Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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.

Block on English Wikipedia[edit]

If i blocked as permanent. I just want to know, in this case I have the right to write an application for arbitration? If i blocked as permanent , is there any way to unblock? What can I do for that? Thanks in advance. Aydinsalis (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You should read en:Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik, of course, What was written there, I did. But no results.You can check. What can I do now? Aydinsalis (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm blocke as well but i fought for it. I'm not blocked forever. I'm only blocked for a week. This admin Yunshui did this to me for abusing multiple accounts. He did that even when i was helping to prevent vandalism. poor me. Arepticous (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not much, really. You could contribute to another project and if that goes well, ask for another chance on Wikipedia. Say half a year from now. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been waiting for 4 months. Will I wait for 6 months later? Or wait 2 months? Aydinsalis (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You can always try approaching someone from enWP's ArbCom on their user page here at meta seeking guidance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been into the UTRS system and the system shows that they have responded to your enquiries to the email address that you have recorded within the system. Looking at the warnings on your user page and your block history, I would think that giving English Wikipedia an extended break would be the wisest choice. You should be aiming to demonstrate that the issues that you have experienced at enWP are not issues that exist at our other communities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I am in other projects. There is no problem. English in Wikipedia admin has blocked me biasedly. In order to commit fraud. How can I defend my rights? You can check: reliable sources are deleted, fake sources are kept ( [1] ). Aydinsalis (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You are arguing with the wrong person. Multiple independent admins have reviewed your talk page, then more have looked at your UTRS requests. The separately disagree with you. Making those accusations is not helpful to your case.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
That issue is no longer interested in me. I promise that I will follow the rules. But what do admins want? Nobody answers this question. Maybe you answer: what do they want? Aydinsalis (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, what do they want? This is a very difficult question. Aydinsalis (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I am surmising that at this point of time they want you to go away as they don't see that you are capable of change, which is usually the reason behind an indefinite block. They have responded to your UTRS appeal via your registered email address and that is what is to guide you. I have nothing more to say on the matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
i can attest that no amount of "good works" on projects will make an admin reconsider. fresh start is a lie. and the idea that you can block people to encourage them to leave is a delusion. admins are power tripping, that is what they want. Slowking4 (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I understood that, en:Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block it's a lie. billinghurst, if possible, help me in one issue: I want to cancel my account. Is that possible? If so, how can I do it? Aydinsalis (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    Accounts cannot be cancelled. They need to be retained as part of your contributions and the license that applies to your contributions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    On Wikisage, we run a dump account that other accounts can be merged to. The license doesn't prohibit that. It is mostly used to get rid of account creation spam, but it can be used to remove real accounts as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    I was unaware that we were talking about Wikisage accounts, or any other small wiki that does not have the complexity of 700+ integrated wikis.

    Accounts cannot be cancelled. Accounts here will not be merged to a single user login account by the existing WMF policies and processes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

    You are not aware of many things, so who cares. Size or integration has nothing to do with it. There are no technical issues that prohibit merging accounts. That the WMF doesn't want to allow it, is purely by choice. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Of course, you are completely right, and I speak without any knowledge of the information provided by the WMF staff to the community or to stewards back when. Your technical knowledge is superior to WMF staff, and I am not sure why I would ever believe them and I will now defer to your knowledge. Uncertain why I argue with your omniscience, and I will go back and hit my head against a tree.

    In the meanwhile, accounts cannot be cancelled. Accounts here will not be merged to a single user login account by the existing WMF policies and processes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, there is RTV, but at English Wikipedia that courtesy is specifically for users "in good standing" and, in any case, it is not possible to delete an account due to licensing of contributions under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, as billinghurst said. JGHowes talk - 12:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Different rendering of the same PNG image[edit]

Hello and excuse me if this is not the most suitable place to ask the following question: Did you notice that grayscale PNG images appear to be lighter/duller than the RGB or monochrome ones, after scaling/processing on the Wiki*edia servers? Watch here. I hope it's not a feature, grayscale images are not meant to be gray-ish! —Mykhal (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for case a little preview, seamless side-by-side comparison of Wiki*edia-servers-downscaled RGB/Grayscale/Monochrome variants of the same, originally Monochrome image, as seen in recent *inux/Firefox50&Chromium60.

WikiPNGRenderingTestB preview.png

I may understand why nobody has replied yet – the anomaly is not well reproducible, is browser dependent (not present in non-old MSIE under tested Win platforms, and at least some Safari versions on MACOS as well). However, I have found that the problem is caused by the (anomalous) change of PNG gamma value in grayscale images (only), by the Wiki*edia servers processing. —Mykhal (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Wofür muss es Community-Konsens geben?[edit]

For which decisions is a community Consensus necessary?

