Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2017-07

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 July 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Cycle 3 of 2017 Wikimedia movement now started

The Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 3 has started. Feel free to comment at Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 3. --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Net Neutrality

Losing Net neutrality will open the lid of Pandora's box. The negatives outweigh the positives. If net neutrality is abolished, the damage will not immediately be visible. Once the dust settles, and the crowds fall silent, and the ownership of companies pass hands... then the damage will be known.

One day, when Greed will shake hands with Control, there will be none who could stop it. The people shouted with outrage, and Control swiftly disconnected them from the internet. Greed, who slowly purchased the Internet Service Provider companies, had finally achieved a Monopoly. Control, who had successfully secured the political permission to alter speeds, could effectively block anybody from the internet by slowing their connection toward Absolute zero.

Many Nonprofit Organizations and Companies are Joining the Day of Action on July 12: < >

I propose there to be a serious discussion on the participation of Wikimedia. While I do not wish Wikimedia placed in the crossfire, nor do I wish to see Wikimedia used for propaganda, I do not wish to see the Bystander effect occur based on the assumption that "somebody else will take care of it", or that "it's not our responsibility".

Hopefully my heavy use of symbolism in this post got the message across. Popcrate (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Popcrate. Three days passed after the schedule. How was the protest? --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
WMF's Wikipedia Zero initiative is firmly anti-Net Neutrality. I contacted several news organization with exclusive data, but none were interested in it. —Dispenser (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Two things seems not working ?

1) I could not see links in other languages working . Please some one do cross check.

2) page makes mention of but that website is not opening. Either linked website should open or text should be made available at alternative location

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This would fit better here: Foundation wiki feedback. Stryn (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Resolved 2) by adding a cached link. 1) will need an admin, looks like they will need to move the page over the /en redirect @Jalexander-WMF:  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt response.
2) webpage also seems to have started working again. Definitions with translations and licenses both aspect are importatnt, I belive.
1) looks resolved.
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrats in Persian Wikiquote

Moved from Meta:Babel.--Syum90 (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We're trying to improve Persian Wikiquote but there are problems, there is only two bureaucrats (one bureaucrat, one steward) in that Wiki and the bureaucrat is been inactive for half a year while the steward is yet too busy and doesn't check on with requests frequently, now I need bot flag in the mentioned wiki but I'm not sure if I can ask that in Meta. Mohammad (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask for that bot flag in Meta though I'm still willing to hear an answer for this problem. Mohammad (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Always step through the rights discussion in your local community, then when there is no decision by your local bureaucrat, and you have pinged them, then simply put a request to SRP and stewards are able to intervene/act as a crat.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Action throttled message


Yesterday evening I sent out emails to a bunch of people that has stated their interest to participate in the Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2017. After 10 emails I got an error message: "Action throttled As an anti-abuse measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes. Return to Main Page."

As you can see it says to try in a few minutes, however, when trying today (16 hours later) I still get the same error message. I can still send emails from other wikis. Any advise how to solve this here on Meta?


John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Users are generally limited to 20 e-mail per day per wiki. You need 'noratelimit' userright to overcome this limit. Ruslik (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Ruslik0. John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Languages interface

Could someone introduce the new language interface to translate pages on a easily way on Wikinewspage? Wikinews Meta page is the only one without the new interface like Wikiqoute Meta page, Wikipedia Meta page and others. If anyone can do that, that would be great! Livenws (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You should ask at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat. Ruslik (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Accessible editing buttons

--Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Dewiki is down?

