Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2018-07

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Abuse report of Turkish wikipedia authorities - they banned me for my objection to content they are imposing with wrong sources and without explanation - I got banned for no reason.

We have a conflict on Turkish wikipedia. I objected to certian section, I said some parts are baseless and distortion and explained it on relevant talk page. I proposed some expansion and explained my proposal on talk page. 3 Turkish wikipedia patrols and 2 bureaucrats are refusing to amend the content without explaining anything why their version should be accepted or why my version should be rejected. For about 5 months I have been inviting them to discuss it. One of their patrol is cherry-picking sources, s/he uses a content from the source and when I propose expansion from the same source they prevent me and banned me twice on this issue. I asked them over and over again to point out the reason they banned me, no response. I asked them over and over again to explain why their version should be accepted while mine should be rejected, they even do not respond to the baseless content they added. All they do is to prevent me via their powers and to ban me. What can we do to supervise this event? --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Several times I have asked them all to point out (if any) flaws, inaccuracies and mistakes in my arguements. They do not state any, I asked the bureaucrat to point out the action I got banned for, no response. They just prevent and ban me without defending their position. --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE2: On the middle of may, a bureaucrat invited the patrol who was on conflict with me to explain his stance. The patrol called me there "a troll user" to which in return I demanded a sanction, bureaucrats did not sanction that patrol in anyway and the same patrol called me troll twice when we contacted another bureaucrat. Something needs to be done with this authorities of Turkish wikipedia. --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE3: We had the same conflict on English wikipedia. S/he edit-warred me there without stating any reason for his case or without stating any reason against my case, after I reported her/him to Admin Noticeboard, s/he quitted edit-warring (or vandalizing should I say?). Things are different on Turkish wikipedia, the ones I can report him/her are ignoring everything and siding with him instead of supervising the event and as a result s/he can easily dictate his choice without stating anything. --Ruhubelent (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there no way to supervise this mob-ruling community known as Turkish wikipedia? They are inventing a content and publishing it on Wikipedia, insulting and banning me for opposing their those inventions. They are cherry-picking sources, they use a content from a source and prevent me from using content from the same source they use. Is there no way to supervise this mob-rule community?--Ruhubelent (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I propose to remove the meta administrators of User:Jusjih and User:Shizhao

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As I have closed the same section on RFH, I think it's also sensible to close this thread as invalid. Jasonnn~zhwiki is hereby warned that further forum shopping may result in a block. β€”Β regards, Revi 05:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I propose to remove the meta administrators of User:Jusjih and User:Shizhao, Two of them speak chinese language, but they don't deal with chinese wikipedia Requests for comments, so what is the point of having two of them as meta administrators?

And the whole story is here. [1][2]--Jasonnn~zhwiki (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not a responsibility of meta administrators to deal with any requests of comments. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I replied at Requests for comment/Chinese Wikipedia Administrators and Bureaucrats massive abuse. Β  β€” Jeff G. ツ 11:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment @Jasonnn~zhwiki: Propose what you like, the criteria for adminship is at Meta:Administrators and that will be the criteria that we use to assess their performance, and for the requisite work that local admins do. There is no requirement for administrators to close global RFC, and in fact the closure of RFC has always been considered a shared community responsibility from a non-partisan participant. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a too many admin tasks that can be done other than replying to requests or discussions.β€”Teles Β«Talk to me Λ±C L @ SΛ²Β» 21:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep administrators are not required to participate in any rfc they do not want to participate in. Both of these admins have recent productive use of administrator tools here. β€” xaosflux Talk 13:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Adding visual search for Wikipedia

Hi, here's a proposal I have for adding a visual search to Wikipedia: Use_visual_search_frontend_for_Wikipedia

I can move it into a different location as not really a "sister project". However, the proposal-for-new-projects page doesn't offer suggestions for alternative postings. -- Tom O'Hara (tomasohara) 26 Jun 18

