Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2014-12

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.

New Wikipedia "look alike" - is it connected with this wiki?

Recently I came across a page with all the appearance of a wikipedia page, with one exception. Instead of the normal WIKIPEDIA logo in the upper left corner, there was a representation of the human brain. My recollection is that this site was called "Rational Wiki", but I'm not sure of this.

The content was much more casual then normal WIKI prose, including some humor. I'd like to look again for this site, but I must have something wrong in my memory of it, as I cannot find it again.

Does anyone know of this site, and is able to give me its URL? Many thanks if you can.

George Sweeney

@Gsweeney: Hi George. The site is indeed called RationalWiki ( It looks the same because uses the same free/open-source software which was originally created for Wikipedia (MediaWiki), but it is not associated with Wikipedia or Wikimedia at all. Wikipedia does have some sister projects however (see for a list), but RationalWiki is not one of them (neither are the unrelated sites Wikileaks and Wikia, FYI). I think RationalWiki was created as a more secular/progressive response to the conservative wiki Conservapedia, see here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, PiRSquared17! It is I, Ellie Oink. I hope all is well with you as winter approaches. @Gsweeney: You might run across yet other sites using MediaWiki software, with somewhat similar appearing puzzle globe logos. When you have more than a cursory look at the logo, you'll notice that they are distinctly different. I saw Encyclopedia Dramatica, and a very sweet Polish language culture and humor website that used MediaWiki and what looked like a golden egg instead of our puzzle logo. PirSqr17, I noticed this too today, regarding expanding license/ usage of Wikimedia logos, which I thought was exciting! --FeralOink (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising banner

Tracked in Phabricator:
bug 72013


First, sorry for my english (feel free to correct my message). For information, the french community considers the CentralNotice banner used for fundraising as problematic: it doesn't reach the two first goals listed on CentralNotice/Usage guidelines:

  • "Be as unobtrusive as possible."
  • "Be as narrowly tailored as necessary."

All feedbacks we have (on OTRS, Village pump, Newcommers forum, through our real life colleagues or family...) are very negative about the fundraising popub, which is very intrusive, not very well translated and looking like Phishing. In our view, it's counterproductive.

The French community is unanimous about this, as you can see on this community vote, and asks to go back to the classic banner used the last years.

Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done This issue has been resolved .I have notice Fundraising team. See here .Regards --Grind24 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure it "has been resolved": [1]. But thanks. Jules78120 (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Some examples (not clear which were used widely; I wish there were public updates on fundraising activity):

How to interpret (definition)? --Nemo 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In the meanwhile I removed some "promises"/statements, contained in Fundraising, which were apparently superseded.[2] --Nemo 13:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Update on this: please see Lila's post to wikimedia-l. We will not be using the 'pop-up' banners in our upcoming fundraising campaigns. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

Hello Whether there is such an opportunity to include in the Kazakh wikipedia function patrol as a Russian Wikipedia?--Kaiyr (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

WMF has decided not to enable FlaggedRevs on any new wikis anymore. See phab:T31744#328693 --Glaisher (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, see phab:T66726. --Stryn (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it seems - according to the discussion regarding Norwegian Wikipedia - that the WMF is (at least now, after they first said otherwise), in fact, willing to enable FlaggedRevs on new wikis if there's a clear community consensus. After all, FlaggedRevs is a real success in the German-language Wikipedia. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

See Flagged Revisions#Enabling for instructions. --Nemo 13:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Donating loses current page.

I was reading a Wikipedia page and the banner at the top suggested I donate, so I did. The donation process closed (or opened over) the Wikipedia page that I had been reading. -_- I don't mind taking a little time aside to donate some money - Wikipedia is awesome. But once I've done so, I'd like what I was reading before to still be there, please. Can the donation thing be made to launch in a new window/tab? Thanks. -- 23:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds nice. Could you send a mail to donate(_AT_)wikimedia(dot)org making this suggestion? Regards, --Glaisher (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I've copied the original comment over to Talk:Fundraising#Donating loses current page, for permanence and a better location. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Local administrators should be able to view Commons deleted file history

