Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2014-10

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Graphs, Maps, ... (experimental)

As part of my Zero efforts, I had to implement some graphs... and thus Graph Extension was born, adapting Vega visualization grammar. It is still in its infancy, but it can already do some fancy stuff. Since this is experimental, it has only been enabled on and meta. It will not be enabled on production wikis until there is a consensus that 1) it is needed 2) it is secure 3) it won't melt our servers or be a bandwidth hog.

Graphs can plot various charts and maps with highlights, and templates can be used to dynamically change the behavior. For example, we could have a template {{WorldMapWithHighlight|country=NZ}} that would draw world map with New Zealand highlighted. It could also overlap some additional symbols/text/colors - anything that Vega allows.

This example was copied from the vega tutorial, and could have also been placed into a template or its own full page in the Graph: namespace. See other examples.

--Yurik (WMF) (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments/questions/rotten tomatoes:

Thanks for the update, always nice to see work on all things visual. --Nemo 06:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Missing accessibility features. An aria-label for the 'alt' text would be a minimum to solve that. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
TheDJ, if I understood correctly, <canvas aria-label="some text"> should be enough? I could easily add a new attribute to the <graph aria-label="some text"> tag, but for the Graph: namespace I would have to extend the vega syntax with an additional top-level key-value, e.g. "aria-label":"some text". For consistency sake, we probably should keep the second approach for both the graph tag and graph namespace. Is this acceptable? --Yurik (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
An accessibility label is contextual, so ideally, you'd have both, with fallback to whatever is defined in the Graph namespace, and the the option to do a local 'transclusion' specific label. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we are in an agreement - when users define graph in a namespace, they can use transclusion parameter, e.g. {{{label|default text}}} --Yurik (WMF) (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I love the functionality! Specially for maps! Yurik (WMF), could you have a look at en:Wikipedia:Lua_requests#overhaul_Module:Chart? I think kipod has made a useful list of challenges and there are some comments. We really, really need a simple way to include maps/world maps with values in Wikipedias and to update them without handcolouring on commons-files :-) --Atlasowa (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Weird NL response to donations

At info-NL OTRS queue we are receiving complaints from people who donated and received this message:

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:00:11 +0000

To: <left out client mail address>
Subject: Uw donatie aan de Wikimedia Foundation

Beste donateur,
Wikimedia heeft onlangs weer haar jaarlijkse fondsenwerving campagne binnen Nederland afgesloten. Dankzij gulle gevers zoals u, naderen we onsze doel. We schrijven u deze email, omdat uw recente donatie van €10 dat op 9/4/14 13:55 via iDEAL was overgemaakt, helaas niet gelukt isis geweigerd. Dat kan weleens voorkomen bij donaties via iDeal doordat er onderhoud wordt verricht bij banksystemen. Omdat dit onbekend is bij onze donateurs, wilden we u van deze verwerkingsfout op de hoogte brengenhierop op de hoogte brengen van deze verwerkingsfout. Mocht u ons alsnog willen helpen met een donatie, zodat we onze fondsenwerving voor 2014 helemaal kunnen afronden, dan kunt u ook betaalopties zoals credit card and PayPal overwegen. Voor een uitgebreide keuze in betaalopties en om een nieuwe donatie over te maken, zie onderstaande link: Nogmaals hartelijk dank voor uw steun. Neem gerust contact met ons op als u verder nog vragen heeftbt. Met vriendelijke groet, De Wikimedia Foundation Fondsenwerving Team

The message is written in so poor Dutch that it looks like scam. The message claims that the money transfer was refused and begs to donate again, although the money is taken from the clients bank account. Can you confirm whether this message comes from Wikimedia or not? If so, please also confirm that you fix this ASAP. If not, please find out ASAP how private information of our valuable sponsors could leak to scammers. Jcb (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jcb. :) It's kind of early in SF, so I'm seeing who I can find. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, as I said, it's kind of early still in SF (I'm remote), but I've had quick response. I've confirmed that the mail is legit. They will be looking into the concerns, and I hope they will be able to follow up further soon. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jcb, thanks for bringing this up. The email you reference above was a new experiment for the fundraising team; because iDEAL donations in the Netherlands are prone to fail for reasons out of the donor's control, we wanted to try sending a reminder email to donors whose donations did fail. Unfortunately, there seems to have been an error in our filtering scan, and some donors donated successfully on their second attempt were messaged. We are doing our best to contact each of these donors and apologize for the oversight, and are using the lessons from this experience to reevaluate sending similar messages in the future. I apologize for the confusion caused! Please assign all similar tickets to the wm-donations queue in OTRS and we will respond. --CCogdill (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the filter, I recommend that a NL-native rewrites the message. Donors are alarmed especially by the poor language. (btw iDEAL is known to be very reliable. I never heard anybody about failed transactions. In the Netherlands most people use it for their online shopping, instead of credit cards.) Jcb (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. We had a Dutch native proofread the text, but we usually have two proofreaders and should have stuck to that process. We are using the feedback from this email to improve our future emails!--CCogdill (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Lies regarding fundraising

