Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2016-04

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.

Addition to the interwiki map


I am asked to get some user feedback on the proposal to add Vikidia to the Interwiki map. Would you let a word about it ? Thanks ! Astirmays (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up to Talk:Interwiki_map#Vikidia, the procedure is intentionally low profile and slow (weeks or months). Be..anyone (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata problem?

If you are on and search for 'Ficinus', the results from Wikidata at the bottom include a link to, a location in Poland. Although the Wikidata French translation for Location is indeed Lieu (, the search results are labelled 'Location à Pologne'. Why 'Location' instead of 'Lieu'? Urhixidur (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

i18n on WikiData is tricky, a better place for your question might be the WikiData project chat. Be..anyone (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


How come my comment to this blog hasn't shown up? Rich Farmbrough 20:48 21 March 2016 (GMT).

@Ed Erhart (WMF): Rich Farmbrough 21:30 21 March 2016 (GMT).
Hi Rich Farmbrough, sorry for the delay—I never got that ping (I even just doublechecked). Unfortunately, I can't tell you why your comment hasn't shown up as I can't find it. If we moderated the comment, it would still be in our recycle bin (and it isn't). There is a chance that you tripped the auto spam filter, but that's a lot of comments to scroll through, as we get a lot of spam. Would you like to submit the comment again? Let me know when you do and I'll be sure it gets through. Best, Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I submitted a second (shorter) attempt earlier today. I will notify you if I try a third time. Rich Farmbrough 22:07 5 April 2016 (GMT).
On the completion suggester post, right? I have no record of the comment—even after going through six pages of spam comments from the last seven hours. The most recent comment I have from a Rich Farmbrough was on 10 March 2015, which was actually manually unspammed. Can you try using a different email address, perhaps? I'm really sorry that this is happening to you—I can honestly say that this has not occurred before and that I don't know what's happening. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ed Erhart (WMF): I had forgotten that... I said that WMF might not have standing in the upcoming NSA case... Face-smile.svg
Comment posted for reference it is:

Kyrgystan has taken readers direct to Kyrgyzstan since 2002, so it is perhaps not the best example!

On a tangential note, one can leave a comment using Wordpress, Twitter or Facebook identities, why not using OAuth (Wikipedia identity)?

And should the license be upgraded to CC BY-SA-4.0?

All the best, Rich Farmbrough 12:56 6 April 2016 (GMT).
Oh, one more thing, the very top comment to the NSA blog entry is click/link-spam, recycling the last paragraph of my earlier comment. Rich Farmbrough 13:23 6 April 2016 (GMT).
Found it, and it was in spam—I'm a little disappointed that a search for "Rich Farmbrough" didn't bring it up, but "Farmbrough" and "Kyrgyzstan" did. As I don't have a whitelist, I've instead added "Farmbrough" to a list that gets auto-moderated, meaning that it should go into a "pending" queue that I will get notifications from. If this doesn't work when you comment next, please ping me directly on my talk page with a keyword or two from your comment and I will approve it manually.
My best guess is that something long before my time caused one of your comments to be marked as spam (you've been having to be unspammed since at least 2012), so now the system automatically bins it. I've approved one other comment of yours to the unique devices post, and I trashed the shorter version of your Kyrgyzstan comment. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Rich Farmbrough 00:32 7 April 2016 (GMT).

WikiProject Language samples

Hi, I want to propose a new Project:

The goal of the WikiProject Language samples is to add an audio speech sample to each Wikipedia article about a languages. Therefore I propose to record the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in as many languages as possible. I already got more than 60 recordings and they are already used in the german Wikipedia.
Take a look and support if you like the idea. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Anxiously awaiting TLH and JBO, but ^.^b for the commonscat. Be..anyone (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Translatable page

Hi folks! I'm right now trying to edit a draft to the WF's official blog. I would like to make that draft translatable for easily translate, but I just can't. I know one should use the tag <translate> and </translate>. I tried, but it just don't works for me. Can someone explain it to me?--Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sahaquiel9102: Hey Sahaquiel. I've had a difficult time with the translation tags as well in the past, but maybe I can still help here a bit. Can you point me to your draft? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): Hi! I tried to make the draft translatable but it wasn't possible. The draft was already published in the blog. Finally I separated the languages with submenus. --Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We should modify the layout of the donatons page