Regularly, Commons deletes an image that is used on a local project and conforms to the local project's image inclusion criteria, which are almost always more inclusive than commons. So it's worth retrieving the image for the local project, but the hassle of having to make the request at Commons, the processing time, the language barrier, the impracticality of the transfer, etc, means that local contributors are dissuaded from doing so. Therefore, the local administrators should be able to view the commons file deleted history, and description as well, so that they can retrieve it when necessary. This shouldn't pose a policy problem since they have already been trusted to be admins on local projects (if this is really such an issue, there could be a delete option for commons admins to prevent viewing by local admins, and if this is really, really a big issue, they could be prevented from viewing previously deleted images). I do not believe that a global usergroup would solve the problem, since there are too many wikis and they would be confronted to the same problems. A global group works for the reverse situation, as in Global file deletion review, but not here since all projects would need the access, and I should note that variants of pretty much all of the issues raised for justifying this global group apply here as well. Cenarium (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. This has been a problem on en.wn for many years; our archive policy does not permit replacing images, and we've got some hundreds of broken image links, some unknown number of which would be admissible under our local fair-use policy if there were a tractable way to check them all (without hassling Commons admins to investigate each one for us). --Pi zero (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Should we make an RFC for this ? Cenarium (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand why a global group won't work? Ruslik (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that this proposal is about a local group (with 'viewdeletedfile' right) on Commons which will be given to all administrators on Wikimedia projects, right? -Glaisher (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. A global group wouldn't work because then each wiki (of the hundreds of wmf wikis) will be required to have interested sysops go ask at meta for the global group to be able to use it on their wiki, and they would probably be unaware of its existence in the first place anyway. While if we give a 'viewdeletedsharedfile' userright to all local admins on all wikimedia projects, then they would be instantly aware since they would see 'view commons deleted edits ?' on each of those files, and they could use it as needed. Cenarium (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
There is only on projects with no active sysops that they would need to ask a global file deletion reviewer. Cenarium (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This answer shows that you do not understand how userrights work in MediaWiki. A local group on commons will not be materially different from a global group (users will still need to go to the Commons and ask for this permission). In addition, on many wikis file uploads are disabled, so their sysop will not need this permission. Ruslik (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand the userrights just fine. It wouldn't be a local group at commons, it's the local sysops who would get the userright on their own wiki as part of their standard toolset. The implementation of this would be up to the devs, either they would extract the commons deleted history and display it on the local wiki for the sysop to see, or the sysop would be directed at commons with a token that proves they have the permission to view the deleted file. That some wikis have disabled local file upload doesn't negate the need of those with it. Cenarium (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Or the software would check if the user is a sysop (or has the 'viewdeletedsharedfile' userright) on any wmf wiki (or only a subset of those participating, and if a userright is used then only those wikis's sysops would be given 'viewdeletedsharedfile'). Special:CentralAuth can check usergroup on other wikis, so this can be done, the only possible issue is performance, which is why I was initially suggesting the above two methods. Cenarium (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this idea is dead from the beginning. Nobody is going to give a sysop from some obscure wikiproject, who was elected by only one vote (or just by zero votes), access to millions deleted files. This idea is likely to be blocked by the WMF. So, I advise you not to waste your and our time. Ruslik (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This is why I've suggested a subset of wikis, it could be opt-in, stewards could modify the set of wikis as neeeded. Cenarium (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment This should be an RFC on Commons as it relates to Commons permission rights alone, and people requesting rights for there. To note that Commons had a similar proposal in reverse that would give their administrators the rights to look at file deletions xwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, the decision is certainly not for commons to make. All wikis have access to commons files, so sysops should have access to deleted versions, it's as simple as that. It's totally up to the local wikis, commons should have no more say than others on this. Especially when this is to address persistent shortcomings at commons, which repeatedly showed that it could not satisfy the needs of local communities, even though this is a very long standing widespread problem. Cenarium (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
      Umm, would you please reread what I said. I said that the RFC belongs at Commons, how is that wrong? Commons is made up of all of us, we can all comment, and a decision can be made from such a process. Commons does not sit in isolation, and if you are concerned that it is seeming that way, then having an RFC and pointing all xwiki community members to it (in a neutral way) is the perfect reminder to Commons of the purpose of Commons.

      With regard to where decisions about Commons are made, it is most definitely at Commons. The premise for all wikis is that decisions are made at the wiki of interest/concern.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