You do not need donations "to keep [Wikipedia] online and ad-free another year" - the Wikimedia Foundation has way more than enough money to keep the site running. You could keep it running for decades with the donations already collected. Why do you continue to solicit funds with this lie? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 12:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. A reply from the WMF would be nice. - Ypnypn (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this question. The Wikimedia Foundation is lucky to have a base of thousands of donors who help annually sustain the Wikimedia projects, and their donations go toward powering our servers, enabling software development and platform improvements, and supporting programmatic endeavors worldwide. It is important to note, however, that the entirety of the Foundation's annual budget is not intended to be spent immediately. To be financially sustainable, a nonprofit organization must retain enough working capital to meet its program goals over the long term. This is acknowledged as a best practice for nonprofits of all kinds, because by retaining a percentage of our budget in reserves each year, we are preparing for unexpected difficulties, including financial ones. We want to be able to ensure that the work done by the Wikimedia community is accessible on the internet for decades to come, and these reserves help us ensure that. It is also important to note that the WMF's commitment to transparency extends to our donations as well. We welcome donor questions regarding where their donations go, and respond to these questions by referencing the following resources: our Financial Reports, the Foundation's Annual Plan, and our Fundraising data. It is important that our donors feel they can make an informed decision about if and how much to donate, so we address these concerns as thoroughly and thoughtfully as possible. --CCogdill (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This reply doesn't relate to the question at all: is this some boilerplate text? I think deserves a real, personal answer to their specific question. --Nemo 05:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nemo, thanks for following up. My response was focused on addressing our need for reserves, which was what I perceived as the intent behind the IP user's question. Can you be a little more specific about what further information you were hoping my reply would cover? Jimmy's responses on his talk page have addressed this concern in a similar way — that it is responsible for any nonprofit to retain reserves to cover operating expenses in the event that the fundraising model is disrupted, or some other unforeseen issue arises. Please let me know if you have other questions. --CCogdill (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
See also Jimbo's Wikipedia talk page where this point has also been raised - QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear CCogdill, the point is that you don't tell the donors the truth. Maybe it's not completly lying, but you are misleading them. To keep Wikipedia running and add-free a small number in the millions would do it. But you want around 50 million dollars again. So don't tell them it is to keep Wikipedia add-free and running, but tell them it is for an ever-growing San Francisco institution. Tell them that it means more money for those departments that didn't do a good job so far like on the VE as best example. And tell them that you think that throwing more money on it will amke it better instead of first turning every stone and finding out while so much money got wasted in the last decade on projects that had no benefiting effect, on software that doesn't work to our - the editors demands. Tell the donors that they will finance an organization that wrestles with the people who actually created the contend our donor's love over the control and does invent Superprotect et al to force us. Then every donor can make a concious decision if he wants that and give money for that. But please, don't do again this lying as if with 5 millions the lights of Wikipedia would switch off, no they would be switched off in the San Fracisco offices. And don't do again this crappy public relations bla bla that especially our head of the board is so fond of. And sorry, CCogdill, i'm sure you do your job good and are a good person, but your bosses do everything to destroy my good faith in the Foundation. And this way of asking for donations with telling half-truth and keeping hidden the complete facts from the donors (and be honest, the donors don't read annual plans or whatever, they are users who love wikipedia and want to help to keep it running) is not a measure to restore and secure faith. Best regards --Julius1990 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Julius1990, I'm sorry to hear that your confidence has been shaken. I hope that the ongoing work of the new Executive Director and the new Director of Community Engagement (Product) will lead to smoother deployments so that your confidence can be restored. In terms of the Wikimedia budget, this is created in consultation with the Board to broadly benefit the entire movement in order to keep it running and build a reserve (in line with best practices for non-profit organizations). Funds go toward product and engineering improvements but also on supporting chapters in their outreach activities around the world, and supporting individual engagement grants that do things like provide access to reliable sources to editors. They provide for the attorneys who do things like process DMCA takedowns and defend contributors from personal lawsuits, and for the accountants who file the paperwork necessary for us to receive the donations that keep the servers going. I believe that it's generally understood that institutional maintenance is part of “keeping the lights on” at Wikipedia, but, again, we do post as transparently as we can where donations go so that people don't have to wonder. Certainly, there will never be complete consensus on every budget decision, internally or externally. But there are processes for getting involved in this and helping to guide decisions. Beyond the open processes for the Funds Dissemination Committee and the IEGs, you can voice your thoughts on how the money is used to the WMF and to the Board. Direct feedback on the current Annual Plan for spending can be made on the Questions and Answers page, and there is also a talk page for the Wikimedia Budget. The Board, of course, has its noticeboard. And you can also influence the direction of the WMF by helping to shape the board; 5 of its members are selected in some fashion by community. The next election takes place in 2015.
I don’t think myself that the request is misleading. However, I will pass along your feedback to the rest of my team in Fundraising. Feedback is important and always welcome. You can also give feedback directly at Talk:Fundraising or find us on the publicly logged IRC channel at #wikimedia-fundraisingconnect. Again, I know the amount of money we should raise and how it should be spent is not going to be a matter of universal agreement, but there’s a lot of room for collaboration in making these determinations. I hope that you will participate.--CCogdill (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear CCogdill, i'm aware of all those fields and many I approve. But for example I also see that especially the software department in the last years had a very, very poor cost-effect ratio. What I mean is: Tell the people this. Make them aware of those fields like legal security and so on. Tell them that you also finance lobbying and projects for OER. But don't let them believe that they give money for two things only: Keeping the severs running, and keeping Wikipedia ad-free. To tell them the whole image would be a honest way to ask for their money. It would be nice if you pass my opion along to where it can be considered, though I know that the Foundation's politics won't change. After all what happend especially in the recent months I don't have the feeling anymore that my concern as editor and generally editor communities concerns are taken into consideration, because you bosses think they rule the movement and know where it should be heading. I stell work as volunteer though, since have a liitle hope left for Lila. Anyway, I appreciate that you also stated your own, personal position/opinion and not just the offical, public-realtions listing (and that is a general critic, most times we editors have not the feeling to reach to you employes at all, because you often hide behind "we" and advertising speech), but I just once again want to ask you to make sure that the donors get to know what is all the movement about and where their money is spend on and not just put sand in their eyes with mentioning the most successful and loved project and hiding many other things behind the "Wikipedia"-label. Thanks for your listening. Kind regards. --Julius1990 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Julius and others. Over the last couple years, the WMF has shown more and more that they have no respect for the editing community. They appear to view the community as an expendable commodity that is easily replaceable and beneath them. Members of the WMF have shown this in their pushing of VE, MediaViewer, Superprotect and others. They continue to look down on the community as a nuisance and an irritation rather than a stakeholder and a partner in the development of the site. No one is saying that they shouldn't continue to develop software changes or that many who use the MediaWiki software wouldn't value those changes, but the WMF needs to stop forcing them onto the Wikipedia community to use it as a test lab for these changes long before they are ready for deployment. These are the changes the WMF is spending millions on developing. I personally don't have a problem with fundraising either but I also agree with the others above that many of the messages are disingenuous either intentional or unintentional. As a personal example I use to donate a couple hundred dollars a year and I had several friends that donated a lot more (a couple in the thousands of dollars a year range) as a tax write off because I convinced them that it was a worthwhile donation. We have all stopped donating to keep Wikipedia and company running partly because of the WMF's attitude towards the community and the toxic editing environment that Wikipedia has become. No one wants to be associated to toxicity or people who do not value their contributions. Reguyla (talk)

Serbo-Croatian wiki

Guys, you must close Serbo-Croatian wikipedia! What's the sense to keep this project in a hybrid artificial language? They just write the same text in cyrillic and latin alphabets. If exists two different wikis: Serbian and Croatian, why we need another project in a combination of those 2 languages? Why to not create then a Italiano-French wikipedia? Probably this case is somehow similar with case of Moldovan wikipedia, where people began write Romanian text in cyrillic alphabet. But Serbo-Croatian wiki is more crazy they write in two different alphabets on the same wiki )) Menus are in both alphabets, but wiki-content are in one of the languages (scripts).

