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

Request my IRC global ban be lifted[edit]

I am again requesting my ban be lifted on IRC. I know it will be denied and I know some are just going to insult me for trying but here are my reasons.

Apparently someone claiming to work at the Smithsonian attempted to participate in IRC a few days ago after being invited there by someone who spoke to the Smithsonian (there are regular meetups there and Wikipedia folks routinely talk to them so that's not really news). This individual was then blocked and later insulted by RD and others and driven off IRC with claims that it was me. The justification used was that they live in the DC are and were using a Verizon IP and it was assumed to be me. Also, I was globally blocked on IRC by RD, as such my IP would be blocked so how could it be my IP that this person supposedly used? It wasn't!

This is absurd, not only is my ban on IRC complete bullshit, it's even more problematic to accuse anyone who lives in the DC area (millions of people) and use Verizon internet (also millions of people) is me simply because they use the same ISP and live in the same area.

So I am asking again for my ban to be lifted on IRC to prevent this type of stupid and childish crap from happening. We should not be preventing new users from participating in the WMF projects, especially academics, because our front men representing the community to new users are assholes to anyone who isn't an admin and make accusations to new members of the community with assumptions of bad faith.

Please unblock my account to prevent these types of absurd accusations. If the communities and the WMF are even remotely serious about getting more editors and academics involved (which I have my doubts about frankly) in these projects, accusing them of being other people you don't like is not a very good way to do that. Additionally, even if my ban is not lifted, if the WMF has any interest in recruiting new members and having credibility for dealing with harassing users they need to take a long serious look at RD and other ops participating in IRC. Because regardless of the arguments about IRC being outside wiki's scope, these people are representing the WMF. Reguyla (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am completely unaware of the ban you're referring to in your opening comments. I'll just note again that this (wiki) is not the proper forum and even though you aren't getting your way, running around to various places and continuing to cause nuisance will likely result in a block on the wiki(s). You've exhausted all efforts by too many channel operators in too many channels. Go and find something productive to do because repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome is telling enough. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
RJ you know full well what ban I am talking about. Don't play stupid to the community because this is out in the open and not in secret IRC channels to hide your conduct. I complained multiple times about your conduct and I did it on wiki so everyone can see it (I can link to some if you want) and you retaliated by banning me from all the IRC channels. Some communities have even stated I am welcome to participate in those channels but you won't let them unblock me (or they don't know how). I have no interest in talking about this with you because you clearly lack the maturity or desire to discuss the issue without referring to me as a terrorist. Which frankly calling me that only shows that you are completely unsuited for your position as I have been saying for a while now.
The bottom line is you banned me from IRC in retaliation for complaining about your behavior and Barras supports your conduct. So I have no respect for either of you at this point and think you both should be removed from your positions as IRC ops.
Also, and more importantly, you know I cannot even access IRC because the global ban you put in place, so saying wiki is not the proper place to discuss being unbanned from a WMF controlled venue is both inappropriate and is just an attempt to derail the discussion.
I cannot access IRC at all, you know that, so I couldn't request to be unbanned there anyway which is all the more reason why it's absurd to me that you would accuse someone else of being me on IRC. Also, if I have exhausted your patience then maybe you should start following the rules and not manipulating them to retaliate on another person who complained about your conduct. Reguyla (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstood my comment (as usual). I know about banning you, of course. There was extensive discussion around it. The ban I am referring to that I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about is when you stated "Apparently someone claiming to work at the Smithsonian attempted to participate in IRC ... This individual was then blocked and later insulted by RD." Rjd0060 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
If I misunderstood your comment it's because you weren't clear as usual and expect others to guess at what you want. As for discussion around my ban, you'll excuse me if you, Barras and a couple of admins from ENWP who supported my ban there because I was critical of abusive admins didn't want me participating in your IRC channels doesn't leave me with the impression of a fair and impartial jury.