  • @CKoerner (WMF): this looks like it should get a response from the WMF Discovery team. --Pineβœ‰ 05:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks Pine. While Discovery is no more (no active user-facing changes to search) there is still the search platform team (folk working on making the results more relevant). I'll let them know. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • CKoerner (WMF) that's a pity, as "WMF Discovery" has a much nicer sound to my ear than "WMF Search Platform".Β :) --Pineβœ‰ 19:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


As CSM is critically endangered can we just use English as the localization as it has shifted to the language of most Miwok people?Baymiwuk (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I do know we have words for "name" and "search" we can use those as we try to translate the namespace over time.Baymiwuk (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
For now try to localize in CSM as you can. Users can always set "English" as the interface language if they choose to. However, as much as possible we'd like the interface available in CSM in case people want that. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 08:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Block-evading users should not be treated as globally banned

Yesterday I reprimanded a user (denote by U1) for posting β€œyou are not welcome to edit on any WMF project” on the user_talk of some IP sock (not on Meta, another wiki). I pointed that no known global ban exists for the master of this IP, that a person having some globally locked accounts does not become banned from all Wikimedia space, and that any established user is encouraged to request a community ban for a user indef-blocked in two wikis. This resulted in attacks against myself from U1 and also another U2 (the latter insulted me mainly on IRC). May I insist that β€œyou are not welcome to edit on any WMF project” is inappropriate on a user_talk unless for globally banned sockmasters? How should I demand the community intervention against retaliatory slander by U1 and U2? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless you specify who are those U1 and U2 it is difficult to answer your question. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with that statement Ruslik0. The complaint/question was about the process and application of the policy, not the individuals behind it. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment Comment I don't know what you said or how you said it, so it is hard to comment on how individuals respond. To your claims of abuse, this is generally handled at a local level, rather than relating to the topic matter of the abuse. If you feel that the responses from individuals are outside of the community norms of behaviour then I would suggest that you follow-up on the relevant wiki where it occurred. If a user has abused you on IRC, then the IRC process should be followed. Abuse and slander are unacceptable. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, Ruslik0, and Incnis Mrsi: This was a case of global lock evasion. The full conversation is at c:User talk: I object to Incnis Mrsi calling my statement "dickery and harassment", calling my edits "slander", and not notifying me of this discussion. Β  β€” Jeff G. ツ 04:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Generic questions should be handled generically, as there are always two sides of a story, and specific cases of problems belong on the wiki/forum in question. In a general forum like this, we should not be showboating problems, or looking to resolve issues from elsewhere. In the sporting parlance of cricket, to such questions "we play a straight bat", or "let the ball go through to the keeper". Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 04:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: 'calling my edits "slander", and not notifying me of this discussion' happened on this wiki. Β  β€” Jeff G. ツ 04:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: You globally locked Vote (X) for Change, Vote LAX For Change, and Miletian; do you think the person behind them is welcome to edit on any WMF project? Β  β€” Jeff G. ツ 04:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Wiki-dramas like this help no-one and resolve nothing. If the user did not take it elsewhere then they thought better of it. Please take it elsewhere. If this belongs anywhere, take it to Commons, or the user's talk page. Fighting it here just causes a ruckus. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 04:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: OK, fine. For the record, I am U1 above. Β  β€” Jeff G. ツ 04:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I thought that it was an unwise and provocative conversation starter; then you came here and labelled, and prodded the conversation that had otherwise faded away. I don't think the subject has improved with time. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: as a person with admin ambition you must understand that the β€œnot welcome to edit on any WMF project” condition is called (global) ban. Which procedures for a global ban do you know? Green Giant may think one way or another, but globally banning a user is beyond competence of a steward. If you, again, deem the established banning policy too lenient, then you may propose some change to it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the problem of β€œslander” is mainly the problem of U2. As for Jeff G., I just (over)reacted to his diff which was certainly negative and combative towards me. There was nothing β€œpointless” or β€œinsulting” in the proposal to resolve their issues with a Wikipedia-banned user by a Wikimedia community ban. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Where to translate these contents on donate wiki?

