Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2015-10

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.

Azwikipedia

This discussion should be continued on the Stewards'_noticeboard. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(I wrote about it. But there was no reaction ?! The reason I am writing again. Please avoid vandalism.)

User:sefer azeri' is engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out.), 2 (Without any major wiped out the picture., , ) , 3 (Fraud. Map changed. 100 years have reduced the state's history.), 4 (Insult.)... Requires block it for at least a year. But it was never punished for their work. Sortilegus always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out), 2 (The name of the state, has been removed.), 3 (Reliable sources wiped out)... Wertuose always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Picture of the article - az:Bakı xan sarayı), is deleted.. 2 (insult; Əxlaqsız ifadələrə görə...) and 3. The 3 users blocked me, without any reason! We do not have arbitration and appellate courts. Therefore, administrators dictator. No one can give me an answer?! To whom should I complain? Perhaps now would be the reaction?. -Idin Mammadof talk 08:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Aydinsalis, this is the wrong place to ask. The only people who could intervene are the stewards but the might be unable to do so if the wiki has other active admins/bureaucrats or dispute resolution channels. If you have been left no other option (and I really mean "no other option"), then you could try asking at the Stewards' noticeboard, but make sure you read the notice at the top. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Per Green Giant, you can left that RfC on Stewards Noticeboard.--AldNonymousBicara? 19:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -Idin Mammadof talk 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Aldnonymous and Green Giant, I wrote. There is no reaction. But then what do I do? -Idin Mammadof talk 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues..., User:sefer azeri writes: "atan haqqında yazdığın məqaləni də sildim bu da sənə paz olsun ... çox göt-baş atsan onun qəzeti haqqında məqaləni də sənin qəzetin haqqında məqaləni də siləcəm ... nə istəyirsən elə" (To displease you, I will do everything.). -Idin Mammadof (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues... and vandalism continues...!!! Ladies and Gentlemen !!! How long the vandals, remain unpunished ?! How long the vandals, the administrator will be ?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In these edit the person says "deleted due to copyright infringement"[1][2]. Were these images copied and pasted from another source? Or were they taken by you personally? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It belongs to me. They are stored in my personal library. There is no copyright infringement. They have been removed without any reason. They removed without discussion. Also, this page also deleted. Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you make the image yourself? Please note that simply owning a copy of an image is not the same as owning the copyright of an image. Green Giant (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no problem. I am the author. Documents belongs to me. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you email the image in question as I am unable to see it? Also you said that you took the picture with your own camera? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I photographed their own picture. Web pages belonging to me, these photos are available: 1, 2 Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So this was published in 1933 [3] You do not own the content in question but it should be in the public domain as it is so old. This document is from 1993 [4] Unless that is your signature on the bottom you do not own it. The person who wrote the document or the government owns it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said and you acknowledge, there is no copyright infringement: 1. That is the official document (Letter of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.)), according to our laws, in the public domain. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 8:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree the first one appears okay. But were does it say government documents are public domain? I do not see it here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You see through autotranslator. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I found: Article 7. Objects not covered by copyright protection, (page 15). --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes that indeed says state documents are not covered by copyright. Have requested the deleting admin comment here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. For it have requested the deleting admin comment here. No results. Is there another way to solve the problem? Vandals will not be punished? --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We need to give them some time to respond. Also they are not a "vandal". They are deleting stuff as they see it as a copyright infringement. I am waiting to hear their side of the story. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not the first time? I can show 100 cases. They will not let me in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, as well as other users. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
So far, there was no discussion. Now I began. Articles must be restored first. But I still have not recovered, only 1 article has been restored. In this article, the photo has not been restored yet: [16].--Idin Mammadof (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay yes I see that. Will give the admin more time to response. Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. "Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban?" - I did not understand, you want to know the reason for this? I have not breached any rules. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if their was a discussion that resulted in your ban. And if so can you post it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I created this article. Protested. But they could not delete the article. They blocked me. They are a group. Receive a salary from the state. They do not allow us to. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion (Müzakirə edilmədən silinən məqalələr):
    • Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (Reklam və spam xarakterli məqalələr);
    • Blank pages (Information pages are not). (Boş məqalələr (çox qısa və heç bir informasiya daşımayan məqalələr (məsələn, Filankəs - rejissor)) (Ən sadə məzmun qaydası: Məqalə başlıqdan və bu başlığı çox sadə şəkildə də olsa ifadə edən ən azı bir cümlədən ibarət olmalıdır.));
    • Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish (Vandalizm nəticəsində yaradılmış məqalələr);
    • Misspell the name of the article. For example ( az:Fizuli instead of, az:Fizuli) (Məqalə başlığı səhv yazılmış yönləndirilən məqalələr (məsələn, Fizuli));
    • Written on the same subject, if another article (Eyni və ya çox yaxın məzmuna malik başqa məqalənin mövcud olması);
    • Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (Məzmunu mötəbər mənbələrlə əsaslandırılması mümkün olmayan məqalələr, o cümlədən istifadəçilərin mənbələrə əsaslanmayan özfəaliyyəti);
    • Articles in other languages (Digər dillərdə yazılmış məqalələr).

