Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
Arabic Coffee.jpg

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

Some recommendations[edit]

Hi, I am a Chinese Wikipedia user. I am writing this letter to give some suggestions to wiki.

It seems that Asteroid articles are not fairly notable, therefore Wikimedia could set up an individual project for them, which may be named "Wikiuniverse". Similarly, some species with almost no attention could be present only in Wikispecies,and less known stations should be put on Wikitravel,too.

I found that Wikipedia has a Simple English edition,which is not so much useful as I see it. You would be pleased to create a language converter, just like the converter for traditional and simplified Chinese version, saving manpower and material resources. Also, dialects such as Hakka,Gan,Wu don't have enough audience readers and foreground, moreover, these versions are not too far from Mandarin and the main differences are accents. In addition, Classical Chinese version of Wikipedia should be deleted, most texts of which come from Chinese Wikisource, and there are few readers and writers and thus it has no future.

As of Wikibooks, we need to write a set of featured entries to make it widely accepted and global, similar to the Encyclopedia Britannica, that will be the best Wikibooks.

Please think over then provide me with a rational answer. --追迹未来 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I helped him with the English translation of the section, which do not mean I am agree with his ideas.--Alexander Misel (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. For Asteroid articles issue, here.
  2. A language converter for Simple English, haa great. Therefore we can fully standardize our subdomains of WMF sites and this unfairy mailing list page can be invalidated.
  3. Dialects such as ... readers and foreground ... Classical Chinese version of Wikipedia should be deleted, I don't think so. If a guy oppose the hardcoded standard of a language, wouldn't it be lovely to have a dialect version for him?
  4. By the way, why not ask some ideas for the DUPLICATED TEMPLATES, for example the zh:Template:BD & zh:Template:bd?!

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

i have to say, I always had the idea that 99% od our astronomy articles were duplicates of transnational/international/public databases, and I wonder how another archive could be of any real difference. On the other way, if you centralize information in one place you can easily reuse them to write an article with a bot, for example. I am sure that is much easy within the wiki system than from an external database. The core question IMHO is: aren't we doing this with widata sooner or later in any case?. --Alexmar983 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Some new rights for OTRS-members[edit]

Hi! Not long ago I was a member of OTRS, but noticed some technical shortcomings that severely limit the ability of agents. Very often we get a ticket already when material (files or informations) removed from the project. In such cases we can not see what kind of material and have to disturb local sysops.

Of course, I understand that the agents OTRS have no right to undeletion material without a local community. But at least the right to view the deleted material could provide members OTRS. I understand that some people think that some material removed for reasons of privacy and agents do not have to view these materials. But remember that agents - people who have the support and trust in the community. In addition, they are OTRS agents have access to confidential information (address, Email, phone).

So I suggest community to support my proposal and provide members of the global group OTRS-members such global permissions:

  • deletedhistory - view deleted history entries, without their associated text;
  • deletedtext - view deleted text and changes between deleted revisions;
  • browsearchive - search deleted pages --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


  1. Support Support --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


  1. --Krd 17:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Asked and answered several times already. Has no support of the WMF and cannot be done as access to copyvios must be limited to local sysops.
    I shall specify. I do not mean ability to limit and only opportunity to view only trusted volunteers. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'm speaking exactly of the thing you mean, and it will not be done, as discussed at several places before. --Krd 18:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. -- MarcoAurelio 18:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC) No doubt there are good intentions, but as Krd said above WMF has stated that access to deleted content should be restricted to community vetted individuals.
    Agents OTRS - is not random people, and tested volunteers who already have access to personal informations. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Would be useless since local wikis can opt-out as it's their rights to decide their own local matters, also OTRS member are "NOT APPROVED" by local communities for this kind of things as OTRS member are not chosen by election like how Wiki get their own Sysops. Hence it's kind of "random people". PS : I am OTRS member myself but I cannot support this because it's not discussed locally on wikis this will be implemented, nor it will ever gain local community support.--AldNonymousBicara? 19:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)