    No, it does not concern Commons, at all. It concerns the local wiki communities and only them. Commons provides the images, yes, but it's then entirely up to the local communities to do whatever they want with them, including letting their sysops see deleted revisions if they so desire. Whether a local wiki wants that or not is entirely up to the local wiki community and no one else, commons has no interest in this, and no say, for the same reason that commons could not prevent a local wiki from using commons images. Cenarium (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Files are uploaded at Commons to Commons policies, and have been deleted at Commons after following the policies and processes at Commons. How can you tell me that it doesn't involve Commons? Commons has a policy in place that does not allow deletions where the file meets Commons broad scope and is used by a sister wiki. Take your discussion to Commons, and only if/when it is not meeting needs should a broader discussion take place. There are many reasons why a file is deleted at Commons, though they will be to policy or through discussion, and should be annotated in any deletion. If Commons processes are inferior then get a proposal to fix them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Commons is involved in the file upload and in its deletion, but after a file is deleted, commons has no longer any interest in it. This isn't about commons deletion processes and there's nothing to discuss about that, it's about what comes after. And the fact is, commons does not care about that, there has been many attempts at fixing this problem over the years, but none worked. Take Commons fair use upload bot for example, well commons admins didn't bother using it even when it was specifically requested in the deletion discussion. So as I say, it involves only the local communities, commons has repeatedly demonstrated that they could not address this issue. I'm not putting blame, it's just that it's too much work and it's way too impractical with the current setup. Well, there's the solution, allow local admins to take care of this problem and everyone will be better off. Cenarium (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    A bit of background. This problem has been going on for years and numerous attempts have been made between local wikis and commons to solve it, none succeeded in the slightest. People have even written bots for this, see Commons:Template:Fair use delete. The bot would upload the image on interested local wikis before deletion, but commons admins straight deleted anyway, even when specifically requested, so it's dead in the water. There's no point in trying again and again to have commons do something about that, when it always failed, now it's past due for the local wikis to take the matter into their own hands. Cenarium (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    You are talking about a very specific Commons issue, and your solution is looking to give all admins access to all deleted file information irrespective of the reason for the files deletion. For that reason alone any RFC belongs on Commons. I am not saying that there is no issue, I am not saying that there are not better solutions, I am simply arguing that the RFC is a Commons issue, and that is where the solution needs to derive. Any decision is not independent of Commons.
    Re the issue, it is one of which I am well aware, and one in which I hammer on to my fellow Commons admins. Your proposed simple solution is not so simple nor effective, and the solution does need to derive at Commons.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's not primarily an issue for Commons, it's foremost an issue for the local projects. From my perspective, it is totally normal to allow local admins to see deleted commons files, since those files are in effect part of the local project too, and admins can see deleted revisions of all local project pages, so commons-based files shouldn't be an exception to this. I don't see where the controversy could be or why commons should have to approve of this. After all, commons users can comment at meta too, or even in a local project RFC.
There has been no solution coming from Commons, and to be honest I don't see what more commons could do about that, it's just too impractical to tackle on Common's end, and should be handled by the local project. This is how I envisage it, taking en.wp as an example :
  1. Commons admin deletes file used on en.wp
  2. Commons delinker bot removes file links and notes in edit summary "If you think this file can satisfy Wikipedia's own inclusion criteria, seek a w:WP:REFUND." [or the page appropriate for the local wiki]
  3. Interested editor sees this on watchlist / RC and requests at w:WP:REFUND with proper rationale.
  4. En.wp admin uploads locally with appropriate template. (Or imports it when phab:T8071 will be finally resolved, and made available for deleted commons files.)
  5. Interested editor reinserts file where appropriate, provides justification as necessary.
I think this would be pretty simple and efficient, but feel free to suggest a better solution to this problem. I'd note though that this isn't only for fair use images, commons policies can change, those modifications can greatly affect local projects, and file inclusion criteria vary a lot. Cenarium (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Per Tech/News/2014/50

These 2 Modules should update now, otherwise it'll no longer work:

above. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WMF policy when someone wants the Wikipedia article on him/her deleted

I am one of the administrators of the Swedish language (sv) Wikipedia. Sometimes it happens that a person wants us to delete the Wikipedia entry on him/her, in most cases for what seems to be reasons of privacy.

Our policy has been not to delete articles upon request. (Some of these articles have been deleted for notability reasons, but that is another thing.)

Now the question has been raised whether our policy may be in conflict with more global WMF-policies.

Does WMF have any policy on this? What would be the typical answer from WMF if a person asked them to remove a Wikipedia article?

/NH 10:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Local projects manage this, as per wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people. See how en.wp usually handles these cases. HTH, --Elitre (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. /NH 09:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why I'm blocked?

Why I can't get to any page in cs.wikipedia and in lt.wikipedia? --Kusurija (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What happens if you try to go on those sites? Tried with other browsers / logged-out? --Stryn (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm using Mozilla firefox (now editing per Opera, because after my first (here) edit per Mozilla I couldn't read answer. In all blocked wikimedia sites I got this: The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

  • The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
  • If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
  • If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

The same on cs.,lt.wikipedias, cs.wikibooks, but not on en.wikipedia and others. --Kusurija (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm using Mozilla firefox (now editing per Opera, because after my first (here) edit per Mozilla I couldn't read answer. In all blocked wikimedia sites I got this: The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

  • The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
  • If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
  • If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

The same on cs.,lt.wikipedias, cs.wikibooks, but not on en.wikipedia and others. --Kusurija (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. Please remove (IP adress) from history. Thank You. --Kusurija (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The same when I tried log out. --Kusurija (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
None of those issues are related to mediawiki or settings on Wikimedia, our block messages are quite specific and different in context. Sounds like issues are closer to home either with your browser, or with your ISP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
??:When I closed Mozilla browser at all (fully), opened again, I could see everything when not logged. After I logged on, I was blocked as I wrote above. --Kusurija (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a cache problem or so. What if you clear your Firefox cache, does it help? Stryn (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Either way, it is not a "block" as we define blocks at WMF. I can see that the user personally has an issue, I don't see that it is at the WMF end of proceedings. As I said, when we block, you are directly and specifically told, not some other error.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
And blocking only prevents editing; it doesn’t cut off all access.Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Problem persists all time. Most time I can't use Opera. So as You can see, I did not edit per all wikipedias (cs. wp, lt.wp, cs.wv, cs.wikt and so on). These several edits, which I'd done, was per other than Mozilla firefox browser. That is pity for me. --Kusurija (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC) (Please remove IP adress again). --Kusurija (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