Under these rules, the articles can not be deleted: [17], [18], [19].

In addition, I would like to mention:

Deleted articles have already been restored:az:Söhrab Arabov, az:Rövzət Dəmirçizadə, az:Məhyəddin Abbasov, az:Nəsib Muxtarov (arxeoloq). But now the deletion is discussed. No reason given. These pages will not edit anonymous az:Vikipediya:Kənd meydanı, az:Vikipediya:İdarəçilərə müraciət, az:Vikipediya:Silinməyə namizəd səhifələr, az:Nuxa qalası, az:Nuxa qəzası, az:Şəki dövləti. They want to be I could not edit anonymous, and I could not have to complain. So I can not complain that they want to lock me global. For this nachili private discussions. The same individuals: User:Wertuose, User:Sortilegus, User:sefer azeri. But not yet found any reason not bud. If they though an appeal to the Steward, let them come here. If they are right, what are afraid?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The vandalism continues. Again, the pictures are deleted without discussion ([25], [26] They belong to the opposition. For this reason deleted.). Some, after being restored. But some still have not been recovered ( [27] ). Worst of all is that such things happen regularly. We are angry, we are wasting our time, but it is happening again. All intellectuals went out. How long this situation will last? Please help. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2015‎ (UTC)
Sefer azeri yesterday pleaded with me unjustly block. Sefer azeri recently had 6 articles indisputably clear. Because he had created Aydinsalis substances. Hasan that when the complainant had brought back again the other administrators Article 2 of them. Then Aydinsalis 4 article "deletion candidate pages" pulled pane debate. That there is a debate as it is written in the pages it may take up to 15 days. 4 article that has opened the debate over the 15 days after the idea had reported only four people in the discussion. 20 days after the start of the debate. Sefer azeri and Keete 37 makes it nearly always the same review to any discussion of an argument, are deleted without reason and the principles he commented. Sefer azeri immediately "deleted unanimously decided to say" that archive discussion.[28] I took back the debate from the archive "this election is not the place," I said. "We're doing this in the election here, you" was decided unanimously "to say the debate concludes," I said. "Secondly not finish first in this debate, because I said you are neutral in this debate." You're the delete Articles "I said." The decision you should not give any manager, "I said.[29] Sefer azeri blocks show the grounds that I did vandalism pleaded with.--Samral (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I blocked 10 times. 9 Sefer azeri did. Is it coincidence that so? I appeal to all administrators [30]. None of them did not answer. It's not just me. Many users refer pleaded with him to receive the status administration [31], [32], . But almost none received no reply.--Samral (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear META. They violated general principles of Wikipedia, and it is constantly going on. Vandalism is legal, and you do nothing? I still have to wait? Is it true that you never look at my complaint? I want to believe that you will defend the principles of Wikipedia, albeit belatedly. --Idin Mammadof 9:39, 23 September 2015 2015 (UTC)

Background for a six months block of German IP/19 range

Main discussion: Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_Tobias_Conradi.
The English Wikipedia Decline.png
  • 2015-10-04 19:23 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked 91.9.96.0/19 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation blocked) ({{CheckUser block}}) [34]
  • 2015-10-07 18:50 Jasper Deng (talk | contribs) blocked 91.9.96.0/19 (talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) (Abusing multiple accounts) [35]

The IP range belongs to a larger German internet access provider and several users will be prevented from editing. Additionally, since Wikidata has a central position, user may e.g. edit in German Wikipedia, but not be able to adjust related data in Wikidata.