  • In order to view deleted revisions, the candidate must have the approval of the community through a request for adminship (RFA) or RFA-like process. This has been, and to the best of my knowledge stil is, the view of the Wikimedia Foundation legal department (2008). As such this proposal, even if approved by the community, would still need the approval of the Foundation. For more information, see en:Wikipedia:Viewing deleted content. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    But you first need the approval of the community. As an alternative could be to give access only to files. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    I suggest you propose it to the legal department first, because if they say no, any amount of discussion onwiki would have been a waste of time. And if they say yes, you can always propose it here at a later date. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    Taketa, I should be grateful if you tell me exactly how to contact them. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    Максим Підліснюк at LCA you will find a list of email addresses where you can contact. should be fine IMHO. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 18:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yes. That email should be fine. I suggest contacting the legal team using that email. If you have any trouble contacting the Wikimedia Foundation, couple of weeks no reply, the Community Advocacy people can help as well. All the best, Taketa (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    I sent a request for legal commentary. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Contacting the legal team is a good idea. Seriously, I don't understand how is it possible, if access to deleted material is so critical, that sysop themselves don't have to show their credentials and send copy of their IC or DL to the WMF. BTW I support the possibility that local community can grant if they wish (especially after a candidature) to some non-sysop users the possibility to access at least ns-0 and n-6 deleted chronology. Possible candidates to this flag could be OTRS members, but also long-term rollbackers or sysops on other platforms who are quite active on that particular wiki (some language editions are very close). If it can be proved there is trust, I seriously don't see why it should be such a big deal.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Automagic global bans for LTAs[edit]

We see a fair number of sockpuppets used by LTAs that get first indefinitely banned on sight (after firts few edits) on one particular project just to receive a global ban in a short while.

This seems to be a redundant duplication of work to me.

Hence, I propose that every account that:

  • is indefinitely blocked on all projects it has edits on
  • is not granted any rights beyond autoconfirmed on any project

receives an automagic global ban.

Cheers, Marcgalrespons 10:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see this to happen, but what technical suggestion can you offer? It may serve as an idea for future use or creating a better idea.--AldNonymousBicara? 15:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Someone proposed to automatically lock/block global accounts upon certain conditions, but I can't find the report in Phabricator. Anyway it probably depends on phabricator:T17294 and would probably be less needed if there were global autoblocks (phabricator:T19929). --Nemo 15:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, but can't there be a bot with sysop rights that would be doing this at least until a more right-handed solution appears? Marcgalrespons 20:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is, some wiki employ that method, but mostly it's for a specific case, there are limitation for that to be able to be implemented globally on all wikis.
1. (Bot with steward rights problem) This bot will need a stewards rights to be able auto(b)locking globally from centralauth. This would be impossible as steward must always be elected and the part of the rules that says they are must be over 18 years olds means they must be human and not bot.
2. (False positive problem) The part that bot script for this kind of action only uses script that allow them to block specific usernames, but this may raise some problem because if implemented globally means they can do lock and locked people can not object to their lock (mentioned by Nemo) as they can not log in to their account and to object about their lock was misplaced against them.
I'm currently still searching about a way to solve this (passively) but all kind of idea are welcomed.--AldNonymousBicara? 21:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ad. 1. The human gets the rights, not the tool. Therefore I do not see why couldn't a steward run a bot from his/her account. But OK, I see, it is against your strict rules, right? Sorry, but from my perspective it is like forcing a licenced carpenter to only use screwdrivers - because if if he was to use a drill, then the drill would have to be given carpenter licence, which is impossible. Nevermind.Marcgalrespons 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No no no, your idea is good! It's just I don't know how can we able to circumvent and solve the problem that might arise from it.--AldNonymousBicara? 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

New userright related to change tagging : which usergroups should have it by default ?[edit]

It is now possible to manually add tags, provided they have been defined by admins at Special:Tags, and to remove these as well as undefined tags. Two userrights are added :

  • The applychangetags right allows to add a tag when making an edit, which is useful for scripts since it allows to track edits made by the script. It is given to all registered users by default, and it is not proposed to change this.
  • The changetags right allows to add tags after the edit has been made (typically by another user) and remove tags provided they are user defined or not defined at all. It is useful especially for bot tagging (vandalism, copyvios, etc), and the ability to remove them is needed in case of abuse or bot failure. See the original feature request at enwiki. It is given to all registered users by default.

