Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2009-05

Global Abuse Filters

Over the next few days, I hope to deploy global abuse filters, which I've developed.

As part of this, to make them actually useful, the abuse filter extension needs to be active (even if local filters are forbidden) on all of Wikimedia. This is a big and potentially sensitive move. What do we think of it?

For reference, here are the wikis currently with the Abuse Filter:

'wmgUseAbuseFilter' => array(
   'default' => false, // not ready yet
   'testwiki' => true, // in test config -- brion 2009-01-26
   'mediawikiwiki' => true, // Expanding test, Andrew 2009-02-19
   'metawiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-02-24 -- No objections at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&oldid=1402855#Abuse_Filter_testing
   'dewiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-02-24 Requested by DaB, with custom settings.
   'nowiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-02-25 Requested by Tubarao per consensus at http://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tinget&oldid=5171547#AbuseFilter
   'ruwiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-03-01 Bug 17729
   'enwikisource' => true, // Andrew 2009-03-06 Requested by jayvdb per consensus at http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium&oldid=1013862#AbuseFilter
   'arwiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-03-11 Bug 17902
   'enwiki' => true, // brion 2009-03-18 disabled for perf problems, needs investigating
                        // Andrew 2009-03-18 Bug 15684
   'plwiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-03-24 bug 18073
   'commonswiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-03-24 bug 18094
   'svwiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-03-24 bug 18102
   'enwikiquote' => true, // Andrew 2009-03-29 http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Village_pump&oldid=925413#AbuseFilter
   'hewiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-04-01 bug 18300
   'tpiwiki' => true, // Andrew 2009-04-01 bug 18299
),

