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 most recent comment is older than 30 days.

WMF is refusing to uninstall Flow on Commons[edit]

Commons established Consensus to uninstall Flow, as was done on EnWiki and on WetaWiki. The WMF has just posted a reponse refusing to uninstall Flow. Alsee (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Created --Gryllida 05:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: The WMF has opened a Phab task to build a superprotect level for Flow. Alsee (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please calm down. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah this is highly misleading. I've read what they wrote and they're going to basically get rid of Flow items from the wiki. Removing the extension itself would be technically problematic and as a developer I can vouch for that (it would most likely lead to things like broken history, lost history, and weird errors). I think at this point, @Alsee: you're climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Once they've done what they've proposed the parts of Flow the community may reasonably object to should be disabled, whether or not code is left on the servers to handle displaying history etc. is a technical decision that seems largely beyond the scope of non-technical-community consensus. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 14:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
If the unwanted and useless software Flow is really so hard to get rid off at a project, it should never ever have been deployed in the first place. No, the "arguments" are mere straw-men by those, who fear for their pet project to be ditched completely (I hope that will be done sooner then later), and now another big project has demanded to be cleansed of this, that's not good publicity for those who desperately want this weak forum impersonation be kept alive. It's of course a lie that it can't be uninstalled, as it was done without any problem at enWP and here. Stop lying about this and start being honest, please. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I never said it was impossible, I said it was problematic, so don't suggest I am being dishonest. It may be a good idea for developers to explore whether enwiki should be put in the same state as commonswiki is getting with regards to this extension, I don't know the history behind that. It's really pointless to say random developers are lying about such things... What possible reason could I have for lying about this? I didn't even make the Flow extension, and I doubt those who did would lie either. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 16:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you really want to poison the relationship between the communities and those obviously far detached from them in the WMF by redeploying some completely unwanted trash on enWP again? It will again create the i9mpression, that they don't give a damn about the communities and just want to enable absolute power. It's the same pattern like in the superprotect disaster, where rogue devs acted with brutal, mindless and evil power against the communities just for their private vain. Those behaviour should lead to immediate sacking of those rogue devs, as they are not doing anything good at all for the wikimedia community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Edith says: Not all devs are far detached from the communities, but those, who enabled superprotect or dare to bring Flow back to enWP obviously are. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Or, maybe both groups are doing what they think is best for the project and network. I don't think the polemic and accusations on either side help. I'll remind everyone here of our civility expectations here, and request that some people put a bit more thought and care into their words. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
So much ^^^ this ^^^. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that creation of Flow things be enabled for enwiki users, I'm saying it may be a good idea (as a general impression, I'm not familiar enough with that area to really push for it, and I could be wrong) for developers to review what the technical situation is - because I believe it's better to have generic configurations where possible that fit many wikis rather than a new one for each (I used to largely run the generic Wikimedia wiki configuration changes process for a while so had to put up with a lot of this). It seems to me that, basically, in the past, one wiki had one solution applied for a problem, and now another wiki has asked for the same outcome and the developers intended solution has been written, but it's different from the previous one - so perhaps it's time to revisit the previous case and maybe update it to ensure consistency, preferring whichever turns out to be the better solution. Wiki communities can't really complain about exactly how developers choose to implement things behind the scenes as long as the end result is their wiki looks/behaves/etc. the way they desire. I really don't think there's anything particularly controversial about this. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 17:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been talking to some people about this and it sounds like for this extension the authors already wrote scripts that (largely?) take care of migrating content to a format that can be understood natively by core without help from the extension, so maybe that'll be enough to put things in a state whereby the extension could be uninstalled (such that it no longer appears on Special:Version - by the way, even if your wiki doesn't load it, the files will still be sat in the extensions directory on the servers if another wiki loads it) - it may be worth that being discussed among developers if it wasn't already, but I still think those are technical decisions. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Alse, why did you post this on numerous wikis? And what is your vendetta against it? --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, wikis where Flow is currently installed may be interested in the procedures surrounding it. --Nemo 18:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Uninstall Flow on all the wikis where it's unused[edit]

Flow developers have recently stated that installing Flow on a wiki can produce irreversible damage (at least with the current code). Therefore, it's currently proposed that Flow be uninstalled from about 800 wikis where it's been installed and never used: phabricator:T188812. It's a simple configuration change that reduces maintenance costs and leaves everyone equally entitled to their opinions as before. --Nemo 12:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary length[edit]

The edit summary length recently changes from 255 bytes to 1,000 characters for all wikis of all languages. This change was made to better support non-Latin language wikis but it was decided that all wikis would benefit from a longer edit summary. Project details and counterarguments for this change (including a proposal to lower the limit) can be found at Community Tech/Edit summary length for non-Latin languages. We encourage you to join the discussion here, on Phabricator task phab:T6714 or at this talk page.