Hi, whats going on at dewiki? Dewiki is down? Last edit about 30 minutes ago? --Itti (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Itti: As of now it looks good. Yesterday User:Jdforrester (WMF) and User:Roan Kattouw (WMF) were deploying patches for RecentChanges that briefly made those special pages break for some minutes, although they were quickly reverted. I don't know if they tried the same today but as of now everything looks good to me. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this morning, for about 1 hour, dewiki was down. It was not possible to save an edit. Know it is ok again. Regards --Itti (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I now saw it was a different issue. Report is at wikitech:Incident_documentation/20170728-s5_(WikiData_and_dewiki)_read-only. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I see. Regards --Itti (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Random blocks on English Wikipedia

On en:Wikipedia, two users have been indefinitely blocked on the accusation of being me, which appears to be a most horrendous crime. They are not me, I don't know them, they were just interested in one or two of the same topics and one of them - how awful - even shared an opinion with me. No attempt to investigate was made. The consensus among administrators seems to be that nobody in their right mind would be interested in my topics or something remotely related, so if they are, they naturally must be me, case closed.

This is far from the first time it has happened, and it has happened with other banned users I know as well. When CU results say otherwise, they switch to saying 'but then they are of course following your instructions' or they just ignore the results altogether and keep saying it's me. This time there isn't even so much as a CU request. Asking for one yourself is not allowed, and in fact when I asked for an investigation all the channels of communication were rapidly closed to me.

I can't imagine that this is how projects are supposed to behave, but I'd like to hear opinions on due process and solutions for when things go wrong, which currently don't exist. Guido den Broeder (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Guido den Broeder: This is not the place to complaint or inquiry about potential misuse of the CheckUser tool on enwiki. You should email Arbitration Committee at instead.--GZWDer (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    • GZWDer I have, on multiple occasions. They never respond, let alone act. So this is the place. The issue is wider than CU abuse, too. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Guido den Broeder: If you don't get a positive result from ArbCom, you may contact ombudsman commission at (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
        • @GZWDer: The Ombudsman Commission doesn't respond either. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
          • @Guido den Broeder: Ombudsman need time to handle cases. If you get no response (rather than a negative response), just wait.--GZWDer (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
            • Hi, I'm one of the two users. There has been very little explanation. I don't know why any of us is blocked. Pris La Cil (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
              May be because Pris La Cil account is just one member of a sock farm of 32 accounts created just during two days? Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
              Ruslik, my account was created over a month ago, and I don't have another. Pris La Cil (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
              Yes, one month ago together with 31 more accounts. Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
              And whose socks are those? I can't be everyone's... Pris La Cil (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
              @Ruslik0:, is this the quality we are to expect from stewards / WMF committee members now? No wonder that the WMF has so many problems. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
              @Guido den Broeder: please explain how you know that people are being blocked for 'impersonating' you. @Pris La Cil: Please explain how you knew this conversation was taking place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
              Something to that effect was mentioned on my user talkpage, with both names. Also, you might want to read this bunch of lies, apparently written by a fellow Wikipedian. Pris knows about this conversation because I sent her a message on Wikisage. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
              I'm not impersonating anyone. I wrote about a Ukrainian model/actress. One of her recent projects is a film coming out this year, where she is one of the many people involved. It didn't mean anything special to me. Now I know that Guido den Broeder is linked to that same film it still doesn't. Pris La Cil (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
              If you're not into dark thrillers, it wouldn't, despite the publicity. Furthermore, among the hundred people that have contributed to the movie I'm just a beginner, so you wouldn't have noticed me anyway. Unless you're a Kristina fan, which I don't believe you are. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment I don't see how this is something that is within the scope of the Ombudsman Commission
    ombudsman commission investigates complaints about infringements of the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic information policy, the CheckUser policy and the oversight policy on any Wikimedia project for the Board of Trustees. They also investigate for the Board the compliance of local CheckUser or Oversight policies or guidelines with the global CheckUser and Oversight policies
    there is neither an accusation of abuse of CU, nor a breach of privacy, etc. This seems solely within the scope of enWP and its issue resolution processes. That they chose to disbelieve you and the users is a local issue only. That you buy into the matter as the lead protagonist and that you know them from a site that is close to you, it adds emphasis to either sockpuppet or meatpuppet. They are hardly random blocks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    You can stop making things up, we're not on Wikipedia. I signed up at Wikisage only a couple of days ago and don't need a champion. Dolberty doesn't have a Wikisage acoount. Pris La Cil (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    Billinghurst, you spend too much time on Wikipedia, where framing, cyberbullying and derailing discussions are commonplace. We don't appreciate such tactics here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Ombudsman's scope may cover part of this case, but by itself it won't solve the larger issue of what to do when things go wrong. When policies put in place to protect users from random blocks are not followed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Guido den Broeder: Please don't come here trying to blacken my reputation, you simply are speaking out of your hat with such commentary. You came here asking for an opinion, and it was provided, so just because you don't like it, or it doesn't fit your expected narrative, is no reason