Note that the vast majority of large wikis are there. Werdna 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I guess, it's worth having a go at it - if Brion agrees. If it breaks something, switch it off and repair. ;) --Thogo (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I think it would be Great if we could have it in all wikis.but who will have access to edit Global Abuse Filters, meta admins or stewards or ... ? --Mardetanha ^talk 13:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  To be decided. I think stewards. Also note that any wiki which cares can opt out, but will have to deal with the extra vandalism. Werdna 14:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Should definitely be stewards only access in my opinion, Meta-admin is a local, not a global right. Finn Rindahl 14:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Given that the impetus for requesting global filters was to block spam, I'm not sure I see a huge issue with allowing Meta sysops access. That said, I'm not convinced this is ready to replace spam blacklist, I don't think we'll be using it for that. Until then, I'd support steward access only.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Is it possible to opt-out of global filters? Some communities, e.g. enwiki, already have a very active abuse filter community and there would seem to be a lot of potential for accidental duplication of filters. Also, is a hit against a global filter logged locally or globally or both? Dragons flight 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Local opt-out is possible, logging is both local and global. Werdna 05:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• What kind of filters could be global, really ? Vandalism filters would heavily depend on the language, and I assume running them simultaneously would have a non-negligible impact on performance. For spam filters, maybe. But it should definitely be stewards access only, and local projects should be allowed to opt out. Cenarium (Talk) 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Global filters could be used against some cross-wiki vandals, but they could have unexpected effects on certain wikis. A feature to make global testing would be great. Cenarium (Talk) 02:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose: Managing the load the abuse filter adds to each edits has been quite difficult. Adding global filters would suck up even more processing time on each edit, and many of these checks are totally irrelevant on the wikis they are being run on. Already I have had to disable many of enwikis filters to keep the server load manageable, and large edits from timing out. One low load filter is fine, but if you start adding 20 or 30 global filters, then you have a problem. In effect, this would reduce the number of local filters a wiki can have, with (mostly) irrelevant global filters. Prodego ^talk 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Local opt-out is possible. Werdna 05:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps only projects without AbuseFilter enabled? Since abuse filter is somewhat opt in at the moment. Prodego ^talk 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That performance problem is pretty much unique to English Wikipedia. Werdna 05:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support as long as local wikis can opt-out and its restricted to stewards only. –xeno (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose abusive patterns are different by each project.--Kwj2772 (論) 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, although Cenarium has a point. I just hope differences in language won't cause problems such as the bad rejection of various keywords in different languages based on oversights in the global filter list. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Cenarium has a point, so what kind of filters are you thinking about? Do you have any examples? --Erwin 14:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong  Oppose Firsly, The abuse filter was commissioned on enwiki not long ago and there are still issues that need iorning out regarding its use. Secondly, abuse patterns very from wiki to wiki enormously, as do policies and it would take a very advanced rule to take into account all of the if buts and maybes (further increasing the chance of a fuckup bringing down every wiki for several minutes or more) For Example: Removal of a large chuck of text in english is not the same as say, the same removal of text in chinese (IE you can say allot more in chinese with less charactors, You get what i mean?) Thirdly, Something like this proposal should be decided by the local chaptors and should be OPT IN, not thrust upon them which would appear as enwiki forcing this on small wikis which will be outnumbered in any vote. Fourthly, What control will the local chaptors (if they opt in) have over what filters apply to them? Fithly, There needs to be a DEFINATIVE answer over who will have access to the congifuration. If it is stewards only this will of course exclude Werdna (wether he likes it or not). Sixthly, How can you be so sure there will be no performance impact as seen on enwiki? Last but not least, I would not trust some of the sysops here (due to lack of trust and knowlege) with the ability to bring down every wiki (ie stop editing) for several minutes or more and I think that most stewards wont have sufficent regex knowlege to make the complex filters you are effectivly asking for. Promethean 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Werdna is a sysadmin. He has access to everything. Prodego ^talk 20:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of that, But (as we all know, I hope) the use of the sysadmin group for which he has (almost in his case) unlimited power is to be only used in an issues relating to technical matters, he (as he is well aware) cannot use it to act as a steward. So if this proposal gets ammended and remains stewards only, that will exclude Werdna and as the proposer I'm sure he won't mind. Promethean 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I would consider the abuse filter a technical matter. While I don't intend to actively work on global filters, I expect that, from time to time, I would be likely to edit filters for performance reasons, to fix broken filters at the request of stewards, in emergencies, and so on. If I were not to do this, I would not be doing my job. Werdna 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  Your so called job does not include an on wiki role, which is what you are implying. Please respect that if it is stewards only that WILL exclude you, except in the fore mentioned situations such as fixing filters and or making them more efficent. Promethean 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  Every user is entitled and expected to do anything in their power to protect the Wikimedia projects from harm. Sysadmins are in addition entitled and expected to use their unlimited access to the servers to take whatever action is required to ensure the stability of the server cluster. Werdna's root access enables him to write new filter settings directly into the database tables, with or without logging, and make it look like the changes had been made by Jimbo, Grawp, or the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Within this context, how do you propose that he be "excluded" from doing anything? Happy‑melon 15:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  On the simple principal that the powers were given to him to help him manage the technical side of the wikimedia servers, not decide what filters will or will not be implemented on wiki. There is a distinct difference between on-wiki and off-wiki power. Also last time I checked Werdna had shell access only, not root, though it doesn't make a difference either way. Promethean 00:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  You are quite correct, but since he's indicated just a few comments above that he has no intention of "decid[ing] what filters will or will not be implemented", either on enwiki or globally, I don't really see how this is relevant. Happy‑melon 10:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  What the hell do "local chapters" have to do with this? Also, try to calm down a bit. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  Because they need to be consulted about a global filter, had not have it pushed upon them. Promethean 00:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  You seem to have several misconceptions Promethean. First of all chapters are something else entirely different than what you mean to say, which is projects. Secondly shell access gives werdna total access to mediawiki. Meaning that yes, he can do anything he wants so far as the site is concerned. Since he doesn't have root, he can't do things like reinstall the OS on the servers, but that would be transparent to you anyway. Prodego ^talk 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  Were discussing the proposal, not my so-called "misconceptions" :) Promethean 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose the current proposal, would  Support an opt-in system. I think it should be up to individual wikis to decide if they want it, and we should not force them to have to get a consensus to disable it. Mr.Z-man 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The primary intended use case for global filters is to combat people getting around the abuse filter on enwiki by creating accounts that they would not be allowed to create on enwiki, and then using CentralAuth to create the account there. Werdna 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was impossible. My impression is that in resolving the User:WP:ANI bug, it was made impossible to import an account that one can't locally create. (Maybe that doesn't play right with the filters, I'm not sure.) And actually, I would have thought combating cross-wiki spam was a more natural reason for global filters rather than messing with account creations which already have a global blacklist. Dragons flight 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I too thought that was impossible, (IE if i make an account on one wiki and unify it then go to a wiki where my IP was blocked I would not be able to automatically make the account) If the abuse filter is any different perhaps you should focus on fixing it so that it checks against all account creations, wether being registered (local) or being automatically made on first login (centralauth). Promethean 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I created that on test.wiki, unified it, and managed an autocreation on en.wiki without any problems. Happy‑melon 14:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blacklists and abuse filters and such don't work in blocking account autocreation, although illegal usernames can still be blocked. It's a tricky bug to fix, try searching for it, I've left some notes there. Werdna 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Although the opt-in is preferable. -- Avi 02:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I prefer an opt-in system. -- heuler06 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Opt-in would work, but of course it would mean that anybody creating abusive accounts would just move to a wiki which hasn't opted in, rather defeating the purpose of the venture. Werdna 15:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And if there is an opt-out system, they'll just go to the wikis that have opted out. The only way it can work like is to just pray that no wiki decides to opt out (or that all of them opt-in) or to have no opt-* system at all. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikis do not opt into the global title or spam blacklists - how is this case different?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the other filters, either. ;-) Also, the impact on the wikis is bigger. With this filter the persons who will be allowed to set such filters can hinder and prohibit any edit on any wiki if it's not in the sense of these few people who can set filters. OK, that would be a case of misuse itself, but who controls the controller?! ;)