We should merge the matching gifts page with the donations page. The current layout of the donation page is pretty ugly considering we are asking for money and linking the two could substantially increase the amount of donations the WMF receives. I have edited here for years and I didn't even know about the matching funds page until today. Reguyla (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see there is also Ways to Give that could also be somehow worked into that, which not only has a link to matching gifts but also a bunch of other stuff as well. This page isn't as attractive as it could be either IMO. Are we really still taking bitcoins? I'm surprised this doesn't list Linden. Reguyla (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Pcoombe (WMF) and Khorn (WMF). I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks I JethroBT (WMF), may I recommend something a little cleaner like this page. Reguyla (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Reguyla: Thanks for the feedback! In common with many fundraisers we've found that every link we add to the donation page and the banners reduces the number of people completing a donation. So for that reason we do try and keep extra links to a minimum. We do inform people about the opportunity for matching their gift on the Thank You page after they have made a donation, and also in the email receipt that we send.
As for Ways to Give, that really is just there to cover the whole variety of methods people can use to donate. We don't get a huge amount of traffic on that page, although in the next few months I hope to do some experiments with it. And yes, we still accept bitcoin, it's not my preferred method but some people definitely like it! Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pcoombe (WMF): Thanks for the quick response. No worries, it's just a suggestion. I do think it's kinda funny that the Thank you page is more attractive than the request for donation page. Reguyla (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

WMF licensing policy, copyvio and vandalism in closed Wikipedias

wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy is in force since 2007-03-23 and asks for clean-up until 2008-03-27. Eight years later:

ListFiles Count
mo:Special:ListFiles 31
ng:Special:ListFiles 1
cho:Special:ListFiles 2
mh:Special:ListFiles 2
ii:Special:ListFiles 3

Several possible file copyvios and several vandalised files exist in these Wikipedias. Easiest way would be to simply remove the 39 local files - there are more than 30 000 000 files in Commons to choose from. 13:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Most seem unfree, but a few ones do not seem so. ii:文件:XichangShi.png has a GFDL-self license, mh:File:Breadfruit.JPG is a “Picture taken by Kowloonese on the island of Hawai’i” so I'd ask Kowloonese (which is barely active, but not completely gone) for a proper license, etc. After moving to commons all those that can be moved, yes. I think the local files should be removed. Platonides (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Re ii: the tag on ii:File:XichangShi.png, uploaded 2006, is GDFL-self(!). That might be a false claim. The map does not highlight Xichang Shi, for which even Chinese Wikipedia uses another file, but highlights en:Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture and adds a small dot, maybe for the Shi. commons:File:Liangshan.png seems to be the source and is contained in commons:Category:Locator maps of Sichuan. It shows the Prefecture, not the Shi. All lines and the file dimensions match, except for white text and dot. Re mh: The Bredfruit.JPG, uploaded 2007, is marked by the software to be a duplicate of commons:File:Artocarpus altilis.jpg. 17:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed user

Rights not yet see requests for Requests for comment. --BasBibi (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This is apparently about Extended confirmed users on enwiki, but what's the problem here on Meta? –Be..anyone (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2016

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in March 2016.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 19:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary uses of separatist flags

The Mainland Chinese government considers both the Tibetan separatist and East Turkestan separatist flags to be contraband.

Obviously these flags must be present in articles such as Tibetan separatism, East Turkestan separatism, etc. However I think in the interest of political neutrality we should be aggressive in keeping them out of places which have nothing to do with the separatist movements. For example en:Template:WikiProject Vietnam uses an outline of the country instead of the current Vietnamese flag.

For example an anonymous user kept adding the flag at bo:Template:Guestbook for non-Tibetan speaker and I have repeatedly removed it, asking for political flags to not be used there. The user contacted me on my talk page trying to tell me that it's not a big deal and I shouldn't remove it: bo:User talk:WhisperToMe. He told me it was used in [1][2][3] these places so I'm going to the embassies of those Wikipedias and ask them to swap the pictures.