Just look here

and i noticed they are mass-importing articles from both other wikis: Serbian and Croatian. In past week this wiki growed up consistently with about 15,000 articles.

And, also, they are doing just they want: one of their admins runs a robot on his main account and creates a lot of articles as humna-user but running bot. In particullary he created few thousands of articles about Itallian communes (example).

I want to mention again - on the same wiki they have a part of articles written in latin script, and another part in cyrillic. So, some people, will not understood a part of articles written in stranger script. I can't find the sense to keep alive this wiki.

It's a madness!

I don't want to live on this planet anymore! -- 22:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

See Closing projects policy. --Eurodyne (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I initiated a proposal: Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. -- 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Have Wikipedia Book removed support to epub and zim file format? (only)

I tried to download a book in zim and epub.

For example:

If we click Select format to download: ZIM or EPUB, then at the end there is an error message "Cannot render: Zim writter not found" or something like that.

Please fix this bug.

Sadly, it's not considered a bug, it was an intentional decision by the Wikimedia Foundation: [Wikitech-ambassadors] Changes to PDF export; ZIM/EPUB will be disabled soon.
There doesn't seem to be a way to change their mind (other than volunteering programming skills and time, if you have). But everyone can help the book tool by joining the Bug day: Book tool/Collection/PDF, 2014-10-08, 14–22 UTC. --Nemo 10:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
(Just adding another couple of relevant links, [1] and [2]. Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC) )

Ip range is blackliste (open proxy:webhosting)


One of our customers is complaining that one of his /24 is blacklisted due to forum spam. The problem is that our customer is an ISP ( and not a hoster. can you please delist What can we do to prevent this in the future.

And i hope this is the right place to post this beacuse i didn't found any delist possibility.

Best regards,

Ben Gerson root S.A. unsigned comment by Rootlu (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rootlu: I don't see a block for Special:GlobalBlock/, so you will need to come back to us with the exact block message, including who and the IP being blocked. Usually we would deal with unblock requests at Steward requests/Global or you can email stewards(_AT_)  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Call for OTRS administrator applicants

The OTRS administrators are considering expanding the admin team. We invite all community members to review the call for volunteers on Meta-Wiki at OTRS/Call for administrator.

We would like to keep questions centralized, so please direct all discussion to the talk page: Talk:OTRS/Call for administrators.

On behalf of the OTRS admin team, Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


I'd like to know how (and if appropriate) a request for comments regarding how the checkuser information is actually handled and how it complies to the WMF privacy policies and guidelines. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this a wiki specific RFC or a general one? Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Although the issue was brought to my attention by a former checkuser in the Spanish Wikipedia, it seems to be a general issue: the fact that, apparently, the WMF provides the means for the bleach of its own policy guidelines. --Discasto (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have particular questions I am probably a good place to start. You can either drop me a note on my talk page here on meta, or email me at Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Results from meeting of OTRS admins

Hi all,

I would like to point you to our report on the recent meeting of the OTRS administrators which you can find here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask—we'll be happy to help. Best, — Pajz (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reaching out to other online communities