You should change disign here. It's really boring. Ochilov (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

How to change Account from Wikimedia to Wikibook while keeping the same username


I am an author and very new to Wiki world. A couple of days ago I signed up to Wikimedia and uploaded some information about my book. I received a message from Wikimedia that that upload was removed for it was not loaded on the right media. I found out about Wikibook. Tried to open an account there using the same username, which the name of my book, but that was not accepted for the name was being in use already.

Question = to keep my username, can I use my already made account on Wikimedia and post information about my book on Wikibook? If not, can I delete my account in Wikimedia and start all over in Wikipedia, using the same username?

Thank you in advance Pasha

Hi, you don't need to create a new account to access wikibook, just login using your old username and password (the account you created wikimedia). You can access all wikimedia wiki including wikipedia with that same username and password. While logged in, Click this link to merge your account globally. Thanks! ~ Nahid Talk 01:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Translation administrator

Bueno! Can you give me the link to the translation administrator permission and tell, what are the minimum criteria and can I perform it now/or later? Thank you for your help. --Ochilov (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WM:TA has some information about translation admins. Basically, they just mark pages for translation and do other related administrative work. You don't need it for translating pages. Unless you've been tagging pages for translation and doing other translation maintenance work, it is very unlikely to be a translation admin here. --Glaisher (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Help" namespace

Hi! I've got one question an possibly a request. When I translate some pages in the "Help" namespace, and translate the word "Help" itself in the /Page display title/ section, it tells me that "the namespace has been changed" and treats this section as "out of date". But from what I know, /Page display title/ doesn't affect anything exept the visual appearance. So why does it behave like this? And what should or could be done about this to solve this problem? The thing is that I always translate namespaces into their equivalents in the target language, and I never get any messages of this kind except for this one namespace. Can anyone tell me or do anything about this thing?-- Piramid ion  08:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm this at [3] [4]. This looks like bug phab:T41041. --Glaisher (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Hope it will be corrected soon. I just wondered whether I'm not doing anything wrong :)-- Piramid ion  21:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Planet Wikimedia backlogged

Please could someone attend to the backlog at Planet Wikimedia#Not yet added and Planet Wikimedia#Pending? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really.. two new entries were added last month and that page was not updated. (In fact, there's one from at right now). There is just one entry now which hasn't been added. I've updated that page accordingly. I could submit a patch later for the latest request. --Glaisher (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Adopting a global child protection policy

We have a concise child protection policy that has been around as a proposed global policy for a few years. I believe that all wikis with their own policy have one that is at least this broad, and it describes the current position of the WMF. It seems appropriate to have a global policy about this.