If it's a portal about "Tibet separatism then it's okay! However they should never be posted on "embassy" pages which are supposed to be contact points for foreigners, including Mainland Chinese nationals.

BTW see Requests for comment/Massive sysop abuse in Chechen Wikipedia for an example on when pro-separatism on Wiki had gone too far. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the reference to Vietnam. Is the Vietnamese flag controversial in some way? It's never been used on that template, so I imagine it was just a choice made by the template's creator which has stuck. (The WikiProject China template doesn't use a flag either.)
Anyway, unless you're suggesting there are nationalist cliques running the Tibetan, French, Dutch, or Portuguese Wikipedias, this seems like the sort of thing that should be decided at the local project level.
P.S. Don't forget about those separatists on/in Taiwan!!!1 Emufarmers (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, only the symbol of Tibet is a separated symbol, we'd better not use it. But the flag? it's just a history flag of Tibet used from 1912 to 1951, the photo can prove it. Seperate flag? The Chinese Wikipedia says that only Chinese government think it's a separate flag; 14th Dalai Lama says it's a only autonomous flag. ([4][5][6]).
the Flag of South Korea and it's "Taeguk" symbol is also regarded as "separate" or "anti-revolution" flag in North Korea, but why it widely used in English and Korean Wikipedia! Both China and North Korea are socialist states, we should obey law of china, and ignore law of North Korea? Only because North Korea is the so-called "axis of evil", "rogue state" or "outposts of Tyranny"? I think it's ridiculous. (obey law of Florida is enough.)
And I would add, the Flag of the Republic of China is also banned and regarded as separate flag of Taiwan, it was used in Chinese Wikipedia here for 2 years! should we ban it in all Wikipedias?
the snow lion flag is regarded as the symbol Tibet for nearly a thousand years. it's first version was created during Songtsen Gampo's reign,[7][8]. if insist that the so-called "seperate flag" is not suitable, this flag is okay.
No, there don't seem to be any Tibetan separatist movement cliques on those Wikis. I just brought up the Chechen Wiki issue as an example.
AFAIK File:Tibetan snow leopard.svg should be fine (I'm not aware of any political implications with this flag)
1. "I'm not sure I understand the reference to Vietnam. Is the Vietnamese flag controversial in some way?" - In overseas Vietnamese communities in the west, such as the United States, West Germany, France, etc. several members of the community have a grudge against the post-Vietnam War Vietnamese government, and if you go to overseas Vietnamese businesses you may see the South Vietnamese flag, not the North Vietnamese flag. It's like the Cubans who are/were against Fidel Castro.
2. North and South Korea are both a part of the UN, and I don't think either country has objected to flags being used about "each half" of their country in that way.
3. About the ROC (Taiwan) flag I don't think it's as much of a sore point as it used to be since now the Kuomintang is the political party that is more "pro-China" (pro-Mainland China) and the flag does not imply that Taiwan is not a part of China (what the Mainland authorities don't want). Unfortunately the Chou Tzuyu incident did happen recently but I don't think Mainland authorities have a problem with the ROC flag, not with the level of the Tibet flag.
P.S. User:Emufarmers, the current en:Flag of the Republic of China is not considered a "Taiwanese flag" by the true Taiwan separatists. They proposed different flags.
4. I am aware that the Tibetan flag had a history before it became known as the independence/separatist flag. If there is a template/section about historic Tibet and the use does not imply endorsement of a current political movement I don't see a problem. The issue with the Tibetan flag today is that it's widely viewed as an endorsement of a political movement and that's precisely why the Mainland bans it. Again, it's necessary to include the Tibetan flag in articles, image galleries, etc. as it is a part of Tibetan history, but it should not be included in Wikipedia portal headers (the flag is okay in the "portal featured" section if an article about the flag or about the separatist movement is featured in the portal) or "embassy" pages or WikiProject templates as doing so may imply endorsement of the separatist movement.
5. Part of my main motive here is to avoid Wikipedia getting blocked over something unnecessary (usage of the Tibet flag in a place where it's not necessary, a "non-article page"/"non-gallery page"/etc) - I use Wikipedia while I'm in Mainland China
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. wikipedia is not a website in Red China, so it's no need to obey laws in China, just obey law in Florida is enough.
The wikipedia is blocked in china now.china has blocked wikimedia sites for many times, [9][10] just want to prevent his people from the so-called "unsuitable informations". [11] the internet censorship in China will be more and more strict later. China tend to block the whole wikimedia sites, i'm sure that china will block the whole wikimedia sites one day, it has done it last year,[12] so it's no need to censore ourselves. China will be happy if wikipedia be censored. if you want to "avoid Wikipedia getting blocked", and remove all things that chinese government don't want his people see, china will have his wish fulfilled.
if you want to visit wikipedia in china, i suggest you to download "ultrasurf" here, or "freegate" here. these two software are very useful. (notice the two links are blocked in red china too.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 2016-04-14T10:58:00
I am well aware of the internet situation in China. Removing political bias in presenting a topic is not "censorship". Now, if Mainland China blocked all of Wikipedia because it published an article that discussed something sensitive politically we should not bend to that. But if Wikipedia was blocked because a group of editors insisted on sticking the "Tibetan flag" on the Tibetan Wikipedia embassy page (BTW, the Tibetan Wikipedia is not blocked yet in the Mainland) it would be completely unnecessary and such a waste. Do you notice the nuance in my response?
There is a difference between posting information unfavorable to a government, and endorsing a point of view in a political dispute. Wikipedia should do the former, but not the latter.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC for a Global ban for WayneRay