Best, — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨 01:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: We are planning to change the edit summary length to 500 characters in the coming weeks. See more details are join the discussion here or at phab:T188798. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨 21:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Update about WMF’s Anti-Harassment Tools team work in 2018: Blocking tools[edit]

Hello all, thank you for the input over the past several months about the blocking tools. From all the participation in the discussion on Meta, our discussion with our legal department, and our preliminary technical analysis, the AHT team has decided to a) investigate two projects now, b) next build two small changes, and c) later in the year follow with a third project. The details are below.

First, the team will investigate and decide between:

  • Project 1 - Block by combination of hashed identifiable information (e.g. user agent, screen resolution, etc.) in addition to IP range. We are still defining what “hashed identifiable information” means in our technical investigation, which can be tracked at phab:T188160. We will also need to decide how this type of block is set on Special:Block (likely an optional checkbox) and how this type of block is reflected in block logs.
  • Project 4 - Drop a 'blocked' cookie on anonymous blocks. The investigation can be tracked at phab:T188161.
  • If these projects are deemed technically too risky, we will pursue Project 2 - Block by user agent in addition to IP. User agents data is already available to Check Users.

Next, we will do two feature improvements, adding an optional datetime selector to Special:Block (phab:T132220) and improving the display of block notices on mobile devices (phab:T165535).

In a few months (likely around May 2018) we will pursue some form of Project 5 - Block a user from uploading files and/or creating new pages and/or editing all pages in a namespace and/or editing all pages within a category.

Additional ideas can be added to on wiki discussion pages or user blocking column on Phabricator for future discussions and decisions. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk)`

Grants received by WMF[edit]

Is there any list of grants received by the WMF? I found the Benefactors page with major donors as well as scattered notes here and there about Google grants, but no comprehensive list of all received grants. Does this list exist in meta or maybe the WMF wiki? Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

After looking more in-depth into this, there seem to be some troubling policy aspects of fundraising in the WMF: there are a few cases of people being appointed as a members of the Board of Trustees, Advisory Board or as a Board Visitor after a major donation to the WMF. It seems this was not clearly disclosed in the resolutions or press releases. Isn't there any policy in place to prevent large organizations from buying seats at the WMF? Isn't there any transparency policy making it mandatory to clearly disclose this either? This seems even more troubling when major donations can be done anonymously. If all major anonymous benefactors were disclosed, would we find even more seats taken as a result of such donations? --MarioGom (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that this has been discussed many times in wikimedia-l, see e.g. [1]. --Nemo 18:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I went through dozens of emails on different threads, but didn't find any clear response on these issues. Sure, there are some discussions about the Stanton Foundation and Kinght Foundation grants, but just related to the fact that these specific cases were particularly controversial. There are some minor mentions about "seat buying" related to Omidyar Network donation and Matt Halprin trustee appointment, which were just dismissed by the WMF, as well as one user complaining about Doron Weber permanent (non-voting) seat at the Board of Trustees as Alfred P. Sloan Foundation representative which, as far as I see, wasn't even answered by anyone from the WMF. These discussions about some specific issues are certainly interesting (and even entertaining), but I still do not see serious discussion about policies that ensure transparency and accountability to the community when it comes to major donors. --MarioGom (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure, WMF has often rejected such proposals and all the decisions in the last few years went in the opposite direction, see wmf:Resolution:Gift Policy Amendments Increase Threshold and Talk:Wikimedia Foundation board agenda 2016-05. There used to be some public reporting in this area; nowadays the best you can get is some totals in the "major gift" etc. section of the "Advancement" slides at Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/Quarterly check-ins. --Nemo 17:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I see. That's pretty nasty. I reactivated the Grants given to Wikimedia Foundation and I'm getting the grant list. I included everything I could get from press releases and now I'm going through Form 990 of public benefactors. --MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Multilingual Wikiquote[edit]

Only because no one responds at Talk:Wikiquote#Why_a_separate_project? would I talk here about my proposal. Should we talk here or there, please?--Jusjih (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I've replied there. --Nemo 20:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help a Project of other language[edit]

I need somebody who knows Persian and have no power in Persian Wikipedia to come and find out what is getting on at that project.