I've started a request for comments about simplifying and adopting a global policy on the talk page. Please comment there. SJ talk  02:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Child protection is indeed a worthy topic which calls concrete action. I see there is a Guide to action, did you read it yet?
I propose that the WMF retweets something from regularly. --Nemo 07:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC) P.s.: [5] [6], repeated by them, seem rather effective: can we start with those? P.p.s.: [7]
@PiRSquared17: might be worth setting a multilingual message to go out through message bot.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Nemo, I appreciate your helpful sarcasm, and I feel the reason many Wikimedians (and other online communities) care about preventing grooming and coordinated pedophilia advocacy on the projects is aligned with those UNICEF ideals - to help children avoid violence, exploitation, and abuse.
PiRSquared17, billinghurst, let's wait until there's agreement on language and framing: the policy as it stood was still too broad and ambiguous, it is being revised. My thought is the policy page should concisely describe current policy as enforced (mainly from our Terms of Use, and how that is interpreted when carrying out office actions), and how that varies across different projects. SJ talk 
@Sj and Billinghurst: sorry for my recent inactivity. Is this still needed? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sj: I was meaning an message alert about your RFC, not the policy as stands.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. Not now, perhaps in a few weeks, after another iteration. SJ talk  19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that this policy appears to essentially ban Islam, depending on the person's interpretation of the blessed (?) wedding of w:Aisha and whether they are willing not to commend it publicly. On English Wikipedia this is circumvented by putting the whole thing in ArbCom's lap, which then reinterprets what is written to mean whatever they want it to, and renders decisions in secret to avoid anyone knowing what that is; but here, who would interpret the global policy? Since it looks like there are votes to pass this, who would you ask to find out of Islam is allowed? Wnt (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There is ambiguity in the language, but it has never been interpreted as you fear. In fact, the Arabic and Farsi and Indonesian Wikipedias – all with extensive Muslim communities – use similar language in their child protection policies:
ar: المحررون الذين يحاولون استخدام ويكيبيديا لمتابعة أو تسهيل العلاقات غير الملائمة بين البالغين والأطفال، أو الذين ينادون بها على أو خارج الويكي (مثلا عن طريق الإدعاء بأن العلاقات غير الملائمة مع الأطفال غير ضارة لهم)، والذين يعتبرون أنفسهم مشتهي الأطفال (غلمانيين)، سيتم منعهم منعا دائما.
fa: کاربرانی که قصد استفاده از ویکیپدیا برای تعقیب یا تسهیل روایط نامناسب بزرگسال-کودک را داشته باشند، حامی روابط نامناسب بزرگسال-کودک باشند (مثلاً ابراز این نظر که روابط نامناسب به کودکان صدمه نمی زند)، یا خود را بچه‌خواه نشان دهند بی پایان بسته خواهند شد.
id: Penulis yang mencoba untuk menggunakan Wikipedia untuk mengejar atau memfasilitasi hubungan orang dewasa-anak yang tak pantas, yang menganjurkan hal-hal tersebut (misalnya dengan mengekspresikan pandangan bahwa hubungan yang tidak pantas tidak berbahaya bagi anak-anak), atau yang mengidentifikasi diri mereka sebagai pedofil, akan selamanya diblokir.
That said, I think the current meta proposal is clearer, with a separate section describing local policies.
Interpretation: To my knowledge global policy on these matters is interpreted by WMF staff, when problems are brought to their attention (sometimes resulting in office actions), and by local admins on wikis that have nothing like an ArbCom and must decide how to handle such issues when they arise. SJ talk  02:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Why we need child protection? Wikimedia has freedom of information, and this can destroy the right of everybody to have free acess to all information, which provides Wikimedia projects. Ochilov (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Ochilov, this describes how abuses are currently responded to. How can this destroy access to information? SJ talk  01:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently responded to? By whom and where, based on what policy? --Nemo 07:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, by WMF staff or local ArbComs or admins, when problems are brought to their attention; after investigation, and based on the terms of use or on local policy. It happens rarely but persistently. Cases aren't widely talked about, to preserve user privacy; the ones I hear about are handled on en:wp. But for every case that results in clear evidence of abuse, there are others that are reported but are less clear. SJ talk  23:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

De-federalizing the role of Meta policy

The discussion at Child protection has highlighted a basic philosophical issue with Meta policies where ordinary users are concerned: they largely duplicate the Terms of Use. I see no obvious reason why any policy important enough to mandate on every Wiki project would not be important enough to make part of the Terms of Use and thus advertise appropriately on each project page. Meta policies, and the discussions that determine them, don't really get much attention from ordinary users. In part of course because there's a huge issue of language; while the eventual result may get translated, there is little practical chance for non English speakers to become involved.

Now looking over the first section of Meta:Policies and guidelines, what jumps out at me is that there really is very little Meta policy that concerns the average user. Things like Oversight policy and policies on creating and deleting language projects really only affect stewards and a small number of people who are delegated power by the stewards. The only apparent exceptions are the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy which are part of the site web pages, and the more miscellaneous No open proxies, Office actions, and in extremis Global bans. Even these exist largely to prescribe stewards' behavior (such as when to permit editing through a proxy), though they imply some behavioral requirements for ordinary editors.

My feeling is that it would be clearer and more efficient to extract what is actually necessary (and no more) from these policies and explain it in the Terms of Use, then redesignate all the other 'global' policies as being policies for stewards and persons with special privileges assigned by stewards. There shouldn't be two different global level ways to ban something - either something is part of the advertised Terms of Use, or it should be up to the individual project. (I don't see why the question of allowing open proxy editing isn't left to the individual project by the way) Of course, Meta would keep its policies concerning Meta only separate from this. Wnt (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So, do you want the legally binding clauses we force our millions editors to sign to be expanded or reduced? Cf. Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-10-11#Concerns with the present text, Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-10-06#Harassment, threat and abuse, Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-12-13#Definitions, examples, and critiques. --Nemo 22:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I was indeed very skeptical of the Terms of Use and saw it as a backdoor method of forcing through unwanted policies, i.e. censorship, when it was introduced. That said, the Terms (a) have not been abused and (b) they were adopted. Given a choice between one governmental mechanism by which limitations can be placed on any Wiki, or two such mechanisms, either one of which can have that effect and be enacted independently, it is better to have only one. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
False dichotomy. The point of the terms of use is that when you sign them you're subject to M megabytes of legal obligations, with M arbitrarily large. --Nemo 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If website terms of use and software shrink wrap agreements ever start becoming genuinely enforceable, you will have hundreds of thousands of people who try playing some simple free game on a web site, then get sued for their houses and life savings based on obscure bizarre fees written in the fine print. At that point either a couple of the victims will drive car bombs into the headquarters of such predatory companies until congress and the media line up to say how wrong it was for them to do that, or else people will resign themselves to visiting only web sites on a list of a few thousand 'reputable companies' certified by somebody like Microsoft. In other words.... let's hope that the legal enforceability remains dubious. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia should have a contingency plan for a total sitewide password "reboot"

I am concerned that North Koreans and other hackers emboldened by Sony's capitulation will eventually target WMF projects. I think WMF needs to have a clear, specific, workable plan now to deal with several what-ifs, beginning with: what if hackers obtain the plaintext passwords of everyone with an account on a WMF site?