Some events that led to this situation are given below.

2003

The initial edits by the Tobias Conradi account group were related to geography:

  • 2003-05-06 04:24 IP 217.235.5.222 adds ISO 3166-2 codes to country subdivision articles [36]
  • 2003-05-06 06:14 User:Tim Starling deletes the ones for Australia [37]
  • 2003-05 IP creates stubs for the states of Mexico
  • 2003-05-06 06:53 User:Tim Starling proposes to delete the stubs for the states of Mexico [38]
  • 2003-05-06 15:08 oldest edit for the account Tobias Conradi that is visible as of 2015-09-14 [39]

As of 2015-10-08 the articles for the states of Mexico exist. Additionally these articles and the articles about the first-level administrative territorial entities of Australia contain ISO 3166-2 codes - as added by Tobias Conradi. Furthermore the ISO 3166-2 set pages exist in several Wikipedias, e.g. ISO 3166-2:AU (d:Q21047) in 29 Wikipedias.

2005

The decision to decline the invitation to become an admin may have changed a lot of things in the future of this users and of several other users.

  • 2005-06-26 User:Rick Block writes on User_talk:Tobias Conradi "I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins." and invites TC to state whether he is interested in becoming an admin [40]
  • 2005-07-01 User:Tobias Conradi declines "happy to remain as is for time being. thanks for creating this list and pointing me here :-)" [41]

2006

User:Tobias Conradi ranks high in edit counts. A cascade of out-of-policy blocks unfolds in 2006 [42]:

  • 2006-02-24 1st block (no evidence provided): User:23skidoo blocked User:Tobias Conradi for violation of 3RR - but never provided evidence that the user knew about the policy, nor that he even violated 3RR.
  • 2006-02-26 User:Tobias Conradi one of 20 editors that are not admins and have more than 20K edits [43]
  • 2006-04-20 2nd block (no evidence provided): User:TexasAndroid blocked User:Tobias Conradi with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:CIVIL violations. Warned, but continued the same behaviour. See user's talk page.)
  • 2006-06-29 3rd block (anyone finds the "vandalsim to people's user pages"?): User:Pschemp blocked Tobias Conradi "with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalsim to people's user pages)"
  • 2006-06-30 12:36 User:Jimfbleck out-of-policy deleted "Eisenkappl", without notifying the creator [44]
  • 2006-06-30 19:03 User:Tobias Conradi re-creates a stub under that name [45]
  • 2006-06-30 19:07 User:Tobias Conradi moved Eisenkappl to Bad Eisenkappel [46]
  • 2006-06-30 4th block User:InShaneee blocked Tobias Conradi with an expiry time of 48 hours "(vandalism, personal attacks)"
  • 2006-06-30 19:32 User:InShaneee out-of-policy deletes page Bad Eisenkappel
  • 2006-06-30 20:43 User:InShaneee claims 'Tobias was actually blocked for disruption (he moved a town page to "Bad (town)"), and for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages.' [47]

As of 2015 the article exists at "en:Bad Eisenkappel". Other abusive blocks that followed can be seen in the block log. Later on the user is denied rights because of "block logs":

  • 2006-09-16 User:Winhunter denies access to AutoWikiBrowser for User:Tobias Conradi "Tobias Conradi NOT approved because of block logs" [48]

The user continues to edit:

  • 2006-09-23 User:Tobias Conradi among the top 100 editors by edit count [49]

2007

Admins continue to abuse admin rights and User:Tobias Conradi collects diffs to document the abuses.

Starting 2007-07-20 User:Tobias Conradi is blocked from editing:

  • 2007-07-20 User:Akradecki blocked Tobias Conradi with an expiry time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (violation of probation)
  • 2007-07-20 User:Isotope23 blocked Tobias Conradi with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (continued incivility in response to block)
  • 2007-07-23 User:Akradecki blocked Tobias Conradi with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation blocked, email disabled) (Attempting to harass other users: extended plus added email block after extremely abusive email sent to admin)
  • 2007-07-24 during time of the block some editors gathered at a now defunct Community Sanction Notice Board and decided to ban/ indefinitely block the user [51]
  • 2007-07-28 User:Chairboy blocked Tobias Conradi with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled) (Per Community ban decision at

No contribution by User:Tobias Conradi to the English Wikipedia article name space anymore.