Since no one has done it yet, I went ahead and created an RFC for a global ban on WayneRay, at least temporarily, until the WMF completes their research and makes a determination. I'm just posting in this one additional place because I know more people watch this page than the RFC page. Reguyla (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Server switch 2016

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its newest data center in Dallas. This will make sure Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the new data center on Tuesday, 19 April.
On Thursday, 21 April, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for approximately 15 to 30 minutes on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT).

If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped.

Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.

  • There will be a code freeze for the week of 18 April.

No non-essential code deployments will take place.

This test was originally planned to take place on March 22. April 19th and 21st are the new dates. You can read the schedule at They will post any changes on that schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, I'm alerting all communities in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the Meta community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dupe, see above. –Be..anyone 💩 13:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Where does it go?

Moved from Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.--Syum90 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know where I can discuss wrong trends regarding one of the projects. I mean, what can I do if I see that something is wrong in one of the projects and I can't resolve that via that project because the members usually misunderstand some points? Mhhossein (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Hi, you can discuss about that here at the Wikimedia Forum, or you can open a RFC.--Syum90 (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" on Instagram

Public domain content from Wikimedia Commons without filters. Maintained by the communications staff of the Wikimedia Foundation. #Wikipedia

Wikipedia Instagram account.

  1. Where is this account documented? Who do I contact? Mentioned on the foundationwiki seem to come from the Social accounts template.
  2. It gives a false impression, implying Wikipedia is Public Domain. Our content (with exceptions) is CC-BY-SA with the politics of promoting and infecting viral licenses. Is there a problem watermarking images with the license URL or including an unlinked URL in the description?
  3. It isn't even Wikipedia! Would a PD panorama in a country without freedom of panorama be posted?

Dispenser (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried the contact options listed at social media? Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't mention Instagram nor was it linked from social networking, so no. I'm not posting on the deep web mailing list, pinging User:JElder (WMF). Dispenser (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dispenser. Fair questions. I can add contact info to Insta account and add to social media. We only post PD and CC0 here or on any verified social media accounts, and that's what we're trying to say in the description. Welcome better wording if you have. The use of "Wikipedia" is to reach people who don't know the movement – or Commons – but know and love the encyclopedia. We want to reach them, show them what Commons contains, and how to share that. That's the goal. Thanks for the thoughts. We want our social media to be participatory. --JElder (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Request my IRC global ban be lifted

I am again requesting my ban be lifted on IRC. I know it will be denied and I know some are just going to insult me for trying but here are my reasons.

