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.

What if any autoconfirmed users could move file?[edit]


Currently, by default, only sysops can move files on a Wikimedia wiki.

Some wikis like Commons have special groups and procedure to move files. But others follow the default Wikimedia setting.

Now we've tested this feature for several years without any major issues, would you agree to allow any autoconfirmed users to move a file (individual wikis would be allowed to change this setting)? --Dereckson (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


@Dereckson: Not for the Wikisources. It would be quite problematic for users to break the nexus between files and index pages—so here we are talking djvu and pdf files. I would think that the default should not be move, and allow wikis that wish to do that following local consensus can then do so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I strongly support making file move permissions more liberal. I think having a separate "file movers" user group is unnecessary and we should, at minimum, treat file moves the same as page moves. I'd actually prefer that we be more generous with page move permissions as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there a need to force this change on communities? For the most part they can already decide to let "autoconfirmed" or any other group they want have this access. Some communities don't even allow autoconfirmed users to upload files at all (e.g. arwiki, cewiki, kowiki). — xaosflux Talk 15:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Insulting spam mail[edit]

I get it, Wikimedia needs to do a fundraiser to keep the sites running. But please keep thinking on what you do...

I just got an e-mail from Wikimedia asking me to renew a donation I made years ago (2009), I rather think its pretty insulting as I already been blocked for more then 6 years on several projects. And the e-mail mentions that Wikipedia is free to edit for everyone...

Maybe don't send it to blocked people, as its insulting... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abigor (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@DStrine (WMF): to note.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
What a disgrace and not exactly a rare case! I think we ought to do something against self-announced "wikipedians" who are rude and bully others. What about a suspension of administrative privileges which they did obviously abuse? Many administrators are not up for their role and its responsibilities. Platonykiss (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

“Not be blocked on more than one project”[edit]

You know, “not be blocked on more than one project” is a standard qualification requirement for global elections, such as of the Board of Trustees. But is was introduced a long time ago, when there was far fewer wikis under the Wikimedia banner. Today there are about nine hundreds projects; one can hardly imagine that many in 2009, when SUL became mandatory. Only few projects have a functional community able to enforce some policy and responsibility onto sysops. A random project, most probably, is one effectively controlled by a small clique. What would happen when there will be 9000 projects, each having own rules, own repertoire of sysops and practice of their responsibility? OK, closer to the nowadays conditions.

Today I am blocked in ka.Wikipedia because used rollback against a serial vandal; see details here. It is probable that the block will not be lifted—until expires—because I’m Russian. You know how these guys are inclined to Russians today. In 2008 I was hounded in simple.Wikipedia by two incompetent users and then indef-blocked, for which later Majorly apologized publicly. He reviewed the block because circumstances required to build favourable public relations abroad. Unless this serious menace to the Simple English Wikipedia as a whole, it would be perfectly possible for me to remain blocked there up to today. In this case I’d become unqualified to cast votes in any global election now. Although some would be delighted, a random Wikimedian most probably agrees that it would be a nonsense. Moreover, ru.Wikipedia sometimes block users who criticize them in social media (although in most cases they ignore it). With my stance towards ru.Wikipedia it is possible for me not only be barred from all global elections, but barred with a margin. I already hear the advice: appeal the blocks. My answer, at least wrt ka. and simple. incidents: if they have no time to distinguish me from an obvious vandal sock and treat such kinds of strangers on par without any inquiry, then I have no time to argue with them too. Are such admins very busy beavers but not replaceable because wield the rare Community Trust™? Ordinary janitors and other workers happy to be admitted to the banhammer? I don’t care. Some people will certainly detract me for arrogance and rudeness, but this approach is indeed good. If users constituting the bulk of the project agree—explicitly or implicitly—with random blocks, then it is their right to encourage admins shoot at strangers randomly, and we have no evident pretext to change anything about that. Up to local communities to decide how thoroughly blocks have to be reviewed—because it, generally, consumes resources—but it’s also their responsibility in maintaining their particular project. Projects are mostly self-governed. The change must happen in the global Wikimedia community’s view on local blocks.