I understand, of course, that multiple measures are taken to prevent that from happening and that this is the most basic task of computer security. But national level attackers may have access to backdoors in operating systems and encryption algorithms that we don't even think are possible.

I think you should work out something like:

  • WMF employees and holders of the highest level permissions who are required to be known to the WMF should give you their phone numbers -- to be stored on a piece of paper in a safe place in your office, not online! This way you can send them messages to call you, and when they do you call them back to confirm their identity and reestablish a password.
  • Though having a right to be anonymous, admins should be required to submit a "committed identity" (a hash of a unique passphrase known only to them, generated offsite). These should be posted to their user pages but also archived regularly to offline storage, i.e. flash drives, just in case your servers have been wiped out. Producing the passphrase -- securely, in the same stream in which they transmit their desired new password! -- gets them a password change.
  • Other users should be encouraged to use the committed identity mechanism, but many will need after the fact verification. People who have been reestablished should be able to interview people in live chat and ask them questions about various things they've written in the past, then give a guess whether this is the same person or not. It's not pretty, not 100%, and takes some time, but it should be good enough. Alternatively, after the initial crisis, those claiming an account should get to operate it with a provisional tag (no special privileges) which goes away if there are no rival claims in 90 days.

This isn't all that should be done - for example, you should look for a way to spin off the email contact data to some independent secure server, without being accessible from the normal servers any longer, so that when NK breaks in they can't look up the email addresses of people who have edited articles they don't like. This does mean that you wouldn't be able to see your email address in your preferences; you could only change it from there. Wnt (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean something like these?
--Nemo 19:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Nemo_bis, these are useful links but they're all predicated on the idea that the whole list of passwords won't be divulged to plaintext. The problem is, despite getting stung on plaintext passwords back in 2011, [8] the hacked files about Sony still included a huge list of plaintext passwords this time. [9] And this isn't the only company it's happened to. Either it is really, really hard to discipline any organization not to use plaintext passwords.... or maybe there are back doors in things people think are beyond reproach, put there by some spook outfit or another, and they really didn't have plaintext passwords that they knew of. Either way, I see some room for worry. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The passwords are salted and hashed in the DB, and login/account creation now uses TLS (with Perfect Forward Secrecy ensured by elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman) by default. Of course, that does not help if the WMF's unencrypted traffic is somehow intercepted, but I think it's enough to stop the majority of attackers (but probably not the NSA, for example). How paranoid do you want to be? I think requiring CUs and oversighters to have a committed identity (generated offline) makes more sense than requiring all users or even all admins to have one. Even if you require all users to have SHA-512 or some other form of proof of identification, the users could have keyloggers which send the DPRK all their passwords and inputs to MD5/SHA-1. Already MD5 has been said to be broken, and there are theoretical attacks on SHA-1 too (they may be practical for large governments in the near future). It might be only a matter of time before the other popular ones like SHA-512 are broken too. Adding committed identities couldn't hurt though, except for greatly increasing the technological barrier for admins. Requiring real names/phone numbers for all admins seems like it could work too, but would violate the privacy policy. I'd be worried about hackers accessing CU data or server logs too, not only emails. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: I agree the other data is worrisome, and left it out only to try to focus on one thing first. When the press manufactured a 'controversy' about Amy Pascal's emails, self-righteous commentators turned out more or less to say don't put anything in an email that you don't want tattooed on your forehead during your next job interview. I don't believe that is a right standard for society to have, but it should be clear that Wikipedia, going by this standard, should not keep secret discussions about contentious issues on the servers imagining that they aren't going to come out. If something is too secret for even ordinary admins to have access to, it doesn't belong on a machine connected to a network - any network.
Ultimately, though, I have to admit, I'm not an expert on computer security. I just want to say heads up, WMF, please have those who are be ready. Don't just assume North Korea won't be interested in us, because that tends to blur into "let's make sure North Korea isn't interested in us." Whereas what we should be thinking is, if we haven't included anything to make North Korea furious with us yet, then we haven't been doing our job as well as we should have. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree adding a committed identity wouldn't hurt, but it might be confusing for users who aren't familiar with it already. If you want to keep your email secret, then don't send it. If you want to keep the content hidden from most people (at least until quantum computing/Shor's algorithm becomes practical) use strong encryption (e.g. PGP/GPG). I definitely agree that "secret" data should not be on a machine connected to any network. I'm not an expert on security either, but I agree with most of what you say. I just don't think this requirement should be added unless it is easy for tech-unsavvy users to understand, and I don't think we should recommend MD5 (even though pre-image resistance only has theoretical attacks AFAIK, collisions have been found, so it seems like a bad idea to use it). Requiring all users to give personal contact information to the WMF would definitely cause a large number of users to leave, although it makes sense (and is already required) for users with access to private info (CU/OS). PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not suggest having all users, or even all admins, give private information, since that would significantly sweeten the pot for any potential hackers. The email contact data alone is already dangerous in the hands of the sort of people who threaten another 9/11, once they start mailing threats and trying to look up article contributors. Wnt (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Required attributions for OpenStreetMap removed abusively from slippy maps displayed in French Wikipedia (possibly others).