(Kopie von hier)
Vermutlich ist das hier der bessere Platz für die Diskussion, der andere wurde zwar als Begründung für dieses Vorgehen genannt, scheint aber nicht so für Diskussionen benutzt zu werden.

Anlässlich des aktuell gerade sinnfreierweise durchgeführten Konsensfindungsprozesses wegen einer Marginalie wie dem Beta-Test eines neuen Skins wurde folgendes Szenario dargestellt (Link zur Disk):

  • Für die Einführung als Test, also um überhaupt erst mal beurteilen zu können, ob das Feature was taugt, ist ein Konsens erforderlich
  • Sobald es als Beta-Feature vorhanden ist, kann es ohne Konsens per ordre de Mufti von der WMF oktroyiert werden.

Das erinnert mich fatal an das Vorgehen beim MV, als auch ein Feature zum, Testen eingeführt wurde, und dann sogar gegen den ausdrücklichen Willen der Community mit Gewalt gegen diese eingeführt wurde. OK, SuperPutsch ist inzwischen offiziell Geschichte, eine tatsächliche Verhaltensänderung in solch eindeutigen Fällen ist allerdings nicht wirklich erkennbar, es gab noch nicht mal eine offizielle Entschuldigung seitens der WMF für dieses bösartige Vorgehen. Sollte dem tatsächlich so sein, dann wäre der einzige Schutz der Communities vor irgendwelchen kraftmeierischen Alleingängen der WMF ein komplett neophobes Verhalten, damit so etwas wie dem MV, oder gar dem idiotischen Flow in Zukunft, gar nicht erst die Tür zum Test geöffnet würde, weil damit schon vor der erforderlichen Evaluation jegliches Mitbestimmungsrecht abgetreten würde. Ist dem tatsächlich so? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Translation (Links are above):
As we discussed this in an quite senseless procedure to get a community consensus for some very minor decision, in this case to test a new skin as a beta-feature, the following scenario was sketched:

  • A consensus is needed for the test, to get some information about the feature for the first time in the wild, and to be able to evaluate the feature at all
  • Once it's in the project as a beta-feature, it can be forced on in the project without community consensus by a simple order from SF

This reminds me in a fatal way of the implementation of the MV. The MV was as well first introduced as a beta-feature, an then implemented as default even against the explicit and unambiguous wishes of the community with the use of force and might. OK, SuperPutsch is now officially history, but a actual change in behaviour is not really noticeable, not even an official apology about this mean behaviour was made up to now. Should this really be the case the only way for a community to shield itself from another unilateral show of force by the WMF would be a complete neophobic behaviour to let something like with the MV, or in the future with this Flow-junk, not even for testing inside the projects, because afterwards all community decisions are futile and can be disregarded. Is this really this way? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Timeless is primarily a volunteer driven project, not coming from "SF". The main author is a volunteer working in her own time to write and deploy a new skin. At this time no one has expressed any intentions of making Timeless a default skin, and I would think there would be long discussions before doing so.
As for your main question, I think people are being especially cautious here. A new skin is a big deal, it requires updating of scripts, gadgets, templates, etc. to ensure compatibility. Obviously this doesn't scale for every wiki, but after a while (c.f. phab:T154371#3526314) it'll probably just get deployed everywhere as opt-in. I think that if it hadn't been announced like this and just showed up one day in preferences people would have been pretty upset about the new skin and we (we as in MediaWiki developers) would have been accused of trying to sneak in a new skin behind everyone's backs. Maybe I'm being a little too pessimistic, but I think greater transparency and confidence in the case of a new skin is worth the little extra bureaucracy. Legoktm (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is not really the imho a bit over-anxious consensus for this skin, i.e. my first bullet point. It's the second one, that's creating stomach ache, and the skin is just the (innocent) example. Is it really not necessary to get a community consensus for the change from Beta to Default? That's the far more important question. And this is how it's presented in the discussion over @deWP. Once you've got some unwanted junk like Flow as a beta feature, it can be made default without or even against explicit consensus. It must be clear, that that will never ever again be the case, that never ever again will the WMF act as bad and ruthless as in the MV case. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That can also be done without it going trough beta. The distinction is not really significant from the point of view of a developer. Maybe for some management folk, but technically a beta feature is just a feature that excludes a group of people from using it. Has anyone ever attempted to write advisory guidelines for developers and or the WMF on this topic ? Like actionable ones, not vague statements ? That would be interesting. Not saying they would accept them, but at least it's more usable input that talking about SuperPutsch —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The devs and the WMF in general are the servants of the highest entity here around: the communities. They all just live from the money generated by the knowledge written in the wikiverse by the communities. They are just there, because the enterprise was too big for anarchistic self-rule any longer and needed some professional support. By they are just support, not bosses. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please i am in need of help[edit]

i am ibrahimu098, i have been recently been block. please help me and unblock me. this article that i have create is my project research and i really need it, please.Ibrahimu098 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You should pay attention to your talk page and to en:Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Help with translation templates[edit]