Now, the proposal.
If a Wikimedia user is blocked on two or more projects, then s/he may apply for qualification as an established member of at least two projects. Such qualification is to be made with the following steps:

  1. The user U chooses two officials O1, O2 in two distinct and active Wikimedia projects P1, P2. Each Ok has to be a bureaucrat or an ArbCom member in Pk.
  2. Ensure that O1 does not belong to the establishment—sysop, ArbCom member (including former ones)…—of P2, and the same for O2 wrt P1.
  3. U creates an application (a section in Meta:User_talk, or a separate page – not important).
  4. After start of the voting O1 and O2 sign it, and the last signatory places a template attracting attention of a steward.
  5. A steward verifies that conditions are met and marks the application as approved.
  6. U can cast his/her vote then.

Or can anybody develop a better solution, please? Something must be changed here. Persisting with the old rule will inevitably lead to injustice and discrimination against people with high cross-wiki activity. The same for people whose foes took over a Wikimedia project – even only one project. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, we shouldn't have some super-complicated formula. If a small-wiki sysop makes a bad block you can report it to the stewards. I've just followed up regarding yours. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: can you please not divert discussion from the specific grievance? There is some central interference to local affairs, but I hold the position that specific projects may block any people they deem undesirable. And many will agree, sure. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not intentionally diverting any discussion. I oppose any complex formula like the one above when determining eligibility to vote - I think that the current rule works fine. Note that you are only blocked on one project, so you would still be able to vote in a global election. I am also commenting on your specific case, and the general response that can be taken when bad blocks are made by local admins, particularly of users active in xwiki work. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe the formula is indeed not workable but the problem is real (I was once blocked on ru.wv despite having zero edits there by an idiot admin0. Should we have smth like a clearance procedure? If two blocks are on smaller wikis, and the user is active on major wikis and not blocked there, there should be some way to let them vote?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that small wiki vs. big wiki should be a consideration here. Nemo 17:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, it would be nice to have any consideration at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The Election Committee can make case by case exceptions at user requests. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: there should be a policy protecting us, not authoritarian “exceptions”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment [some tl;dr]. Complex formulae is not the solution. If there are multiple blocks then a review process to check, maybe resolve, or to undertake a determination to allow voting is preferable. That we have cases of political blocking is unfortunate and should be minimised as far as reasonably possible, and people of determined reasonable standing within the WMF community should not be excluded from voting without the possibility of review, or some other reasonable consensus process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: my proposal was namely a precise definition what a “determined reasonable standing within the WMF community” may denote. Of course, you may despise my project for complexity of the procedure envisaged, but where is your project? “Review, or some other reasonable consensus process” is not a workable proposal. The Election Committee should be provided with certain instructions on qualification of voters, having minimal ambiguity. And again, I deem that counting of blocks (instead of projects where the user is established) is nowadays a totally foul approach and must be eventually phased out. Hence “a review process to check, maybe resolve” brings nothing good about qualification – it may be helpful to mitigate some other problems. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    Please do not inject words that I did not say. I did not say that I despised anything. I am also not a fan of a combative approach, as it stifles open debate and the expression of ideas.

    At this point of time there is no evidence that the existing system is failing, nor that the governance provided by this committee is lacking. The election committee has responsibilities for the matters that you raise and I believe that they would welcome your making a reasoned submission to them. My commentary should be viewed that issues of multiple blocks can be addressed prior to elections as a normal course of business, and that the stewards are an avenue to provide advice to the election committee about users who may be unfairly disadvantaged by the application of a count.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