2009

  • 2009-07-09 last edit by User:Tobias Conradi that as of 2015-09-14 is visible [52]

2015

As of 2015-10-08 the are:

  1. a group of accounts and IP editors that support the work that Tobias Conradi started (some admins think they have 650 000+ edits, but there are probably many more) The achievements of the accounts are massive.
  2. several admins that are
    • vandalizing Wikimedia projects
    • blocking IP ranges and by doing so, preventing new users from contributing
    • blocking unrelated third-party accounts

Every time an admin thinks, "this accounts is run by Tobias Conradi" and blocks the account, and users appear to revert the edits and delete articles, not due to bad content, but based on en:WP:G5, they are actually vandalizing Wikimedia projects.

One example for a vandalizing admin is User:The Blade of the Northern Lights:

  1. Moving of articles about municipalities of Mexico, just picking one example out of hundreds that the user moved: From "Huehuetla Municipality, Hidalgo" to ambiguous "Huehuetla, Hidalgo"[53]. Eldizzino moved "Huehuetla" to "Huehuetla Municipality, Hidalgo" [54]. This seems to have been the most correct. Due to a move by User:Sphilbrick [55] the article now resides at the highly ambiguous title "Huehuetla". And due to edits by User:Reinheitsgebot the page is linked in Wikidata and tagged there as "disambiguation page". But it is not a disambiguation page, it is an article page. So, if the user moves pages in English Wikipedia, why don't he fix Wikidata? It seems Eldizzino did a lot of disambiguation work, and the user destroyed all this and even made the situation worse than it was before. Purpose?
  2. out of 559 edits by that user, that are visible in Wikidata, 557 [56] look like vandalism. Deleting pages about subdistricts of East Timor, moving disambiguated articles about municipalities of Mexico to ambiguous names, moving items against naming conventions that have been moved by admins shortly ago, e.g. "X (valley)" and "X valley" had been moved to "X Valley".
  3. vandalizing articles related to Hungary: ~160 times changing link from pointing to "Zala County" to instead pointing to "Zala", the latter is a disambiguation page [57]. So, this vandal created extra work for other users, which re-disambiguated the links to disambiguation pages that the vandalizing user did create [58] [59]

91.9.105.89 00:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

How much was fund-raised from every country?

On Talk:Fundraising 2012/Report#Totals by country 18 months ago I raised a question of non-availability of Fundraising Totals on every country.

My question was supported by @Mike Peel:, @Bjoertvedt:, @Effeietsanders:, @Oscar .:

@Jimbo Wales: last year during a meeting with Ukrainian Wikimedians at the Pinchuk Art Centre in Kyiv you promised to send me an answer.

No any answer from WMF Team.

And no any country-specific amounts in Fundraising/2013-14 Report.

--Perohanych (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yuri, the fundraising team does not have a list of fundraising totals for every country that can be published publicly. The team may not be able to publish data from a country for a number of possible reasons, including the privacy and protection of our users and donors, security considerations, data limitations, and the team's capacity. The annual fundraising report does include donation totals aggregated by region, and the team may be able answer other specific questions (considering the limits on public data). I believe the fundraising report for 2014-15 will be posted later this week with more information. Thank you, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Stephen, in other words the fundraising team does not want to publish publicly fundraising totals for every country. Or simply the fundraising team hides the data from public.
Can I know the concrete reason instead of «number of possible reasons»?
How should I apply for the fundraising totals for every country? Who can make a decision to provide the data? Should I contact every Board of Trustees Member? --Perohanych (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I started to attract attention of the Ukrainian wiki-community to this issue. The less transparency — the less trust to the WMF and its projects. Unfortunately. --Perohanych (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Financial and strategical Planning os nost important for any organizational goal

The preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.25.248.225 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 5 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from September 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in September 2015.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 23:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk Pages Have Been Seriously Damaged

Respectful Wikimedia,

Several talk pages of en.wikipedia.org have been seriously damaged by so called policy. I feel it is unfair to Wikimedia.org. So please do not remove this section so casually.