Another point is that I myself as a user of a quite little wiki (de.wb) feel patronised by this. -- heuler06 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(At Mike.lifeguard) Because the global title and spam blacklists have been around since adam was a boy and most small wiki's grew up with that. However Abusefilter has the potential to be quite harmful, especially as it can filter almost anything, where as the exisitng filters have a narrow scope of ability. The abusefilter takes more control off local (and small) wikis and it is rathor grey as to what filters will be applied globally. Promethean 00:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't true, the blacklists are all fairly recent in the history of the WMF. Prodego ^talk 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Equally, AbuseFilter has less ability to cause mayhem because it automatically disables a filter if it matches too much. Compare that to accidentally blacklisting google for about 20 minutes on all wikis, which required someone to notice, figure out what the problem was, and fix it. That's only the most recent accident I can recall - there have certainly been others.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

•  Support with opt-out. I can see some uses for this, though the amount of cross-wiki vandalism that could reliably be targeted with global rules would necessarily be limited to quite specific cases. Opt-in seems unnecessary since the burden is likely to be small and the effect limited (assuming the global rule editors are responsible and cautious). However, I do think communities with heavy edit loads and active abuse filter programs of their own are probably better opting out and managing their own affairs. Dragons flight 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose unless opt-in. A global tool is a not a right solution for a local problem. Hillgentleman 04:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  We're discussing a global problem. Werdna 07:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. In your own words, The primary intended use case for global filters is to combat people getting around the abuse filter on enwiki.... That is a local English Wikipedia problem, not anybody else's. Hillgentleman 20:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you continue reading the sentence, the problem is that since vandals can't get through the abuse filter on enwiki, they go and create accounts elsewhere on Wikimedia projects. That is a global problem. Werdna 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is clear. So you have a broad definition of global and this is what you mean: English Wikipedia is having some problem coping with some cross-wiki vandals you want everybody else to take the extra burden of your global spam-filter. Isn't it a standard custom that you need to ask and get explicit consent first before you do such a thing? Opt-out is just plainly impolite. Hillgentleman 07:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As you probably know, many languages use the latin alphabets and strings of characters which look foul in one (e.g. German) may look completely innocent in another (e.g. English). If the problem is that serious, you may try to go around every community discussion board and ask if they would mind the global spam-filter. Hillgentleman 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

After all, this solution to your problem is at best temporary. It is the sul mechanism which should be fixed Hillgentleman 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of vandals who could be reliably targetted with the abuse filter who do whatever they do on whichever wikis they can find which allow it. It doesn't seem like a huge burden on other wikis, and it fixes some instances of crosswiki vandalism, which is definitely a global problem.

Going to every discussion board seems pointless. There are over 700 wikis. Werdna 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong  Support – like global blacklists very important for smaller wikis. --Melancholie 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, good idea for antivandal work. --_~Innv^s: 08:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• This would be useful for more than vandalistic usernames, obviously. One major application would be to counter malbots - in the last attack, they were stopped with 100% accuracy on at least 3 wikis which had AbuseFilter. Clearly a global filter would have been beneficial (and will be again when they resurface)  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Réflexion sur l’avenir

La clause autorisant l'usage commercial pose d'énormes problèmes, a mon avis insurmontables.

C'est une claude à forte tendance esclavagiste !

Elle risque de tous détruire à cause de recours pour violations des droits d'auteurs.