Apparently someone claiming to work at the Smithsonian attempted to participate in IRC a few days ago after being invited there by someone who spoke to the Smithsonian (there are regular meetups there and Wikipedia folks routinely talk to them so that's not really news). This individual was then blocked and later insulted by RD and others and driven off IRC with claims that it was me. The justification used was that they live in the DC are and were using a Verizon IP and it was assumed to be me. Also, I was globally blocked on IRC by RD, as such my IP would be blocked so how could it be my IP that this person supposedly used? It wasn't!

This is absurd, not only is my ban on IRC complete bullshit, it's even more problematic to accuse anyone who lives in the DC area (millions of people) and use Verizon internet (also millions of people) is me simply because they use the same ISP and live in the same area.

So I am asking again for my ban to be lifted on IRC to prevent this type of stupid and childish crap from happening. We should not be preventing new users from participating in the WMF projects, especially academics, because our front men representing the community to new users are assholes to anyone who isn't an admin and make accusations to new members of the community with assumptions of bad faith.

Please unblock my account to prevent these types of absurd accusations. If the communities and the WMF are even remotely serious about getting more editors and academics involved (which I have my doubts about frankly) in these projects, accusing them of being other people you don't like is not a very good way to do that. Additionally, even if my ban is not lifted, if the WMF has any interest in recruiting new members and having credibility for dealing with harassing users they need to take a long serious look at RD and other ops participating in IRC. Because regardless of the arguments about IRC being outside wiki's scope, these people are representing the WMF. Reguyla (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am completely unaware of the ban you're referring to in your opening comments. I'll just note again that this (wiki) is not the proper forum and even though you aren't getting your way, running around to various places and continuing to cause nuisance will likely result in a block on the wiki(s). You've exhausted all efforts by too many channel operators in too many channels. Go and find something productive to do because repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome is telling enough. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
RJ you know full well what ban I am talking about. Don't play stupid to the community because this is out in the open and not in secret IRC channels to hide your conduct. I complained multiple times about your conduct and I did it on wiki so everyone can see it (I can link to some if you want) and you retaliated by banning me from all the IRC channels. Some communities have even stated I am welcome to participate in those channels but you won't let them unblock me (or they don't know how). I have no interest in talking about this with you because you clearly lack the maturity or desire to discuss the issue without referring to me as a terrorist. Which frankly calling me that only shows that you are completely unsuited for your position as I have been saying for a while now.
The bottom line is you banned me from IRC in retaliation for complaining about your behavior and Barras supports your conduct. So I have no respect for either of you at this point and think you both should be removed from your positions as IRC ops.
Also, and more importantly, you know I cannot even access IRC because the global ban you put in place, so saying wiki is not the proper place to discuss being unbanned from a WMF controlled venue is both inappropriate and is just an attempt to derail the discussion.
I cannot access IRC at all, you know that, so I couldn't request to be unbanned there anyway which is all the more reason why it's absurd to me that you would accuse someone else of being me on IRC. Also, if I have exhausted your patience then maybe you should start following the rules and not manipulating them to retaliate on another person who complained about your conduct. Reguyla (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstood my comment (as usual). I know about banning you, of course. There was extensive discussion around it. The ban I am referring to that I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about is when you stated "Apparently someone claiming to work at the Smithsonian attempted to participate in IRC ... This individual was then blocked and later insulted by RD." Rjd0060 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
If I misunderstood your comment it's because you weren't clear as usual and expect others to guess at what you want. As for discussion around my ban, you'll excuse me if you, Barras and a couple of admins from ENWP who supported my ban there because I was critical of abusive admins didn't want me participating in your IRC channels doesn't leave me with the impression of a fair and impartial jury.
So your saying that you did not have a conversation with someone a couple days ago, that came to the Ops channel and stated they had been blocked, asked why and was told by you and others that you thought they were me so you blocked them? Because 3 people that were logged into the ops channel at the time all sent me different variations of the story and asked if it was me (or accused me of doing it), which I didn't. So, either you are lying now about talking to this person or 3 other ops who sent me emails about it are.