Talk page on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_XP

Several editors wanted to described Windows XP is a discontinued personal computer operating system for some unknown reasons, and most editors agree with that fact. Then I start a topic on official Microsoft community seeking for help from http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-update/is-windows-xp-a-version-of-windows-os/cfe8825e-7a0d-46d8-9336-174be4f05cc6. Even though Microsoft community is not Microsoft, but those irresponsible descriptions would not give Wikipedia.org itself any benefits. Hours earlier, several editors revert or hide all my words on that page for some a policy. But I have completely no ideas why they did it until several hours earlier rather and keeping those words displayed there for days? I wish Wikimedia.org should examine those behaviours there.


Talk page on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:X86-64

Similar situation happened on this talk page too, they gave me time to write things there for days, and then for some unknown reasons this page has been seriously damaged, leaving seriously unconstructive text there. People love Wikipedia.org because they believe what it says it nearly correct. But I found some description is not that nearly correct and start talks there. Someone accused me as pigs, this discriminated word just expose their real viewpoint to break the fairness and balance of Wikimedia.org. I have no authority to rescue that page, and I have no right even to make any corrections on the main article, so I copy some of important discussions onto official community of Intel, to https://communities.intel.com/thread/87724 .

If I've make any real disruptive edit onto the main article, they have the right to remove all my words. But please examine what I have devoted my time and energy to. I wish this time Wikimedia.org could do something to maintain its own reputation in time.

Best Regards, Aaron J.

Privacy Violation

I listed the editors' name on my own user page, then I was blocked for indefinitely time. But someone else who is now inspecting or tracing all my past edits and list them on its own sub user page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jeh/swl/j&oldid=686134888 . I found it is illegal. This user first disclosed all my IPs on my user talk page without my permission, when I had few knowledge on what sock puppet really is. Then this time this privacy violating behaviour has been started again.

I know this kind of behaviour does give really negative effects on Wikimedia, but if readers know such kind of things under continuation, they would fear to make any edit on Wikipedia.org, especially for users who have static IP address which would be easily be traced to the true personal information. Wikipedia.org is open to the audiences from all over the world, so this kind of behaviour is a really danger to the victim.

I know policies are important to maintain the Wikipedia.org to work in normal, but if they are used by someone for negative and even harmful purposes like described above, I think Wikimedia must take some actions to stop it in time.

And I have to declare that some of the entries listed in that link are not what I edited. After all, this behaviour is already beyond any human law on privacy could tolerate.

Best Regards, Aaron Janagewen

Commercial advertising in CentralNotice

I see we currently have a centralnotice which advertises some multi-billion-dollars for-profits, calling by name "JSTOR, Project MUSE, EBSCO, Newspapers.com and Highbeam". If I recall correctly, it's the first time we have such advertising in CentralNotice in many years: I can only remember some Dell sitenotice around 2006, perhaps, and there might have been something with Orange in some countries due to Wikipedia Zero. The last known time we included some non-Wikimedia trademark in the CentralNotice (Sciences Po's logo for a survey, or something), the thing was hugely controversial. --Nemo 06:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing this up. I agree that this type of advertising needs additional discussion and consensus. I've removed the problematic paragraph in this edit. Let me know if there are other banners where a similar edit is needed. (cc: Ocaasi, Astinson) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey Nemo and MZ, we did as much as we could before posting this first-ever TWL central notice banner. There was a lot of technical feedback but not much on content. We figured that mentioning the names of some of the more popular databases would help editors understand what was available, but I don't have a problem with 'not naming names'. Given the prominence of Central Notice, an extra degree of caution seems quite reasonable. Thanks for making the changes while keeping the basic message intact. Best, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC) p.s. pinging Astinson (WMF)
Ok, thanks both. Nemo 06:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Nemo and MZ We included the partner names in the notice, because we know they are in high demand from editors (and JSTOR, MUSE and Newspapers.com include a much more mission-aligned citation/access model than many of our others - they are working closely with the OA community or creating OA business models that help the university publishing industry transform). Meanwhile, EBSCO and HighBeam are incredibly high demand -> and hard to get access to privately. Whenever we communicate them, we get asks from editors- that was why they were included. I am fine with the changes, but want to make sure you recognize that the notice is only visible to signed in editors with a certain level of activity/participation: we are only communicating it because it can be a reward to those editors for actively participating in the community - not as wholesale advertising to readers. Thanks for bringing us in, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Alphama and his bots - AlphamaBot2 & AlphamaBot4

Hello,

I was just referring to https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaVI.htm

I found that User:Alphama and his bots AlphamaBot2 & AlphamaBot4 are tagged as independent users.

