Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2007-11

< Wikimedia Forum | Archives
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Spacebirdy in topic set pagemoves to autoconfirmed - please read and comment

Official Dialect

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This just came out of my curiosity: what is the official English dialect of the Wikimedia? Is it British or American? I believe this would be useful in Wikipedia article titles where there are spelling differences between the two dialects. -- Felipe Aira 09:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • There isn't an "official" dialect. For certain words, such as "program" vs. "programme", usually the topic being discussed will determine which version of English is used. For example, Jeeves and Wooster is a British television show and uses "programme" in the article, while Firefly is an American show and uses "program". EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Aren't both of the Englishes allowed? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps both are acceptable and neither is more official than the other. The same applies to date formats.--Jusjih 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Both? Aren't Canadian English, Australian English, South African English and Indian English also allowed? See also Multilingualism. --Boivie 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
All seem to be acceptable. For Chinese language, traditional and simplified characters are both used, but without an automatic converter here, which is an even worse nuisance than what English speakers encounter.--Jusjih 23:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot-generated articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

In the discussion of the proposal for closing the Volapük Wikipedia there have been intereting debates, which perhaps should be more widely discussed. In particular, a couple of people mentioned to me that it might be good to discuss bots and bot-created stubs and articles in general, not only in the context of the Volapük (vs. German) Wikipedia. Would this be a good place to start a discussion, or should I perhaps create a specific page for this here at Meta? Or is there some other procedure? --Smeira 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IMHO this is a decision made by the local community and therefore should be discussed locally, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least my statement was meant globally - i would like to see bots banned from all projects as i see their work very critical. For the lack of originality as bots can only replicate existing databases, and for discouraging human authors to research a topic, once the link is blue - even if the article is only a bot-generated database excerpt (see examples in the discussion linked above - or just compare en:Ulysses, Kansas and vo:Ulysses (Kansas) with de:Ulysses (Kansas), and for those who don't read German: http://www.legendsofamerica.com/OZ-Ulysses.html). And I don't know any better place for a discussion about that. --h-stt !? 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it depends on the bot and the data source it copies. For example, a bot could (should...) generate very good articles about proteins by using public domain data at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, if well programmed. Bot-generated articles from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica helped get the English Wikipedia on its feet in the beginning. But of course they can be a mixed blessing. "To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer..." And no doubt the smaller the number of contributors to a Wikipedia, the more they're going to rely on quick and dirty editing solutions and the uglier the bot-work is going to become. The Volapuk deletion proposal makes sense enough, but a Wikipedia with one contributor really shouldn't direct policy regarding larger projects. 70.15.116.59 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
H-stt - Do you mean that, in your editorial work, a blue link would satisfy you, that you do not bother to check whether you have referred your readers to a good article or a bad article with misinformation? :-) Hillgentleman 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Btw., most articles about US villages and towns in en.wikipedia are bot-generated and are really bad, too. But if the community doesn't decide to delete that junk, it just remains. It's a local decision, not ours. --Thogo (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, usually yes. When I write about an historic event or period and link to a place from it, I usually don't have the time or the motivation to check that article too and maybe do research on the place in other times and/or today. I'm working at capacity with my core topics and sysop stuff, and edit stray articles beyond small tidbits only occasionally. If a link outside of my scope is blue, most of the time I will leave it the way it is. --h-stt !? 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Why would those articles on proteins be better then a simple link to the database? Why do we need articles on proteins, if they say nothing beyond excerpts from an already existing and public database? Shouldn't we write articles only after a human has decided which information are notable? --h-stt !? 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Now you're getting into a debate about inclusion, which is again a local decision, not a global one. Personally, I don't see how we could call ourselves a comprehensive encyclopedia if we didn't include articles on specific proteins... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ack, proteins are clearly relevant for an encyclopedia. But I don't understand why this is discussed here... --Thogo (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wanted: Wikielections

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's often very difficult for voters in the U.S. to obtain meaningful data about most of the items on the ballot, such as school board membership, local commissioners, and any member of the judiciary. Once I go through the process of finding out this information, I then have nowhere useful to put it. Many candidates and some of the office holders are not notable enough for Wikipedia or Wikinews, for example.

I would like to see Wikimedia coordinate with the League of Women Voters to bring all of the content collected by that organization into a Wiki format, supplement it with all the information on file at governmental sites, and then encourage further editing in the manner of the other projects. While all nations should be pursued eventually, the U.S. is the logical place to start with a pilot project.