Best practices and precedent I'm surprised that Outreach and Meta don't seem to have any guidelines on working with other online communities. The best I see is OpenStreetMap but that's a little moribund and it seems like there isn't much precedent in connecting with other online communities. Am I missing something? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What sort of initiative and documentation thereof are you looking for? Typically, such connections arise, unplanned, from people who are active in both groups: there are more such connections than one can count. The cooperation between OpenStreetMap and Wikimedia is not moribund at all, in fact Wikimedia Italia will soon become the OSM-IT chapter. --Nemo 07:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Free communities Maybe mass importing media to/from Flickr's commons to Wikimedia Commons or encouraging reciprocal links with DMOZ or collaborating with Distributed Proofreaders and Wikisource users to make texts together and work on software and interfaces for proofreading... These all immediately come to mind. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, all these have been done. --Nemo 07:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Best practices Do you know of best practices, outcomes, data, etc.? This answer isn't really that helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"Best practices" assumes reproducibility. Are you trying to reproduce something? c:Commons:Flickr files is easy to find; PGDP is mentioned in countless discussions which you can certainly find on your own; DMOZ is dead anyway. --Nemo 08:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Well, I actually had in mind precisely those ideas. Working with OmegaWiki to port over data from it, etc. Finding other MediaWiki wikis and seeing what extensions or modifications they have. DMOZ is not dead: it's got updates constantly. It has a lot of problems but it's not dead. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see your point and I think that there are good opportunities for collaborating with other communities - both to proactively provide our content and for working with them to use their content. It may be difficult to have a reproducible framework, but guidelines or advice from previous engagements would be useful. Surely there must be some people here who worked on the examples already mentioned who could contribute some thoughts? QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ahem, how to work with OmegaWiki is a discussion which never stopped in 10 years: see Category:Ultimate Wiktionary etc. etc. "Finding other MediaWiki wikis": very important indeed, we've been doing this on a daily basis for years now; most of us are active at WikiApiary, you can for instance dive in the latest import and/or join WikiTeam in preserving some more wikis.
In case my point is not clear, I'm saying that to do stuff with other wikis and communities you must first and foremost get your hands dirty with them. When something gets done, that something survives and conveys the message for you. --Nemo 09:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Your point is well taken but I'm not sure that I'm making myself clear: it seems like you're taking individual examples that I've provided as the entirety of what I'm getting at here. There are many open content communities and digital communities with whom we can collaborate. There is a structured and more-or-less empirical approach to outreach efforts with GLAM and the Education Project to interact with all sorts of public and private educational and cultural institutions but not digital ones. Right? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yours is a false dichotomy. One could as well say that there are collaborations with non-profits hence we should do more with for-profits too, or that there are collaborations with software companies hence we should do more with non-software companies. GLAM stuff exists as an effort because the name itself defines some features of possible partners, and the concept contains some ideas of things to do together. This is what your "proposal" is lacking.
In fact it's not even a proposal or idea, you've just stacked a collection of random unrelated examples, a new one at every message... and then you "blame" me for not seeing a supposed "entirety" which in fact is missing. Saying "let's do something with other online communities" is more or less as generic as saying "let's do something with companies which have a computer in their office" or "let's do something with non-profits which have a website". In fact your title could just have been "Reaching out" or "let's do something" and it wouldn't have been significantly more generic than it is currently.
So, again, you need at least one unifying and descriptive idea of what sort of collaboration or goal you imagine, ideally explained by example. My impression is that you first need to get a clearer picture of what sort of communities exist around, so I suggested that you give a look to WikiApiary; if you want an even broader spectrum, you can look at the Category:Proposed projects for a list of things that others are doing (or not) and someone thought we should (help) do... --Nemo 10:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Maybe I'm misreading you or maybe this is a language barrier issue but I get the sense that you're being hostile to me and reading things into what I'm saying that don't exist. You're right: this isn't a proposal; it's a question. I asked it in a pretty straight-forward manner and all you've done is be critical and dismissive of me. In fact, I'm not sure why you keep on responding and I hope that someone else does as well. I know that WikiApiary and WikiTeam and WikiIndex and MeatBall exist. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that's the impression you got. What you're sensing is my sincere frustration for a question which, in this form, I find impossible to answer (properly). --Nemo 19:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Quiddity is on the right track. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Koavf is looking for a link-hub of existing relationships (and desired future-relationships), and/or, a set of tips and form-letters for initiating such things (? That would be good to clarify). One thing I found (by searching for EOL/Encyclopedia of Life), is this comment by Sj at Talk:Wikimedia affiliation models/Movement Partners, which has a short list of movement partners. There's also Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science/Reusing Open Access materials and the newer en:Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Resources. Plus User:Alecmconroy/List of Potential Wikimedia Movement Partners and Cooperation. Searching the linked pages (I didn't dig very far) and pinging some of the contributors to those pages/discussions, might help. Sadly s:Help:Project Gutenberg is empty and the talkpage doesn't have much - is there anything better? [Side-note that outdated-documentation can be a sign of inactivity, but, it can also be a sign that everyone is busy working on the details/content of the endeavour and are procrastinating the abstract documentation! (I believe Openstreeetmap is a case of this, because there were 3 OSM-related presentations at Wikimania 2014, and a few other proposals)]. HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): This is exactly what I was going for, thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

German OTRS permission tickets

It seems that due to the recent Mediaviewer/superprotect gate, several or maybe all active DE-N volunteers at OTRS stopped responding to tickets. Currently there are 380 open tickets in the German permission queues (permissions-de / permissions-commons-de). Does the WMF have any ideas on how to get sufficient German activity back in OTRS? Jcb (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Mr. Möller would be a good replacement. Would teach him maybe also to be again humble towards the volunters, what would be a great extra ... --Julius1990 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for this very constructive message. Anyways. I think this discussion should be held on OTRS wiki so the OTRS admins can see if it is appropriate to (temporarily) close some of these queues until the matter has been resolved and avoid any further "packing" of the permissions queues. Elfix 13:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not see how closure of the queues would be helpful. If we close them, the general queue will be flooded with messages in German and we will have nowhere to store them separately. However if the backlog of the general queue is within reasonable limits, I will see if I can handle some with my DE-1 skills. I think there is only one direction in which we have to find the resolution: We need active OTRS volunteers with DE skills. The reason I posted this message here, is that IMHO the WMF has caused this problem with the way they enforced the introduction of the Mediaviewer. And yes, this is an issue for OTRS volunteers, because that annoying Mediaviewer is slowing down our work significantly. Turning it off for our personal accounts solves only part of the problem, because a lot of clients send hyperlinks to Mediaviewer windows. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
If you can, then take care of them. Otherwise, let's not let people continue to expect a response any time soon there: better direct them to the English-speaking queues (for permissions-commons-de at least), for example... Elfix 16:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Closing the queues is never something we would want to do because of backlogs. The admins (and the agents) are aware of the backlogs (and believe it or not - this is not the worst we've ever seen; though it is more elevated than average, of course) and are always looking for ways to expand recruiting efforts. So I would suggest that the discussion should be based on improving the response times rather than "closing queues". Rjd0060 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, of course, if you feel like getting some volunteers on these queues, do it. But if you don't... perhaps you should consider something which will be less of a waste of time for the volunteers, like temporarily closing the queue. Because over time, all the files without the proper OTRS permissions will eventually get deleted on commons. And getting them restored can be quite a bit of a headache for the poor volunteer who isn't a sysop on Commons. Elfix 14:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Closing the queues will not solve the problem as noted above. Suggesting not to write in German will do. But who would ask OFFICIALLY on German language projects NOT to send permissions and NOT ask questions in German, but use English / French / Italian / Polish / Russian instead? Ankry (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
We do feel like finding more agents. It is our job. ;-) We will never close a queue simply because of backlogs. Hope I've made that point clear. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Good. Good luck with that, then :) Elfix 19:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this more an issue for the German-language communities for how they wish to deal with their permissions? In online communities there will always be rises and falls in participation, and there will be (unfortunate) upsets. So time to stop pushing blame, and to look to solutions; and saying that the solution lies with other parties isn't going to be productive, nor owned by the community, and the solution does lie within the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Elfix: if you need a file to be (temp-)undeleted at Commons you can just ping an admin at IRC or ask for undeletion at Commons:Undeletions requests.... It's easy if you know what you are doing. Natuur12 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This still remains an avoidable waste of time (to a smaller extend, yes). Elfix 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

While the current commons-permission backlog is only 12 days, the German queue has a 102 days backlog, which is why I have added a warning to c:COM:ET/de.    FDMS  4    11:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Terms of use