    What means “a system is failing”? There will be always a plenty of people not blocked on more than one project, due to a pure probability theory with non-uniform distributions. But without a reasonable change many people will be disenfranchised in the next decade and their proportion will only grow over further years into the future. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for aspersions about ka.Wikipedia. In fact, their administration demonstrated a degree of civilization unseen even in such healthy wikis as English Wikipedia (in the past, not the present-day one, of course). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It seemed that the mistake have been identified, you have been unblocked on ka.Wikipedia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Probably the first thing that should always happen is that we should check situations like this for mistakes. Sometimes, they will be resolved, as this one was. Nevertheless, Incnis Mrsi is correct in stating that there are political control issues on a number of wikis, mostly (but not exclusively) smaller ones, and this can lead to the sort of trouble described above. At minimum, the possibility that the Election Committee can make exceptions (per Ruslik0) needs to be stated. But I do think there needs to be a policy (or guideline or something) on the books allowing a person to show cause that s/he ought to be allowed to vote, notwithstanding certain blocks. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
As someone who has been blocked on wiki's where I wasn't even active, I can relate to the issue raised by Incnis Mrsi. There should be room for exceptions to this rule. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-SUL-account in at least four projects[edit]

User:WiIIy on WheeIs F.U.E.R.D.A.I. Pelican Sh!t was just recently blocked on deWP for his inappropriate name, but something strange occurred with his account. Despite having posted on at least three projects (probably created on Simple) he doesn't have a SUL-Account: Special:CentralAuth/WiIIy_on_WheeIs_F.U.E.R.D.A.I._Pelican_Sh!t. How could this happen? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sänger the account is suppressed. Globally, it is locked and does exist but the steward chose to have it hidden. It means, you need to know where it edited to see its edits. Other than that, the act of suppression of act is reserved for the worst of account names, ie that account name or any that mocks a person or curse word. 12:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Suppressed? What's that? Why not a block or ban, the usual stuff? Where are such cases decided? Is there a log for such stuff? Why could he be autocreated on deWP? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
An account is created with bad name. It visits one wiki, and the local account is auto created. In SUL software, when you create an account, the name is reserved but NOT created until you visited, hence auto creation. The account created an account elsewhere and visited deWP, hence "auto creation". No one wants to look at offensive names, thus hides the global account. No need to see bad things. For the hidden locks, it takes time for steward to act on it. Its a global lock because you can't log into it anymore. A steward decides to suppress the global account when he locks it, at his/her discretion. Logs are secret, with only stewards can view it. 12:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I've seen far worse names than this one, and afaik there was always a SUL-account there. It's the first time it was not possible to look up, where this bad name came from. So I still don't know why this was done for this not appropriate, but definitely not disgusting or cursing name. And I know how SUL works usually, that's why I came here with this question that stunned us at deWP. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The account is SUL-ed. You cannot lookup for it on Special:GlobalUsers/Special:CentralAuth because it's "hidden" though (hidden == removed from Special:GlobalUsers and not lookup-able via Special:CentralAuth for non-stewards). Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to document this somewhere. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I still fail to see the benefit from this clandestine operation, that doesn't work properly, as he could still go anywhere. Why not a well documented global block? Why must admins not know about this user, once he pops up at some wiki? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Because trolls pick names like this to gather attention, and hiding the username when locking is a form of denying them recognition. He could not "still go anywhere" - the account is locked so the user can't log in. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
He came to deWP and created his account there. OK, he still got gesperrt there as well, but only after creation, an nobody @deWP was aware of any block or such. At least nobody said anything about that. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
His account was autocreated on dewiki at 23:56 UTC on May 1, and was locked + hidden at 00:08 UTC on May 2 (after creating the dewiki account). It might be worth changing the hidden status of global accounts so that local admins can still see it was locked, but the entire locked/hidden/suppressed workflow needs updating and it probably won't happen because the WMF has no resources to spend on improving the steward workflow. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As the deWP-admin who blocked him: Thanks for the explanation. When I tried to block him, I got a note that he’s already blocked globally. Since I couldn’t find this lock in the log I assumed a software malfunction and blocked him locally – just in case … Suppression of the name as an explanation didn’t came to my mind :-) Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sänger: Yes, he created his account in deWP, but probably before he was locked globally. Now he won’t be able to create this name in any WMF wiki. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Datetime picker for Special:Block[edit]