Hello! I'm currently helping to import all the dashboard modules here, so we can translate them to other languages. All the items are here, but don't know how I have to put them for translation, as it's my first time with this task. Can anyone help me/us/everyone with this subject? -Theklan (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Help/ Sugestions[edit]

I just sent my email to (OTRS) and subscribed through the users of Meta.Wikimedia.org taking a long time to respond. --177.207.73.219 18:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

BitCoin donations to Wikipedia?[edit]

Can anyone direct me to information on how to donate bitcoin to Wikipedia? Do they accept bitcoins? I would like to contribute a few Satoshis because Wikipedia is doing a lot for my culture. Thank you, regards--MickeyDangerez (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@MickeyDangerez: See wmf:Ways to Give#bitcoin.--GZWDer (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @GZWDer!--MickeyDangerez (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Standalone rollbacker permission?[edit]

Does Meta offer standalone rollbacker permissions, or does one have to be an admin to have rollback? I encountered some vandalism and missed the rollback tool to handle it. :-/ Asaf (WMF) (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Asaf (WMF): You have to be an admin or be a member of a global group that has rollback permissions to use the feature in here. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I would support Asaf having global rollbacker rights. I would also support WMF staff having rollbacker rights at meta by default. Which way should we progress, for the individual or for the group? I think that group would be useful as many WMF staff contribute here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Asaf (WMF) is neither on local or global groups restricted to WMF staff; and I would personally won't support creating yet another user group for such a limited scope. Asaf (WMF) is certainly okay to request global rollback permissions, but if he does not meet the criteria he won't be approved by the community. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I personally trust Asaf with rollbacker/admin rights. However, there is no grounds for creating an user group specific for that purpose. Should a WMF staff (not included in the aforementioned restricted groups) be in need of these userrights, he/she should follow the procedures as described here as any other regular community member would have to. RadiX 16:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm certainly not looking for any shortcut. I'll gladly apply for global rollbacker permission if someone can confirm I meet the criteria. Global rollback says "demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities (for example, as active members of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team) and make heavy use of revert on many wikis", which I do not seem to meet. I do visit many different wikis in the course of my work, and have many different pages on my watchlists on those wikis, so occasionally I encounter and revert vandalism. But patrolling is not a big part of my work. When I do encounter vandalism, having the rollback tool can save time, and I'd say I can be trusted not to abuse the tool. But I'm not looking for an exception, so if this occasional use doesn't justify giving the permission, I won't apply, and will continue to revert manually when I need to. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Asaf (WMF):, I am in a situation pretty similar to yours, and I had no difficulties getting the global rollback flag (I collected some diffs showing vandalism reverts on smaller wikis).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:, thanks. I have now requested the tool. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind having a local rollback group here. Not sure how widely it would be used, but there's very little cost. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
see here for last discussion about local rollbackers.--GZWDer (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As this tends to be discussed at different places, I have created an RfC concerning creating such a flag here: Meta:Requests for comment/Adding a local rollbacker flag or alternatives --Base (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was successfully closed, we are to finalise the policy yet, but nothing substantial is to change. Asaf (WMF), you might be interested in requesting the brand new Patroller flag for your volunteer account via WM:RFH, or via internal WMF channels for you staff account — I guess JSutherland (WMF) or Jalexander-WMF may help you with that). The same applies to other experienced editors reading this who wish to help patrolling edits and reverting vandalism on Meta and understand how the tools work. --Base (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Why can not I remove a discussion page at the user's request?[edit]