Énormément de personne sont prêtes à collaborer pour le savoir gratuit et accessible à tous mais sont contre l'idée que l'on puisse gratuitement s'enrichir financièrement.

Je pense sincèrement qu'un statut sous licence Commons CC-by-nc est indispensable sinon à terme c'est la disparition pur et simple .

Ce que je lis c'est que ceux qui contribuent actuellement préfèrent ignorer cette clause, car sinon ils ne pourraient psychologiquement pas le faire.

De très nombreuses personnes invoques aussi le "fair use" comme autorisation, alors que le "fair use" n'existe pas dans la plus part des pays et que le fait d'invoquer le "fair use" revient au même que de demander la modification de la licence vers une licence de type Commons CC-by-nc.

Qu'en pensez- vous ?

Pourquoi ce choix ?

Comment avec la licences actuel ou la licence commons CC-by-sa, convaincre ?

En espérant vous lire bientôt

Veiller accepter mes meilleures salutations !

Supercalimerot 15:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Salut Supercalimerot, Erik Möller traitait ce sujet en 2005: The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License (le texte est disponible en anglais). --Frank Schulenburg 13:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Global IP Block Exempt Group

I was thinking about this, and lets say a steward globally hard blocks a range with Special:GlobalBlock. It's unusual of course, but if it does happen, we might have users who haven't done nothing being affected by the block and won't be able to edit any wiki except Meta. This will fix that problem. I propose that we add a global IP block Exemption group which has ipblock-exempt. People requesting it would have to meet two requirements, you are affected by a global hard block, and are trusted not to abuse the tools. What do you have to say about this? Techman224^Talk 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea, we implemented this at enwiki and have found it difficult to monitor that the right is being used properly. Also, I don't think some projects would like their hardblocks being overrode without contest, which is what the Whitelist part of GlobalBlock fixes, there would not be a way to do that with global IPBE except by violating the privacy policy and disclosing what IP range the person getting the right is on. MBisanz ^talk 06:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There had been some discussion about this a while back. I think folks weren't interested because there's really no use for it. I don't see any pressing need, and it is quite difficult to ensure proper use, as MBisanz points out, even on one wiki. Cross-wiki would of course be an even bigger problem. I don't think we need the hassle.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=gblrights&page=Special:GlobalUsers/Global+IP+block+exempt --- Best regards, Melancholie 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Global ipblock-exempt is meant for users who need to bypass global blocks - not local ones. If blocks on some single wiki are a problem for a user, then the blocks either need to be re-thought, or the wiki needs to get ipblock-exempt locally (see bug 18337). Local ipblock-exempt is for when local blocks are a problem. Global ipblock-exempt is for when global blocks are a problem. Right now, it's not implemented correctly because of bug 18343.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps MBisanz can say more about how this was troublesome when tried on enwp. In the specific case Melancholie has requested twice recently - that of a trusted bot occasionally using blocked proxies - I can see this being useful. Local admins could still block those accounts by name. -- sj | help translate |+ 20:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issue at enwiki is lack of monitoring. Checkusers are supposed to check each account on a regular basis to make sure it is still behind a block and not being abused, but without a public way to track checks it just simply isn't done. Also, at enwiki it is used to let editors from behind the Great Firewall edit, but not from Tor. Each wiki has a different approach to things like Tor, the Great Firewall, etc, so it would be difficult to make a universal policy for Meta to administer. MBisanz ^talk 06:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - there are myriad problems here, and monitoring global block exemptions poses a greater challenge than monitoring local ones. If we're going to do it, we need a clear process for monitoring, and they must be only for bypassing global blocks, as I mentioned above. There are at least 2 open bugs which must be fixed before I would consider implementing this.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Talk:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption... this appears to be rather a confusing issue. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Add Category to default search on all wikis

I think it would be a good to add the Category namespace to default search on all wikis. I cannot really think of projects that wouldn't want this, so if there are no objections I will go ahead and push this change. Thoughts? :) --Rainman 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems reasonable. :) --FiliP × 23:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

YaY i agree . --Mardetanha ^talk 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of doing that? On English Wikibooks for example, categories are almost never what you're looking for (certainly that's the case for new users who would find it extraordinarily disorienting to find categories in their search results).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Granted, might be a good idea to limit it to wikipedias then. --Rainman 22:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Embed RSS into Skin not Wiki Pages

Hello

I was just wondering if there were any tutorials on how to integrate an RSS feed into the skin of my mediawiki site? I know there are several RSS extension revisions, but I really would like to put a feed into a Row or Column similar to how one adds a Right column to MonoBook for adding AdSense to their site.