Hello all,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team made improvements to Special:Block to have a calendar as datetime selector to choose a specific day and hour in the future as expire time. The new feature will first be available on the de.wp, meta, and on 05/03/18. For more information see Improvement of the way the time of a block is determined - from a discussion on de.WP or (phab:T132220) Questions? or want to give feedback. Leave a message on Talk:Community health initiative/Blocking tools and improvements, on Phabricator, or by email. --SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @SPoore (WMF): hi, when I select a calendar on Special:Block and then choose a day other than this day, for example tomorrow, after that I can't select again this day, it's not selectable anymore. I can select this day again if I change the seconds or minutes to future. But I think it's better to make always this day selectable and if the time is in past just give a warning. Stryn (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Stryn: thanks for the feedback. I'll pass it along. SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
So you actually can pick "today" again, what you can't pick is something before "now", so if you pick another day, it defaults the time to "now", but then 1 second later you can't pick "today" because of the time part being in the past. Just FYI. — xaosflux Talk 14:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Stryn: The trashcan icon clears the field so you can select today again. We decided to make it so the box never displays errors (other than being entirely blank, which already existed) because it is a lot simpler to maintain. We are also generating some data on the lengths of blocks in phab:T190328, if we see that there are many blocks set for under 24 hours in length we may want to make additional changes to help make these easier. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨 17:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Hello @SPoore (WMF): at the calendar top, appear for example (May 2018), hope if we can click on May and all months appear after that, then to choose on of them, or click on 2018 and the same thing happens (you can found this feature on Windows 10 as I know), but it good now that we can write months abbreviations and years. Best --Alaa :)..! 16:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That's good feedback. We re-used an existing calendar so we'll be sure to tell the people who are responsible for that calendar. For now we suggest you manually type in the year that you would like to select. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨 17:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I was afraid that this feature would take up too much of the blocking interface, but it's worked in quite nicely. I don't think I'll use it myself (still easier to just select a length from the drop-down menu), but it might be useful for people dealing with more difficult or controversial blocks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your feedback. The DateTime Selector will be deployed to all Wikimedia Foundation projects this week. SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Question for help[edit]

I have some issues that I would like som answers too.

What are necessary steps to take before asking for help from stewards to intervene on another project?

We have big issues with copyvio, but that user doesn't get blocked. In stead he has discussed and discussed, and still doesn't understand what is allowed or not. I found an article on Danish Wikipedia (DAWP) that largely was copied from a Danish Newspaper a good 15 years or so ago. (not only a clear vilation of copyright, but also Wikipedia politics)

In over 10 years this user has copy/pasted thousands of articles from da:Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon and sv:Nordisk Familjebok (which are online on

Although DAWP allows for copy/pasting (which I deem to be a stupid idea) from very old works (old language/style/POV) which seem to be public domain, not all the writers were dead before 1947, and therefor those articles aren't in the public domain. Although I have argued on many occasions that this practice is flawed, and I have raised the issue about copyrights on several pages, the users discussion page, the "Village Pump" and "Administrator Request for Action" all I got was to be deemed "to have no clue about copyrights" or that I am irritating.

In fact though, I seem to be one of the few who has been right as other users are going through this users long list of articles with a tooth-comb. Yes, several articles have been deleted already.

I have explained this user that if he wants to use the material, he needs to write it in his own words. He himself has declared that he cannot go away from the formulated scentences, which I deem a problem. If he wants to use it, he needs to cite it as:

Samlmonsens Konversationsleksikon says: "xxxxxxxx"<ref>writer, titel, Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon, 1930, pp. x</ref>

If he just wants to write in own words what Salmonsens says, he can just refer to that source by <ref>writer, titel, Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon, 1930, pp. x</ref>

But this user has written thousands of articles with no references what so ever, and under == Literature == he wrote the source. He has copied text between <!-- --> only for months later to remove them under "small edit" and "m" (minor edit) so it to be noticed. That is deliberate action, knowingly breaking the law!

After 3 months of discussions with him and the administrators, the result is that they are irritated with me and that I should stay away from this user because "I am stressing him"! He gets no warnings, only an advise to start cleaning up in the mess he made, which he doesn't follow, without any consequence. He still does all kinds of other edits, discusses in lengths, and what he does in "cleaning up" is nowhere satisfactory.