There was a time when coverage of local elections might have been too ambitious for Wikimedia, but no longer. Even within a township many people will visit Wikimedia sites daily, and once alerted to the new project surely many would be interested. The impact of the project could be no less than to breathe some reality back into the democratic process. Mike Serfas 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: Wikielection.com is the property of domain name squa... advertisers. I would hesitate to suggest a catchy new name for this project until after the name has been purchased.

Something like this would probably do well on Wikia, rather than an "official" WMF project. That's just my opinion, however. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Fundraising 2007

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Couple of IPs and newly registereds are posting items discouraging people from donating, are basically throwing mud over Wikipedia, and, in one case, are even making a semi-personal attack on an en admin. Do we remove these comments, or leave them so as to not look like we are trying to quiet these critics up? --Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just ignore them (thus leaving them unanswered, "don't feed ..." you know ;o) ), and only remove stuff that contains personal attacks. --Thogo (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Stewards/elections_2007

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Work is underway to prepare the pages needed for the upcoming Stewards elections. If you want to help or comment, see Talk:Stewards/elections_2007 where much of the work is being coordinated and discussed. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy or discussion about consistency between same topic articles in different languages?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

( moved from meta:babel )

Are there any efforts, policies, discussions, about cross language consistency between same topic articles? I'm new to the WP community and I'm interested in this issue. The contents of same topic articles are sometimes quite different, especially in controversial topics which have a regional/language bias (e.g., see Falklands/Malvinas in English and Spanish). NPOV discussions and consensus negotiations in talk pages are usually kept within a language, potentially making same topic articles diverge substantially across languages. I have searched across WP and WM and haven't found much on this, other than a Q&A section on Wikipedia: Multilingual coordination that says: Q) "How are the various Wikipedias going to be coordinated, if at all? Will we have several quite different articles in different languages? Will English be a lingua franca? A) "In the embassy we are coordinating efforts between languages." So, my questions are: how is this coordination done? what does it entail? has this issue been discussed before? where? Thanks, Delmate 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Delmate, for bringing it up. It's very important things we need to be careful. Besides the project Hillgentrleman mentioned, I don't know systematic approach (and I am not so much active on Wikipedia in general, so there may be another attempt). But it doesn't mean any attempt on our project. It's a bit difficult to separate this kind of inter-lingual coordination from accusation of canvassing, we can hardly think editors who are active on multiple projects sometimes bring a pieces of dispute on a project to another. As far as I know, I have been sometimes invited to such kind of disputes, not a meditator, but potentially-interested participant. Or I saw some other editors asked for opinion on such issues.
As for the role of ambassadors and their coordinations, it is not proactive, as far as I know, but rather request-driven. For example:
  • If you find a message in a foreign language and you want to understand it fully, you may want rely on volunteering translation which a Wikimedia ambassador could offer rather than machine translation.
  • If you have a message in your language and want to spread it, (repeat the latter part of the above).
  • In corollary, if you find a user in trouble who are not good at your language, you may want to ask a Wikimedia ambassador for help.
  • If you need reliable sources on a foreign subject but your library couldn't be informative, you would like ask for help of a Wikimedia ambassador who speak that langauge, if he or she is willing to help more sources.
But, from my experience, I doubt even if this kind of passive coordination efforts are common on the project. Since most of people don't seem Wikimedia Embassy, and therefore ask for no help at all ... --Aphaia 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Embedding transcluded pages at different levels

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The process of transclusion is well documented. However, is it possible to transclude a page so that all headings in the transcluded page appear as lower order headings in the target page?

eg:

transcluded page


==A heading==
===A heading two===

target page


==Target page==
<transcluded page here>

would result in:

==Target page==
===A heading===
====A heading two====

That is, all headings in the transcluded page have been reduced in order.

It would have been great, but I don't think so. For an effect different but of a similar type, using NavFrames, see my talkpage, or v:WV:THREADNAV. Hillgentleman 03:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I would think this is doable with parserfunctions or noinclude tagging. See the w:WP:RFA pages on en which do tricks with whether things do or don't have headings based on whether they are included or not (or did at one point) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


wikipedia.co.il

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

You may wish to review the above website. The domain is owned by an SEO businessman in Israel. 87.230.11.166 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Can this claim be verified? Does the foundation know? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Check [http://www.completewhois.org/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query_type=auto&ip_whoislookup_cyberabuse=ON&ip_nameservers_hostlookup=ON&query=wikipedia.co.il whois. As far as the Foundation knowing, I don't know. That's why it was posted here. 87.98.217.43 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Search engine on pt.wikipedia