So your saying that you did not have a conversation with someone a couple days ago, that came to the Ops channel and stated they had been blocked, asked why and was told by you and others that you thought they were me so you blocked them? Because 3 people that were logged into the ops channel at the time all sent me different variations of the story and asked if it was me (or accused me of doing it), which I didn't. So, either you are lying now about talking to this person or 3 other ops who sent me emails about it are.
Given my familiarity with your disregard of policy and feeling the policies don't apply to you because IRC is the Wild West, because you refer to me as a terrorist and generally act like a jerk, I rather believe them over you.
The bottom line here RD is that I don't like you because you have no respect for policy or for other contributors. You are the abusive admin type I have been complaining about that doesn't think admins should have to follow the same rules as editors. You don't like me because I do think admins should have to follow the rules and that is a problem for you and others. We are not likely to solve this disagreement here. If you do not want to unban my IRC account, and it's clear that is the case, then fine. But there is no need to continue to discuss this with you any longer so you can further derail this discussion. Reguyla (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think meta has any control over IRC. IRC is not an official Wikimedia platform, the IRC/Group contacts might be the ones you are looking for. --Vogone (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Vogone: According to the IRC/Group contacts link you provided which states After the original recognition by freenode... and the wording here, there is an obvious implication that the WMF IRC channels are a Wikimedia approved communication platform and the acknowledgement of that by the freenode staff that these individuals would represent the WMF wiki's. So, given that IRC includes wiki's for multiple communities I believe meta is the appropriate place for this discussion to take place given that the ban has been placed to affect access to all WMF IRC channels including those where the communities have stated I am welcome to participate like Commons, Wikidata and SWMT. Reguyla (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This is really off topic but I agree that IRC/Group contacts should be the place to go and would post there if I had any respect for them or faith in their competence. I do not.
The problem is, none of them think WMF policy should apply to them or IRC and think they can just do whatever they want. This attitude has largely reduced the IRC population in most channels to ops anda few friends who rarely ever comment and just lurk waiting for some newbie to attack. As long as the communities and the WMF are willing to believe that IRC is separate, they will continue to treat it like its the Wild West.
I personally believe that as long as the WMF wiki's and its editors are using them, then the etiquette and rules on wiki should apply. These people are representing the WMF and the communities and, as such, they should not be allowed to simply do whatever they want on IRC because "IRC is not wiki". If the WMF does not want people to use IRC or accept it as an extension of the Wiki and feel it is not an official platform, then they should ban it from being used and remove mention of it from wiki as a valid place to interact. Until that happens however, it's still listed in multiple places as a valid community supported and accepted environment and I personally believe that what happens on WMF controlled IRC channels needs to be inline with WMF policy. The IRC ops don't, naturally, because that would limit their power. If the ops do not want to follow WMF policy as representatives of the WMF, and the Group contacts have stated they do not, then they should not be allowed to be representatives of the WMF as ops. Reguyla (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
+1, although as a small expansion, different Wikimedia-related channels have different ops. I do not recall your nick being blocked on channels with which I am involved; you may wish examine your statements for hyperbole. Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no hyperbole in my statements. How about assuming good faith? RD and Barras are global ops who can act like stewards do on wiki and implement changes across all IRC channels. I am globally banned, that means it doesn't show up in every channel. They do it in one place and it extends across all the WMF related IRC channels. Even the ones where the communities have stated I am welcome to participate. So naturally I have been pissed about it and I think anyone in the same position would be. Some communities want to unblock me but won't locally because they either fear retaliation from RD or they don't know how to undo a global ban locally. Also, since the new WMF civility policy being drafted specifically mentions conduct on IRC being included, I submit to you that the WMF agrees that that etiquette and policy required on WMF wiki's should extend to IRC. Reguyla (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
An example of what I take to be "unintentional overstatement" in your statements is the use of "IRC", when I believe you intend this to be understood as "Wikimedia-related (and managed) channels on the Freenode network". Pardon my insistence on precision - I am a casual wiktionarian. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. It is the Wikimedia-related ones but it's all of the WMF related channels, so there are a lot. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I assumed anyone reading here would know that I was referring to the WMF related ones but maybe I shouldn't have assumed that. Reguyla (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