I ask you to show the rule point, I am not going to continue to edit Wikipedia and maybe I have the right to remove my user page and discussion page. I leave Wikipedia because of a conflict with the project administrators on ukrviki because of neglect !!! the rules. --Jphwra (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no global rule regarding removing discussions from talk pages. It's up to each wiki to set their own rules. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Why do ukrviki indicate to me the impossibility of removal by violating my rights to extract information from the pages of Wikipedia? I do not speak the language about the articles that I created, I am speaking purely about user pages and discussions. --Jphwra (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Because that talk page doesn't belong to you, it's a place for other editors to communicate with you, and its history contains their contributions which might still be useful for them for some reason. Ultimately, even if that page was removed, any active user would still have a right to create it once again. So generally removing it is even pointless.--Piramidion 12:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
It's senseless to write here your comment to one of the engaging admins in ukrviki --Jphwra (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Tegel, MarcoAurelio I ask for your assistance in removing the discussion page, because the bullying that made me in ukrviki passes all boundaries. --Jphwra (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Except for edit warring in this article, you've been blocked for this comment, after which I deleted your user page on your request, but refused to do so with your talk page, and you already know my reasons. Do you call THAT bullying? Please stop slandering ukwiki administrators. Yes, we sometimes make mistakes, but I see no reasons to consider this situation one of them. If you want to leave Wikipedia, just leave. We have no obligations to delete any of your contributions, provided that they don't breake any Wiki(p/m)edia rules. "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."--Piramidion 13:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
We can't do anything here. It's up to local community what they allow to do there. Stryn (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
We don't have any rules regarding this either, but there are certain practices. Nevertheless, I've started a discussion in ukwiki to gather some opinions and after gaining consensus to close this topic once and for all, one way or another.--Piramidion 14:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
On many wiki's it's allowed to empty your user talk page. But for example on the Finnish Wikipedia even emptying is not allowed. Everything will be archived to sub pages. And if users continuously empty their user talk pages after warnings they will be blocked. Stryn (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
We're not talking about emptying the user talk page, we'd be OK with that. We're talking about removing it completely on user's request. If you have any opinions regarding this, please express them either here, or in the discussion on ukwiki (here).--Piramidion 18:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Stryn, Tegel, MarcoAurelio, Piramidion Let me clarify things a bit. The problem rised due to language dialects usage on WP with following reverts war, account block and personal offence of this user to some admins. Jphwra just wants to be forgotten with his userpage and talkpage being removed. I think this is common practice on similar projects to delete personal account messages. There is nothing compromising nor valuable on that usertalk page, as it was claimed it is personal wish not to return to WP. Local admins have rejected this query, relying on basic rules of CC license, which is, as far as I know does not cover talkpages. Unfortunalelly, we don't have local rule covering this particular practice & disscussion grew into non constructive flame. Please, answer the question is: Is deletion of personal Userpage and Talkpage complies with Terms of Use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Khimich (talk)
Stryn, Tegel, MarcoAurelio I honestly do not see attempts at solving this issue diplomatically, even when discussing in my side, allow incorrect expressions. Panov stewards why can not I just remove my discussion page? And do not cause me even greater psychological suffering. --Jphwra (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Why I am being mentioned here? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you can stop this insignificant conflict that has arisen in ukrvi? --Jphwra (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocking of IP addresses[edit]

@Tegel, Vituzzu, MarcoAurelio, and Trizek (WMF): I've received the following complaint from Sindhi Wikipedians over the social media regarding IP block. The users have sent the screenshots as follows: 1 & 2. I request you to please look into these and find a solution at the earliest. --Muzammil (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have the skills to help you on this case. I let Stewards having a look at it. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The global block that I placed is missing the IP-address, so that makes it difficult to investigare. -- Tegel (Talk) 18:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hindustanilanguage: if the user cannot edit here at meta (global blocks do not affect meta), then the process is to email stewards via stewards@wikimedia.org, or login to their account and use the mail feature Special:EmailUser/Stewards  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Special:EmailUser/Wikimedia Stewards or Special:Contact/stewards that is :) —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I've passed on the message to the users concerned over the social media. --Muzammil (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

WMF principal place in California but still registered in Florida?[edit]

Hello. I've been asking myself this question for some time and I though I could post it here so maybe someone could help me understand. WMF headquarters are located in California, and our Terms of Use do mention only California in para. 13.; but strangely for me WMF is still registered in Florida as the State of Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations displays. Their counterpart on the State of California confirms that. I am not an US citizen nor know about corporation laws there, so I apologize if this is a dumb question but why WMF is still registered in Florida when it's been years that their opeations are being done in California? Is it about taxes? More flexible corporation rules? I'm going to ping User:JVillagomez (WMF), maybe he can share some info. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A wiki of company ethics?[edit]

I've been looking for a database or website that provides information on company ethics -- I haven't been able to find one (please share the link if you know of one!).

Would this be a good theme for a wiki project?