I suggest that this second right, changetags, be restricted to sysops and bots by default, for the following reasons :

  1. The user interface is quite visible in histories, logs and once phab:T98611 will have been resolved, contributions; which could be confusing for inexperienced users and of little general use. On the other hand, sysops already have the chechboxes of revision deletion so it's a minor change for them. (It is not shown currently since no manual tags have been defined.)
  2. The use case is relatively small, and when needed a sysop can be asked to make the cleanup (same as moving without redirect).
  3. It's relatively easy to cause disruption with this feature by removing undefined tags which might still be of use, and in other ways once multiple manual tags will have been defined.

Cenarium (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Amended : I also suggest to add it to the following global groups : global sysops, global bots and stewards. Cenarium (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I also think that the AbuseFilter and TemplateEditor groups should have full access to apply, change, and manage all tags as they are generally more trusted in the community, especially related to technical things such as this, and are more likely to write scripts and gadgets to actually use these tags. I also think that when the new Gadgets 2.0 is released, the new group for that should also have all the permissions for the same reasons stated here. - {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to the enwiki local groups ? We would need a specific discussion at enwiki on those. Is the Gadgets 2.0 usergroup you mention going to be a global or local group ? Cenarium (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can decide on custom local groups from meta. Cenarium (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Enwiki-specific discussion at W:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Which_usergroups_should_be_allowed_to_add_and_remove_tags_.3F. Cenarium (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Globally I think that it makes sense to be part of the steward, global sysop and global bot usergroups. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I did some testing on testwiki, and since the ability to create and manage tags needs the editinterface right (to be able to work on the labels and descriptions), I'm thinking it should be added to global edit interface group and or a new "Global-ScriptMaintainer" group should be created that allows people that have proven themselves capable to access and edit any pages needed related to scripts and the api and tags. I'm tired and headed to bed soon, I'll happily expand later. - {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Allow autoconfirmed users to move pages without leaving redirects[edit]

Firstly, I'm not sure if I am proposing this in the right place, this is the first time I've brought this is up so sorry in advance if it is wrong. Ok to the proposal. I propose that autoconfirmed users are given the ability to move pages without leaving a redirect. This is needed especially when moving mainspace pages to userspace or draftspace because they aren't ready or are userpages in the wrong namespace created by new users. I end up doing this on but then the redirects must be tagged for deletion as cross-namespace redirects which aren't allowed. I know admins have this ability and I think that autoconfirmed users should be given it, or a different user-right group for it if there isn't consensus for all autoconfirmed users to have it. Thanks in advance for your friendly responses (right?) EoRdE6 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This is likely to be too controversial as a global change, one big concern being broken links. The only noncontroversial case, IMO, would be pages recently created by the same user, which is phab:T76266. Cenarium (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Breaking links is a big deal and only sysops should be allowed to do so "freely": see Don't delete redirects for more arguments. Moreover, the interface for redirect suppression often confuses experienced users, who end up suppressing redirects where they didn't mean to: it can't be exposed to autoconfirmed users. --Nemo 16:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that this isn't acceptable as a global change. A project can always request it if they wish (or add it to another group). QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK I'll will bring it up on with a bigger proposal soon, but do you guys think it would be less controversal to allow it only when pages are moved from the main space to another namespace? Is that possible to put into mediawiki? That way regular pagemoves (renames etc) force leaving a redirect, but userfying/draftifying pages you could disable the auto redirecting. Anyway, thanks for the input guys. EoRdE6 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It would not be possible to implement, since the restriction could be bypassed by moving to another namespace then back to the original namespace. Cenarium (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not comfortable with the idea of giving semi-new user a sysop level bits.--AldNonymousBicara? 18:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • First of all, there is no way this can be introduced easily and directly at a general level. It is not a big deal in my opinion (see last part of my comment), but it is obviously something that need to be under a operative validation. Let's say that it shoud be possible for some wiki to introduce it. Concerning the idea per se, as an "expert" of connectivity I agree that broken links might be an issue, but I also support the possibility to make some sysop rights or functions avaliable to some general users. Now, connectivity is probably more delicate than patrolling, and it takes some time to develop the right "balance" in that area, so like a rollbacker flag maybe it is not "safe" to give this right to every autopatrolled user by default, there is no way I would give it to an autoconfirmed. That being said, the idea has a potential: it should be possible to create a specific flag and allow some adavanced and trusted user to apply for it, maybe with some additional namespace limitation if this appeases some skeptic wikipedian.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I left a message on the wikidata forum. I am not sure if playing with redirects in ns0 could have a negative impact on the functioning of wikidata.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I Agree with Alexmar983, this idea was not meritless, I am not comfortable with unbundling sysops level bits to Autoconfirmed user but I can agree with unbundling it to User who already have Rights like rollback.--AldNonymousBicara? 10:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Alexmar983. --Epìdosis 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

global 'Special:Contributions' footer[edit]

When browsing across the Wikimedia projects, I'm used to setting the language to English. The problem is that the "MediaWiki:" pages in English are not maintained by non-English communities.

