow, the page need to be fleshed out. --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Trans editors[edit]

I recently held a Wikipedia-edit-a-thon on Art and Feminism in Victoria. I had a famous trans director reach out to me, who was unable to come to the edit-a-thon, but wanted help as their bio had been taken down several times. I was wondering if there were any trans-editors who are willing to help them out. The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShrummR (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 May 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC)

ShrummR, if this is about English Wikipedia, I suppose you may reach out to one of the Wikipedians in w:en:Category:Transgender Wikipedians. --Base (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to have a Meta page in multiple languages that appears in the 'In other languages' section?[edit]

Hi all

I would like to know if it is possible to know if there is a way to link different language versions of a page together so they are displayed in the 'In other languages' section? I want to try to do it this way specifically rather than (or as well as) having a language selection option at the top using the <nowiki></wiki> function.


--John Cummings (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories of open and completed submissions for Wikimania 2017[edit]

I have been checking the pages of submissions ready for review and open submissions. I found inconsistencies of top and bottom templates in those pages. I have been changing the templates for consistency, but I found one tagged as withdrawn. Please I need your assistance on reviewing the pages tagged as open or completed submissions. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)[edit]

21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections[edit]

21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)