Wikimedia Forum
<translate>
The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the [[<tvar|wmf>Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation</>|Wikimedia Foundation]] and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see [[<tvar|meta-babel>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Babel</>|Meta:Babel]].)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the [[<tvar|mediawiki>Special:MyLanguage/MediaWiki</>|MediaWiki software]]; please ask such questions at the [[<tvar|mw-support-desk>mw:Project:Support desk</>|MediaWiki support desk]]; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on [[<tvar|tech>Special:MyLanguage/Tech</>|Tech]] page.</translate>
Dear all,
hiding global accountnames from the global userlist is possible and makes much sense for very insulting accountnames. (eg. containing realnames or accountnames of respected users and living or dead people)
Renaming them only moves the problem to the renamelog (of course better than the userlist).
In bugzilla:14476 the hiding of accountnames had been requested as feature for local projects too. Imho the local hiding should be assigned to local bureaucrats. Also if an accountname is hidden globally it should be hidden in both userlists, not only in the global one.
Please express Your opinion here.
- I do support such a feature. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I totally agree with birdy :) ..--Cometstyles 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely with both these fine people above :) --Herby talk thyme 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Cbrown1023 talk 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, seems like an excellent suggestion. --MiCkEdb 17:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- fully support, -jkb- (cs.source) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. WjBscribe 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good and agree --Mardetanha talk 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support good idea! --Kanonkas 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree Huji 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support -Jorunn 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Would be very welcome. On nlwiki we often have to rename users stalking German sysops. Hiding the names would be better. --Erwin(85) 09:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes please. giggy (:O) 09:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support - no doubt about it. --FiliP × 13:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely no reason to oppose this. Majorly talk 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support — VasilievV 2 17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support it makes a sense. --Aphaia 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Would be useful on EN:WQ.--Cato 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sounds good. Soxred93 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Meno25 11:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Millosh 12:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support I have a list handy :) -- lucasbfr talk 06:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good idea. Cenarium (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support common sense--Werdan7T @ 23:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support MBisanz talk 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Monobi (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very useful. Firefoxman 01:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nakon 01:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This implementation, at least. Hiding accounts, especially ones that have contributions, is deceptive and unnecessary. If there's an issue with the account names, they shouldn't simply be swept under the rug, they should be dealt with -- permanently. --MZMcBride 03:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Dealt with permanently" how? I fail to see how this is sweeping anything under the rug, or how it is not desirable, but I'm sure you can clarify. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- By reassigning the edits and deleting the account entirely. Currently, two people have the power to do this. Bureaucrats can essentially do this using the RenameUser extension. And sysadmins can do this using their magic powers (a maintenance script, I believe). "Sweeping them under the rug" refers to simply hiding them, which makes the problem go away, in a sense, but doesn't really do so cleanly, and doesn't truly resolve the issue (the accounts still exist). --MZMcBride 03:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with renaming them is that it simply moves the problem content from the list of users to the rename log. A developer would still be needed to completely remove the data. I think you will find most such accounts have no contributions (or at least only deleted ones). Given that the issue is to some extent a cosmetic one - people unhappy with having insulting names in publicly accessible logs (some are BLP vios in their own right) - "hiding" the names seems to actually resolve the problem without needing developers to deal with every instance. WjBscribe 03:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, hiding the accounts would still leave a log entry. (At least, hiding global accounts currently does.) So, really these bad entries would be moving from one Special: page to another. ; - ) While I understand and sympathize with those wanting to remove the unsightly names from the list, the reality is that this part of the software (Special:ListUsers) functions to list all users in the database, not just certain ones. If the accounts exist, they should be listed (in my personal view, of course). Otherwise, it's revisionistic, in a sense. And yes, while the logs are publicly accessible, they are not indexed by search engines (no Special: pages are). If we want to avoid developer intervention, an extension or some other type of software feature could be written / implemented. There's an extension currently called mw:Extension:User Merge and Delete that could be used, I