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not so long ago, pt.wikipedia has created (after a poll) the "Anexo" namespace (number 102), which includes lists, tables, etc (list of pages). The problem is our search tool. The only default search namespace is Main, but sometimes when a reader doesn't find what he was looking for, it's in the Anexo namespace. Can both Main and Anexo be turned into default search namespaces? MATHEUS WAHL ▪ 19:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See mw:Manual:$wgNamespacesToBeSearchedDefault, but note that it won't affect existing users (see the manual talk page). Kwi 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

On Commons, clicking on the logo in the top left takes you to a different page based on the language you specify. A user on Wikispecies is asking how we can set up the site to have something similar, as it's also a language-neutral project. How would I go about having this changed? I'm thinking it might involve a post to Bugzilla, but I'm not even sure what to ask for. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be helpful. I believe you just create /lang-codes from the sidebar's items (that's for altering the sidebar's items). As for the logo, I believe it would just work with the "mainpage-url" or "mainpage", but I'm not entirely sure. (i.e. To create a link the main page in pt, you would create wikispecies:MediaWiki:Mainpage/pt.) You could also ask on the Wikitech-l mailing list. Cbrown1023 talk 03:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, hopefully my Wikispecies RfA will be closing in a couple of days, so I'll be able to start playing around in the MW namespace and do the tests. Thanks for the leads. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've answered on Wikispecies. SPQRobin 12:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

set pagemoves to autoconfirmed - please read and comment

Latest comment: 16 years ago101 comments58 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed: bugzilla:12071#c16, thanks Brion, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If there are no objections this discussion will close in about one week from now, thanks,
--birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear community,

due to the projectwide vandalism consisting of page moves I came to the conclusion that page moves should not only be prohibited for IPs but also for new Users, just like the semiprotection.

This is already the case in some big wikipedias, like en. or de. but in most of the WMF - projects not!

I recently opened the bug bugzilla:12071 but it was closed and demanded to announce this plea somewhere central, which I am now doing.

I hope that many of You support this request, please follow the links provided in the bugreport to realize the urgent need of this.