Whereas his other bots AlphamaBot and AlphamaBot3 are listed are bots.

Is this a technical glitch or it upto any Wiki Project to define bots either as users or bots? --Muzammil (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all bots need to be tagged as bots. This should be decided by local communities. Ruslik (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Mxn and User:Alphama would be able to comment, perhaps. Ijon (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I use 4 bots. When I asked for the bot right, the admin gived me the flood flag (user with bot). I don't pay attention to my bots are users or bots. Is it a problem? Alphama (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Alphama, there's no problem as such. I just made an observation and want to know if it is a technical glitch or anomaly. No question on the good work done by you. Best of luck! --Muzammil (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. At viwiki, we have our own project for training new members how to use bot to enrich article content. If you need sth, may I can help your wiki. Alphama (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rfc/Is their a failuer of wikimedia movement and wikipedia culture to take native american cultures and people in confidance? if so, then why ?

Hi,

Why I am taking this issue here at meta is whether there is a failuer of wikimedia movement and wikipedia culture to take native american cultures and people in confidance so that they can share their cultural information freely? if there is such a failure, then why and what corrective measures wikimedia movement is expected to take those communities along with with rest of the world ?


On one of the article talk pages of English language Wikipedia, I came across a recent statement of a wikipedian namely en:user:CorbieVreccan saying that, "traditional people (here probably he is refering to the native (north) american people) - the ones who know the full ceremonies (here probably he is refering to religio cultuaral etc ceremonies)- do not want details of ceremonies published or publicly discussed. Many of them would prefer we not have WP articles on these topics at all." en:user:CorbieVreccan further states that, "but I don't always have the option of putting in more specific details, both due to it not being sourceable to en:WP:V standards as well as ethical concerns and cultural boundaries." Besides in his statement he seems to doubt correctness of available information in publiclly available sources (including en:WP:RS.)

Being a wikipedian from non-american culture, and knowing that North american culture by now in 21st century is expected to be plural enough that the ethnic cultures atleast of North americans feel safe to share their cultural information public platform like wikipedia with more confidance. I suppose US a nation that saves yazidis from persecution irrispective of their shade of conscience and belife must be taking care of safety of their indigenous people irrespective of their beliefs.

In 21st century where information is so easily shared and already available on internet en:user:CorbieVreccan would be able to stop at the most information coming one en wikipedia, but their are indipendant language wikipedia projects in hundreds of world languages and besides wikipedia internet is full of millions of websites. Actually if information about native north americans avaible presently in all the sources is incorrect then is it really going to help native americal cultuers by hiding the correct information about their cultures because hiding of the information may become cause of retainment of mis information through various medias and languages. Would it not be the best policy that sharing of correct information whatever it may be shared with wiki movement more openlly and confidently.


If reason of reluctance to share information is commerical loss then wikipedia is more of a text dependant encyclopedia and not likly to cause a loss of revenue on cultural celebrations. May be that since I am from India where majiority celebrates and apreciates plurality of ethnic beliefs much more easily so ethnic communities from India feel it more free to share their culture more openly than that of north american native communities.

21st century native american people also are expected (correct me if I am wrong) to be educated enough to understand the above point and must be enough aware of wikipedia and encyclopedic culture, Why I am taking this issue here at meta is whether there is a failuer of wikimedia movement and wikipedia culture to take native american cultures and people in confidance so that they can share their cultural information freely? if there is such a failure, then why and what corrective measures wikimedia movement is expected to take those communities along with with rest of the world ?

May be I am entirelly wrong to depend on a single source info mentioned by an individual user, then please help me and others to know better on this subject.