suppose. Though it also has a log. --MZMcBride 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- The comment about logs is a good one. The utility of this feature is considerably lessened if the action is logged unless access to the log is restricted, say to admins only. WjBscribe 23:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, hiding the accounts would still leave a log entry. (At least, hiding global accounts currently does.) So, really these bad entries would be moving from one Special: page to another. ; - ) While I understand and sympathize with those wanting to remove the unsightly names from the list, the reality is that this part of the software (Special:ListUsers) functions to list all users in the database, not just certain ones. If the accounts exist, they should be listed (in my personal view, of course). Otherwise, it's revisionistic, in a sense. And yes, while the logs are publicly accessible, they are not indexed by search engines (no Special: pages are). If we want to avoid developer intervention, an extension or some other type of software feature could be written / implemented. There's an extension currently called mw:Extension:User Merge and Delete that could be used, I suppose. Though it also has a log. --MZMcBride 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- If the devs can device this to work similar to the "oversight logs" or "checkuser logs", it will be better so only crats can remove from userlist, and will only be available for them..--Cometstyles 04:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with renaming them is that it simply moves the problem content from the list of users to the rename log. A developer would still be needed to completely remove the data. I think you will find most such accounts have no contributions (or at least only deleted ones). Given that the issue is to some extent a cosmetic one - people unhappy with having insulting names in publicly accessible logs (some are BLP vios in their own right) - "hiding" the names seems to actually resolve the problem without needing developers to deal with every instance. WjBscribe 03:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- By reassigning the edits and deleting the account entirely. Currently, two people have the power to do this. Bureaucrats can essentially do this using the RenameUser extension. And sysadmins can do this using their magic powers (a maintenance script, I believe). "Sweeping them under the rug" refers to simply hiding them, which makes the problem go away, in a sense, but doesn't really do so cleanly, and doesn't truly resolve the issue (the accounts still exist). --MZMcBride 03:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Dealt with permanently" how? I fail to see how this is sweeping anything under the rug, or how it is not desirable, but I'm sure you can clarify. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense to me, tools rock. Until(1 == 2) 03:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ayuh. -- Avi 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support SynergeticMaggot 09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Supportand I have a list, too; many on my various watchlists and user/talk page histories.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)- I've struck my support; tentatively. If another solution such as outright deleting abusive accounts can work with the edits reasigned somehow and all licensing issues addressed, then great. The trolls have created a great many accounts that should be put out of the sunshine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support User names may be offensive ("Johnsmith stinks") and may release personal information ("Anoneditor is John Smith and lives in London"); such names should be hidden.--Poetlister 11:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. Acalamari 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Hiding doesn't solve the problem, and for accounts with contribs just makes the WP data confusing. MZMcBride's position above is good. Listen to him. --Gmaxwell 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Opposeper MZMcBride. I'm not sure what simply hiding them solves. Can active accounts be hidden? Accounts with contribs that aren't deleted? I don't think that's a very good idea. What would happen to file histories? Can you even do that without violating the GFDL? I agree those user lists need a good cleaning but this does not sound like the way to do it. What about just restricting the list to admins? Or better yet, deleteaccount. Rocket000 08:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)- Hello, please take a look at this and read the introduction of the page, where it says, 'very insulting accountnames', before talking about GFDL and contributions, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't mention what happens to accounts with contribs. People with "very insulting" accountnames can edit constructively too. The GFDL can apply to people with any kind of name. "Very insulting" varies from person to person, language to language, culture to culture, etc. (Even if it's underlined.) How does hiding certain contributers names help anything? It's simply deceptive, non transparent, and unfair. For what benefit? Rocket000 10:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing happens to them, the ones with contributions should be renamed because of the history. Please have a look at that list I gave You, it is real names, usernames and then You get a idea about what is very insulting and why those can't contribute normally, it has nothing to do with useful contributions. The aibility to hide accountnames already is technically implemented, but only for global ones. If there is something better than that, please go for it, but until then, this should be done. The deletion of accounts will be implementet, uhm, let me guess... never? --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 10:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. It is really frustrating that it even has to be discussed that we need the aibility to protect people from such. Talking about useful contributions in that context, to me, sorry to say, sounds rather ridiculous. On some projects they had to modify the MediaWiki messages to hide the old name when they renamed to protect the people, that can't be the solution. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 10:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then, as long as accounts with contribs are not hidden, I support. Looking at the names in that log, would this be considered "very insulting": User:Persian Poet Gal blocks innocent n00bs for no reason!@global. I would hope not. But should it be hidden? If anything is, yes. This doesn't address stuff like that. Or am I missing something? This just seems like censorship for the sake of it rather than doing something useful like cleaning out the user lists. Rocket000 10:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- All right, this is sounding better. Should all accounts that are hidden also be indefinitely blocked? What happens when a non-global accountname is hidden locally and then someone creates the global account elsewhere? Rocket000 10:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- It can't be censorship because it would not affect the version history (so no need to fear license issues), because of that it is unfortunately not a solution for accounts with edits at all. Now there is sul for all, but nothing to prevent those with mailicous intention to bypass local protections. Happy to hear other, better, realizable, ideas, suggestions and solutions, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- That addresses my all concerns then. Support. The only suggestion I would make is to have broader definition of what names should be hidden (like I pointed out above it would serve us well to hide some non-offensive names too). Rocket000 12:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- It can't be censorship because it would not affect the version history (so no need to fear license issues), because of that it is unfortunately not a solution for accounts with edits at all. Now there is sul for all, but nothing to prevent those with mailicous intention to bypass local protections. Happy to hear other, better, realizable, ideas, suggestions and solutions, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't mention what happens to accounts with contribs. People with "very insulting" accountnames can edit constructively too. The GFDL can apply to people with any kind of name. "Very insulting" varies from person to person, language to language, culture to culture, etc. (Even if it's underlined.) How does hiding certain contributers names help anything? It's simply deceptive, non transparent, and unfair. For what benefit? Rocket000 10:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, please take a look at this and read the introduction of the page, where it says, 'very insulting accountnames', before talking about GFDL and contributions, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Michail 11:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support if you have a look at these nick's i'll think my support for at least hiding could be unterstood.
- The list with 4 offending NOT-nicknames has been commented out and can be seen in the history
--Joergens.mi 20:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC) --Joergens.mi 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Masterpiece2000 09:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support That's a very good idea. --Thogo (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Definitely needed in certain situations. →Spiritia 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support It would be very useful. --Kaaveh Ahangar 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support - but if it is fully neccesairy I do not know, because on several wiki's accountnames are changed when they are insulting, like to User:Vandal080705a. Romaine 13:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support For obvious reasons - also, I don't think the GFDL is contravened if the account has never edited (which a lot of insult-only accounts tend to do).
We also need a feature for hiding block logs too (e.g. if a sysop posted an offensive edit summary in his block log, e.g. F*** OFF YOU N*****!") --Kelsington 18:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Chinese Wikipedia and Wiktionary has too many insulting usernames against one specific person. Showing them to ordinary users is too offensive.--Jusjih 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This GFDL image is used on the wikipedia.org main page (and all the equivalents for other projects) without any form of attribution or mention of the GFDL. Is this a GFDL violation or am I missing something? Anonymous101 19:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- You appear to be. I can see a GFDL template.--Cato 21:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- http://wikipedia.org does not mention GFDL and has no link to the image description with the GFDL template. /Ö 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I created the original (somewhat simple and crude) image while designing the current wikipedia.org layout, and I confirm that it is GFDL (and am fine releasing to public domain or placing under Wikimedia copyright if desired). I also don't have any issue if someone would like to design a more refined "bookshelf" type image in its place -- the original considerations were fast loading, having a visual shorthand for the size of the wikis without the need for translations, and recognizability as "books" or "pages". I tried it with books of all the same size, to look more like a shelf of encyclopedias, but for most viewers it was less recognizable as books and not as an abstract rectangle. Catherine 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I changed the license on the image description page to public domain. —{admin} Pathoschild 13:26:39, 05 July 2008 (UTC)
data mining in Special:Recent changes
Hi, I'd like to aggregate the data in Special:RecentChanges and do a data-mining on it. For example, it may show the hottest topics(like what wikirage is doing), new articles with most edits, users that contribute most contents, etc.