So I guess no one is interested in discussing like adults an unnecessary ban from IRC that is only in place because RD doesn't think policy should apply to him, is allowed to do anything he wants and because I refuse to drop the issue of my abusive ban from ENWP because I was bullied off of the English Wikipedia for criticizing admins and the incompetence of the Arbcom.
I honestly wish the WMF was as interested in getting high output dedicated editors with a history article creation and featured improvements and hundreds of thousands of edits back to editing as they are in supporting abusive bully admins. Everyone wonders why the editing environment sucks, why people don't join and why the few that do don't stay but they refuse to look at the obvious cause which is abusive admins and the lack of oversight of them abusing editors and bullying people out of the projects. It's because the admins on these sites have no oversight, do whatever they want to non admins and the WMF does nothing but sit back, watch and occasionally do favors for Jimbo. No one appreciates the editors, there is no respect or trust in these communities unless your an admin or a WMF employee and no one wants to join and volunteer because the word is out that it's a toxic atmosphere and the WMF that is supposed to be in charge of it doesn't care as long as the donation dollars keep coming in to fund pet projects. Reguyla (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You are all aware that he has a community ban on the EN-WP? He's gonna get globally locked, because of the pure disruption that he's causing, so why even have this conversation? --TJH2018 talk 21:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There's really no conversation. Reguyla frequently argues his points to himself on wiki and IRC which is what partially what led to this in the first place. Does this wiki not have any admins? Rjd0060 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@TJH2018: First, there is no disruption except that created by you and a couple admins that don't think policy apply to them. It's just an excuse for them to vandalize positive contributions because they think it's me and they know no one is going to do anything about it. Every edit I have done for years was a positive contribution and is in accordance with policy (except for me ignoring an abusive and policy violating ban).
Yes they are also completely aware that I am a long term, dedicated and high output editor who got banned from EnWP for ctiticizing admin abuse at EnWP. They are also aware that the only way that ban could get approved was through lies and policy violations of the people who wanted it and that is how it has been retained. It's utterly ridiculous and not worth following. It doesn't even represent a community consensus, just a few people that didn't want me advocating admins follow the rules. They also know I don't care about it and will continue to contribute positively per Ignore all rules and Bold regardless of what you or a few others think. Some agree with the ban, which is the core problem in the IRC ban above and some agree with me that it's bullshit and should have never been. I got banned at EnWP for advocating admins follow the same policies they enforce on editors and stop acting like assholes to new editors. You know, to make it a more friendly and welcoming environment for new editors just, like, you. So, your welcome! If the WMF wants to send a message to the communities that content creators like me are not wanted and it's more important to support the admins who don't think policy applies to them and lie and violate policy to get what they want, then they can ban me anytime they want. Reguyla (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, you are certainly not contributing in a positive manner to resolve this. I understand there might be frustration, but I do not understand how this treatment helps at all. This wiki has admins who are fortunately not as trigger-happy. --Vogone (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the admins here are more mellow thankfully. Also on commons. I wished I agreed there was a better way to handle it though because the admins and people violating policy don't care. Policy has been severely violated and lies told in order to get and keep bans on me and the admins and editors have been allowed to do that but I can't get angry or frustrated because that is "justification" they were right? Hardly, and as I said above, there is already a conversation to ban me globally with plenty of lies and hyperbole and no opportunity for me to present my side as usual that from what I hear has substantial support so it really doesn't matter how I react. Because the system favors the ones with the block button as usual. The bottom line is positive contributors don't mean any more than vandals on the WMF wiki's unless you're an admin and my forthcoming global block that I plan to effectively ignore like Russavia has been will reflect the WMF supports that. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
No spring cleanup blanking, please, there's an archive bot, and this thread is relevant for mw:Code of Conduct/Draft covering IRC.Be..anyone 💩 01:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