Many thanks in advance, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Also agree, new users are unlikely to need to move pages. Majorly (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree as well, this will do a lot more good than harm. Cbrown1023 talk 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I support this. I've seen many vandals registering and then moving pages. SPQRobin 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Apoyo. Las ventajas sobrepasan ampliamente a las desventajas. drini [es:] [commons:] 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be an appropriate measure. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, this is useful, most vandals do not seem to be patient enough to wait four days. --Complex 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support. Strong support, in fact. This small bit will prevent all sorts of page-move vandalism, or page-move mistakes that we shouldnt have to deal with otherwise. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support It will save us trouble, IPs and new users often being unfamiliar with naming conventions. chtit_draco talk page 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Londenp 22:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support It seems reasonable. \Mike(z) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. Might be worth getting consensus on each project individually, although I can't think of any reason any project would object. --Tango 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support with exclamation marks(!) (for those wikis that do not oppose it) This should be default behaviour to help the SWMT. As has already been noted elsewhere, pagemove vandalism is a problem, and for those wikis that don't want this restriction to combat it, opt-out is possible. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This shouldn't be a centrally made decision and it totally goes against the "everyone can edit/contribute" ethos. I would support this if it were to be implemented only on small wikis with no community but it should not just plain be rolled out on all WMF with out any community consensus locally. (At en.wn we voted against imposing this). --Markie 00:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It is already implemented on somes big wikipedias due to vandalism issues. I don't see how it goes against the "everyone can contribute...", as it doesn't prevent them from editing pages. DarkoNeko 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I heavily oppose this. Making a blanket decision for all wikis with this is not the way to do it. If an individual wiki wants to protect against new user pagemoves, they can open a bugzilla request. Additionally, administrators can already protect against pagemoves by non-autoconfirmed via the protection interface; this would render that useless. ^demon 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Hello, thanks for Your concerns, as said this does already apply to the big wikiprojects. Since the whole problem is affecting majorly small wikis without large communities or even sysops Your solutions like protecting a page or requesting it at bugzilla are impossible. Therefore there is a bugreport but for all (small) wikis, because the page move is disabled for IPs and it does not make much sense if not also for new registered users. Please look at the links in the bugreport, thanks. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support however I would like to add I don't take it a vote; rather a request for comment and support/oppose label may give visibility to each voice. As mentioned, now the default setting gives no restriction and it affects small wikis (English Wikiquote was so - without restriction and I learnt the restriction applied only to big wikis). The proposal doesn't sound me to prevent each community alter the setting later. Rather it means only to change our default setting from no restriction to a certain restriction which has already been applied to many big wikis and worked well to avoid unnecessary vandalism. It may help anti-crosswiki-vandalism people as well as small wikis' ingenious people greatly. --Aphaia 01:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose While it's good to have this as an available feature, its use should be decided at the project level. Eclecticology 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Eclecticology, for the English Wiktionary it is already turned off, maybe for the same reason as we need it on other projects too, to prevent massive vandalism to have more time for more important matters. I just tested it on en.wikt creating an account-> no page move possible. Please reconsider Your opinion here, since this request here actually was opened to reflect the opinions of the small communities, where the problem persists, thanks. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The suggestion that it should be decided for each project is non-sense : the whole problem is that most small wikis don't have any community to decide that. That's why it should be made the default behaviour. If a project doesn't want that behaviour (like en:wn, apparently), they can change it, just like everything else. But let's help small wikis and SWMT. Manuel Menal 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unless en.wikinews can opt out. How are people supposed to deal with genuine needs to quickly change article titles, such as when the death toll in a disaster rises? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Theses people could simply ask an older user, which know the naming conventions better. Plus it looks like a nice way to form community bond with the newest users. DarkoNeko 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Besides, as You stated: en.wikinews will be left out, since You don't want this, for understandable reasons, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Should be the default behaviour. le Korrigan →bla 09:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support idem Korrigan.--Bapti 12:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, do not make a centralised decision, but maybe do it for any community that approaches us? Taking unilateral action seems a bit heavy-handed. Lankiveil 12:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
    Sorry, no offense, but have You read the whole plea and the bugreport. How can a community approach us, if there is none? But on the other hand, here is a community that tries to approach: the community of global Wikimedians and vandalism-fighters, that seeks backing in their quest. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support per MaxSem--Nick1915 - all you want 13:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support That would greatly help fighting vandalism. Yann 13:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Concordo Com o Yann e com o Drini. Alex Pereira falaê 13:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support On it.wikibooks we already have this setting. --Pietrodn · talk with me 13:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not a fan of making sweeping declarations about settings that should be up to each individual project. I can't imagine a project being large enough where this is an actual issue, but small enough that consensus can't be determined whether or not to enable this feature (if someone were to provide diffs proving that this is a wide-ranging issue, I may reconsider, but I still don't like the idea of making such blanket decisions). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Please read the bugreport, there are the links, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, thank you. In that case, I stand by my statement; there are only five links total, one of which doesn't show anything. Of the remaining four links, there are a whopping 13 instances of move vandalism, which is hardly enough for me to feel that a global fix is required; if anything, this is a knee-jerk reaction. I still maintain that this should be activated on an as-needed basis (I'd support it for the "oddball" sites, such as the Wikimania sites or quality.wikimedia/advisory.wikimedia). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    As also stated in the bug I currently are very much under pressure and have no time in researching the links all over the projects, the links in the bug are of course not much, since every link is from one user only, to prove that it is possible to move pages right after accountcreation. The movelog itself however might look very different e.g.... I just copied some quick searched ones for You [1], [2], [3], [4], and this is only one wiki. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ups, I just ran into those accidently, thought I'll just post them here: [5], [6], thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    Most recent incident [7], best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Annabel 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Let this be project-specific. --WiganRunnerEu 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As much as I agree that this proposal could produce a reduction in vandalism, and I've proposed such a change myself twice on the English Wikinews, I'm afraid I don't think this should be decided at Meta level. Different projects have different issues to consider and a one size fits all solution won't be welcomed globally and might not necessarily address the problem appropriately everywhere for such a restriction to be justified. This should be opt in rather than opt out. Regardless, if this does go ahead, every community must be informed well in advance so as to allow them to make changes as required to ensure the smooth introduction. Adambro 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support: It's a sensible default setting, and the decision whether this would be useful in a wiki or not still remains at the individual community level. Disabling this can be done by modifying one line in the site configuration on request, so it isn't problematic. Titoxd(?!?) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose as a blanket policy across all Wikimedia projects, and likewise object to even the requirement for an opt-out policy for any project. I support doing this on Meta (a beast of a different kind here). I am somewhat neutral on very, very small Wikimedia projects... which I'm defining as a project with less than 100 pages of content, and no real "active" user community of any kind. At the same time, how much of this is a real problem on projects that size? Discussions elsewhere here on Meta have even gone so far as to shut down all Wikimedia projects of this size, so it would be moot to even discuss something like a semi-protect default before that issue is completely resolved. More to the point, I don't know how much actual vandalism protection there would be on these very small projects. --Roberth 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • strong support. Page move vandalism is more difficult to fight than edits ; for reverting it needs sysop rights when it's welldone. For this reason, major Wikipedias (as I know of : the German, English, and French ones) adopted this setting. Projects with few, even none, active sysops would largely benefit from this move. Projects against it can make individual requests to change the default anyhow. Lachaume 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support. There is nearly no reason why new users should be given access to page moving. This change would stop page-move vandalism. If a new user really needs to move a page, I'm sure help can easily be found. Anyway, wikis who oppose may opt out. Reywas92
  •   Support setting this as default behaviour. Individual wikis can and should consider whether they want different behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The default should be "forbidden" with an option to turn on "allow" Karmela (hungarian Wikipedia)
  •   Support fully forbidden to anons to move a page. Vince 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Misibacsi 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Kropotkine 113 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support to prevent vandalism. Dar-Ape 19:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a good idea (though it may put the SWMT out of business). John Reaves (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    :') don't worry, there will be enough left to do, kind greetings, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This should be per project. And just as what you said above English and German Wikipedias have already done this in their own local decision. Let it be that other wikis too decide for their own locally their own policies and guidelines as long as it does not prevent the wiki spirit. A policy for prevention such as this should be discussed locally and agreed locally. -- Felipe Aira 09:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support counters vandalism Jaranda | wat's sup 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support In my experience even good faith page moves by new users are often not welcomed by the community (the new user do not know the naming conventions on that wiki, or there has been much discussing about the page title earlier). Voiceing his/hers opinion about the page title on the talk page rather than moving the page will often give the new user a better start on the wiki. The page move tool is also very popular with the vandals, and there has been too much crap like this and this... --Jorunn 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support And remembering that this doesn't prevent page moves definitively; it only prevents it from being done anonymously and by recently-created accounts. Anyone who registers (which we actively encourage) and sticks around for a few days will ultimately be able to perform moves normally. The benefits (preventing vandalism), I believe, far outway any inconvenience it could cause [sporadically]. Redux 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever. It does not sound good; but I trust the judgement of those who do the maintenance work. It is a practical solution. And communities still have the right to undo it. I just ask that all possible solutions be considered before any blanket action. Hillgentleman 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support as default as long as projects can opt-out easily. ...Aurora... 09:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support sure --Fabexplosive The archive man 11:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • support —DerHexer (Talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Makes sense. Default setting, with opt-out. Waldir 11:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support some vandalism should be avoided, I think Alvaro 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support As long as each project can change the setting with opt-out.--Miya 16:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --OS2Warp 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support There's been a bunch of recent crosswiki vandalism with pagemoves (ex. hagger..), this would help allot in preventing it. --Az1568 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Two reasons: a)Matter of Principle- I don't think that this kind of top to bottom decision without consulting effected commnities (Not all of them are non-existent) is in the wiki spirit. b)Practicality- As somene from a relatively small wiki, I have a little better understanding of the issue. This change should not be done spesifically in small wikis. In large wikis there already is a large community, they can afford to have such restrictions. In small wikis many new users start as active contributors as soon as they are in. Many of them already have experience form larger wikis. But having such restrictions will especially discourage new users. We have had many examples of that in our wiki. So, in the end, I believe that this measure is not going to help improve small wikis. As an alternative proposal, I do not know if it is technically possible, the requirements for a user to be considered "new" can be eased in small wikis. --TimBits 17:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider this proposal to be good for ANY small wiki. Therefore, my objection is towards the proposal itself. --TimBits 08:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Some "oppose" votes I saw up to now were from the english wiktionary, not wanting the option to be put in place in their wiki. But then, someone point out that the option is already active (from probably long ago) on said wiki (and I doublechecked to make sure, it is).