How could we make it so it's less of a headache to access some simple links - for example WHOIS, crosswiki activity, CentralAuth - in a page like this one: ja:特別:投稿記録/

Elfix 10:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I've also been looking for this. We should have global interface messages for MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer and MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon. And they should exist if there are no local messages. We should file it on Phabricator after we know how should it look like. On Meta we could implement it at the same way as on Wikidata. --Stryn (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I saw a bug about this (or at least something very related). --Glaisher (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
You might think of T50956? - About the issue at hand, I use User:Hoo_man/useful_links.js to workaround this. A global default message still has the problem that communities who want to override it would do so and then the globally active users who come along might still not have the links they want. --MF-W 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
While it is technically possible, do you think it would actually happen in practice? Would there be a way to define the default system messages for WMF projects? Obviously, I do not have a solution if the default messages should get overridden by local communities. In such case, that .JS is probably the best solution. Elfix 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we can easily add a default which will work in all languages. However, I feel we can't "officially" endorse specific external websites, nor rely on tools from production. Linking Special:CentralAuth is fine, what other links exist which would be entirely standard and uncontroversial? Maybe RIPE or similar for whois, but not a for-profit entity? If someone makes an "authoritative" list, we can add it. --Nemo 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What about for the whois ? Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. As long as it fulfills the need that I pointed out above, I believe most people will be fine with it. If you think you can find links that match your criteria, then go for it. Elfix 07:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Woudl we really need this for all users? Do you see that this is predominantly for stewards? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to get a component for globaljs based on the page url?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there any harm in adding it for all users? --Glaisher (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Stewards, and GS, and GR, and GRN, and anyone who likes to check crosswiki contribs. I think it will be generally helpful to most people, but if it's too much work doing so, then let's go for the .JS. Elfix 12:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed the lack of the page-footer with location, edit count &c.—even with my usual Canadian English settings. Surely it would be trivial to ‘translate’ the default English version in this case: I’d do it myself, but I haven’t been able to find the source template, master page or whatever produces it. Is it local to each project, hosted here, or built into the MediaWiki software?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that by default these interface messages used in the footer is blank. --Glaisher (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bringing information about personal life to Wikipedia by Sefer azeri and reaction of Wertuose[edit]

Dear Meta users, There was a conflict in Azerbaijani Wikipedia between me and administrator Sefer azeri. He made the screenshot of our conversation and put in the forum of Wikipedia my discussion with another user Ali Hajizade in Facebook[1], [2] . That is against of Wikipedia rules because he brought there the personal life of users. I proposed to punish Sefer azeri. But another administrator Wertuose said that there is no any reason to punish Sefer azeri. [3]. Could somebody from Meta respond and estimate the actions of these administrators, Sefer azeri and Wertuose, according to rules of Wikipedia. Regards, İrada (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ːDear Meta users, the administrator of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia Irada didn't inform you in a full form, and I am afraid that you will understand this situation incorrectly. Therefore I would like to explain you the reason of this dispute fully. Some time ago, article about LGBT history of Azerbaijan [4] was created in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. But because of subject of this article the administrator Irada made numerous homophobic statements, in particular having declared such article humiliating both for the Azerbaijani history, and for its mentality. Later she marked that such article has to be “hidden” from others eyes and gave this article on the candidate to removal. But by results of the vote, taken among administrators and users, it was decided to leave this article in Wikipedia [5]. Having decided that the author of this article is me, Irada started pressing on me by means of my employer. The specified Mr. Hajizade is the head of the HajizadeGroup company, where I work. Irada several times addressed to him with the requirement to limit my activity on Wikipedia. Otherwise, she threatened to begin large-scale debate on public TV channel of Azerbaijan on this matter, and also blackmailed that will start distributing information in connection with so-called “gay propaganda” in this company. For this reason I was compelled to make a screenshot, written on social networks of threats, and insert it on the page of discussion of Wikipedia. Any person, except Irada, wasn't mentioned in this correspondence. The name of the above-mentioned administrator Irada is identical on Facebook. Despite it, considering that the insert of information from social networks is violation of the rules in Wikipedia, the same punishments, which were applied earlier, were applied to me. I was blocked for 3 days.[6] But in spite of attacks from Irada on my private life, any punishment wasn't applied in relation to her. Regards --Sefer azeri (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Err, isn't better if you two start a RfC (request for comment) for this?--AldNonymousBicara? 10:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I put the conversation here[7]. --İrada (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mapping and graphing talk[edit]