I am looking for general WMF licensing policy as it was in 2009. Terms of use history starts in 2011. Can anybody point me to the older equivalent of this file? Ankry (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ankry: Here it is foundation:Terms of Use (2009).--Snaevar (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Logging problemens with my global account

Hi, I have a global account as User:Salix but still encounter two problems to solve :

  1. From one Wikipedia to another, the global account is working, but I am sometimes asked to log in. When I clic on "log in" three times (eg. from fr.Wikipedia to Commons or Metawiki), my user account is switched on automaticaly at last, but it doesn't work everywhere (eg. from fr.Wikipedia to Wikidata or Mediawiki). Is it normal ?
  2. As I registered a long time ago, users of a few languages are using the same name, but do not seems to contribute anymore. I have usurpated the english one, but have no idea how to ask for the same process in other remaining Wikipedia langages. Does an admin could help me please ? --Salix (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Salix,
  1. This is not a normal experience that I'm aware of. What browser and operating system are you using? Do you have cookies enabled?
  2. The bad news is that if the accounts that you do not own have made any edits, the accounts are currently stuck at that name as we work on SUL finalisation. All local renaming has been turned off and all rename requests are now handled here on Meta. Unfortunately, there is still no agreed upon global usurpation policy, or if there even should be one. The good news is that work toward single-user login finalization continues, and when it is completed at some point early-ish next year you will likely "own" the name Salix in finalization and the other accounts that are not you would be automatically renamed at that time :) So we wait...
In the mean time, if there are accounts that are not you that have zero edits, you can visit this page and request to have the name. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Keegan (WMF). It may be a cookies problem as my Firefox is erasing all of them when I close it. Concerning the global account, I will check ringht now how many edits other users did. --Salix (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I have this problem too, since a few weeks or months. Autologin has always been unreliable since mw:SUL2, but got worse; and I see several cookies are set to expire at the end of the session despite the sites are in my whitelist. (Yes, I uninstalled Privacy badger as well as disabled Self-destructing cookies and Cookie Time. I didn't try disabling NoScript and Adblock plus, nor I'm willing to.) I didn't even try reporting these CentralAuth bugs because last time it took many hours of work; but I encourage any brave user to do so when they have some spare patience.
On the bright side, this allows me to share the terrible pains of the unregistered user proletariat: particularly the always-on obnoxious fundraising banners which consume more than half the screen and similar amenities. --Nemo 19:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested change to Special:Watchlist

I propose that on the watchlist, under the line for selecting a namespace, their is a box that can be ticked so that only unveiwed changes appear. - NickGibson3900 (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. Someone should file a bugzilla report for this, if there isn't one. --Nemo 19:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Implement Global_deleted_image_review

I'm not exactly sure the right procedure for this, but I'd like to open discussion on implementing Global_deleted_image_review global group. This proposal previously gained consensus in 2008 (and most of the objections are about how oversight used to work and no longer apply today), but was not implemented due to technical restrictions at the time. With the introduction of viewdeletedfile right, stewards now have the technical ability to create such a global group. The viewdeletedfile right grants people the ability to look at deleted files and deleted pages in the file namespace (Note: this includes revdeletion. Oversight is obviously not included). The proposal is to give all commons admins such rights across all wikis (Allowing individual wikis to opt out if they don't want that for whatever reason). Initial response at commons is that they still want such a right.

So does this need another discussion at meta to show global consensus (2008 is a long time) or what is the next steps needed for this? Bawolff (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think another discussion is in order. A lot can change in community opinion after 6 years, so I think this is only fair. An RFC might be a good venue for such a discussion and then vote. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. A short global discussion on this matter would not harm and I think satisfy every party. Vogone (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
+1 It needs to be a fresh conversation as an RFC, and its existence should be fully communicated to affected wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
+1 Ajraddatz. Six years is a pretty long time. ~ Nahid Talk 23:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I create a global group for test purposes, but I can not see deleted revisions of Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Re Ruslik - What error message did w:Special:Undelete/File:Richmond_Public_Library_Shelves.jpg give? I should note that at the moment, "View X deleted revisions" link will not be shown to users with this right. (May change in future Will change on November 5). Bawolff (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I did some testing on the labs cluster, and found that users in this group would need to manually navigate to Special:Undelete/File:name, since there is no link from the page to the undelete page. Other than that it works fine. (After three edits I finally realized that what I found is the same as what Bawolff said... :P) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Some things to keep in mind if you do plan on starting an RfC:

  • Is this group still needed? Are the problems listed on the page still around, and will this still solve them?
  • Should there be an additional approval procedure for commons admins to get this global right?
  • Could stewards perform this role upon request instead of a new group being made?

Those are all questions that I'd imagine would come up on any discussion about this; it would be a good idea to nail those details down first, or have discussions on them ready to go when an RfC starts. My own 2c ofc Ajraddatz (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Created Requests for comment/Global deletion review (Ajraddatz: Thank you for your suggestions. I read them after I created the RFC page. I personally think it would be easiest if it was automatic on commons adminship, but have no strong feelings either way). Bawolff (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
There are some Commons admins that I think wouldn't be trusted on other wikis. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted, that if anyone is really controversial and gets themselves blocked, the blocking would prevent this right from working on whatever wiki they are blocked on. Bawolff (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this need to be advertized elsewhere (MassMessage?), I'm not sure what level of advertizing is usually done for this type of proposal which could affect all wikis. Bawolff (talk)

MassMessage would seem to be the ideal way to notify every community of an RfC affecting every wiki by default (opt-out), and is usually used for such RfCs. I think CentralNotice would be overkill unless (perhaps) it is only shown to autoconfirmed users. Even then I doubt most would be interested in the RfC. Please make the message neutral, containing a description of the proposed group and a link to the discussion. You could also mark it for translation, but that's not required. You can either ask your co-proposer (sorry, thought he was) Legoktm, a local "MassMessage" sender whose scope includes this RfC (I don't think there is any), or a local admin (such as myself, or on RFH) to send it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Generally such discussions are held and/or advertised here at the Wikimedia Forum, but a specific page is also fine; I commented there. Mass messages to the village pumps are the easy thing, but even better is to figure out specific places where the signal:noise ratio will be better, perhaps talk pages of d:Q5525438 or similar. --Nemo 19:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

New project: Wikinotes

I want to create a new Wikimedia project called Wikinotes by taking the literature notes from Wikibooks and setting it up as its own. The main reason I want to do it is because I have always wanted a notes wiki and I only discovered that Wikibooks had it by accident.