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T199255

I can't believe that these messages are having benefits to keep English only, so please tell me where to setup its translations, thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Foundationwiki is run by WMF staff, so best to talk to them. @Khorn (WMF): can you or one of your team assist on this suggestion? Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Per donatewiki Special:ListUsers/sysop @EEggleston (WMF), MeganHernandez (WMF), and Ppena:. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Liuxinyu970226! Thanks for offering to help translate those messages. The shorter text on Donatewiki is translated as part of the "Donate interface-" group on translatewiki (though that was temporarily disabled yesterday due to a bug). The longer stuff is written and maintained by @Pcoombe (WMF): Peter, any suggestions as to how a volunteer should get you translations of the "Thank you for your interest" page? -- EEggleston (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 and EEggleston (WMF): Thanks for raising this! This was also mentioned at phab:T199255. I've just added the functionality to include different translations for this message on donatewiki, and added a Russian one that was already provided. Next I will look into gathering more translations, probably via the Fundraising Translation Hub here on Meta. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 08:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Change the native word for the Gothic language from πŒ²πŒΏπ„πŒΉπƒπŒΊ to πŒ²πŒΏπ„πŒΉπƒπŒΊπŒ° π‚πŒ°πŒΆπŒ³πŒ°

We have had a vote about this on the Gothic Wikipedia and nobody wants to maintain πŒ²πŒΏπ„πŒΉπƒπŒΊ, a majority wants this to be changed to πŒ²πŒΏπ„πŒΉπƒπŒΊπŒ° π‚πŒ°πŒΆπŒ³πŒ°:𐍈𐌹𐌻𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌰𐌼𐌼𐌰_π…πŒ°πŒΏπ‚πŒ³πŒ°_πƒπŒΊπŒΏπŒ»πŒ³_πŒΉπƒπ„_πŒ±π‚πŒΏπŒΊπŒΎπŒ°πŒ½_π‚πŒ°πŒΆπŒ³πŒ°πŒΉ_πŒ²πŒΏπ„πŒ°πŒ½πŒ΄?_-_Which_word_should_be_used_for_the_language_of_the_Goths_on_Wikipedia?

Is it possible to change the native word for the language? As it can't be changed in Translatewiki it seems. Bokareis (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably belongs with a case to the language committee. No one here will have that knowledge, nor ability to change. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bokareis: I think you have to create a bug report on Phabricator and ask them to update Names.php. I haven't touched this kind of stuff in ages, though, so I may have forgottn the nuances. If I remember correctly, you typically also need to make a change request to Unicode CLDR, except that doesn't seem to be necessary in the case of Gothic as its autonym isn't included in the CLDR database (compare Asturian). MF-Warburg, SPQRobin, Nemo_bis, or anyone else knowledgeable can correct me if I'm mistaken. PiRSquared17 (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Global preferences are available

19:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

strictest wikipedia ever

hey do you know the wikipedia with the strictest rules is? 2607:FB90:5CAC:A5C0:3CE0:9855:1819:1EA9 22:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

New user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS

New WMF homepage

Where can I find the old homepage. The new one is obviously written for smart phones. I use a big screen and at the new WMF homepage the font and the pictures are so big that I have to scroll a lot to get information. The old homepage was concise with easy to find information and had a pleasing design. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC) --Krenair (talk β€’ contribs) 15:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
That's the one I was looking for. Thanks! --Gereon K. (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Cookies added to ip blocks

The Anti-Harassment Tools team expanded cookie blocking to IP blocks and this week it will be deployed on all wiki after successful testing on Italian Wikipedia. (phab:T152462) SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Will this be implemented from the coming Monday? --Muzammil (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Muzammil, I apologize for missing your question. It did go live already on all Wikimedia projects around the middle of July. SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