The only admin who understood the problem, has been sidelined. There was a request to ban this user. It had several supporters, but 3 admins spoke against it, mainly because they deem that the problem with this user comes from "other sources" - which is pointing towards me. So in this they gave this user carte blanche to go on as usual, because he is untouchable. The admin who has been checking this users articles and his attitude towards "cleaning up" is ready to give up his admin rights as he feels that the other admins protect that user rather than protecting Wikipedia.

The problem basically is that he is respected as a big contributor, and they know that if thousands of articles are being deleted, we will be even smaller than years ago.

There are basically 4 users who have been occupied with sorting out and finding out these copyright-violations. 1 admin and tree users. All have been worked against. We have been making tables with comparisons from the Wikipedia article and the source article, to show how much the texts are alike. But still this user doesn't get it, and we ("his enemies") get blamed for irritating him.

So I need help to make these admins understand that this user is a danger for Wikipedia, unwilling to conform to basic copyright law. And all these articles (many over 50.000 bytes big and "deemed promising articles") should be deleted on spot, but they rather try to keep as many as possible by rewriting them (just reformulate basically) which is not good enough!

I have mentioned the experiences that the Dutch Wikipedia (NLWP) has had over the years, and how they have handled these cases. But all I get is: This is not NLWP, but DAWP. They don't even want to ask the administrators from NLWP for assistance!

So you can read that I am frustrated with these admins, See the page in my sandbox her: da:Bruger:Rodejong/sandkasse12! See the page with all the relevant articles her: da:Wikipedia-diskussion:Ressourcebibliotek/Forfattere i DBL og SK/huskeliste!

Please help!? Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  15:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Just for context: There was a discussion to permaban the user that RJ is referring to in his post, but there wasn't the necessary amount of support per local policy. I can't speak properly to the copyright issue since I wasn't involved in those discussions, but I will say that our policy on copyvio is quite clear (remove it) and my impression is that the reason for the slow action here is the amount of articles in question, and because some of them have mutated into mixes of copied content and regular user contributions. InsaneHacker (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC) (dawp admin)
Adding: da:Wikipedia:Anmodning om administratorassistance/Rmir2 og Copyvio and da:Wikipedia:Afstemninger/Bandlysning af Bruger:Rmir2!
It's true. InsaneHacker wasn't an administrater yet. InsaneHacker is right that our policies are correct, but the problem is that administrators have ignored that.
These articles should have been deleted instantly, and if they want to, re written from the start. They have yet to acknowledge this! Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I just want to add, that in the decision not to ban the user, 3 admins voted for, 3 admin voted against, 1 admin was neutral, and 14 admins did not vote. Also, this user is neither the only nor biggest contributor of articles there has been copied from (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Korrekt, but he is the only active user at the moment because the other two stopped editing all together.Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  09:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
There are several unsubstantiated assertion in Rodejongs "Question for help". Please be careful to investigate any assertions from this user before taking any actions. - Savfisk (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated? DAWP is a complete documentation of what I have represented here. And you are the one who voted against banning this user, because you blame this users behaviour on me! -> da:Wikipedia:Afstemninger/Bandlysning_af_Bruger:Rmir2#Støtter_ikke_bandlysning:

