Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
QA icon clr.svg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other 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


Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Proposed further changes of Bot policy[edit]

Global bot policy is overhauled in Requests for comment/Refine global bot policy. I proposed some further change:

  1. Remove the entire Bot_policy#Automatic_approval section. This is nowadays mostly succeeded by global bots. (Existing bot flags assigned per this policy is not affected.)
  2. Replace the second section of Bot_policy#Community_consensus as follow: "If there is no local community and the above does not apply, stewards may grant bot flags at their discretion after a local discussion; the bot flag should usually be temporary".

--GZWDer (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In what sense is "automatic approval" superseded? Are you saying the number of requests decreased? There are a few wikis who may have relied on the existence of the automatic approval process to not have local bureaucrats. It would not be nice to force such communities to either elect a bureaucrat or go through a global bot approval every time they want a local bot.
If the reason is that double redirects and interlanguage links aren't so important any more, maybe that criterion could be relaxed. Nemo 15:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Interlanguage links are handled by Wikidata; I think double redirects can be handled by existing global bots, and if a local bot is wanted, existing process (request flag from stewards after discussion) is enough.--GZWDer (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I am against temporal bot flags. They have never been granted and are unnecessary. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What about removing "the bot flag should usually be temporary" clause?--GZWDer (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
OK. Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
How can "a local discussion" happen if "there is no local community"? Leaderboard (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This is in align with how we grant administrators in wikis without community - stewards may grant them at their discretion, especially if the user is trusted elsewhere.--GZWDer (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
What would "a local discussion" mean in that discussion when there isn't any (I get your point though)? Leaderboard (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Steward_requests/Permissions/Minimum_voting_requirements#Temporary_Administrator - "Allow 1 week for discussion", and also see Steward_requests/Permissions#Administrator_access.--GZWDer (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd support removing the automatic approval clause. It's very rarely used nowadays, given that the tasks it covers are either served by global bots (redirect maintenance) or are no longer relevant (interwiki maintenance). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Internal Ticketing System[edit]


I read the following presentation that is a presentation out of the tuning sessions. It is very interesting to read this presentations because it is a possiblility to learn more about the Wikimedia Foundation and the Processes and currenct Projects of the different teams. I read the presentation of the Operations Team [1]. And in the Presentation I read that there is intrudoced Zendesk at the Wikimedia Foundation. What does Phabricator or another free Software not offer that is needed in a internal Ticketing System for the Wikimedia Foundation. I think it were good if it is easier to find the presentations of the tuning sessions.--Hogü-456 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that our hand may be forced soon; Phacility has announced EOL for Phabricator as of August 31. I am curious to know if anyone from Wikimedia is willing to fund or staff the future development and upkeep of Phabricator. It is apparently used likewise by other large installations. Perhaps a consortium could be formed. I suppose the alternative is migrating away to something like GitLab or Gerrit. Elizium23 (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Freenode (IRC)[edit]

See also: discussion from <- (closed, moved to here)

Discussion and detail about the migration of IRC channels used by WMF comunity members from Freenode to Libera has diminished. Collapsing that discussion to allow for useful navigation of page. Detail will be kept available for a period of time as questions prevail and some aspects of migration of services will linger.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bridging chat networks[edit]

When bridging networks, it's important to test your bridging solution, and to get permission from the network operators. See eg for reasoning on a different network. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