Everyone has different ethics, so I don't think a one-size-fits-all ethical report would work. However we could define some standard categories (workers-rights, consumer-rights, environmental, equality, honesty, corruption, charitable-work, etc.), then list the good and bad for each. Readers can then focus on what matters to them.

On a related note: If anyone knows of an ontology that might be applicable for corporate ethics, please share the link.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm new to Wikimedia Forum -- If this is not the best place to post this, please let me know where I should.

Thank you & Kind regards, --Winterstein (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Winterstein: I suggest you inquire about this at Wikiversity. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure I follow. Wikiversity is for teaching materials? This would be a place for collating data, much like Wikipedia. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winterstein (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Winterstein: I may have misunderstood what you had in mind, then. If it's a matter of collating data, but more specialized than what Wikipedia does, then you should consider Wikibooks. An important difference between Wikiversity and Wikibooks is in the projects' attitudes toward original research; I had thought you were describing something OR-ish, but if it's collating data, that sounds more like a wikibook.

Btw, to ping me, use markup {{ping|Pi zero}}, which looks like this:

@Pi zero:
--Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Linking to other Wikimedia projects[edit]

On the Dutch Wikipedia, there is a discussion (again) whether it's possible NOT to link to Wikiquote or Wikinews if "we from Wikipedia" think the quality of the article on Wikiquote or Wikinews is below our standards. On WP-NL, we are quite strict in our "not too much external links"-policy, en for me, these are external links as well. Who agrees with me that this decision is up to the WP-NL editors? If not, why? Kind regards, Vinvlugt (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a sticky issue, no doubt. Cooperation and self-determination, mixed together. My own opinion is that
  • we're all projects in the sisterhood together, and should support each other with links, whether between sisters within a language, or between languages; and
  • it would be deeply unwise for one project to try to judge the "quality" of articles on another project, both because
  • users on one project are statistically unlikely to be qualified to judge another project — for the most part, they will misjudge another project because they'll apply the goals, techniques, and context of their own project to another project where all those things may be different — and
  • a basic wiki principle is that increased exposure leads to increased quality, so it would be philosophically inconsistent for a wiki to seek to reduce the exposure of another wiki because it perceives the other to have insufficient quality.
A striking example of the differing-standards effect is that English Wikinews and English Wikipedia have different approaches to neutrality, so that it's quite possible for a Featured Article on either project to fail neutrality by the other project's criteria. It would be very silly for us to refuse to link to each other's articles on that basis.

Self-determination is a stickier question, though. Successful democratic societies have to evolve ways to protect minorities against abuse by majorities; and while the wikimedian sisterhood is imho rather weak on this sort of protection, one important principle we do have is that the different wikis don't tell each other what to do, which somewhat protects small wikis against bullying by large wikis. However, removing links from a larger wiki to a smaller one can be a form of bullying, or outright warfare, against the smaller wiki. So, perhaps basic interwiki links (provided they're aren't done intrusively) should be required as an anti-bullying measure? --Pi zero (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment each wiki is perfectly entitled to make their rules about linking. It also needs to be remembered that linking is a two-way street. So make your decisions wisely, not based on a rule alone.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Linking is a local content matter. A wiki could chose not to use any links at all (zero external links, zero sister project links, and even zero [[wikilinks]]). Alsee (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

censorship on wikipedia and persecution[edit]

пишу українською буде бажання і головне спроба це вирішити перекладуть (I will write in Ukrainian it will be a desire and the main attempt to solve it will translate). Мене цікавить переслідування мене збоку адміністраторів УкрВікі. виявляється таке можливе Блокування. До слова я перед цим просив вилучити мою СО. Всі проігнорували моє прохання, а відтепер ще і пишіть мені на тій СО все що завгодно. --Jphwra (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't Wikimedia_Forum#Why_can_not_I_remove_a_discussion_page_at_the_user.27s_request.3F enough? Stryn (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Stryn But is there any result? Why is the opinion opposite from admins immediately blocked? And so to the word have achieved only the care of active editors. With further oppression of those who went. --Jphwra (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding "Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation"[edit]

There is currently a RfC open on Meta regarding "requiring those involved with paid editing on Wikipedia to link on their user page to all other active accounts through which they advertise paid Wikipedia editing business."

Note this is to apply to Wikipedia and not necessarily other sister projects, this is only to apply to websites where people are specifically advertising that they will edit Wikipedia for pay and not any other personal, professional, or social media accounts a person may have.

Please comment on meta. Thanks. Send on behalf of User:Doc James.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)