It would be difficult (especially considering there isn't exactly a special category, namespace, template, etc. for notes) but it would work a lot better for users in the long run.

What do you think? --XndrK (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a reason to set up a separate sister; the problem you describe is one of drumming up publicity. --Pi zero (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I just think it would be a heck of a lot easier if we had a separate project, because while I can see how Wikibooks got the notes project, I don't think it's a logical place to put it. I wouldn't really call literature notes "books" in the Wikibooks sense. --XndrK (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That seems an artifical narrowing of Wikibooks scope; and if anything Wikibooks should expand its scope. Anyway, speaking from experience, no, a small project is not easier. Wikibooks, which is already a small project, is in a real sense a confederation of a large number of microprojects (individual books) most of which are each far too small to support a whole project on their own, all banding together to share support infrastructure. Splitting up the support infrastructure further would only damage the infrastructure. --Pi zero (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a thought, but maybe this could be done in Wikidata using wikibooks info. It could be possible to create a reference template that draws on the Wikidata about the books, then instead of the user having to fill out all the data in the reference, they could just say something like {{Cite web}} and the template would populate based on the Wikidata's data. Reguyla (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would grant them autopatrolled rights on all wikis except those who opt-out. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify one point by Ajraddatz: The OTRS global group proposal does not grant any new or additional rights to its members. It is solely for identification purposes and will include a right that all users already have (such as the ability to read a page). The image review proposal on the other hand would grant users a sufficient amount of new access. Please don't confuse the two. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
And now post that message on every noticeboard the first message has been posted to... -Barras talk 18:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Already done by me (for the large projects anyway). I didn't realize that the RfC didn't include any new rights, which the original proposal (that I read) did. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note, when I've been doing AAR I've noticed that there are a few random projects not on the GMD lists. I'm hoping to fix it when I get a chance. --Rschen7754 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Romanian Wikisource

Hello, I am administrator at the Romanian Wikipedia, and I am here to seek advice: we have blocked an user (BAICAN XXX) from Romanian Wikipedia, and this has migrated to the Romanian Wikisource where he started a campaign of creating non sense pages, as can be seen here. Considering that the Romanian Wikisource doesn't have an active administrator at the moment, a discussion has started at Romanian Wikipedia's Forum (ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea#Wikisource în limba română se degradează repede. Cum procedăm?) about what shall be done to stop this situation? The discussion is conveying towards the conclusion that the Romanian Wikipedia's administrators to be granted with sysops rights to all sister projects. The reason why the discussion was extended to all Romanian projects is due to the suspicion that as soon as we'll block BAICAN XXX on Wikisource this will migrate to other wiki project lacking in active administrators. Could you please provide your thoughts on this situation? Thanks and regards, Silenzio76 (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You can request assistance by stewards and GS. (SRM, VR) --Glaisher (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have placed my message at SRM. Silenzio76 (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I see this discussion and I think it has to be stated by a Romanian native speaker that are no nonsense pages like those mentioned by user Silenzio who is trying to present his personal opinions as fact. Also are some aspects which are omitted by the admin who has made this notification. The block of user Baican has been done abusively on grounds of opinion differences between Baican and Silienzio, this being a serious abuse from an admin to find alleged reasons to block a user with whom he had disagreements. This is a personal vendetta of user Silenzio whose main undeclared goal in his candidacy to an admin approximately a year ago was to block Baican on alleged mistakes which he persistently looked for and reproached them to Baican as grounds for long time block.-- 10:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Comment Romanian Wikisource is an independent community, and as such it appoints its own administrators, which be the same as the other sister sites. As such roWP admins would not be granted rights at sister wikis based on them being admins at roWP, only through local processes at each of the wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Billinghurst, in theory, you're right and I completely understand your concern and reluctance to take steps that might overrule a local community. In reality, there is no Romanian Wikisource community. The only recently active people on the Romanian Wikisource are a few Wikipedians, such as w:ro:User:XXN and w:ro:User:GEO. And, of course, our sockpuppet master, BAICAN XXX. Actually, they are the only ones who noticed BAICAN's actions. Luckily, so far, did not face too much vandalism, and did not require too much administrative attention. It wasn't obvious, for instance, that of the three sysops, one has been inactive for three years, one for a year and a half, and the most active one has last been seen with a single edit in July and has performed the last sysop action when he deleted a page in March. Now, this lack of attention is becoming a bit of a problem.Andrei Stroe (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Right in theory and right in practice. Administrators at roWS will be appointed based on request and activity, not on whether they are administrators at roWP. If there are concerns among roWS participants about the lack of activity of the current administrators, or the need for more administrators, then processes exist in that space for interested parties to take and express an interest in that role. Stewards and global sysops can act in lieu of local administrators where issues exist, and they are flagged. This is how the broader community has defined that stewards shall act on communities, irrespective of the language and the sister, and until there is a policy change.