For what it's worth, the CU we did on Wikisage comes out as not a match (of course), in fact not remotely similar. -Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

They've done the checkuser on Wikipedia now, too. But they still want to keep us all blocked, for no reason. Pris La Cil (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is solely a matter for English Wikipedia, and their issue resolution processes as a self-managing wiki within the Foundation's infrastructure. They are acting within the scope of their authority making blocks. Each wiki's blocks are managed by each community by their existing policies and structure, there is no scope to override such decisions by other parts of the other communities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

whatever the merits of the current case, the propensity of english to RBI including removing keepable articles, references, and images, tends to reflect poorly on the movement. the subject has come up in the strategy discussion. but then maybe you are right, the WMF has not been moved to intervene in the failed wikinews, which would suggest that is where we are heading. Slowking4 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Billinghurst, this is the forum. Discussions about what's happening on the projects go here. And as you can see, more than one user can reply. You are an admin on en:Wikipedia, so we already know your thought process, it needs no further blackening. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Slowking4, yes, you're right, and this has been going on for a long time. It pains me to see the whole concept of freely sharing knowledge go down the drain, with all the cyberbullying. That's why I hadn't been on Wikipedia for many years. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
just sticking up for Billinghurst - intervening in a block by others would be an express trip to ANI as seen here [1] so giving the tl;dr advice is not a corrupt practice, merely hopelessly naive. maybe the Technical Collaboration/Community health team would be interested in a report and action plan. Slowking4 (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder: you speak utter rubbish, you know nothing about me, nor my thought process, so please don't try such a contrived argument, nor try to impugn my credibility, especially with your paragon of virtue act.

While this is a place to discuss the WMF and its projects, it is not the place to debate a specific set issue of a ban, or set of bans at a specific wiki. It will have zero impact on how enWP manages this issue, nor how it will act into the future.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I know a lot about you, your behaviour has been discussed often enough. But I missed when you became the owner of Wikipedia. When admins on en:Wikipedia abuse the checkuser function, and post private information about users (whether correct or not), it is everyone's good duty to report this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
If you have a case of abuse of CU function, then report it to the OC, please be sure to address clear breaches, or evidence of the release of private information. Vague accusations about other matters at enWP, including blocks, are just noise. Your making the whole thing about you and your micronation are just noise. We cannot help you here with CU abuse or disclosure abuse.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking your help. I know you won't give it even though you should, since you've never helped others in the past. Nor did I mention my micronation. Does its existence offend you in some way? Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Slowking4, well, I wasn't asking Billinghurst to intervene. I know he won't, and that we all know exactly what would happen to him if he did speaks volumes. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
and it is not random, it is systemic. what is a good admin to do in a bad system. currently they "hunker down", avoid drama, do their workflows, and give advice to be like "goody two shoes". you need to take the conflict experience, and forge an action plan. i have my action plan, it will just take a lot of work. contrary to what some admins may think, wikipedia will change or wikipedia will have change thrust upon it. Slowking4 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
see also Meta:Requests for comment/Clarification to CU policy Slowking4 (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