Given my familiarity with your disregard of policy and feeling the policies don't apply to you because IRC is the Wild West, because you refer to me as a terrorist and generally act like a jerk, I rather believe them over you.
The bottom line here RD is that I don't like you because you have no respect for policy or for other contributors. You are the abusive admin type I have been complaining about that doesn't think admins should have to follow the same rules as editors. You don't like me because I do think admins should have to follow the rules and that is a problem for you and others. We are not likely to solve this disagreement here. If you do not want to unban my IRC account, and it's clear that is the case, then fine. But there is no need to continue to discuss this with you any longer so you can further derail this discussion. Reguyla (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think meta has any control over IRC. IRC is not an official Wikimedia platform, the IRC/Group contacts might be the ones you are looking for. --Vogone (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Vogone: According to the IRC/Group contacts link you provided which states After the original recognition by freenode... and the wording here, there is an obvious implication that the WMF IRC channels are a Wikimedia approved communication platform and the acknowledgement of that by the freenode staff that these individuals would represent the WMF wiki's. So, given that IRC includes wiki's for multiple communities I believe meta is the appropriate place for this discussion to take place given that the ban has been placed to affect access to all WMF IRC channels including those where the communities have stated I am welcome to participate like Commons, Wikidata and SWMT. Reguyla (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This is really off topic but I agree that IRC/Group contacts should be the place to go and would post there if I had any respect for them or faith in their competence. I do not.
The problem is, none of them think WMF policy should apply to them or IRC and think they can just do whatever they want. This attitude has largely reduced the IRC population in most channels to ops anda few friends who rarely ever comment and just lurk waiting for some newbie to attack. As long as the communities and the WMF are willing to believe that IRC is separate, they will continue to treat it like its the Wild West.
I personally believe that as long as the WMF wiki's and its editors are using them, then the etiquette and rules on wiki should apply. These people are representing the WMF and the communities and, as such, they should not be allowed to simply do whatever they want on IRC because "IRC is not wiki". If the WMF does not want people to use IRC or accept it as an extension of the Wiki and feel it is not an official platform, then they should ban it from being used and remove mention of it from wiki as a valid place to interact. Until that happens however, it's still listed in multiple places as a valid community supported and accepted environment and I personally believe that what happens on WMF controlled IRC channels needs to be inline with WMF policy. The IRC ops don't, naturally, because that would limit their power. If the ops do not want to follow WMF policy as representatives of the WMF, and the Group contacts have stated they do not, then they should not be allowed to be representatives of the WMF as ops. Reguyla (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
+1, although as a small expansion, different Wikimedia-related channels have different ops. I do not recall your nick being blocked on channels with which I am involved; you may wish examine your statements for hyperbole. Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no hyperbole in my statements. How about assuming good faith? RD and Barras are global ops who can act like stewards do on wiki and implement changes across all IRC channels. I am globally banned, that means it doesn't show up in every channel. They do it in one place and it extends across all the WMF related IRC channels. Even the ones where the communities have stated I am welcome to participate. So naturally I have been pissed about it and I think anyone in the same position would be. Some communities want to unblock me but won't locally because they either fear retaliation from RD or they don't know how to undo a global ban locally. Also, since the new WMF civility policy being drafted specifically mentions conduct on IRC being included, I submit to you that the WMF agrees that that etiquette and policy required on WMF wiki's should extend to IRC. Reguyla (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
An example of what I take to be "unintentional overstatement" in your statements is the use of "IRC", when I believe you intend this to be understood as "Wikimedia-related (and managed) channels on the Freenode network". Pardon my insistence on precision - I am a casual wiktionarian. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. It is the Wikimedia-related ones but it's all of the WMF related channels, so there are a lot. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I assumed anyone reading here would know that I was referring to the WMF related ones but maybe I shouldn't have assumed that. Reguyla (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