moved to a separate page Requests for comment/Required attributions of OpenStreetMap missing in slippy maps of French Wikipedia (to avoid duplication). verdy_p (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New world language

In reply to Waters.Justin

I did not want to jump into the thread with PiRSquared.and edit the conversation.

However I have a few comments about a new world language that has been developed in Montreal.

But first, stating that:

>>> a similar project is underway, otherwise known as English.
English has become such an international language in large part
because it is a common sewer of languages, fairly readily accepting
loanwords from many sources...

does not reflect the reality that "English" is not a language where everything that is expressed is rendered by a unique word.

If a human can understand that 'surname' is the true identical substitution to 'family name' in another 'flavor' of English or 'given name' is equal to first name', or 'while' is the same as 'whilst', the computer cannot.

So much for English being a coherent language.

Language flavors are introducing various words for the same purpose so a language becomes foreign to itself!

The best we can do is gather all ways to express 'the same thing' for all languages and every single word AND expression (> 1 word) and map it to an abstraction of this 'word' or rather 'concept'.

But therefore sometimes losing hues of meaning in the process - as for instance there are six words to designate 'rice' in Mandarin, 18 words to designate 'snow' in Inu language, etc. And much more depending on inflections, declensions - grammar/syntax.

In this portmanteau language, each 'smart word' as abstraction has knowledge of its lexical class (name, noun, verb, preposition, etc.) and points to contexts (namespaces) and thesauri.

It is currently used to implement global interoperability in EHRs in the USA. It allows for rule and ontology-based systems exactly as the RDF framework but expresses predicates in a different way than RDF.

Any comment, feedback, question is welcome

(not posting my name but no objection to it if required or harmless [cf privacy policy]
English is simply a commonly understood second language. It is required in some contexts that persons understand and speak it, but I do not see any chance that the world will consolidate on using one language. English is a rich language (there are many ways to say the same thing - so many that most sentences of six words or more are unique and have never been used by anyone else, ever), but a hard one to learn, because it makes little sense (no means yes, yes means no). Computers though, are getting better at translation. In zh-wiki, there are two types of characters, simple and traditional, and they are automatically translated one to the other depending on user preferences. Google Chrome offers to translate websites automatically, but does not yet do a very good translation, but enough to get an idea of what the page is about. But that will continue to improve, and while professional translators disagree, will probably become transparent not too far in the future. Myself I would like to see an encyclopedia structured like the Rosetta Stone, with the same articles in every language, with the same sections for each article, the same depth for every article in every language, and simply a drop down box to choose the language. An example of this is any of the pages here that have been marked for translation, such as the election for Stewards. Apteva (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Where edit my report about wikimedia activity?

Hello wikimedians,

I would like to know were and in witch form can I post and edit such a report ?

That's about my participation on Wikimania 2014 and a recent experience in south of India like Wikimedia ambassador making workshop in secondary school.

An other question concern my French native language and I would like to know if it's possible to found on Meta-wiki people interested to translate my text in english.

Lionel Scheepmans Wiki ou eMail 16:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So... No answer means I do what I want ?

--Lionel Scheepmans Wiki ou eMail 20:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Choose a title and start writing. If you write in French, it's best to use Category:FR. --Nemo 20:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nemo. --Lionel Scheepmans Wiki ou eMail 21:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

error 404

when i click desktop show any aricle then return 404 like this

  • Tried to go to this page now, but couldn't. Also have 404. --Ochilov (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
What (mobile) browser are you using? --Stryn (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like an escaping issue, but the HTML looks correct on footers. --Nemo 16:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

About copyrighted quotes

Currently we have in wikipedia in Spanish a discussion about if the use of copyrighted quotes in the articles of Wikipedia in Spanish is compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0, or depends on a particular agreement in wikipedia in Spanish or there is no problem. Since the question is not entirely clear I come here, and so we can obtain any help to clarify this issue.

On one hand the term of use establishes:

You may import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, but in such case you warrant that the text is available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license (or, as explained above, another license when exceptionally required by the Project edition or feature)("CC BY-SA"). Content available only under GFDL is not permissible.

Content that is in the public domain is welcome! It is important however that you confirm the public domain status of the content under the law of the United States of America as well as the laws of any other countries as required by the specific Project edition. When you contribute content that is in the public domain, you warrant that the material is actually in the public domain, and you agree to label it appropriately.