I have attempted to simply replace the AdSense code from one of the Right-Column tutorials but I can't seem to get a feed to display on my site.

Any help would be great!!

tHe oLdr4Ver

Please see mw:Communication.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Extra Eyes

I have copied a question I asked on en wiki village pump and was told to post here for more eyes the question is here thanks. BigDunc^Talk 08:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieve a licence

I want to keep it short:
Some user on Commons revert their GFDL "or any version later" (1.2+) agreement to GFDL version 1.2 only (1.2-only). The german wikipedia says on de:Wikipedia:Lizenzbestimmungen

"Die Lizenz kann grundsätzlich vom Urheber nicht gekündigt oder wegen einer geänderten Meinung widerrufen werden. Es ist daher nicht möglich, eingestellte Texte und Bilder zurückzurufen."

(which is in short for de-0 guys that you can't retrieve the GFDL agreement). The english Wikipedia says on en:Wikipedia:Copyrights

"However, you can never retract the GFDL license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain under GFDL until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires"

which is neary the same information.
Such general information does NOT exist on Commons as explicit guideline. Only some discussions are about that topic. I created Commons:Commons:Lawbook because I thought about that topic. Right now it's an essay, but I think with some modifications by the community it would become an acceptable guideline.
Maybe the WMF could have a look at that topics and integrats them somewhere so that we can avoid a second 1.2->1.3-disaster when 1.4 will be published one day. May somebody can tell me how I can contact the WMF.
I have just started to read the GFDL text, but it will take some time, because I want to be fully shure that I understand everything. My first question would be if someone knows a part in GFDL 1.2 where the licence is definited as non revocable. My second question would be (if the 1.2 text does not include the non-revocable information) if you can retrieve a free licence. I would say no, because a free licence means that you can share a file under the terms of the given licence and you don't have to contact the author or you have to have a look at the original source page if the licence my have changed meanwhile. So even if you remove/change the licence it still can be used under the old one.
Thank you for your views and comments --D-Kuru 15:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The "irrevocable" part comes not from the GFDL, but from Wikimedia wikis, which say (at least on enwiki and commons) "you irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL [version 1.2+]". By submitting any content at all, you agree to those terms. You can stop agreeing to them (and hence stop contributing) but you cannot revoke the license on the material you have already contributed. Happy‑melon 15:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even I'm an admin on Commons I never knew that you can find that message there. Many discussions and have shown that no accepted guideline includes that information. Some time before the information was included in the upload form, but there are also upload forms which don't include that information. Can you may please give me the exact quotation and the source page.

--D-Kuru 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be commons:MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning, which appears under the edit box for every single page, in a big box with a red border, using bolded italics :P Happy‑melon 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That page says "By submitting 'text contributions, you irrevocably agree to release your text contributions under the GFDL" Thereby you only agreed that you licenced your text contributions irrevocably under GFDL, not your uploaded images whichn were once tagged with 1.2+

Is there a page where the same text is for images? And do you automatically agree to that terms if you create an account? I'm just asking, because one argument was that (because the user used another uploadform) the note that an image is considered as a donation irrevocably licenced under the displayed licence was/is not displayed on that uploadform

--D-Kuru 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't upload an image without adding text contributions. The license you add is a text contribution. So if you can't withdraw the text in which you release the image, how can you withdraw the image? Happy‑melon 07:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm nearly sure that this won't work, because even licence template are text why shouldn't you be allowed to change that text? So you can use the (let's say) "{{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}" under GFDL but that does not mean that the image goes the same way, because the image as such is not text. To give you an example what user comments I'm talking about:

1) We have person A, B and C. A is the uploader, B is the guy who used it before the licencechange and C is the guy who used it after the licencechange. (Form my point of view this must be wrong, because free licencing mean that you don't have to contact the author and that you don't have to download it from the original source which makes licencechanges ineffective)

2) Wikimedia Commons is a big storage were you can search for images but Commons can't rely on the fact that the image was 1.2+, because there was no gift relation between you and Commons. (Form my point of view this is wrong, because you released the image under a free licence to everybody and not only to those who reused it. So Commons can still use it under 1.2+, because the user once agreed to it)