If anyone thinks this discussion has any relevance to that page you're kidding yourself. Some of the ops don't follow existing policy and the WMF does nothing about it, the ops that do follow it don't do anything about the ones that don't, so regardless of what the WMF put's in the code of conduct, if they don't enforce it any better than they do existing policies, it really doesn't mean a thing. So personally I think the WMF needs to step up, put their money where their mouth is and start doing something about the problematic admins who are ruining these sites. Reguyla (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The primary point, Reguyla, is that you cannot go on these tangents and then attempt to cover them up by removing the discussions from pages and avoiding archiving, thus making it extremely difficult to follow your repeated inappropriate and off-topic use of this wiki. It's not the first time you've done this but hopefully now you know that such won't be tolerated. Cheers. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Just because you want your abusive conduct on IRC to stay on IRC and not be brought up on wiki where people can see it Rjd0060, doesn't mean it's off topic. I am also not going on tangents, I have been consistently talking about the same issue which is unchecked admin abusive conduct and my ban on EnWP that was only achieved by manipulating policy and never should have been allowed in the first place.
As one of the admins who takes advantage of the lack of admin oversight on the projects I have talked about it doesn't surprise me that you would attempt to derail the discussion by calling them inappropriate and off topic with your trolling and antagonism. What shouldn't be tolerated is your antagonism and frequent misuse of your access to get what you want to silence others who disagree with you because you know you can get away with it.
None of this would even be happening if a)you and other admins were following the rules and B) if my ban om EnWP would have been dismissed when it should have been. The root cause of all of this is a ban on EnWP that violates policy and should have been removed years ago and is only kept in place by POV pushers and admins who don't care about policy.
I am not just going to STFU because you or a couple others who don't do anything for these projects except force others to do what you want threaten me. If you want me to stop talking about it, then restore my access to IRC and EnWP. Especially on the channels the communities have agreed I should not have been blocked from that don't want to touch it because of fear of retaliation from you. But I know you're not going to do that because you think you're in charge and no non admin editor is going to tell you what to do. So, I am going to continue to advocate that admins be required to follow policy and that my unnecessary and abusive bans be revoked until they are. If some admin wants to block me to help silence a critic and protect abusive admins and abusive admin conduct, then they can. But if anything that only proves my point. If you want me to stop talking about my abusive ban then end the bullshit ban so I can get back to editing. Reguyla (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
So far your mw:test does not confirm kidding yourself. Presumably it won't help you now, but the issue is on record. With my mobile broadband IPs I never managed to use IRC anywhere at all, always ending up on a commons image of a cat (haters are haters...). Willing to donate an identd server written in REXX (tested on OS/2) for anybody thinking that it helps for ordinary dynamic IPs (not on all IP blacklists worldwide.) –Be..anyone 💩 17:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
And your lucky you aren't one of the millions of people who live in the DC area and/or use Verizon FIOS because you would be accused of being me like others have been just for those 2 rather stupid justifications. The fact that these two items are being used as evidence to prove people are me is so absurd that it only further proves the points I have been making for years about the lack of oversight on these projects and the failure of the admins and functionaries to follow the simplest policies consistently and fairly. Because any reasonable person (except people who edit the WMF wikis I guess) should be telling them they are full of shit if they accused anyone of being another edit simply because they lived in the same area and used the same network. Reguyla (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer Jabber aka XMPP on toollabs: or similar instead of IRC (XMPP to IRC gateways exist.) –Be..anyone 💩 07:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah those could work. I don't know if that will ever happen though. If the WMF takes charge of the current problem and addresses the issues with problematic ops on IRC and the current mentality that none of the WMF policies nor standards of conduct apply there then IRC is fine. If the WMF decides that they do not have the authority to policy the IRC channels then they need to discourage them from being used. Reguyla (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rjd0060, Barras, Az1568, Snowolf, Dungodung, Fluffernutter: Can someone please unblock my IRC nick. I don't want to have to create a new one. Reguyla (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC for a Global ban for WayneRay[edit]