Likewise the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works establishes the right to quote, and here: Strasser, Richard (2009), Music Business: The Key Concepts, Routledge ISBN 9781135845209, p.20 ([10]); is explained:

Article 10

Certain Free Uses of Works: 1. Quotations; 2. Illustrations for teaching; 3. Indication of source and author

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.

(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author if it appears thereon.

Article 10bis Further Possible Free Uses of Works: 1. Of certain articles and broadcast works; 2. Of works seen or heard in connection with current events

(1) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction by the press, the broadcasting or the communication to the public by wire of articles published in newspapers or periodicals on current economic, political or religious topics, and of broadcast works of the same character, in cases in which the reproduction, broadcasting or such communication thereof is not expressly reserved. Nevertheless, the source must always be clearly indicated; the legal consequences of a breach of this obligation shall be determined by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed.

(2) It shall also be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which, for the purpose of reporting current events by means of photography, cinematography, broadcasting or communication to the public by wire, literary or artistic works seen or heard in the course of the event may, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose, be reproduced and made available to the public.

On the other hand wikipedia in Spanish is not allowed fair use with image files and media files according to two votes in 2006 es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Cambiar políticas y reglas de uso de imágenes - es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Extensión de las políticas de imágenes a todos los archivos because it cannot control/survey the use of such media and that there is a responsibility on the unauthorized reproduction of such copyrighted content. So, would the fair use include texts or quotes, or is it necessary to establish a vote in wikipedia in Spanish to specify it?

In addition, there is another problem with respect to legislation, since the right to quote in Spain is quite more restrictive when compared to USA or another country. Therefore, what is the law that applies to copyrighted quotes?: only USA? the more restrictive legislation to ensure ShareAlike? a free individual interpretation of Berne Convention? the legislation of the nationality of the user? Or a particular legislation selected by the community wikipedia in Spanish?

Finally in commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama

The question of what country's law applies in a freedom of panorama case is an unsettled issue. There are several potentially conflicting legal principles, any of which might be used to determine the applicable law (see en:Choice of law). The law used is likely to be one of the following: the country in which the object depicted is situated, the country from which the photograph was taken, or the country in which the photo is used (viewed/sold). Because of the international reach of Commons, ensuring compliance with the laws of all countries in which files are or might be reused is not realistic. Since the question of choice of law with regard to freedom of panorama cases is unsettled, current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken.

If we extrapolate this statement to the right to quote, it seems that this depended on where the book is published.

With these data, I would ask, is it permissible or is not permissible to use quotes in wikipedia in Spanish? Or does it depend on specific agreement in wikipedia in Spanish? Thanks. Trasamundo (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The right of quotation exists without fair use as well. Quotations within the right of quotation don't affect the license of the overall text. See also article 5(3)(d) Directiva 2001/29/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo. --Nemo 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it is very useful to know that the right to quote doesn't affect the license of the overall text. However, the fair use according the USA law exists because the Berne Convention allows this fair use, as similarly the Berne Convention allows other different rights to quote. So, it remains to clarify what is the legislation which would allow the copyright textual quotes in wikipedia in Spanish?: USA law?, the more restrictive legislation about the right of quotation to ensure ShareAlike?, the law of the country where the book quoted is published? the legislation of the nationality of the wikipedian user?, a free individual interpretation of Berne Convention?, a particular legislation selected by the community wikipedia in Spanish?, or a concrete agreement in wikipedia in Spanish to implement a Manual of Style? Thank you very much. Trasamundo (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Right of quotation exists in all copyright laws of the world, as far as I know. Follow the spanish practices (which being within EU bounds are rather restrictive) and you'll be fine pretty much anywhere in the world. --Nemo 21:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's very enlightening. Thank you. Trasamundo (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


What should I do and where should I go to get autopatrolled right in small wikis, which don't have their local policy, such as Esperanto Wikiquote? --Ochilov (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the small wikis don't have autopatrolled user group. eowikiquote also doesn't have it. Only admins and bots have the 'autopatrol' right. --Glaisher (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Local admin's action overridation by stewards

One says it's not possible and the other one actually do it, is there any policy about it? Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 11:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about different things. Stewards have the ability to grant rights, they just cannot grant minor rights to a wiki; there is a standard set of rights that we can allocate from meta, and that is due to the configuration of meta not knowing the scope of rights at any other wiki. The rights that stewards have are shown at Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/steward. Re the protection, there was no requirement to protect that page, no clear alignment with a policy, so it was undone. Closing of RFA is usually sufficient at other wikis, and protection is usually not the means to manage normal things. You seem somewhat set on being antagonistic about a number of issues, there is no conspiracy, there is just standard management.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused, did I ask anything about that action in here by any chance? Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 13:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
For the policy regarding Stewards, see Stewards policy. — Revi 11:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)