3) Even the uploader agreed to 1.2+ he not agreed to CC-BY-SA thereby you are allowed to revert your images from 1.2+ to 1.2-only, because it's not within the spirit of GFDL (I party agree and disagree: 1.2+ -> 1.2-only is not valid, because you once agreed to 1.2+ and per explanation in 1) it wouldn't make any sence. The relicencing with CC-BY-SA is not valid, because you can't insert a different licence to which the original author never agreed because you the reuse under the old licence is not easy enough (I'm talking about images with one single main author and not about Wikipedia.) However, I think the spirit of GFDL (which is not explicit mentioned) is not the GFDL text but the easy reuse of copyrightable meterial. Even the relicence to CC-BY-SA would be in the spirit of GFDL I don'T think that it would be lawful)

I hope that you now understand better why "text contributions" is a bit difficult to reuse.

--D-Kuru 15:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bug 1605

I have offered to hire a developer to fix that bug. See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1605#c48. -- IRP ☎ 17:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Global editprotected for CommonsDelinker

Dear community, I'd like to propose to grant editprotected for CommonsDelinker. Administrators on Wikimedia Commons are putting efforts to remove duplicated images. When CommonsDelinker met protected page, commons administrators should request for replacement to local sysops. It is unefficient and inconvenient. I believe CommonsDelinker have permissions to operate globally. I would propose editprotected rights to reduce the efforts of administrators. Thank you!--Kwj2772 (論) 01:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Our experience with CommonsDelinker on enwiki has been a history of uncooperative and uncommunicative interactions. After identifying a bug in October 2008 and proposing a trivial fix, it only took six months to get the four-character modification enacted ([1] [2] [3] [4]), after BAG considered blocking the bot until it was fixed (link). I would need to see a convincing assurance of significantly improved communication and willingness to attack problems proactively, before I could support giving this bot higher permissions. Happy‑melon 08:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker should post editprotected request on the talk page. I think, it is the best solution. Ruslik 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Strategy

Sj has started Strategy. It seems like a page that should receive some attention, so here it is. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Hello! I reallly don't know where to ask this kind of question, so I hope someone will tell me where I should ask it. I was blocked on hr.wiki for saying: "Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia which meets all proposed changes with harshness and refusal". Well, that's what the administrator gave as the reason, no matter how totalitarian it is. He didn't warn me first, he just blocked me. I didn't agree with his change (but didn't revert it!), I discussed it on the talk page and he blocked me instead of providing argumenets. Where can I get help? 92.36.145.145 12:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend to use special:emailuser/username on hr.wiki and send an email to Your administrator of trust and explain the situation to him, You could also open a RfC, but I would recommend to try to solve it locally first, because this might have more success, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 13:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The administrator disabled me from sending emails. Other administrators have noticed this disgrace and they have reacted in the meantime. Therefore, I have decided to avoid stirring up controversy on a larger level. Thank you very much for your advice! It's always nice to see that there are pleasant people here :) 92.36.145.145 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Php inside mediawiki page,how to refresh without doing edit-save?

Hi all. I modified setup.php adding a function for using php code inside a wikipage. Is there a way to always refresh this page?I mean, the page is shown correctly just after someone did [edit->save], it seems to cache the page and always show this page until a new save comes. How can i prevent this, making the browser interpreting the php code at every visit?Thanks.

Technical questions like this should be made at mw:Project:Help desk. Where I expect you will be strongly advised that this is perhaps the least security-conscious thing you could do with MediaWiki. Happy‑melon 11:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you change your user name

My user name has an error in it. since I can not delete it, how do I change it. When I try to create another user name that is correct, it says the user name is too similiar to one that already exists.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.106.123.134 (talk) diff, please sign discussions with --~~~~ (UTC)

You can ask for a rename, this will also move Your contributions to the new name, see the interwikilinks on the left at SR/SUL for the requestpages, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with rendering unicode article titles

Hello, I am an admin from Tamil Wikipedia. We have a persistant issue of titles not being properly rendered. Instead of like this: ஆங்கில மொழியின் வரலாறு, the appear like this: E0%AE%86%E0%AE%99%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B2_%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8A%E0%AE%B4%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%AF%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%8D_%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%81

This is perhaps a browser issue. Are there any way to solve this issue. Thanks.