...

seriously, ladies & gentlemen from enwiktionary, what the hell ?

I don't wish to sound rude (although that's probably too late already), but next time, please get your facts right before charging head-on at something.

DarkoNeko 10:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  •   Oppose maybe because some of us from enwiktionary knowwhat a bad policy this is, and that's why we don't support it. also, isn't it true that you have to register seperately for each project? that's a big hindrance from keeping experienced wiki-ers from making important contributiions to other projects when you restrict unregistered users.Unsigned, in the wrong section
Comment - It seems like most of the comments above which oppose this proposal have two things in common. 1: It might be a good idea for some/most wikis but 2: Each wiki should decide for themselves, and this should not be a global policy. I have to agree with the first point: it is a very good idea. So good that this is the way things work on several of the largest wikis, as previously mentioned. On the second point, however, it seems like people don't seem to understand that many many of the WMF wikis have no active community, or no active sysops ("active" = active enough to combat vandalism without the SWMT). The SWMT monitors those wikis, and pagemove vandalism is a problem for them. Furthermore, those wikis often don't have a community with which to request this change through bugzilla. The problem is that there isn't enough activity, and you're suggesting that they get together to request this by consensus for each wiki individually? Heller would be proud. Please reconsider, if only for the sake of my sanity. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to Darkoneko. First off I assume you mean enwikinews. I belive I was the editor who said that, and I do have a memory of someone coming on irc long ago asking why they can't move pages. But more recently someone created a new account to test the restriction, and it didn't stop them from moving pages (I belive, I'm remembering this from irc, so i could be mistaken). In any case, I belive that enabling restrictions before they become necessary is a form of instruction creep (actually maybe thats not the best term) and is inherently bad and unwiki, especially when they don't really stop bad stuff (I know, vandals waiting a day to vandalize, shocking), but do stop good stuff. sure, enable it by default on wikis, but give a time period for wikis who don't want it to opt out, in a community with no contributors, no one will notice this, no one will respond and the restriction will be put in place. This (I think) would make everyone happy. Bawolff 07:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Instruction creep" - Do you mean it looks like the vandals are proding us onto a slippery slope, slowly giving up our openness?
  • Page move can be considered a major change and it is fine to keep it from newcomers, or is it?
  • This looks like a permenant change, but if there are wikis who opt out, then we can always compare experiences. So it could be reversed if we ever want to. Hillgentleman 17:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Bawolff > no, no, I meant enwiktionary. I can confirm the no-restrictions for wikinews, as I tested both wiki on the day I wrote the head of this section.
DarkoNeko 16:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Small wikis and the opt out

2 questions - "small wikis" appears above many times - anyone willing to define this. Also the opt out option - where can we post the fact that we want to specifically opt out of this? Thanks --Markie 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ad. 1:Please note that we don't want to insult anyone with "small" and do respect any work that is done to the wikiprojects. Please read SWMT#Definition_of_.22small.22. However I would like to encurage You not to bring up this topic here because it is controversial, and should be discussed there, thanks.
ad. 2:Why not right here, I just opened a section for this and added en.wikinews because it was said above, that the community there does not want it. Feel free to add Your communities decision, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
About 1), instead of a list of "small wikis", why not make a pratical list of where the renaming damages have been done on recently. There is no controversity on theses, as it's only fact and damage report. For example, quality.wikipedia.org, advisory.wikipedia.org, wikimania2008.wikipedia.org (last batch of renaming vandalism I saw), etc...
DarkoNeko 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
my aim re the "small" was not to stem discussion it was just to find out how many/which projects would be affected by it, thanks for the link. --Markie 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Markie, I cannot provide you with the list, since making it is a time-consuming task. However you may have a sketchy view from right log where Stewards give themselves or SWMT members temporal admin access for cleaning-up. I presume all of our wikis are affected by spambots, regretfully, thus hundreds inactive wikis supposedly. --Aphaia 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
While I like Darknekos proposal also I must admit, that this would be too few and we would be running after the vandals again instead of being ahead. I would like to see all watched wikis with this feature (those who want to left out can use the list and this will be less effort imho). We had not only problems like the recent on advisory. Or are You thinking about adding all watched as list? Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see, in practice, SWMT supports those wikis which do not appear to have sysop-coverage 24 hours a day, and which appear to be targets to vandals. That would be the operational meaning of "small". Hillgentleman 02:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Even though its "SWMT ", the term isn't meant to be derogatory because we prefer to see it as smaller wikis (in comparison to its bigger siblings..hehe) and yes we cover over 600+ wikis and it and as Drakoneko mentioned above, there has been a recent rise in move page and vandlism adding to those fore mentioned wikis and if there are some communities that don't want us to watch their wikis, they can specify it on its talk page.cheers..--Cometstyles 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Opt out list