Med de regler vi har nu, bliver denne stemme afgørende for bandlysningen og det er selvfølgelig en svær situation at stå i. Min stemme er ikke en støtte til Rmir2, men en støtte at tingene skal foregå på en ordentlig måde på da-wiki. Brugeren er uden tvivl årsag til mange problemer på da-wiki og jeg har selv søgt at påvirke brugere til at agere mere hensigtsmæssig i diskussioner, men guderne skal vide at det er han langt fra ene om at udvise den adfærd. "Slaget om copy-vio" har været kæmpet fuldstændig hensynsløst af Rodejong uden at nogen har grebet ind. At en bruger der nylig har overstået 3 måneders blokering og en frivillig pause på nogenlunde samme længde skal have lov at massakrere så en vigtig en diskussion som copy-vio, og at det så i sidste ende munder ud i bandlysning af en anden bruger er mig ubegribelig. Med den giftige atmosfære som har været på da-wiki på det seneste kan jeg ikke støtte en bandlysning, for det er umulig at skelne skidt fra kanel. Jeg skal nemlig ikke kunne afvise at Rmir2 har udvist en adfærd som kunne berettige en bandlysning, men på grund af al røgen, er jeg blevet så meget i tvivl at jeg er nødt til at stemme i mod. Jeg synes bestemt at Rmir2 bør ændre sin adfærd i forhold til kommende redigeringer, særlig i forhold til de punkter som er blevet belyst af InsaneHacker, og sker det ikke bør Rmir2 først modtage en længerevarende blokering inden han evt. bandlyses. Jeg vil bestemt ikke være afvisende overfor en fremtidig bandlysning, såfremt brugeren ikke retter ind. - Savfisk (diskussion) 3. maj 2018, 17:35 (CEST)

With the rules we have now, this will be the deciding vote for banning and this is a ofcourse a difficult situation to be in. My vote is not a support for Rmir2, but a support as to how things should be handled in an orderly way on da-wiki. The user is without doubt a cause to many problems on da-wiki and I have myself tried to influence users to react in a more meaningful way in discussions, but god knows that he is far from alone in this behaviour. "The battle on copy-vio" has been fought completely recklessly by Rodejong without anyone intervening. That a user who has recently sat out a 3 month long block and a self chosen break on approximately the same length gets permission to massacre such a vital discussion on copy-vio, and that this in the end ends up with banning another user is unbelievable to me. With this toxic atmosphere that has been on da-wiki recently, I can not support a banning of a user, for it is impossible so differ between dirt and cinnamon (proverb to state that he can not make ot what is right or wrong). I am just unable to reject that Rmir2 has shown a behaviour, which could justify a ban, but because of all the smoke, I am in so much doubt that I need to vote against. I definitely find that Rmir2 should change his behaviour compared to coming edits, especially compared to the points InsaneHacker shed light on, if that doesn't happen, Rmir2 should receive a timely block first before he might be banned. I would definitely not be waving the possibility away for a future ban, if the user doesn't comply. -

The request for a ban was not about other users, only Rmir2. Were his actions reason enough to ban him. You admit to have no clue, but you state that Rmir2 has caused many problems. But you state that he is far from alone.
Then you state that I have behaved recklessly. You call it a battle. Well that is correct. I stand behind my statement that all copyvio has to be deleted. But how much I tried to convince Rmir2 to change his perspective on Copyrights, he refused. He wants his articles to remain, and be rewritten by changing some words and moving around some sentences and admits that he can't remove himself from the original texts. Even while the request for a ban was undergoing, he didn't change his behaviour.
You than start attacking me, because I have been blocked for three months last summer. and I stayed away 3 months more because I was to involved with the Templates. So that had nothing to do with Rmir, or these discussions about Copyright, as I was the one who found that Rmir was copy/pasting en mass copyrighted materials onto Wikipedia. But did that alarm you? NO you stayed away from it all, just like most of the admins have done. You don't take any responsibility. You didn't read anything of the discussions that went on for three months (February through April). If there was a reaction, than it was hacking on me in stead. So sorry if I don't deem your answer here as neutral. You are the cause that we still have trouble with this user who thinks he knows all about Copyright and thinks that losing the content is worse than having copyright violations on DAWP.
It's really not strange that several people are complaining about the admins. One admin stepped up to block a fellow admin because of his power-trip-behaviour. But in sted that Admin is taken his admin rights away. These admins don't react well to criticism.
It must also be said that Admin Savisk has blocked me twice, and had to change his decision because of (what he self called) "voldsom kritik" meaning fierce criticism. They have lost sight on what is really important here. In stead of discussing things they don't know about, they should look closely in to the matter to see what really is going on, listen to the one administrator who spend hours after hours going through Rmir2's edits, and concluded that this user hadn't changed his behaviour (enough) even while the request for a ban, and the discussion on the Village Pump ahead of that request was taking place.
So thanks to Savfisk we still have to argue with this user, who is not afraid of removing copyvio-template from an article if he deems he has rewritten it enough after his own judgement, and when reverted, just reverts again. I have my flaws, surely. But those are on matters of taste and interpretation about my talk-page, something which is no-where to compare with the danger Rmir2 puts Wikipedia in when the Media would get a snif of it. They would have a field day racking down on Wikipedia. That is what I am trying to prevent here. Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  11:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment Comment How and why do you believe that stewards can and should be intervene (see the scope and role of stewards at the link prior to replying). If this is a functioning community with administrators and bureaucrats then stewards have no role to play beyond the technical. Issues with administrators should be addressed and resolved on the wiki in question.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