WikiMiniAtlas has not been showing wikilinks for quite some time now. I've contacted user:Dschwen about this issue several times, but I've gotten no response. There was also a GitHub case for this issue, but it was never closed. Anything we can do? --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: I asked about this on #wikimedia-cloudconnect and got some very helpful responses from Chicocvenancio. You can view the IRC logs (the conversation starts at 2018-08-09 23:53).
Here is my summary. On Wikimedia Cloud Services, wiki replica databases and user-created databases used to be on the same server. This allowed WikiMiniAtlas to use a SQL join operation to efficiently query the combined table of wiki articles (from the replica database) and geographical data (from the user-created database). However, as a result of operations changes, wiki replicas and user-generated databases are now on separate servers. This means that you can no longer use a simple SQL join. You would have to rewrite the join code using application logic. On the Phabricator issue, Dschwen wrote:

Death blow for GHEL coordinate extraction and WikiMiniAtlas. πŸ™

Additionally, on the wikimedia-cloud mailing list discussion of this change, Dschwen wrote:

Suggesting that joins be just done in the application logic is frankly quite naive. I have one particular application where I need to join millions of entries each on about 50 projects. I used to have an application join algorithm years ago, when the data sets were much smaller and I supported way fewer projects. It was a disaster back then with extremely long run times and frequent failures (when serves went away etc.). It doesn't scale up. On-server joins increased the performance by orders of magnitude. I won't be able to go back to the old way. It sucks. Nobody is as sad about this as I am. I feel like the floor is put away under my feet and under my creation.

So it is clear that Dschwen is not optimistic about porting WMA over to use application logic joins. It would be non-trivial but technically possible to rewrite a relatively efficient join algorithm from scratch in application logic. On the mailing list thread, Dschwen indicated that he has a limited time budget, so he may not be up for doing this. As for what to do, I'm not sure. Perhaps Dschwen will change his mind and attempt to rewrite his code. If not, it would probably be best to contact another developer, possibly someone who is already an administrator of the WikiMiniAtlas project. The longshot option is to try to convince the ops team to leave a server up where joins are still possible, as Dschwen proposed. I'm not very optimistic about that strategy. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: Alright, I'll look into that, thank you for doing the research! --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for finding and summarising the status. I am a long way from being an expert on running server farms for cloud services and data warehouses. However I might have thought that given the visibility of the WikiMiniAtlas and its general usefulness to the reading population, if a particular combination of database tables and indexes is needed together to provide efficient access to make WikiMiniAtlas as responsive and useful as possible, then that set of databases should be created and maintained in its own corner of the virtual server universe, independent of what is needed to run any other services. That should include at least the dots for other Wikipedia articles, and for integration of lines and areas (e.g. river and highway paths, suburb boundaries) from OSM. --ScottDavis (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill, Chippyy, Jeremyb, and Kolossos: Pinging some of the administrators of the Maps cloud project. @AndrewBogott (WMF) and BDavis (WMF): Pinging some WMF Cloud Team members. PiRSquared17 (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
My feelings are in the moment similar to the feelings of Dschwen. My project is wp-world[3] which is the alternative to the WikiminiAtlas in many different other language versions of Wikipedia. Two days ago my POIs on the map disappears. After looking closer, I believe somebody delete/move my database tables Bug report: In my case I hope admins can help.
BTW: I have also an other bug report (since January!!!) , which makes the situation for me relative frustrating. --Kolossos (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
So every once in a while the Wikimedia Foundation breaks a volunteer tool. A lot of the people working for the WMF just don't realize (or don't care, but let's assume good faith here) what kind of impact their changes have. It's either fight (trying to restore functionality) or run (abandon the tool). I'm not wasting any energy on these kind of situations any more. Two solutions here:
  1. Completely rewrite tools to not rely on database joins. As Daniel mentioned: Extremely hard and extremely time consuming. And it just sucks having to spend a lot of volunteer time because someone just broke it. I don't see this happen
  2. Restore the user databases and production databases on the same server. I don't expect the team to do this unless they are forced to do it. They will tell you 100 different reasons why this shouldn't be restored. You need outside pressure
@PiRSquared17, Kolossos, and Dschwen: you could completely break the tool and redirect it to a page explaining why it's broken, post some notices on several forums like Wikimedia-l and the several village pumps. Channel the outrage towards the WMF and you might get some movement from that side. You tried it the nice way and that failed. Good luck.Multichill (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)