So in summary, if there are concerns at roWS, then discussions should take place there and the solutions decided there, not at roWP. If the local administration is unable or unavailable to implement that community's decision, then stewards will implement for them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Billinghurst is correct. Also, if anyone over at is worried about this, then they could probably elect one or more of themselves as admins there. 16:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am BAICAN XXX (pseudonim). Ceea ce a scris aici user (utilizator) [] pe 15.10.2014 ( 10:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)) referitor la relația Baican - Silenzio sau Silenzio - Baican este după părerea mea, conform cu realitatea faptelor. Asta se poate vedea din pagina mea BAICAN XXX de la ro.Wikipedia: Acolo este clar redat o discuție de controverse purtată pe multe luni de zile, dintre mine BAICAN XXX și user Silenzio76 pe tema denumirilor împăraților Sfântului Imperiu Roman (HOLY ROMAN EMPERoR) în articolele de la ro.Wikipedia unde, până la intervențiile corective ale mele din 2011 și anii următori erau, considerați în mod simplu, ÎMPĂRAȚI ROMANI (ROMAN EMPEROR), deci nefăcându-se o diferență practic între cele două imperii istorice , cel antic, ROMAN EMPIRE și cel din Evul Mediu, HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (germano-catolic). Eu am procedat de unul singur la corectările a sute și sute de articole, deși user Silenzio (și alții) protestau la schimbările mele corecte. Astfel că, atunci când ulterior a devenit administrator la ro.Wikipedia, Silenzio76 a căutat să mă denigreze, afirmând tendențios că eu, BAICAN XXX aș introduce în articole informații false, și profitând de neînțelegerea de către masa de useri (utilizatori) a esenței de idee, - mizei - existentă în discuția pe tema amintită mai sus, adică diferența istorică dintre ROMAN EMPIRE și HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, a decis de unul singur blocarea mea definitivă, nelimitată la ro.Wikipedia. Ca dovadă că eu am dreptate și nu Silenzio76, este faptul că ultimele mele 6 articole propriu inițiate la ro.Wikipedia, despre care Silenzio76 a declarat tendențios înainte de blocarea mea, că ar conține "FALSE INFORMAȚII", sunt și astăzi (acum) neșterse, la ro.Wikipedia, cu datele inițiale neatinse. Căci, logic ar fi fost, dacă "BAICAN XXX" a fost blocat de Silenzio76 pentru informațiile false aduse de el în acele noi inițiate articole, atunci tot el Silenzio76 ar fi trebuit să corecteze sau să șteargă (DELETE) articolele respective de la ro.W. Atât.BAICAN XXX (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The University of Jordan Community service

Arabic Wikipedia community is at its final stages of negotiations with the University of Jordan. We are now talking about adding a photography tasks that would be considered as community service by the university. Each student should fulfill certain hours per semester doing some kind of work that would reflect back on his/her community. Arabic Wikipedia community suggested that each student should get and upload 50 photos covering different aspects within Jordan.

The photos are to be owned by The University of Jordan, and the idea is to release all this work under a free license. The University of Jordan are talking about the use of their own JU_USE license that only permits non-profit usages, but hopefully we will overcome that in a few days. In the meanwhile I will work on a few templates that will encourage them, it seems colorful templates with BIG-CABS names are charming. I will also create a campaign page on commons to make it easier for the students to upload the photos here.

What I need help in is: A way to figure-out and count images uploaded by each student for each semester, so we can email the results back to the university at the end of each semester as a prof that the students did that part of the C.S.

Keep in mind we are talking about 43000 student.--Tarawneh (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is uploading files to Commons, the students directly? You'll need a so-called "campaign", as for WLM, to ensure they use the correct templates and not get lost in forms. --Nemo 12:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Why should the University own the copyrights? You really don't want that: if the University owns the copyright, then you'll have to do OTRS paperwork for every single one of those photos. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Phabricator signup dead for weeks (at least)

I've been trying at (in response to warnings that the MediaWiki Bugzilla is going to go offline after transition to the new Phabricator server) to sign up for a Phabricator account, following the instructions to use my single-login ID and password for this process. Every time I attempt this, I get the ...

Wikimedia Foundation

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

... error message (sent from, indicating that whatever process this account signup form depends on is not responding.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange, I cannot reproduce this. Have you tried the "MediaWiki" log in already? It can be found below the LDAP log in box. Vogone (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@Qgil-WMF: one for you to field if you wouldn't mind. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: strange, I can login both via Wikimedia SUL (the sunflower button) and Wikitech/Labs/Gerrit (the LDAP form). Also, several people are registering every day. If you still find problems, please join #wikimedia-devtoolsconnect and maybe we can help you live, step by step. Finally, check mw:Phabricator/Help and its talk page, the official channel to ask Wikimedia Phabricator questions. Thank you for your interest in Phabricator!--Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I had a similar problem but then I gave it Oauth authorization and it worked. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Officially implementing the global rename policy

See Talk:Global rename policy --Glaisher (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Will the WMF help save the English Wikipedia by changing the RFA process?