There's an upcoming tech talk about the new Vega-based graphing system this week. It's 13:00 PDT on Thursday, 14 May (21:00 UTC). If you're interested, the link is There should be a demo as well as some technical information about how the system is built. I believe that this can make some kinds of static, vector-based maps, so naturally I thought of Wikivoyage's need for good maps. See IRC office hours for a few more details. Please share this link with anyone who may be interested. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. Definitely sounds like something that will prove useful for Wikivoyage. --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2015[edit]

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in April 2015.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015[edit]

Wmf logo vert pms.svg

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Board will continue during the voting.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Wikimedia privacy invasion[edit]

Steward requests/Checkuser#FreightXPress.40wikidata - I was connected by User:Mardetanha to an IP ( and an IP range (91). The account "Tamawashi" edited the last time in July 2014.

That kind of storage of IP addresses and publication thereof is an invasion of privacy.

On the other hand WMF sues NSA for mass surveillance :

Does it mean, that WMF wants a monopoly for mass spying on its users? FreightXPress (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation wikis IP data for username accounts expires after 3 months on each public wiki.

If you believe that you have evidence of a privacy breach by an advanced rightsholder then you should be approaching the Ombudsmen Commission who investigate and oversee such matters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with spying or whatsoever, these are just tools, helping us to keep wiki safe, as suggested by sDrewth if you think I did something wrong you may approach Ombudsmen Commission and if you want protest storage of IPs (though I should emphasize generally we don't store users ip at all, it just happens in rare condition such as cross-wiki issues) you may open RFC page Mardetanha talk 05:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


User:sefer azeri' is engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out.), 2 (Without any major wiped out the picture., , ) , 3 (Fraud. Map changed. 100 years have reduced the state's history.), 4 (Insult.)... Requires block it for at least a year. But it was never punished for their work. Sortilegus always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out), 2 (The name of the state, has been removed.), 3 (Reliable sources wiped out)... Wertuose always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Picture of the article - az:Bakı xan sarayı), is deleted.. 2 (insult; Əxlaqsız ifadələrə görə...). The 3 users blocked me, without any reason! We do not have arbitration and appellate courts. Therefore, administrators dictator. No one can give me an answer?! To whom should I complain? -Idin Mammadof (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

News: Wikimedia projects have been blocking in mainland China.[edit]

Wikipedia have been blocking in mainland China since the morning of May 19th, 2015(UTC). Both http and htttps version couldn't be able to access.Maybe DNS problems caused this issue. Some IP address are blocked in China.w:zh:Wikipedia talk:狀況回報 shows the results from wikipedians in mainland China.This tool can show the results from different DNS servers in China.--Techyan (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Voting banner[edit]

Hi everyone,

Not sure if this is the right place to mention this, but I've noticed that the voting banner has some unnecessary capital letters. The text reads: "Voting Has Begun in Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Election! Votings Ends at (...). "has begun" and "ends" do not have to be capitalised of course. Thanks. --Soetermans (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I was told that Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015 is the proper place to bring up issues about the banner. --Glaisher (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't save my CSS because of spam links[edit]

I want to create my own CSS style, but an abuse filter flags the edit as "Spam article trap". I have no links to other sites that are spam, and it's a false positive. I removed the spam links, but did not work. I am unable to use my CSS because it has spam, but it doesn't. What does this mean, and how do I fix it? SlotWiki (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Meta Collaboration of the Month[edit]

It is your civic duty to vote in the most important election currently affecting our Wikimedia community: Meta Collaboration of the Month. So far, the leading candidate for improvement for June 2015 is the remarkably out-of-date Events!--Pharos (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan[edit]

This page suggests that the 2015-2016 Annual Plan will have been discussed with the community in April. Where is the result of that discussion please? Is the draft as discussed still available? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)