I progressed to an article, but some new users which had got admin ship powers recently didn’t like the article. They set off fighting, and just banned my account completely, based on fictitious evidence! I don’t recognize why they banned me! I need somebody who knows Persian but is not with any power in Persian Wikipedia so he/she checks the situation! Thanks, (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

They deleted my article: [2]

They terminated the delete poll they themselves made to remove my article: [3] They banned me!

& they removed my page & talk page: [4]

THIS IS A PROJECT OF THE GOOD WIKIPEDIA WE ALL LOVE. I need someone who knows Persian, and is not and admin or something there; to check the whole situation, what is going on? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot even edit my own talk page! I had done practically nothing. NOTHING AT ALL!
Just make an article which they deleted that…
Please someone who knows Persian, From Wikipedia Foundation come and check that project. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:(بحث و مشارکت). The managing of editing access on local projects is mostly up to that project. fawiki has a large number of administrators and other functionaries that are active. Additinoally they have an arbitration committee that you may contact: w:fa:ویکی‌پدیا:هیئت_نظارت. The "foundation" does not deal with this type of issue. — xaosflux Talk 12:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

(بحث و مشارکت) I can't read Persian, but I took a look using Google Translate.

First, article deletions are not unusual. There are many policies and guidelines on what kinds of articles are acceptable. A lot of new users have their first article deleted, because they haven't yet learned the criteria for acceptable articles.

I am unable to see the article you wrote, and there wasn't much information in the deletion discussion. However it looks like you wrote about a criminal event. I don't know the exact rules on fa.wikipedia (each language makes its own rules), but in general we are particularly careful about that kind of article. We don't have articles on all criminal events, or even all serious crimes. Generally, a crime would have to get an unusual amount of news coverage for us to allow an encyclopedia article on it. It looks like the article was deleted because there wasn't enough news coverage. I also noticed that the deletion-discussion was ended after just 25 minutes. I don't know if that's normal on fa.wikipedia, but on English wikipedia that would be abnormally fast unless there were severe problems with the article.

As for your block, the block reason given was "Legal Threat". If you said anything that could be interpreted as a legal threat, then yes, it is normal and expected that you get immediately blocked. It is normal and expected that your talk page would be shut off. Editors and admins do NOT deal with legal threats, period. If you said something with no real intention of pursuing a legal case, then you screwed up. If you said something and you do intend to pursue a legal case, then you need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation legal department. If you say anything on meta.wikimedia that sounds like a legal threat then you will likely be blocked here as well, AND your account may be globally locked. We do not deal with legal threats on-wiki, period. Any legal threats must be filed though the Foundation legal department. Alsee (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m here asking for help for someone to come and take a look at what’s going on there.
The "foundation" should have some independent people to deal with this type of case.
I’m not a new User; I know article deletions are not unusual; I’m talking close to a real serious situation and problem in Persian Wikipedia. I was asked someone who knows Persian to take a look of this particular problem.
I know article deletions are not unusual, they deleted my article without any rationality; they called for some lies against me and then banned me, and then removed my talk page & user page. Has this all been unusual in Wikipedia projects? No, I really don't think so.
At that point, THERE is no REASON for all these deletions, I’m asking here for someone to take a look at what is going on in Persian Wikipedia.
You can look for "پرونده پزشک تبریزی" in Google and find out the news coverage of this particular event for years, and Ok. They want to delete this page, No Problem, Why they can easily attack users and ban them, altogether, and shut up their talk pages?!
I didn’t do ANY legal threats AT ALL! That’s bullshit from them, and that’s why I’m asking a Persian knowing person to arrive and see all this.
There are serious problems there, please somebody help. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mardetanha, What’s going on in Persian projects?
1- What was my Legal Threat!?
2- Why the article got deleted like that?

3- Why I got banned in that project?
4- Why I cannot edit my talk page?

5- Why my talk page & user page got removed?
6- What kind of people are going to be added to Persian Wikipedia administrators in recent years?