Over at the English Wikipedia there is once again discussions about changing the RFA process and once again people are arguing that the WMF will not allow changes. The RFA process is dying out folks, it needs to change if Wikipedia is going to survive. Last month was the second time there have been zero admins selected (the first was last September) and it looks like this month will be the third time. Additionally the project is losing admins at a rate much faster than can be replaced and the workload that remains is both increasing and causing the existing admins to become more stressed and more abusive to regular editors. Only one admin was selected in June, July and August of this year and none have been selected since. After multiple attempts over the last several years have failed, its pretty clear that any changes to the RFA process are going to need to come from the WMF. Is the WMF willing to accept that challenge and help save the English Wikipedia before its too late? Its pretty clear at this point that the community lacks the ability to do it themslves without intervention from the WMF. Reguyla (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess not! Reguyla (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for the WMF (since I don't work for them or anything), but wouldn't the enwiki community's reaction to a change to RfA "forced" upon them by the WMF be largely negative, especially considering all the failed proposals over the years? I'm also not convinced that having more admins will "save" Wikipedia. While admins are important and needed in order to keep the site running smoothly, having more admins probably won't influence whether or not old or new users stay. Anyway, what would the WMF do to make RfA more attractive? Perhaps imposing less strict requirements/guidelines or splitting the group up by rights? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
By some and I am not saying it should be "forced" but if the WMF stepped up the community with what they saw was a problem with some recommendations for the community to vote on, I think it would be well received. Plus, the WMF has showed time and time again that they don't really care about what he community thinks and this is one of those times when some kind of action is better than no action at all. The community has had years of opportunities to fix the problem. IMO, the time for democracy on the matter is coming to an end if they want to be able to have enough people in the site to do the tasks necessary to keep it working. Reguyla (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The expectation that the WMF would respond to you is rather incredulous. Banned on enWP, and blocked more than once, original account locked here as you demanded it, and then vandalised to get it locked when it was refused. I would think that even if I put forward such a demand, and my credibility ranking is somewhat better, then it too would be ignored. Solid proposals back by the community is what is needed, not the WMF sticking their metaphorical dick into a bullant's nest.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
billinghurst, I wrote this to be inentionally pointy to get the WMF to comment in some way, either its not our problem, maybe we need to look into that or something in between. If you aren't interested in what happend on ENWP, thats fine, just don't comment, but don't insult me in an attempt to discredit me because you don't care. I am tired of seeing the RFA process continually fail and the English WP community clearly cannot fix it. The ENWP RFA process has only promoted 3 people in 5 months. September and October there were zero promotions and that is only the 2nd and 3rd time in the history of the project there were zero new admins. ENWP is losing admins at a far greater rate than they are being added. Backlogs are growing into weeks or months in several areas and in some cases they are so long it breaks the templates designed to track them.
Now, with that said, if you are going to slander me, at least be honest in what you say. I was banned on the English Wikipedia, but that has only happened once and it was to keep me from criticizing corrupt admins and to send a message to the community of what happens when you question admins. And the conduct of several admins after that was reprehensible and should have been banned from the project themsleves for their conduct, but they are still admins. My block was overturned after a detailed and well done community review and converted to a 6 month block which ends in February mostly because of my conduct after the abusive ban was established and my absolute refusal to accept being bullied out of the project. Additionally, the ban was abusively done by a couple of individuals by repeatedly resubmitting over and over until they got the result they wanted and then on the last time they hurried and closed it quickly. Of course if you had bothered to look, you would have seen that. But I suppose if someone submitted for you to be banned 5 times week after week and they all came back no or no consensus and then they finally got one to stick and called that a consensus, you would be ok with that and consider that fair? I doubt that, but then again you are an admin and generally admins are exempt from the rules anyway so you wouldn't even have that problem. You would probably just do what many other admins do, accuse them of "attacking you", write some insulting response as you did above in an attempt to discredit them and block them to prevent them from criticizing you further. Your also right that I did request my account be locked and I posted my password to get them to lock it. I did also do a couple minor vandalisms to get them to do it. But frankly, why should I have too, why not just lock it if someone requests my account be locked? There is no reason not too other than laziness of admins because we do not have enough admins to do the work that needs to be done!
Back to the point, your right, there does need to be a discussion and there have been no less than 2 dozen discussion over the last 6 years. Several are currently ongoing and its unlikely to lead anywhere again. Reguyla (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I did "oops" in my text above and I have corrected it to ... Banned on enWP, and blocked more than once ... Repetition repetition and repetition vociferously and voluminously doesn't make your argument different, just tedious. That it is something to which you feel passionate, doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't mean that we all have to feel that way, and hectoring us that we don't share your passion is an interesting form of engagement. If we had an absolute and overpowering passion for enWP, we would be there. That we are at this page at this place that discusses all WMF wikis, and WMF may mean that our passions are broader, or shared, and not solely committed to one wiki. So .. I was not trying to discredit you, more point out the bleeding obvious of why WMF didn't see fit to respond to you, a history that you created and seemingly expect to be conveniently forgotten. To the rest of your self-justification ... <sigh>  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I can only say that the WMF has nothing to do with it. Feel free to create a "Recycle bin" section on a discussion page about changing RFA, and throw [move --G.] such arguments there, as they are not to the point - so that they don't clutter the main discussion. Gryllida 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You may well be right that the WMF may not be interested in this and it may not be their problem. For all I know, the WMF may want the RFA process and Wikipedia to fail for some reason. I can't imagine how that would benefit them, but its possible. In any case, if the WMF is not interested in doing anything about the failing RFA process on the ENWP, which is the flagship Wiki BTW, then they may as well start looking for a new job. Because within the next couple of years, the number of active admins will have dropped to such a point that they cannot maintain the project anymore. At that point, vandalism and spam will go uncaught or at least stay longer and the credibility of the project will erode even farther than it already has. At that point, there will be no need for the WMF to maintain anything, because no one will be participating anyway. Personally, I would hope that the WMF would be interested in working with the community to fix the process or replace it based on the communities failure to do so. Regardless, its obvious to me at this point that the WMF doesn't care and neither do either of you. Reguyla (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
As has been said, this page is not the forum for the discussion, so why would we continue it? Take it / make it in the appropriate place and announce it here, then let us choose whether we wish to participate or not. However we so choose, that is our right. Take this subject elsewhere.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough and your right I have been blocked multiple times, but that is because I am passionate about the site as you say and I refuse to be run out of it by others who simply want to feel important and don't really care about the goals of the project other than they get to block people they don't like or agree with and protect articles they own. Its also true that this discussion mostly affects the ENWP directly, but it also broadly affects the other wiki's as well in general. All the Wiki's are symbiotic, what affects one generally also eventually affects the others..eventually. Since ENWP is the biggest, some things affect it less or more depending on what it is. In general though, many of the Wiki's have the same problem, more work than people and often the people that are there do not make it easy to get new people and keep them. What I am saying is that the WMF should care a little more about what happens to these wiki's rather than just pretend they don't exist until they need new software tested. Its no secret that the WMF wants to be a software development company more than a website maintainer, but they have an obligation to keep the Wiki's running and that includes being a stakeholder at least in a minimal way the cultural aspects of the site and in the policy of them. A Wiki cannot say that only White people can edit and I would assume that the WMF would intervene there, at least I would hope. But its been proven that many make it difficult for some races, genders or religions to edit. One good thing about the Wikia Wiki's is that there is a level above the local admins that actively police the Wiki's at an organizational level to ensure compliance with site policies and to help foster cooperation. No such thing exists at the WMF and there should be. It should also be noted that I do not have a high opinion of many of the WMF's approaches, so when I say the WMF should do something, it comes from someone who generally does not hold them in high regard. But they do need to work with the communities and they are a stakeholder and an owner in the individual Wiki's processes whether they choose to admit that or not. Regardless of their pretention for ignorance over the individual Wiki's they are ultimately responsible for their failure and even if its only for self preservation of their jobs, they should be interested in the largest one succumbing to its own weight due to a failure to keep and retain editors and admins. But clearly its more imprtant here that I was blocked or banned for not laying down to bullies, so I will let it go so that you guys can continue to pretend that there is no problem and it doesn't affect you in any way here. Reguyla (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation problem

Hello, I can't save my changes for the translation of this page in french. Is this normal ? Thank you :) Rome2 (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to translate those messages as stated on the page. You can write up those translations at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat so then admin can add the translations. Stryn (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer, I hadn't paid attention to the message. I'm going to make the request. Rome2 (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Forum readers have likely seen the link on the main page, but in case not, all are welcome to contribute to the ongoing discussion regarding a possible Wikimedia genealogy project. --Another Believer (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)