billinghurst: as I explained in my last comment: I have tried to resolve this on-wiki. But the admins don't get it. I need help from someone in the Wikimedia/Stewards who could explain the admins why Copyright violations need to be addressed promptly. DAWP has no Arbitration commission, who could intervene, and when Admins who have no-one above them totally ignore that a user is ignoring the copy-right-laws, (mind that since it has been discovered 3 months ago) and still is, he has not been blocked once to make him understand. He has been treated with silk gloves! It brings shame on Wikipedia! Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  11:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I do get it and you aren't listening, and I particularly pointed you to the role of stewards. In the circumstances that I expressed, the individual community has to resolve it, there is not a role for stewards to intervene in your matter. There may be a role for the greater community to play, so go to Commons and seek it. Stewards are not a universal authority or panacea, stop looking at that avenue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not correct that admins have not done anything, however, Rodejong continues to repeat himself over and over again, and does not listen to what others are saying ---Zoizit (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
To repeat in different language what User:billinghurst said: Stewards' actions are nearly always ministerial in nature. Because of the types of tools they control, they are required to be highly trusted. But in truth, they are not usually supposed to impose their judgment on their actions; they are supposed to act strictly according to the rules, regardless of their personal feelings on a matter.
The principle exceptions to that rule have to do with potentially slanderous, libelous or otherwise offensive content, when (and only when) speedy removal is important. Even at that, if there are local sysops that exist, stewards are supposed to wait long enough to allow local authority to act first.
In the WMF system, if the sysops will not act, and if the content is not slanderous, libelous, or offensive, there is little that can be done immediately. You could contact the WMF Legal team to see if they want to do something. There may be exceptions, but usually Legal will not act until and unless someone files a legal complaint. Then they will intervene by office action. But until that point, WMF's usual policy is to allow the communities to govern themselves autonomously. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I will strictly warn user:Rodejong against misuse of my signature in his own translation of my voting on Danish Wikipedia. You can not pick and chose rules which you want other users to follow strictly and then ignore other rules yourselves. - Savfisk (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the global Wikimedia survey![edit]


I would like to share my deepest gratitude for everyone who responded to the Wikimedia Communities and Contributors Survey. The survey has closed for this year.

The quality of the results has improved because more people responded this year. We are working on analyzing the data already and hope to have something published on meta in a couple months. Be sure to watch Community Engagement Insights for when we publish the reports.

We will also message those individuals who signed up on the Thank you page or sent us an email to receive updates about the report.

Feel free to reach out to me directly at or at my talk page on meta.

Thank you again to everyone for sharing your opinions with us! EGalvez (WMF) (talk) (by way of Johan (WMF) (talk)) 09:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding multilingual support to the Wikipedia app for Android[edit]


The Android team is working to improve multilingual support in the Wikipedia app. You'll soon be able to customize your Explore Feed to show content in multiple languages, and search simultaneously across languages.

We have a project page where you can learn more about this work. We're looking for multilingual users of the apps to help with testing and provide feedback as the work progresses. Please add your thoughts on the talk page.

The Android team will be at the upcoming Wikimedia Hackathon in Barcelona if you'd like to take part in user research and provide feedback in person.

Thank you, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)