It seems possible to write a small php program to fetch the Special:RecentChanges into SQL, but there's over 240,000 changes in English wikipedia per day, the page can be extremely big[1]. Before I start to do this, I'm wondering if there's a wise way to aggregate these data. Thanks a lot! --Dulldull 07:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Any sort of aggregation will lose some information. If you know that what you lose is irrelevant, then it is safe to aggregate; otherwise, it isn't. For your purposes, you would need to retain the distinction between different editors and different articles, which allows very little scope for compression. You could convert multiple edits of the same article by the same editor to one line, but that would probably not give you a vast saving.--Poetlister 12:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- In any case you should use the API (recentchanges) and not Special:Recentchanges. Check the list=recentchanges (rc) section on api.php for documentation. --Erwin(85) 14:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Luckily I can hear this before i fetched the Special:RecentChange page. It's a great source to explore. Thanks for all the advices. --Dulldull 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- In any case you should use the API (recentchanges) and not Special:Recentchanges. Check the list=recentchanges (rc) section on api.php for documentation. --Erwin(85) 14:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Global userpage
I was thinking today that a global userpage function would be really handy for global users. Based here on Meta, one could design a "global" userpage that would appear as a kind of default userpage on every project that a given global user has not specifically logged in to, has edited, or has previously created a userpage on. For instance, if I were to create a global userpage, I'd make mine a redirect to my meta userpage:
- "
[[m:User:Anonymous Dissident]]
"
I think this could be very handy; personally, I'd make all of my user pages on projects I don't edit on much be simply a redirect to my meta userpage anyway, but I'd have to do it manually, so this would be a very useful functionality for anyone in the same state of mind. Thoughts? --Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support, if it is a default page, which appears on accounts that are merged (auto or manual, not on all 745 ones), and that I can simly change them. For redirecting it would be great (I am sure, many users would use them for 50 KB selfpromotion, but you can not avoid this...), -jkb- (cs.source) 11:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is interesting. I have userpages on something like three dozen projects and they are mostly very similar.; I'd have more if creating them were a bit less tedious. I use subpages for different chunks of the page and pull them all together with with transclusion in the userpage proper. I think what this proposal basically entails is cross-wiki transclusion. Enabling that would be a truly great feature. I can think of several possible issues, so limits may be appropriate. Please, please, please, allow user-subpages, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly support this idea, although how about the choice to choose what page is mirrored? I have some different content on my enwiki and meta userpages but would definitely create one in a meta user subpage e.g. a box in Preferences which says 'Mirrored userpage: User:E/mirroruser'. It's worth looking into and would be very helpful. — E talk 12:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this is an appropriate use of resources, though I agree that user pages should by default have a soft-redirect to the home wiki of the global editor (as that is what most people do). Though that would require the ability to choose one's home wiki I suppose. Conrad.Irwin 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- "appropriate use of resources"? Care to expound on that? --Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this is an appropriate use of resources, though I agree that user pages should by default have a soft-redirect to the home wiki of the global editor (as that is what most people do). Though that would require the ability to choose one's home wiki I suppose. Conrad.Irwin 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting, and good idea. Support: Assuming it is, as said above, only the default, which can be changed simply by editing the local userpage. - Rjd0060 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have similar thoughts. I think this is quite easy as long as the function of global redirection is enabled. People can choose which wikis they like to host their usepages. Most wikipedians contribute on the wikipedia by default. --Phlyming 02:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Be warned that MANY user pages uses a lot of templates that are speciic to one site and will not work on another; don't forget also the case of links that don't work identically (different namlespaces, collisions and disambiguation pages); in addition, they also use interwikis to another project where the same user page will not make the interwiki link work as expected (due to something I consider a bug, e.g. "w:en:apple" would work on French wikipedia to link to the English fruit, but not on English WP, and "w:apple" on EN.WP would not work correctly on FR.WP where it would give the page for the computer manufacturer. Having common pages and templates is really too much tricky.