The school board discussed the situation yesterday. They have decided to blacklist Wikipedia, starting tomorrow when we are going home. This means that no more students will sign up, and that Wikipedia won't be used as a source of information anymore either. I quote: "An encyclopedia that is maintained by cyberbullies, is not worthy of our trust and support." Ours is not the first school to make this decision (they have a list) and I doubt it will be the last. I have moved our stuff to Wikisage so if you want to contact me, you have to do it there. Pris La Cil (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Lots of way to get around such blocks. Some schools and other parts of academia have been trying to discourage people from using Wikipedia since it began. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I could create a new account at home. Different country, nobody would ever know. But why would I? I'm proud of this decision. Pris La Cil (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Well then, go and do your best to make WikiSage the best project it can be. There are a number of other wikis that all have their own theory of what the best way is to create free knowledge: Scholarpedia, Citizendium, etc. Who knows, maybe WikiSage will be the next great thing. In the meanwhile, the students at your school will find a way to use Wikipedia, and maybe the next school board will realise that it's best to let the students make up their own minds about where to find information, and rather guide them in how to analyse and evaluate multiple sources. --Slashme (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-Strategy2030 Cycle3 banner hasn't appeared >3 days after translating it into cy. This is now happening very often, and as i have said here before, it's NOT nice. Can someone please tell me why do they not appear immediately / automatically after the translation is done? The alternative is to ban all banners. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Llywelyn2000. I changed the drop-down menu at the top of the page from "State: Ready" to "State: Published". I also clicked the "review" button and then clicked the hollowed-out checkmark next to the message text. One of these two actions seems to have created the page MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Strategy2030 Cycle3-text1/cy, which may be what you need. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks! For some reason I'm not given the option to publish. Also typo corrected but I can't access MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Strategy2030 Cycle3-text1/cy, to change it as the page is locked. Any ideas? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If you use Special:SearchTranslations you will find where the message is translated. This campaign should be disabled because it's not listed on CentralNotice/Calendar, making it impossible for users to communicate with the banner admin. --Nemo 07:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nemo. If it's not on the calendr it shouldn't appear on wikis, imho. I see that it was @Seddon (WMF): who created the banner - can you comment please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Only translation administrators and admins can mark Central Notice banner translations as "published" as they appear on the MediaWiki namespace, so normal users can't publish them. Stryn (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Any admin or bureaucrat of a local wiki should be able to do that, as they can check the language! Your 'translation administrators and admins' do not, often, understand the language in question, which makes it nonsense! If this can not be changed, then we might as well do it ourselves, without going through 'translation administrators and admins'. At least the banners would appear within seconds not days - 4 days past with this one, without it being published. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately translations can be marked as published only by some user groups that exist on Meta-Wiki. We don't have a user group "All Wikimedia admins and bureaucrats", so it's not possible. Yep I have noticed. Before marking them as published we need to be careful to not enable any nonsense translations. You can always ping admins if something should be published. And I agree that the current behavior is not the best, as we have a limited number of users publishing translations. For example I'm mostly checking just Finnish translations, sometimes randomly other languages. Stryn (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks Stryn! I understand that (at present) we can not give all Wikimedia addmins and bureaucrats this right to publish, but we need a solution. Can we give that right automatically when 1,000 edits have been made? Pinging every time is reactive, and a form of 'who you know'. By the way can you tell me why this banner is not on CentralNotice/Calendar, so that we could pre-empt? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have answer to your question. It seems User:Seddon (WMF) is behind of it. I think users working for WMF don't always follow the guidelines. Stryn (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your time and guidance. I've requested Joseph's input. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: ymddiheuraf, apologies for the delay in the appearance of the Welsh translation. The translation admin right is one that is associated with the translate extension which is then itself embedded within CentralNotice. As such changing the requirements about how that particular right is granted has a much broader ranging impact than simply CentralNotice. Given that, I don't want to preclude any opinions the meta crats might have (@Barras, MF-Warburg, and MarcoAurelio). However I would be more than happy to participate in a community discussion about your proposal to make the right more accessible. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a signle "incident" justifies a site configuration change, which on the other hand will be rejected by the security team. Publishing translations for CN into the MediaWiki namespace should be restricted indeed to administrators or people who can write to the MediaWiki namespace to avoid security issues. The editinterface permission is extremely sensitive to grant it out, let alone to any user with more than 1000 edits. —MarcoAurelio 15:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not a single incident on cywiki, and I doubt that we are the only language where this has happened! It is very difficult for smaller languages to find out who the instigator of the banner is, and are unable to complain or even translate (no link). As I said here a few months ago, if you are unable to stop English language banners appearing on cywiki I'll start discussions about banning them altogether. Do you think the French fr-wiki would allow English banners to appear even though they have been translated 4 days previously? I doubt it! And en-wiki would be VERY unhappy if French, Welsh or Swahili banners appeared on their wiki. Viva la diffence! John Jones (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! We could ban now, as the community have already discussed. But let's wait a while and see if there's a solution. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: I hope that I haven't got the wrong end of the stick. The argument appears to be that a person who has invested the time and effort to make thousands of edits to the Welsh language wiki can't post translations of banners, because it would be a security risk; security is ensured by seeking approval of the translation from a person who doesn't understand a word of the language! I'm sorry but that is nonsensical and illogical. The only way to ensure that a translation is both correct and secure is to enable one or more of us who have invested many hours into the expansion of cywiki to post translations. If that is not acceptable, I suggest that we block banners from appearing with immediate effect AlwynapHuw (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000 and John Jones: All banners are done in English by default (except few ones targeted for a single language) therefore if a banner is not translated, or the translations not published for that language, yes that project will see the banner in English. Please do not bring here political nationalism to what it was an oversight from the person managing the translations. We're happy to publish as many translations as we got if we know they exist. Next time you can leave us a note at WM:RFH if you are so concerned that the Welsh translations might be lost so some of us can have a look and publish them. Note: I do not know which banner are you talking about, nor I actively patrol CentralNotice changes, but if I can be of any help next time, poke me and I'll happily publish the translations for you. —MarcoAurelio 11:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@AlwynapHuw: You totally got the wrong end of the stick. Editting the MediaWiki namespace (interface message) is dangerous and cannot be granted to everyone. Nobody is saying that it is a security risk to translate into Welsh, but that it is a security risk to let anyone to edit MediaWiki:Edit/cy, for example. —MarcoAurelio 11:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio, Aurelio, Llywelyn2000, and John Jones: Giving the authority to publish banners in Welsh to a non Welsh speaker who cannot tell if they are correct, profane, neutral, libelous etc is too much of a risk to the integrity of cywici, so it is probably best if they are not published at all. Incidentally, discussing the best way of ensuring that banners match the language of the sites on which they appear is NOT political nationalism, it is just common sense. AlwynapHuw (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This is how the system works now, and the same happens for every other language. Maybe it's not optimal, but it is what we've got. Please let us know at WM:RFH each time you create or modify a Welsh translation so it can be ported by an administrator proptly. This is sadly the only solution I can offer to you. We will be more than happy to publish translations, for Welsh or any other language. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 12:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: - We know how the system works (All banners are done in English by default...) What we're asking is for you to change the system. As @AlwynapHuw: says, it makes more sense for a translator with nearly 2,000 edits to publish than it does for a non Welsh speaker.
political nationalism - this is way out! Please retract immediately. Looking for solutions for banners to be in the language of the wiki has nothing at all to do with "nationalism". You have also wrongly implied Alwyn of saying "that it is a security risk to translate into Welsh" where in fact he said that the posting of banners would be a security risk. He had the right end of the stick, absolutely. You say: "I do not know which banner are you talking about", which shows that you haven't read the above thread.
I'm also waiting for an answer to my question: "can you tell me why this banner is not on CentralNotice/Calendar, so that we could pre-empt?" If all banners were on Central Notice, then they would be translated into Welsh (and any other language) well before they appear on WP. Another possibility is that a translator Admin is nominated from each smaller wiki. Or both. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, editting the MediaWiki namespace, where all CentralNotice final translations are posted is restricted to administrators. Banner translations happen on CNBanner namespace and have later to be ported to MediaWiki namespace and only administrators (translation adminship is useless for that) or other users with 'editinterface' permissions are allowed to edit that. Is that hard to understand?. Where did I say that translating into Welsh is dangerous? That's preposterous. If you wish to change how the system works, that'll be the correct place not here. Nobody in the whole Wikimedia Foundation has made a storm out of a cup of tea because a translation of a banner didn't appeared for some time, except you all. That surely has to be outrageous. If I were to complain for the crap-machine-translations I see for my language I'd have already ran out of words. And I am not required to know to which banner you're talking about. I am not the manager of that CentralNotice nor participate in CentralNotice management. I was asked by Joseph to give my opinion, and that's what I did. If you'd like to know why the banner was not in the calendar, etc. please ask him; not me, because I have nothing to do with that banner at all. My solution still stands, have the banners translated and ping any admin so they can smash the button and publish them up. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Whow! I rest my case! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
For info: phabricator Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: I'm sorry for my curtness above. I understand what do you mean, but still, as things stand now, only administrators will be able to publish translations in CentralNotice, and it is likely that they'll continue to work that way if translations rely on the MediaWiki namespace as of now. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Your responses suggest that you are an imperialist who hates smaller languages and are using your position to block smaller languages for political reasons! You just don't want Welsh, or Catalan, Gaelic or Basque to have any rights on Wikipedia. You are raising problems that speakers of our languages could overcome, whilst making sure that "rules" can't be overcome. If banners are published in English and need to be translated into other language sites you need to trust people who are committed to those sites to make true and fair translations. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial, your response stinks of "we can't trust smaller language users" AlwynapHuw (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