So I guess no one is interested in discussing like adults an unnecessary ban from IRC that is only in place because RD doesn't think policy should apply to him, is allowed to do anything he wants and because I refuse to drop the issue of my abusive ban from ENWP because I was bullied off of the English Wikipedia for criticizing admins and the incompetence of the Arbcom.
I honestly wish the WMF was as interested in getting high output dedicated editors with a history article creation and featured improvements and hundreds of thousands of edits back to editing as they are in supporting abusive bully admins. Everyone wonders why the editing environment sucks, why people don't join and why the few that do don't stay but they refuse to look at the obvious cause which is abusive admins and the lack of oversight of them abusing editors and bullying people out of the projects. It's because the admins on these sites have no oversight, do whatever they want to non admins and the WMF does nothing but sit back, watch and occasionally do favors for Jimbo. No one appreciates the editors, there is no respect or trust in these communities unless your an admin or a WMF employee and no one wants to join and volunteer because the word is out that it's a toxic atmosphere and the WMF that is supposed to be in charge of it doesn't care as long as the donation dollars keep coming in to fund pet projects. Reguyla (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You are all aware that he has a community ban on the EN-WP? He's gonna get globally locked, because of the pure disruption that he's causing, so why even have this conversation? --TJH2018 talk 21:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There's really no conversation. Reguyla frequently argues his points to himself on wiki and IRC which is what partially what led to this in the first place. Does this wiki not have any admins? Rjd0060 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@TJH2018: First, there is no disruption except that created by you and a couple admins that don't think policy apply to them. It's just an excuse for them to vandalize positive contributions because they think it's me and they know no one is going to do anything about it. Every edit I have done for years was a positive contribution and is in accordance with policy (except for me ignoring an abusive and policy violating ban).
Yes they are also completely aware that I am a long term, dedicated and high output editor who got banned from EnWP for ctiticizing admin abuse at EnWP. They are also aware that the only way that ban could get approved was through lies and policy violations of the people who wanted it and that is how it has been retained. It's utterly ridiculous and not worth following. It doesn't even represent a community consensus, just a few people that didn't want me advocating admins follow the rules. They also know I don't care about it and will continue to contribute positively per Ignore all rules and Bold regardless of what you or a few others think. Some agree with the ban, which is the core problem in the IRC ban above and some agree with me that it's bullshit and should have never been. I got banned at EnWP for advocating admins follow the same policies they enforce on editors and stop acting like assholes to new editors. You know, to make it a more friendly and welcoming environment for new editors just, like, you. So, your welcome! If the WMF wants to send a message to the communities that content creators like me are not wanted and it's more important to support the admins who don't think policy applies to them and lie and violate policy to get what they want, then they can ban me anytime they want. Reguyla (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, you are certainly not contributing in a positive manner to resolve this. I understand there might be frustration, but I do not understand how this treatment helps at all. This wiki has admins who are fortunately not as trigger-happy. --Vogone (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the admins here are more mellow thankfully. Also on commons. I wished I agreed there was a better way to handle it though because the admins and people violating policy don't care. Policy has been severely violated and lies told in order to get and keep bans on me and the admins and editors have been allowed to do that but I can't get angry or frustrated because that is "justification" they were right? Hardly, and as I said above, there is already a conversation to ban me globally with plenty of lies and hyperbole and no opportunity for me to present my side as usual that from what I hear has substantial support so it really doesn't matter how I react. Because the system favors the ones with the block button as usual. The bottom line is positive contributors don't mean any more than vandals on the WMF wiki's unless you're an admin and my forthcoming global block that I plan to effectively ignore like Russavia has been will reflect the WMF supports that. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
No spring cleanup blanking, please, there's an archive bot, and this thread is relevant for mw:Code of Conduct/Draft covering IRC.Be..anyone 💩 01:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