wikitech:Tool:Bridgebot is used in some freenode + telegram + discord channels. It could theoretically be used to bridge freenode and libera if people wanted. Legoktm (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to leave freenode for this reason, I don't see a good reason to go halfway with the bridge; My thought is that we should either move completely or not at all. MJ94 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm worried about new users who follow old guides/links and end up in Freenode and find no one or some alternative community than ours. How do we make sure that doesn't happen? We could lock the channels, but I don't think getting a "You're banned from #wikipedia" is a good way to point people to the right place. Legoktm (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we can set most channels to +if #wikimedia, which will automatically forward them to #wikimedia. We could then have a join message set pointing people in the right direction. Not sure it's the best solution, but it is a solution. stwalkerster (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd recommend caution wrt leaving anything important on freenode. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
One channel that migrated had a bot posting "please use <other channel> on <other network>" every couple of minutes; seemed to work fine. Enterprisey (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Nothing important should be left on Freenode. However, redirects to a single +m channel with topics and join messages to go to the new network should suffice. "Old guides/links" should mostly point at the disclaimer page at this point, which we can direct in one shot. There's VERY few links elsewhere, afaik. Waggie (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The consensus after some brief discussion in #wikimedia-ops is to redirect all channels to a single one on Freenode, which has been documented with instructions at Migrating_to_Libera_Chat#Closing_Freenode_channels. Legoktm (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Kim makes a very good point. We need to check that Libera staff are comfortable with our current bridge bots between IRC and Telegram/Mattermost/whatever. I suspect they won't have much bandwidth these days to answer such questions though. Nemo 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Matrix is bridged to all Freenode topics. Presumably they will do that at some point for Libera.Chat as well. As for our Freenode channels, they should probably be forwarded to something like #wikimedia-moved-to-liberachat with an appropriate topic, +v, and maybe a bot announcing the changes periodically or to newcomers. (This is assuming the new management won't actively obstruct such practices.) --Tgr (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
No such transfers will ever be painless. I've seen some projects attempt to move from EFNet to Hackint and months later most people are still on the "old" channels. Nemo 16:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Parallel paths reach a goal[edit]

I am butting in from a non-technical direction: a technical solution is not the only task.

Non-profit foundations exist to serve needs expressed above. I can not point to a current foundation for specifically the purpose discussed, but forty-five years ago several of my fellows used an art foundation (Facets) in Chicago to handle grants an donations for a documentary. They vetted our project, supplied the tax exempt status and trustees, we supplied the work to make our film.

No matter what, money will be involved—and lots of work. And lawyers. We each know one other person who might donate money/time—fungible is better. Given some minimal management structure, any project can get started. Is there an Wikimedia constraints on fund-raising?

Is triage necessary? Is this a golden month coming to a close? I've done some fund raising in the days of snail-mail; it's not that difficult—but a well-established foundation umbrella is necessary. If someone with a sig I know wants further info, email me at my enWikipedia account. — Neonorange (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

WMF - Value your volunteer community![edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg Attention! Due to the interest that this message has caused in some members of the community and due to its capital importance for the whole Wikimedia project and also to improve the legitimacy of the WMF and its relationship to the home communities (thus, in order to reach the whole Wikimedia community), I have decided to turn this proposal into a Meshproposal, to be opened here, where it will also be prepared and marked for translation. This current section will be used to prepare the proposal before turning it into a Meshproposal. Join in! If you want to contribute anonymously, send an e-mail to in this case I will evaluate your contribution and include it, or not, in the proposal.

As an administrative note, though this is in scope for discussion on the Wikimedia Forum, it is pertinent to remember that no amount of community consensus gained here could directly result in any action. At most, this is a suggestion to the appropriate staff members at the Wikimedia Foundation, whether it be to directly influence the wording of policy, to change how current policy is interpreted, or to have no effect. Consensus on this topic cannot be interpreted, enforced, or enacted; as such it would not be valid at RfC. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal is above and direction is to the FAQ. Please add further comment to the RFC question.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Grant Proposal: Global Open Initiative/Movement Strategy Implementation Plan[edit]

Hello, I am announcing a rapid grant proposal we have submitted about implementing movement strategy 4 (Ensure Equity in Decision Making). We would be very grateful to have your feedback and endorsements about this project. Please see the proposal  here: Thank You. --Mwintirew (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

New sister project proposal[edit]

Hi all! After over a month of preparation, I am proposing two new sister projects: "WikiWorks" (or Wiki Hardware) – a collaborative manufacturing, DIY, and Open-Source Hardware wiki, and "WikiFacts" - a fact-base wiki that allows sharing knowledge on point, accurately and concisely. I believe both of these projects are feasible and can be very much beneficial for humanity. I request you to kindly add your valuable inputs and suggestions to these two as well as other proposals for new projects. Thank you! -Vis M (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Is WM:NOP targeting VPSs?[edit]

It's questionable, since I thought they're not public (their usage is restricted to specific users) in most case; such as GCP and AWS. Semi-Brace (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Semi-Brace: May be a better question to Stewards' noticeboard as the community can only surmise, not reliably inform you. Only the stewards can definitively tell you what process they are undertaking.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll move on that page. --Semi-Brace (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

I would love to see some reforms to the Wikimedia Foundation, to make it better able to fulfill its goals. WMF needs to become more accountable to its contributors, and devolve both resources and control to its user and contributor base.