--Natkeeran 17:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hola a todos...ruego que me desbloqueen de wikiquote en español

Hola me dirijo a vosotros para que me desbloqueen de wikiquote en español ya que me han confundido con otro usuario. Saludos. --Qohf 19:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Insisto en que me desbloqueen de wikiquote ya que me han confundido. --Qohf 11:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(Spanish) No soy administrador de Wikiquote, pero observando el registro de bloqueos concluyo que a usted se le ha bloqueado por crear usuarios títeres entre otras cosas. Esto debería discutirlo en primera instancia con la comunidad local de @eswikiquote puesto que ni los administradores de meta ni los stewards pueden anular en este caso las decisiones de las comunidades locales puesto que los stewards no deciden. —Dferg (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(English) I'm not a es-wikiquote administrator but looking at the block log you have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and other past issues. This should be discussed with the local comunity first cause meta community are not for override local community decissions. —Dferg (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

He respetado todos los bloqueos, pero no he creado cuentas títere de ninguna manera. Así que pido que me desbloqueen para no tener que seguir insistiendo en ello. Soy víctima de perseguidores religiosos y de gente antimoralidad, de enemigos de la moral y de los valores para entendernos. --Qohf 18:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Disculpe caballero, pero le repito que aquí, en meta, no podemos hacer nada por desbloquearle. Las decisiones locales se resuelven localmente. Lo lamento de veras, pero no hay nada que podamos hacer. —Dferg (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hola de nuevo, lo digo porque este señor que se llama Pedro, un tal Drini, se ha convertido en un perseguidor religioso, ya he dejado claro que no soy otro usuario bloqueado. ¿Pueden hacer algo para hablar con este enemigo? Desbloqueenme. Gracias. --Qohf 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new global policy: Biographies of living people

There is a proposal for a new global policy regarding biographies of living people. Comments, suggestions, and other input are welcome at Talk:Biographies of living people. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

move cat @ WMFwiki

Please move wmf:Category:의견 to wmf:Category:결의안. "의견" means comment or feedback, while "결의안" means resolution. Thank you.--Kwj2772 (論) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. However, it might be better to place requests like these on Wikimedia site feedback in the future. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 14:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals

I've no idea how things are supposed to work round here, but as Wiktionary/logo/refresh was stagnating and getting sillier I've created the next step. I'd appreciate it if someone "in the know" could fix it. Conrad.Irwin 18:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this restriction from the old Wiktionary logo procedings apply to the new ones? ""Important: If a logo proposal uses the Wikimedia colors, please upload versions in new, other colors. All logos should be clearly distinguished from the Wikimedia logo in color and form."". Conrad.Irwin 12:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is my username inappropriate?

I created my account last week and I have edited several wikis without any problems. Yesterday I received an email saying that I had been blocked on it.wikisource.org for having an inappropriate username. I chose my username according to en:Wikipedia:Username policy and simple:Wikipedia:Username. It does not suggest that I am an administrator (or that I have any other rights), and it is not promotional, offensive or disruptive. As I have an SUL account, I do not believe that it is misleading. I would like to know what other users think about my username and whether I should consider changing it. Thanks. SUL 15:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to laugh when I first saw Your username last week, because it is also the shortcut for SUL ('SUL' is a SUL account - just sounds funny), but it could also mean something else and I personally don't see any problem with it either ways. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your username. Guido den Broeder 15:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The user replied to my message on his meta talk page. Unfortunately, due to the way Single User Login works, it is difficult to check the username policies of all 700+ wikis before creating a unified login. SUL 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Here I am, summoned by Spacebirdy. I'm quite busy so I'll be quick. Local username policies on it.wikisource are not that different from other projects (as you can see by their translation here). It's a matter of sensibilty and prevention, but I understand that the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors. After stating that there's no offense implied both by my block and by SUL's request here, I'm going to leave the decision to the it.source community, posting a request for comment on the local village pump, in order to gather proper consensus there. I'm just asking SUL to be patient for some days. In the meantime he still can use email to contact me, he can creat new accounts on it.source and he can edit anytime unlogged: I blocked his username before any edit just to let him start with a new one avoiding any renaming process. - εΔω 15:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think SUL should be held hostage here. He should be unblocked right away because blocks are preventive, not punitive pending the outcome of the community's decision. It may not be your intention due to your English proficiency, OrbiliusMagister, but you said "I blocked his username before any edit just to let him start with a new one avoiding any renaming process" sounds a bit over the line and deeply worries me. As a bureaucrat, you are expected to do a better job than the admins by communicating first rather than swinging the banhammer on the spot, particularly when this username is not blatant violation of policy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, I'm sorry for any inconvenience due to my unease with English language. I'll try to be direct. First of all SUL is noone's hostage. he edited anonimously our Village Pump and his ideas received full respect. Secondly I stated here above and on his talk page that technically this is no ban, (a word used by noone till now). I normally give a week of time to users with an irregular nickname. I frankly admit my fault if I blocked SUL before warning him, but I stated more than once that I had no bad intentions, that my purpose was practical: I wanted to help SUL to spare him further hassle implied by renaming process. Whether a violation of policy is blatant or not is less important than the fact that it is a violation. I still think that prevention is better than punishment, and I acted consequently. Thirdly I admitted my excess of zeal, I asked the community about their perception of such username and consensus has been gathered. By the way.... I unblocked User:SUL four hours ago[5]. Anyone can ask other stewards or Italian meta users (e.g. Fabexplosive or Nick1915) if in the last three years I've ever been a harsh or unreasonable sysop. εΔω 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You εΔω, IMHO You handled the situation very well, involving the community and letting the user speak up were good decisions, I am glad it turned out that way and thank You for taking care of it the way You did, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that all's well ends well. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sitenotice