With best wishes to north american native communities for their cultural plurality and warm regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


"traditional people (here probably he is refering to the native (north) american people) - the ones who know the full ceremonies (here probably he is refering to religio cultuaral etc ceremonies)- do not want details of ceremonies published or publicly discussed. Many of them would prefer we not have WP articles on these topics at all." en:user:CorbieVreccan further states that, "but I don't always have the option of putting in more specific details, both due to it not being sourceable to en:WP:V standards as well as ethical concerns and cultural boundaries."
The way Mahitgar has chopped up my words is confusing. See diff for what I actually said: [60]
Mahitgar's comments: "(here probably he is refering to the native (north) american people)(here probably he is refering to religio cultuaral etc ceremonies)". Mahitgar, please do not reconfigure other people's comments this way. - CorbieVreccan (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment - (Note: this is the same comment and edit I made on Mahitgar's original post here:[61]) It's not the role of Wikipedia or Wikipedians to try to pressure people to change their cultural values. Rather than a failure, on either side, this is just a cultural difference. We already have a Wikiproject where we deal with Indigenous issues. I could say more about how you are portraying our communities in the edits you've made, but others can see that for themselves and I'm going to hope that at least some of this is due to language barriers. I would ask those reading this to look at Mahitgar's edit history. The articles he's been working on need a lot of help and could really use more eyes. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi,
Once again, this is a discussion page,- not english wikipedia article but wikimedia forum we are discussing failuers of wikimedia movement and wikipedia culture to take american indigenous people in confidance so that they would have shared their cultural aspects more freely- , my perceptions are my perceptions as of now that I have elaborated above, you have every right to put forward your side. The way you do not expect me to misrepresent you simillarly it is for you not to strike out my sentences but you kindly write your comments separately.
Unfortunatley you seem to keep calling names and resort to personal criticism. First of all I am not at all in editing the article talk page you have made specific comment. If you have not clarified some thing then others have to assume and write in the bracket, If my perceptions written in the bracket are not correct then it is very much for you to inform the global wikimedian community what exactly you mean to say. I know your english is better than me and you can afford to be more transparent so that wikimedia movement and indigenous people of americas benefit. If there is Wikiproject where wikimedia is dealing with Indigenous issues, then let those people join this discussion and let people of those communities themselves put forward their position too on what makes them uncomfortable to share encyclopedic information freely enough ? and what more wikimedia community can do for them to open up more freely.

PleaseClarrify

In above sentence where I have placed templates {{specify}} {{which}} and {{cn}}, I suppose there is scope for clarification.
As of now prima facia from your statements, I tend to assume that, there is a wikimedia movements failure in taking american indigenous communities in confidance and hence they are not happy to share their encyclopedic information freely enough.
Let us be to the point and not waste time of meta community (I am available with open mind for point to point discussions), I am not sure if any other point of yours come under meta and wikimedia foundation perview.
Thanks and regards
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Stats not available for Maithili Wikipedia

Hello,

I just checked https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaMAI.htm

I got the message "not found".


This is strange as https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaGOM.htm seems to be working. Konkani was launched after Maithili.

--Muzammil (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Muzammil, that service is provided by Erik Zachte. I have informed them about your message on their Dutch talkpage, but you can also just contact them yourself at ezachte@wikimedia.org. All the best, Taketa (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Taketa, thanks for the info. I've emailed Erik Zachte. Hope this anomaly is resolved soon --Muzammil (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Umpteen thanks to Erik Zachte! Maithili Wikipedia stats are now available!!--Muzammil (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The legalization of vandalism

Look: The legalization of vandalism. There was no reaction. Legalization of vandalism! --Idin Mammadof 15:34, 24 October 2015‎ (UTC)

English Wikipedia comments

Is There Any Way to Get Rid of Bad Faith Reverting?

Respectful Wikimedia,

Do please take a look at page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-side_bus. I have already made necessary correction, but someone else stop my correction! So I post another question on official Intel community, https://communities.intel.com/thread/88405. How can a one make a necessary correction at all?

Best Regards, Aaron Janagewen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaron Janagewen (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I have posted something on Microsoft communities to question the Is Windows XP a Version of Windows O/S? I obtained critical answers and rescue the article Windows XP on en.wikipedia.org from misled. But only until this moment I found my user account on Microsoft community has been suspended because of reported by someone, and I believe this someone is just some editor(s) from en.wikipedia.org! What such a dirty behaviour! This bad faith has already extended and exceeded the region which could be bound by Wikipedia.org! I feel extremely sorry about the current situation of Wikipedia.org! For anyone who want to remove my words on this section, I wanted let you know, stop! Paper could be used to cover burning fire. A good wiki editor, no matter how the professional skill he/she possess, the very first thing is that he/she should have a kind, responsible and accepted heart.