AlwynapHuw LOL! Is that the best you've got, an ad hominem? Since, according to you, I hate small languages then I am not sure why I edit, and still provide bot services to several of them, included wikis in languages you've mentioned. We do trust people translating the CentralNotice messages, banners can be translated to any language MediaWiki supports, and we're happy to publish translations for any language. I am not sure how can I make that more clear. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Re "best if they are not published at all", I sort of agree: the correct implementation (which you can add tokens for) is phabricator:T96552, i.e. not showing a banner when it's not available in the "local" language. Once that's implemented, CentralNotice admins will have no excuse for pushing English banners on non-English wikis and translators will be able to translate without hurry, focusing on what they consider most important for their communities (which addresses worries about translation quality). --Nemo 12:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: For some banners, I sort of agree as well, provided that we could notify in advance translators. However for important announcements (and I feel that the Wikimedia 2030 was one of them) I feel that if we don't have a translation, we could display the English one until a translation is provided (question: what about a MassMessage list for translators to announce that a new "universal" banner is up for translating in the meanwhile?) If banners ain't displayed to languages that do not have translations we risk, however, that such announcements ain't noticed by the communities though. As for fundraising banners, I feel that they won't care the message is translated or not. I still do not understand why some people feel so strong about this. They try to deliver an important announcement to the people, and if by the deadline the message is not translated we have no other option but to display an English message. There's no bad faith here. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again a foreign language banner is published on cywiki. CNBanner:Strategy2030 Cycle3-text1/cy. This was translated by me 3 weeks ago and has been IGNORED. As I have informed you, our community has agreed to ban ALL banners and I will now implement our decission. In the mean time I would like to know who is responsible for this. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who enabled this banner, but you can check from the logs and if you find them to be repeat offenders WM:RFH can get their rights removed. --Nemo 07:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales: Thanks Nemo; how do I find the logs? Here's the banner:

Baner ar cy 15 Awst 2017 01.png

And this is what was translated 3 weeks ago:

Baner ar cy 15 Awst 2017 02.png

For some, 'diversity' = 'the uniformity of monolingualism'. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000 and Nemo bis: Is this one?. If so, it does not seem to have any translation in Welsh. If it is that one the logs show that it's Seddon the one that is managing the campaing. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be the message appearing untranslated. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both!
@Seddon (WMF): - can you please tell me why 1. MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-Strategy2030 Phase1Prop banner is locked and impossible for anyone to translate? 2. Why you continue to send out English language text to cy-wiki, even though you know from the above discussions that we're very unhappy about this happening? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Block on English Wikipedia

If i blocked as permanent. I just want to know, in this case I have the right to write an application for arbitration? If i blocked as permanent , is there any way to unblock? What can I do for that? Thanks in advance. Aydinsalis (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You should read en:Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik, of course, What was written there, I did. But no results.You can check. What can I do now? Aydinsalis (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm blocke as well but i fought for it. I'm not blocked forever. I'm only blocked for a week. This admin Yunshui did this to me for abusing multiple accounts. He did that even when i was helping to prevent vandalism. poor me. Arepticous (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not much, really. You could contribute to another project and if that goes well, ask for another chance on Wikipedia. Say half a year from now. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been waiting for 4 months. Will I wait for 6 months later? Or wait 2 months? Aydinsalis (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You can always try approaching someone from enWP's ArbCom on their user page here at meta seeking guidance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been into the UTRS system and the system shows that they have responded to your enquiries to the email address that you have recorded within the system. Looking at the warnings on your user page and your block history, I would think that giving English Wikipedia an extended break would be the wisest choice. You should be aiming to demonstrate that the issues that you have experienced at enWP are not issues that exist at our other communities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I am in other projects. There is no problem. English in Wikipedia admin has blocked me biasedly. In order to commit fraud. How can I defend my rights? You can check: reliable sources are deleted, fake sources are kept ( [2] ). Aydinsalis (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You are arguing with the wrong person. Multiple independent admins have reviewed your talk page, then more have looked at your UTRS requests. The separately disagree with you. Making those accusations is not helpful to your case.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
That issue is no longer interested in me. I promise that I will follow the rules. But what do admins want? Nobody answers this question. Maybe you answer: what do they want? Aydinsalis (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, what do they want? This is a very difficult question. Aydinsalis (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I am surmising that at this point of time they want you to go away as they don't see that you are capable of change, which is usually the reason behind an indefinite block. They have responded to your UTRS appeal via your registered email address and that is what is to guide you. I have nothing more to say on the matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
i can attest that no amount of "good works" on projects will make an admin reconsider. fresh start is a lie. and the idea that you can block people to encourage them to leave is a delusion. admins are power tripping, that is what they want. Slowking4 (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I understood that, en:Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block it's a lie. billinghurst, if possible, help me in one issue: I want to cancel my account. Is that possible? If so, how can I do it? Aydinsalis (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    Accounts cannot be cancelled. They need to be retained as part of your contributions and the license that applies to your contributions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    On Wikisage, we run a dump account that other accounts can be merged to. The license doesn't prohibit that. It is mostly used to get rid of account creation spam, but it can be used to remove real accounts as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    I was unaware that we were talking about Wikisage accounts, or any other small wiki that does not have the complexity of 700+ integrated wikis.

    Accounts cannot be cancelled. Accounts here will not be merged to a single user login account by the existing WMF policies and processes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

    You are not aware of many things, so who cares. Size or integration has nothing to do with it. There are no technical issues that prohibit merging accounts. That the WMF doesn't want to allow it, is purely by choice. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Of course, you are completely right, and I speak without any knowledge of the information provided by the WMF staff to the community or to stewards back when. Your technical knowledge is superior to WMF staff, and I am not sure why I would ever believe them and I will now defer to your knowledge. Uncertain why I argue with your omniscience, and I will go back and hit my head against a tree.

    In the meanwhile, accounts cannot be cancelled. Accounts here will not be merged to a single user login account by the existing WMF policies and processes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, there is RTV, but at English Wikipedia that courtesy is specifically for users "in good standing" and, in any case, it is not possible to delete an account due to licensing of contributions under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, as billinghurst said. JGHowes talk - 12:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)