- Some more ideas:
- On the opposite, having common preferences set automatically from the global account would allow reimporting automatically a few things like the user preferences, until the user starts creating content, where the preferences will be set locally and registered, then modifiable locally on each project.
- In addition, there could exist an option in the User preferences that will explicitly reimport and overwrite these items.
- Finally, user preferences are currently edited using only the configuration panel in the special page. However these preferences should have an history that can be ret by the user itself, to possibly revert a temporary change.
- Another thing to add in the user preferences profile: the babel wikicodes and levels (that are sharable). When using {{#babel:...}} the list would be prefilled with items from the global user preferences, and will appear at the top, then other items can be used only to override some levels when they are of the form "<recognized-language-code>-<number>", or to add other items specific to the local wiki.
- Note another related bug: the <languageslist/> is currently not sorted at all! This combobox is almost unusable: too hard to find any language in it!!! See for example the home page of Betawiki...
- 90.45.93.218 06:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think a page managed from meta as a default (and modifiable) userpage for a global userpage is a good idea. seresin (¡?) 06:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a good idea. User pages may use some specific models which must be available on Meta. We also may have global monobook personnal scripts --DavidL 14:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Alternative: The WikiEditors Wiki
(Or some such name)
Personally, (and especially with all the new global permissions and such), I think that it would be far better to have all userpages on a separate wiki.
This would deal with quite a few issues.
Consider Wikipedia: en:wp:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. (Or Wiktionary, or any of the other sister projects)
Any page that doesn't directly serve each project can thus be removed/transwikied from each project. (This also deals with the google question concerning userpages and all other "non-project-specific" pages.)
And on the converse, this removes the need to have to keep an eye on over a dozen user talk pages. (user and user talk namespaces would be disabled on all wikimedia projects)
And implementation for linking? No problem, just set the wiki shortcut to be User: - thus, no need to change any pages to update links, they'd still automatically point to the users' page or talk page. (And User talk: to point to user:talk:).
And it also removes the "appearance" or "feeling" of separate projects. I would presume editors would be more likely to help out at other projects if this seeming wall which highlights too concretely the differences between them. When in truth, they are all wikis.
One thing this would likely eventually cause (however) is global behavioral guidelines/policies.
Content inclusion/disinclusion and naming and other style guidelines may be determined "locally", but editor behavior (such as civility and socking) will likely need to be drawn up globally. (And in some ways it has already I believe?)
And note, just to dispel any possible confusion, this proposal is not suggesting a change to anyone's wiki preferences, edits, watchlists, contrib history, or anything else tied to the user's username. This is merely proposing moving pages to this proposed wiki.
All-in-all, I think that having an editor wiki would be not just a "good thing", but a great thing.
(And for all I know, they may be working towards this already.)