If anyone thinks this discussion has any relevance to that page you're kidding yourself. Some of the ops don't follow existing policy and the WMF does nothing about it, the ops that do follow it don't do anything about the ones that don't, so regardless of what the WMF put's in the code of conduct, if they don't enforce it any better than they do existing policies, it really doesn't mean a thing. So personally I think the WMF needs to step up, put their money where their mouth is and start doing something about the problematic admins who are ruining these sites. Reguyla (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The primary point, Reguyla, is that you cannot go on these tangents and then attempt to cover them up by removing the discussions from pages and avoiding archiving, thus making it extremely difficult to follow your repeated inappropriate and off-topic use of this wiki. It's not the first time you've done this but hopefully now you know that such won't be tolerated. Cheers. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Just because you want your abusive conduct on IRC to stay on IRC and not be brought up on wiki where people can see it Rjd0060, doesn't mean it's off topic. I am also not going on tangents, I have been consistently talking about the same issue which is unchecked admin abusive conduct and my ban on EnWP that was only achieved by manipulating policy and never should have been allowed in the first place.
As one of the admins who takes advantage of the lack of admin oversight on the projects I have talked about it doesn't surprise me that you would attempt to derail the discussion by calling them inappropriate and off topic with your trolling and antagonism. What shouldn't be tolerated is your antagonism and frequent misuse of your access to get what you want to silence others who disagree with you because you know you can get away with it.
None of this would even be happening if a)you and other admins were following the rules and B) if my ban om EnWP would have been dismissed when it should have been. The root cause of all of this is a ban on EnWP that violates policy and should have been removed years ago and is only kept in place by POV pushers and admins who don't care about policy.
I am not just going to STFU because you or a couple others who don't do anything for these projects except force others to do what you want threaten me. If you want me to stop talking about it, then restore my access to IRC and EnWP. Especially on the channels the communities have agreed I should not have been blocked from that don't want to touch it because of fear of retaliation from you. But I know you're not going to do that because you think you're in charge and no non admin editor is going to tell you what to do. So, I am going to continue to advocate that admins be required to follow policy and that my unnecessary and abusive bans be revoked until they are. If some admin wants to block me to help silence a critic and protect abusive admins and abusive admin conduct, then they can. But if anything that only proves my point. If you want me to stop talking about my abusive ban then end the bullshit ban so I can get back to editing. Reguyla (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
So far your mw:test does not confirm kidding yourself. Presumably it won't help you now, but the issue is on record. With my mobile broadband IPs I never managed to use IRC anywhere at all, always ending up on a commons image of a cat (haters are haters...). Willing to donate an identd server written in REXX (tested on OS/2) for anybody thinking that it helps for ordinary dynamic IPs (not on all IP blacklists worldwide.) –Be..anyone 💩 17:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
And your lucky you aren't one of the millions of people who live in the DC area and/or use Verizon FIOS because you would be accused of being me like others have been just for those 2 rather stupid justifications. The fact that these two items are being used as evidence to prove people are me is so absurd that it only further proves the points I have been making for years about the lack of oversight on these projects and the failure of the admins and functionaries to follow the simplest policies consistently and fairly. Because any reasonable person (except people who edit the WMF wikis I guess) should be telling them they are full of shit if they accused anyone of being another edit simply because they lived in the same area and used the same network. Reguyla (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer Jabber aka XMPP on toollabs: or similar instead of IRC (XMPP to IRC gateways exist.) –Be..anyone 💩 07:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah those could work. I don't know if that will ever happen though. If the WMF takes charge of the current problem and addresses the issues with problematic ops on IRC and the current mentality that none of the WMF policies nor standards of conduct apply there then IRC is fine. If the WMF decides that they do not have the authority to policy the IRC channels then they need to discourage them from being used. Reguyla (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rjd0060, Barras, Az1568, Snowolf, Dungodung, and Fluffernutter: Can someone please unblock my IRC nick. I don't want to have to create a new one. Reguyla (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
(GC hat on: Since you've finally managed getting locked on Wikimedia projects, there is even less reason to unban your account on IRC. Since we've had that discussion several times now: No, we are / I'm not going to unban you on IRC at any time soon. Please refrain from asking for that in the near future. Thanks, -Barras' sock talk 22:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Enable by default some default options for new users

This section has been moved to Requests for comment/Enable by default some default options for new users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereckson (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2016‎ (UTC)