The new global sitenotice for all Wikimedia projects now contains an error: link Licensing update/Result is local, and should be global: meta:Licensing update/Result. Please correct this as soon as possible. AndyVolykhov 08:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this has been fixed now. Adambro 08:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The meatpuppeting attack to LMO wikipedia - Origin of meatpuppeters and meatpuppets

The following discussion is closed.

---

... OMISSIS - all the thread is here: [6]

On 22 march 2009, there was a meeting of Italian Wikimedia Association [7].

A lot of recruiters and recruited people involved in the meatpuppeting attack partecipated to this meeting:

• the recruiters Remulazz, Fabexplosive, DracoRoboter;
• the meatpuppets (as definition) Lusum, Giac83, Ilario, Xaura, Marcok, kiado;
• Nemo, treasurer and member of the Board of italian Association;
• the ex (past) steward Paginazero.

The other two recruiters, Snowdog (an ex steward!) and Bramfab (alias Barbapedana), "elected" during the meatpuppeting attack of december 2007, should resign and leave the adminship as corrective action.

--Yattagat 10:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, since this incident took place in 2007, CheckUser will probably show stale so there's no evidence. Nevertheless, absence of evidence does not equal to evidence of absence. However, you really should have raised it the moment you suspect suck activities occurred, not sit around for a year before reporting it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OhanaUnited, I haven't time to reply your comment, because you archived the thread on 7 may 2009. Let me reply your comment now. I think that "CheckUser" is not the solution, because the problem is the recruitment. According the main definition of meatpuppet given in the page [8]:

Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member if the new member was (allegedly) recruited by an existing member only to back up the recruiting member's position.

on the LMO wiki, 5 (allegedly) recruiters (the last 2 are Snowdog (a past steward!) and Bramfab) recruited a lot of people to be elected admin. A lot of recruited people are members of the Italian Wikimedia Association; they voted for the (allegedly) recruiters and then disappeared.

I think that a meatpuppeting attach is a meatpuppeting attack and noone should do as en:Pontius Pilate. May be useful remember that the page [9] states: do non recruit, do not recruit, do not recruit!

--Yattagat 07:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

---

This has no place here - discuss these issues on lmowiki. If this is a problem, it is a problem lmowiki must solve for itself, we cannot and will not do it for you.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yattagat: We have had a very similar problem on Cantonese Wikipedia. Members (who were not regular editors) of a Wikimedia chapter turned up en-mass in an attempt to desysop someone they didn't like. In the end the poll resulted in no-consensus (The truth was that all regular editors were against the proposal.) Meat-puppets can often be prevented by a requirement on the number of edits. Hillgentleman 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your testimony, Hillgentleman, it seems that the problem of meatpuppeting attack is non only of the LMO Wiki. I'm very happy that Cantonese Wikipedia could defend itself; unfortunately the LMO Wiki was not able to defend itself, also because as recruiters and recruited there were a lot of bureaucrats, admin and users of IT Wiki and members of Italian Wikimedia Association and 2 past stewards (Snowdog and Paginazero) of the same entourage. --Yattagat 09:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand why "This has no place here" (as written by Mike.lifeguard): because "The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects". More, some discussion about the case happened on the same Mediawiki. For example, here [10] there's the meatpuppeter (as definition) Fabexplosive that wrote to the steward Nick1915: {{quote|1=