List of wikis that want to be left out
  2. en.wikinews
    Comment - As a member of the English Wikinews community, I'd like to point out that whilst this issue has been discussed previously, no real consensus has emerged nor has this opt out of any global change been discussed as far as I am aware. I'd highlight this as another reason why this should be decided locally. Otherwise, any opt out list is not going to represent the views of the project's community, rather just those also active on Meta. Adambro 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I see, but there are users here who made it clear that the community did not want this, so in my humble opinion it will be best to leave it out until there is a link to a page on en.wikinews where it says the contrary, - if there is doubt nothing should be changed in my opinion, other views are welcomed, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

perspectives and an alternative solution

  • Many do not want to register. There is a user in wikipedia in Chinese, whose ip starts with 67 or 68, who has hundreds or even thousands of edits. And since page move is also part of the natural editing process, it is fundamental that we should explore the alternatives before giving ourselves up to a sweeping solution.
  • From what I know, page-move vandalism is rare in wikipedia in Cantonese. Vandals don't really hang around. They come, do a bunch of things, and leave.
  • There had been one or two persistent page-move vandal in wikipedia in Chinese, who had targeted a few sysops. For they know that page-moves are harder to revert. But the situation might have calmed down recently.
  • I have been playing with a draft python script (botwiki:python:revertAll.py), which semi-automatically (either assisted or do it all at once) removes all "recent" (as from the api.php) contributions of a contributor - It reverts, deletes (or tag for deletion) and moves the pages to where they were. This can raise the relative cost for the vandals. And it is an effective and less heavy-handed solution.
  • And I would prefer voluntary participation.

--Hillgentleman 17:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for Your thoughts,
@first point: anons are already not allowed to move for a long time, this is not about anons,
@bot-script to revert: please note, that those vandals are tricky, they edit the redirect afterwards, so that it can't easily be reverted, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really: in the script, criterion comes from the edit summary. The fiddled redirect is simply deleted (no other contributor). Yes, a vandal can fake a "page move" edit summary, but then it costs them a lot to "make it work", ie a faked "page move" edit summary
  • would probably not cause the page to move;
  • is more difficult to make than to detect. After all, once you have blocked a vandal or three, you have some time to check her contributions.
Spacebirdy, can you tell me how often does a fake "page move" summary appear? -- Hillgentleman 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
But see below for a better criterion. Hillgentleman 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This is it, the time to clean such things is unnecessary wasted time, because this kind of vandalism can be significantly reduced. Sure it is no problem to find the moved pages and to clean this, but it takes lot of time. Time is precious, that is why we brought this here, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What I am saying is that the majority of page-move vandels can be dealt with by a simple inspection and automatic re-move. Hillgentleman 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC) by an automatic process. Hillgentleman 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking about how to create a foul-proof criterion. Perhaps working on the timestamp, or checking two edit summary together, and compare the revision history etc. There should be some "physical limits" of what one can do, even with a bot.Hillgentleman 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a good "physical limit". A page move simply changes the title but not the content. This is what you cannot fake. In a normal edit, if you don't change the page, it wouldn't be saved. Hillgentleman 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hillgentleman, I really appreciate this input and think that Your script is good. Anyhow imho it is not a solution, because we would be still running after them, still haveing to clean the wikis afterwards, even if it would take less time we would still waste it. The thing that I don't understand is, why do all the big(ger) wikis already benefit from this feature and why is it so terrible to let the small ones also get this right. Anyhow I think that Your script could result useful for movevandalism of >4d registered users and for those wikis who decide to be opt out. Thanks for Your efforts, kind regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hillgentleman, you don't seem to get the point. As you say yourself, your bot would delete (or tag for deletion) pages. We're talking about *small* wikis here, wikis with no (permanent, stable) community. Who would run that bot? Especially if it's a sysop bot, it should be someone who really keeps an eye on the project. But the whole point is that there is no such people… Or they could do it manually. If it's not a sysop bot… the SWMT would still have to delete the tagged pages and the vandalism would remain. So, scripting wouldn't be a solution anyway. Manuel Menal 09:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Manuel, I am providing a suggestion. Please talk about the suggestion and not about me. I believe your definition of "small projects" is too narrow. SWMT monitors much more, since even five regular sysops cannot cover a wiki all the time. Since the most bothersome is the page-move itself, my thoughts are on how to deal with it. The deletion issue can dealt with seperately - it does not differ from the ordinary "edit" vandalism intrinsically. Hillgentleman 15:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that this is not a good solution. Anyhow. Hillgentleman 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Template for new sites