Since no one has done it yet, I went ahead and created an RFC for a global ban on WayneRay, at least temporarily, until the WMF completes their research and makes a determination. I'm just posting in this one additional place because I know more people watch this page than the RFC page. Reguyla (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Server switch 2016[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its newest data center in Dallas. This will make sure Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the new data center on Tuesday, 19 April.
On Thursday, 21 April, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for approximately 15 to 30 minutes on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT).

If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped.

Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.

  • There will be a code freeze for the week of 18 April.

No non-essential code deployments will take place.

This test was originally planned to take place on March 22. April 19th and 21st are the new dates. You can read the schedule at They will post any changes on that schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Enable speakText for Extension:Math[edit]

Hi! I'm here for request the community consensus for enable the functionality of "speakText" for the Math extension. The extension itself generates an image (PNG or SVG) for a mathematical expression described by LateX code.

With activation of speakText, in addition to the image, the extension generates also an alternative text which describes the mathematical expression and can be use by screen readers. This is very important for accessibility of content (WAI), and to permit access at all knowledge also for blind or persons with low vision capabilities.

For technical details see phab:T120938.

Personally I think this feature is very important. Do you agree? --β16 - (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Example equations
Equation Alt text Proposed
y = a x^2 + b x + c y = a x^2 + b x + c y equal a x squared plus b x plus c
x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4a \times c\ }}{2a} x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4a \times c\ }}{2a} x equal minus b plus or minus square root b squared minus 4 a c divided by 2 a
Is this changing the alt text for math images? Or something the title attribute? Could you post some before and after examples? With simulated screen read output from FANGS. Dispenser (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Filled the "Proposed" column. --β16 - (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I note that "x equal minus b plus or minus square root b squared minus 4 a c divided by 2 a" seems a bit ambiguous, would it generate the same for x=-b\pm\frac{\sqrt{b^2-4a \times c\ }}{2a} or x=-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-\frac{4a \times c\ }{2a}} or x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2}-4a \times c\ }{2a}? Anomie (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
You are right, but is difficult to find a unique description for complex equation in spoken language. Everything can be improved, how would you describe that equation using a spoken language in not ambiguous way? For a blind user, the proposal is better or worse than the current alt text? --β16 - (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm a screen reader user, and I think this could be helpful; it would benefit those who can't use the MathML system for whatever reason. The ambiguity of the alt text would need improvement. For the quadratic formula example, I'd say "all over 2A" at the end. Perhaps there should be an option to turn off the alt text in case the screen reader user wants to see the LaTeX. Graham87 (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia[edit]

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, I'm alerting all communities in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the Meta community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dupe, see above. –Be..anyone 💩 13:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Enable by default some default options for new users[edit]

This section has been moved to Requests for comment/Enable by default some default options for new users.

Where does it go?[edit]

Moved from Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.--Syum90 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know where I can discuss wrong trends regarding one of the projects. I mean, what can I do if I see that something is wrong in one of the projects and I can't resolve that via that project because the members usually misunderstand some points? Mhhossein (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Hi, you can discuss about that here at the Wikimedia Forum, or you can open a RFC.--Syum90 (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" on Instagram[edit]

Public domain content from Wikimedia Commons without filters. Maintained by the communications staff of the Wikimedia Foundation. #Wikipedia

Wikipedia Instagram account.

  1. Where is this account documented? Who do I contact? Mentioned on the foundationwiki seem to come from the Social accounts template.
  2. It gives a false impression, implying Wikipedia is Public Domain. Our content (with exceptions) is CC-BY-SA with the politics of promoting and infecting viral licenses. Is there a problem watermarking images with the license URL or including an unlinked URL in the description?
  3. It isn't even Wikipedia! Would a PD panorama in a country without freedom of panorama be posted?

Dispenser (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried the contact options listed at social media? Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't mention Instagram nor was it linked from social networking, so no. I'm not posting on the deep web mailing list, pinging User:JElder (WMF). Dispenser (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dispenser. Fair questions. I can add contact info to Insta account and add to social media. We only post PD and CC0 here or on any verified social media accounts, and that's what we're trying to say in the description. Welcome better wording if you have. The use of "Wikipedia" is to reach people who don't know the movement – or Commons – but know and love the encyclopedia. We want to reach them, show them what Commons contains, and how to share that. That's the goal. Thanks for the thoughts. We want our social media to be participatory. --JElder (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)