This has been discussed before so I understand if some feel like nothing will change. But if you have energy to participate in another round, please leave your thoughts on Requests for Comment/Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation. —Adamw (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adamw: Please do not transclude your proposal. Announce it properly, set it up properly as an RFC, and let it be.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Thank you! —Adamw (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Should the Wikimedia Foundation also have a presence in the Fediverse ?[edit]

I notice that has links to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, but seems to have no presence on the Fediverse. Should it now also have an account on a Mastodon, or Pleroma server, or even run one of its own ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paladyn-john (talk)

Yes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1[edit]

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

  • Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
  • 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
  • Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)

Grants:Project/Rapid/Global Open Initiative/Twi Wiki Translat-a-thon II[edit]

Dear Community Members,

I am announcing a rapid grant we submitted about recruiting editors and improving content on Twi Wikipedia and Wikidata. We would be very grateful to have your feedback and endorsements about this project. Please see the proposal here:

Kind regards, Kinvidia (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Form 990[edit]

It is now mostly one year since the fiscal year 2019-2020 ended and I havent found the Form 990 for that year. The Form 990 is a public information with tax related informations that is filled out by organisations with their seat in the United States. When do you publish the Form 990 for that Fiscal Year. From my point of view it should be possible to publish it soon after the Financial Statements, what was published in October 2020. From my point of view the most questions in the Form 990 are based on clear definitions and so I think it should be possible to fill the Form 990 semiautomatic, if the accounting data is detailed enough. Please tell me when you plan to publish the Form 990 and also how you fill it out and do you think that it is possible to make it faster. Maybe it is possible that the Finance Team of the Wikimedia Foundation makes a Office Hour and then interested people can attend and maybe there can be then found ways to make it faster. --Hogü-456 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Idea: Using Discourse forums for discussions (Village Pump, administrator noticeboard, etc.)[edit]

This is just an idea.

The current problem we have here is kind of long-standing; our current Wikimedia forums (like the Village Pump) is not super friendly for new users and has serious limitations. Sure there is StructuredDiscussions and there are the reply tools that I am testing right now, but there are still several limitations with using the MediaWiki software for discussions.

Firstly, there is not an easy way to do a poll or +1 a comment. Sure you can thank a user for an edit, but there is no way to see how many people agreed to or liked a post.

Secondly, uploading images is a hassle. While on other forums you can simply drag and drop an image to upload it, here you have to go through a complicated form and then select the correct licensing, and images that you want to share takes much longer to share that I have not found it worth trying.

Thirdly, there is no easy way to report posts, and every post remains visible forever. While this is good for pages, for discussions, especially when one person makes multiple heated personal attacks, it is not so much.

Lastly, there is no private messaging system. We have email, but not everyone is willing to share an email address. From my understanding, Discourse has that in place to allow for private messages to be sent, some as moderator actions, as well as having private forums and private admin comments on discussions.

I have seen Discourse forums be used on lots of sites for discussion, including wikiHow and our own MediaWiki labs (before they were closed down) with positive responses. There is also trust levels that can be used to easily identify new users from experienced ones (to stop spam) as well as moderator tools that can lock and set the trust level to any of them.

I know one downside is that Discourse forums do not make it easy for IP addresses to contribute to discussions, but these other features are important to have to allow for more effective discussion IMHO. Aasim 19:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: A few issues that arise here to me. One is that literal votes are rare on the projects - you may have seen !vote, which literally means "not a vote", so a +1 system would not be helpful.
Image release is complicated on ours because images need to standards that no regular project would ever have. We need photos to meet either a broad copyleft license or prove that a free-use grounds applies, and in a form that we can test that the claim is true. That puts much more complexity in but there isn't a ready way to dodge that issue without causing even bigger copyright patrol issues.
While it would be good for every project to have a way of handling cases where there must be private evidence (the UCOC is likely to necessitate this), because our admins aren't mods, that high level of enabling private admin discussion and comments is less applicable and in many ways, not good. On any non-basic conduct case, I would only execute a Community decision - I don't decide what happens.
Do discourse forums bed into mediawiki? Village Pump and AN (and their equivalents) are hyper-active users of templates - I've not used the software so I don't know if it can operate those. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)