Please take the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X and its talk page for example. The editor, Guy Harris, failed to accept anything better than his. He would drop the good one, or use some a policy indirectly managed to kick out the editors who put really effort to improve the qualities of articles. With his words, "my English and my knowledge of computing far exceeds yours", I have no ideas how many potential editors left Wikipedia.org! And how many chances to improve the qualities of articles have been lost with his/her best efforts! That might be the reason why readers are getting to lose their faith in Wikipedia.org!

I want to make more and more corrections and improvements to the articles on computer science, but as you see, reverted, reported and kicked out of by those ineligible wiki administrators. This is not the negative view of my own, but so many and many others. If the freedom and fairness do not exist anymore, why the potential donators put their money onto Wikimedia.org? In normal situations, we China mainland readers could not visit zh.wikipedia.org. And frankly, most articles on zh.wikipedia.org are totally lies and wastes, extremely far from the truth. If Chinese readers could not visit zh.wikipedia.org, and found most articles on en.wikipedia.org are wrong, why potential Chinese donators donate their money on to Wikimedia? If one could not be accepted, then how can that one accept others?

JMHamo review process feedback in 2015

frankly, not sure your new process is worth my time.

I often work with topics that are new and/or novel. you used to be a nice place of the web that welcomed new topics/content. IN the past two years, most of the submissions I have provided have been rejected...largely on the premise that the person doing the review was unfamiliar and thereby judged the topic as non-newsworthy. Pity.



This one was designed to help people in the process of adoption. The organization I outlined has already helped more than 300 families to do just that...all without fees. The last webpage I did to support the same non-profit group generated well over a thousand inquires in the first year. Hard for me to see that topic as "non-newsworthy". Instead, I just seems to me that your process is not worth my time.



Ditto on two new areas of science where I have been working. You rejected both as pseudo-science because your reviewer had not heard of the material. This despite the fact that we reference several published journals reporting in the foundational science. Now, an RCT exists in the one case and two RCTs will exist in the next year on the other. Oh, one more footnote, the medical textbook companies have aged an entirely new chapter on the "pseudo-science" as they deemed it essential in training new physicians in a given specialty. Moreover, our team has been asked to present at several scientific conference sin the past year. All of which baffles me given that the one place the information now gets "rejected" is Wiki.



Frankly, I believe you have begun to lose your way. Again, a pity given that you used to perform a rather useful "read it here first" function of sorts. Now, your pursuit of careful content makes you look so much more like the printed encyclopedias of a generation ago. Let me know when one of your cracker jack science editors begins to post on these topics by quoting the medical textbooks.



PS I went back to a couple of topics we posted with you five or six years ago. I noticed that most of the edits since that time were done by "branded" interests who literally changed the non-branded science entries and support materials we gave you (I used to say entrusted to you) only to find them replaced with marketing jargon and more narrow descriptions (which match the new marketing campaigns). Whatever happened to your founding principle of crowd-editing to get a more balanced view?



Sincerely,

Jim Currie

(a former advocate for your methods) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.81.44.221 (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Fusion of accounts

Just checking... is it possible to do a fusion of two unified accounts ? I think it is not. Can anyone confirm ? Anthere (talk)

It's currently not available as a regular function by stewards; see phab:T49918 for progress. Technically, it is *possible* but hasn't been enabled on Wikimedia yet because it hasn't been verified that it will not always break. --Glaisher (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks ! Anthere (talk)

Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

Affiliations Committee logo.svg

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Wikimedia Affiliations Committee is pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.

Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.

Please find a bit more information on Meta-Wiki and do not hesitate to contact the Affiliations Committee if you have further questions.

Thank you - Wikimedia Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 07:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet helpSubscribe or unsubscribe.

Groups

Why does "Oversighters" appear twice in the Groups list on Special:ListUsers? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

See the question and answer at the bottom here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113641 Stryn (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think someone broke Wikipedia

Exception encountered, of type "BadMethodCallException"

Wasn't me, honest!

Rich Farmbrough 23:39 29 October 2015 (GMT).