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

For portals like http://www.wikipedia.org, we have the page project portals. But does someone know where I can view the template used for new created sites like http://br.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Degemer&oldid=1 ? SPQRobin 13:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in the MediaWiki software, I believe, you need a developer to change it. Perhaps report it to MediaZilla:? Cbrown1023 talk 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's something Wikimedia-specific I think, because MediaWiki uses MediaWiki:Mainpagetext + MediaWiki:Mainpagedocfooter by default. SPQRobin 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, but I still believe it's only editable by the developers. Cbrown1023 talk 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, off course. While I'm waiting until someone knows it, I made a proposal to update the current one. SPQRobin 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Make a request to bugzilla. That's the best way to contact the sysadmins that control stuff like that. --Tango 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I submitted bug 12139. SPQRobin 13:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How to prevent URL blacklisting across the whole Wikipedia?

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I'm having a problem on WP:fr. A number of weeks ago, I added to three related articles on WP:en, WP:da and WP:fr a link to a well-documented, app.. 120,000 word long analysis (including notes). It didn't raise an eyebrow on the otherwise heavily edited WP:en articles. Following some objections at the beginning and my justification of the link's validity, its presence wasn't questioned anymore on WP:da. On WP:fr, on the other hand, all hell broke loose, as the article was immediately erased as alleged "spam". For weeks, in spite of my trying to carry a sensible discussion, two WP:fr editors have insisted upon having the link removed while even refusing to look into it in an adequate manner, apparently basing their judgement on nothing else but a few words which they disapproved of. All the while I was being threatened of being denounced for "spamming".

Today the situation escalated: as I realised that we wouldn't be getting anywhere with this Gordian knot of sorts, I placed a request for arbitration. At the same moment, the users opposing the link brought the issue to the Bistro, i.e. WP:fr's pub. Just in the course of this one day, with hardly any participation from my side, an atmosphere for which I can find no better word than... lynching has developed there, not only against myself (which hardly matters) but primarily against the article - which for obvious reasons no one has had the time to read. The hysteria has now reached such heights that a consensus has almost been reached to blacklist the URL, or the domain, as spam, not only on WP:fr but also on the whole of Wikipedia.

Now, I'm not asking anyone here to judge whether the study behind the link is valid or not. It may also well be that something in the connotations of the word spam has escaped me in contemporary French. My point is not to have anyone decide what the procedures specific to WP:fr should be. Rather, I am bringing this here to ask how to "protect" the URL from being blacklisted over the whole spectrum of localized versions by what I've called the Wikipedian Holy Inquisition, in particular as it would have an effect on existing wiki articles where this domain is referenced to.

How do I do this without getting into more bureaucratic hassle (I've had more than my share today with this request for arbitration business).

I'll post any relevant links if requested.

·Michel 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please visit Talk:Spam blacklist in the remove section, make a short statement for removing Your link from the blacklist (if it is even listed there), thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I'll keep an eye on it. · Michel 20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, could you also provide a link to the acurrate Bistro subpage?
Thanks in advance, and best regards from France,
-- AlNo (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

Not regarding this but the general point. The word "spam" does cause substantial confusion. I'm looking to get the en wp warnings changed with this in mind. To me the blacklists (local & global) exist "to prevent the placement of links that the community feel they do not want". Not a "snappy" page title but a far more accurate reflection of the use of the page (in my opinion) --Herby talk thyme 13:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link to the discussion on the “Bistro”. But to get a better grasp of the situation, I would also suggest reading the current discussions on Pédophilie, Pornographie enfantine, Affaire Dutroux, in particular the conversations between the users Michel Tavir, Guil and Encolpe. I'd also like to mention the existence of an ongoing arbitration between them. --Sixsous 16:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no ongoing arbitration. It was considered and rejected. And while I don't think that the discussion belongs here, I'd like to restablish a bit of balance to the above by pointing out that for a number of weeks and until yesterday, most of the discussion had taken place on my talk page there · Michel 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A talk page where Michel Tavir deleted my answers to his questions and didn't want to react on Guil's arguments... I explained my use of the term "spam", as soon as the beginning, for exemple... And just look at the website Michel Tavir wanted to add... Encolpe 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoops people, if this is a local problem, it is be best to discuss it on Your project,
Spam that should be reported to Meta is "widespread spamming by multiple users", Thanks for Your understanding, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Totally in agreement. Thank you · Michel 18:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2007-11&oldid=24910046"