Thoughts and/or concerns are welcome. - Jc37 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Statistics
I finished the basic variant of the set of programs which deal with Wikimedia statistics. You may see the first results at Template:Wikipedia statistics, Template:Wiktionary statistics, Template:Wikibooks statistics, Template:Wikinews statistics, Template:Wikisource statistics, Template:Wikiversity statistics, Template:Wikiquote statistics and Template:Wikimedia statistics. --Millosh 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the short description of the programs (I'll upload the code at Meta in the next couple of days): --Millosh 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Program "projs.py" is updating projects list once per week:
- The main purpose of that program is to dump data with codes (and languages) and language names of the main content projects. It is testing every week do we have some new language at the projects other than Wikipedia. Wikipedia codes and language names are taken from Language names page. --Millosh 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- It can't guess new languages or the names of multilingual projects (Meta, Commons, Labs...), so I should be poked when some of such projects become to exist (or I should find a way how to inform myself about that). Optionally, I may get all codes from Incubator (as I have some of them). --Millosh 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Program "getdata.py" is getting data at 00 and 30 minutes every hour (which means something like 5 and 30 minutes in reality). It is using raw statistics page (like http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?action=raw). All statistics, with date and time information is stored (I'll find a way how to put those data somewhere online). So, from yesterday, it is possible to make hourly statistics. --Millosh 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Program "stats.py" and its modules are generating statistics and, run by cron, it updates statistics at 02:20 CET/CEST (which means 0:20 or 1:20 UTC). --Millosh 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Output is localized (User:Millbot/translations.py is the main page for bot-specific issues; Language names is the main page for language names translations). It may include multilingual templates, too. Actually, Meta "language" code is "multi", so there is the place for multilingual templates. --Millosh 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned, it is possible to make very detailed statistics: average edits per hour, changes at the daily level and so on. I am asking here for ideas and help in statistics implementation. I may make some SVG images from time to time. Also, in the future it would be possible to merge those data with not so precise statistics and generate long-term statistics; as well as it is possible to make queries at Toolsever and get precise data from the past (I hope so). --Millosh 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Global deleted image review
How to create new section/topic in Wikipedia
Greetings,
I would like to begin the process of creating a new section/topic for ThwartPoker.
ThwartPoker is a new *patented* class of card games that follow the rules of poker, but completely eliminates the random aspects
of normal poker. Because the random elements have been eliminated, ThwartPoker is legal to play for money and prizes as it is not properly classified as a gambling game.
ThwartPoker Inc. is a developer, publisher, and distributor of interactive strategy card games. The company made gaming history in 2004 when it introduced the next evolution of traditional poker, made possible by patented software that replaces the random aspects of poker with skill and strategy. Because ThwartPoker games are 100% skill-based, they do not violate U.S. federal gaming law. A mobile version of ThwartPoker titled “Hold’em Poker+ For PrizesTM is available on Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and AT&T - made possible through a licensing deal with Twistbox Entertainment. The company is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
Disclaimer. I am the Co-Founder of ThwartPoker.
Its spam. I hope they do not try and create an en wp. --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please try creating the page at this website. Thank you. Majorly talk 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
As you are from the company you should probably not create an article on it (See [[w:WP:COI|the relevant Wikipedia policy)> Also note that futute questions like tis should be asked at the help desk, not here. Anonymous101 09:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Global rights policy proposal for discussion
Please see Global rights for a proposed policy governing the establishment, implementation and use of new global user rights. Avruch 01:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Puntori as a bureaucrat
Puntori has been voted by the sq.wikt community to be a bureaucrat: here. Could anybody give him the bureaucrat status, please? Thanks. I know this place may not be the best for this request but I could not find the proper page to do it and I do not have much time. --Piolinfax (@es.wikt) 17:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Go request it here OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, already done 2 weeks ago--Nick1915 - all you want 09:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- OhanaUnited, Nick1915, thanks
:)
There was no change in Wiktionary:Administrues when I looked so I wrongly assumed Puntori was not a bureaucrat yet. My mistake. I should have checked his status first. Regards. - 0 º 13:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- OhanaUnited, Nick1915, thanks
- Nope, already done 2 weeks ago--Nick1915 - all you want 09:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
HELP NEEDED