7- Are you happy with all these which are going on there? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please help me.

I got banned in Persian Wikipedia, I cannot edit my talk page, my talk page and User page got removed totally.

They claim that I had made “Legal Threat”! I didn’t do ANY threat, AT ALL.

I just made an article. This was not on Wikipedia. Which they removed that, the deletion-discussion was ended after just 25 minutes, and then they claim I had made “Legal Threat”! Then banned me so I cannot even edit my talk page, and then removed my pages totally!

I need someone from Wikimedia Foundation to come and check what is going on in Persian Wikipedia recently.

Can someone from Wikimedia foundation check what’s going on there, PLEASE? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

we had a RFA for mentioned articles it was deleted based community wish Mardetanha talk 08:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked user in Persian Wikipedia, The case WAS a legal threat or at least the behavior made it valid enough to look so, for anyone with steward access in here, the summary the user provided here was the reason of block and later discussions with another sysop in the project convinced us to take user's email and talk page rights away as well (as the legal threat was done in user talk page), aggressive language also helped deciding about if user is actually aware of the threat they're making or they're only unaware because they're new, furthermore, the block was applied correctly and it's been discussed locally, ping me if any other explanation is needed. (The user who gave this request is ignored in my preferences but I'm available to answer any other user.) Mohammad (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
No legal treat at all!
And he had banned me based aggressive language!? Who is aggressive one who made an article or one who attack a user who had made an article, and ban him, and do not let him edit his talk page, and remove his talk page! Who is being aggressive?
I need you to open my talk page, and unban me, the Wikimedia foundation is more than what a person can do anything in it, and be free to dominate like that.
Please someone from the Wikimedia foundation come and find out what is going on at that place, (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Comment: For Clarification regarding the block, The user was given a notice about the RfD. He removed the notice with a sarcastic edit summary. Then was warned about personal attacks (because of the sarcastic edit summaries and his tone). He then proceeded to remove the warning with the following edit summary: «(یک بار دیگر در صفحهٔ شخصی من چرت و پرت بنویسی میرم شکایت میکنن ببینم اینجا چه خبره.)» which translates to: «if you write nonsense in my personal page again, i will sue you to see what's going on here.». based on this edit, user was blocked indef. Like any other Wikimedia project, we enforce our No legal threats policy strictly. --Arian Talk 09:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha-ha obviously wrong, anyone can check:
شکایت = Complaint (a statement that a situation is unsatisfactory or unacceptable.)
That means I will go Complaint you in Wikipedia: Administrators' notice board, why should I Sue some one?! That’s a big lie.
Sue = سو, تعقیب قانونی کردن, تعقیب کردن
You see, there is no hope in Persian Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation should think about independent people for such cases, especially in small projects which administrators are a small circle of people, gathering together.
I need a Persian knowing authority from Outside, to come and check such things, Wikimedia should think about this.
I’m still banned and cannot edit, even my talk page. I did nothing wrong. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
One user comes and told me I should remove the article, I said: “if you write nonsense in my personal page again, I will Complaint to see what's going on here.” Is it a “legal treat”? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Mardetanha, Please open my talk page and unban me, also recover my article on my talk page. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
People! Is it a “Legal Treat”? [5] Please see this [6] link. They banned me, removed my talk page totally. & I cannot do anything there. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I told I will compliment based on Wikipedia: Harassment which says: “A common problem is harassment in users pace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space.” Is it a “legal treat”? Why they banned me? Why they removed my talk pages? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Information about the Wikimedia Foundation global survey starting soon[edit]

14:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Global Infobox[edit]

How to create a global Infobox which can be used in any of the wikis? Copy paste code is tedious. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't, see phab:T66475 for development of this idea. — xaosflux Talk 01:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
That is what Wikidata is for. Unfortunately, properties needs community consensus (takes 1-12 months), the data types are garbage, validation is an afterthought. The interface is written in JQuery so its painfully slow and barely works—without URL converters, summaries, or warnings of validation. The philosophy is to ungroup edits so the lazy automatic edit summaries work while blogging down everything else about MediaWiki, including rc patrolling. Vandalism is basically an ignored problem leading people to work around it. The only people who work on it are focused on biographies leading to deficiencies everywhere else. At this point I'm in favor of firing everyone and scrapping the codebase. —Dispenser (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)