As you probably noticed CommonsDelinker removed a lot of images that were deleted and SHOULD NOT of been deleted by me. If you have a toolserver account, could you please run a query on all of the wikis and get the links to undo any changes made by CommonsDelinker on June 27th with "Monobi" and "OTRS" in the edit summary? Also, could the admins on their wikis check and make sure that the edits are rolled back? Thank you, Monobi (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll poke at it. OverlordQ 04:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedias: de, es, en, fr, it
- Wiktionaries: none
- Wikinews: none
- Wikiversities: none
- Wikibooks: none
- I've checked all of the bot's edits on the toolserver's cross-wiki contribs page and have undone all of the ones with "Monobi" and "OTRS" in the edit summary from the past week. Nakon 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hrm, some got missed, like on the polish wikipedia. Monobi (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- All edits on the 27th
- Same, but ignoring lang = (it|fr|en|es|de). OverlordQ 05:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- CD reverted on pl-wiki. Beau (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reverted on nlwiki using Special:Contributions. Didn't know you already had a list of diffs. --Erwin(85) 08:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done: Disputed edits on de.wiki have been reverted this morning. →Christian.И 09:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done, Nakon has done all on ar.wikipedia!--OsamaK 16:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- http://toolserver.org/~str4nd/monobi.tmp/ — ”Monobi” and ”OTRS” by CommonsDelinker from s2 (20 June – 29 June). — str4nd ☕ 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done in Russian Wikipedia, thanks User:Beau. Sister projects were not affected. — Kalan ? 11:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Done in dewikipedia, according to [3] --Church of emacs 11:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sysop out of control
What can be done against a sysop on the rampage, if the local Arbcom is disfunctional as on nl:Wikipedia? Regards, Guido den Broeder 07:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The problem needs to be addressed by the local community. Discuss the local situation there and determine what the community would like done, then implement that decision as a community. Meta can't make the decisions of a community for them, only assist in implementing those decisions when needed. Kylu 07:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Tried to, the sysop blocked me, as well as my IP address, and took away my email privileges. Guido den Broeder 08:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Dutch ArbCom assigned Oscar as Guido's mentor as the result of a request for arbitration. Guido has made clear that he doesn't agree with this. One of his friends even organized a poll about stopping the mentorship, which didn't succeed and received a lot of resistance. In short, the mentorship has been assigned by the Dutch ArbCom and has sort of been confirmed by nlwiki's community. As his mentor Oscar has blocked Guido. Apparently the Dutch community agrees, so please don't come to Meta complaining about this. Oscar is not a sysop on rampage! Please don't misuse Meta for what appears to be your own rampage. The Dutch Wikipedia should deal with it and if you don't like how they do it, please don't come complaining here. --Erwin(85) 08:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC) (nlwiki and meta user)
- The above information is entirely incorrect. Guido den Broeder 09:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- What I am talking about here is a sysop who:
- Deals out long, random blocks to numerous users without any ground whatsoever
- Vandalizes user space, including the deletion of his own talk page, thereby hiding information relevant to current Arbcom cases against him
- Has caused the Arbcom to withdraw
- Refuses all discussion
- Makes slenderous remarks and constantly insults other users
- Falsely accuses various users of sockpuppetry
- Insults users on the IRC channel and then blocks them from it
(today the Wikizine connection was even closed altogether, not sure if he caused this but the effect is obvious)connection is working again today Guido den Broeder 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC) - Thinks he can unilaterally decide to be someones mentor using this only to ensure that a block cannot be undone by admins. These blocks were undone when the nl:Arbcom was still functioning, but he keeps adding new ones
- Thinks he can unilaterally decide that no user on nl:Wikipedia is allowed to refer to a user's scientific publications (even though the same publications can be found on e.g. en:Wikipedia)
- Etc.
- Has been under heavy criticism from the community for months Guido den Broeder 09:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that a couple of admins on nl:Wikipedia cheer him on, and delete Arbcom cases, unblock requests etc. within seconds, is only grounds for more concern. Guido den Broeder 09:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is basically that Oscar is the downfall of the Dutch Wikipedia. How is that, in the above words, not a personal attack? Please don't give me another reason to block you here. I don't think any of us would benefit from that. Besides that it is still a case for the Dutch Wikipedia. A Dutch user requested arbitration which he says is on your behalf. That's the last resort. Meta can't overrule that. --Erwin(85) 09:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am saying what I am saying, nothing more. Don't accuse me of a PA that I did not make. No, Oscar doesn't cause the downfall of nl:Wikipedia. That is done by those who let him get away with all of the above.
- Please note that User:Erwin has removed my nl:Arbcom request and protected the nl:Arbcom talk page. Guido den Broeder 09:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- True, as a sysop it's my job to stop edit wars. You forgot to mention though that I informed this user that you should mail your request directly to the committee, edit. Like it should be done according to w:nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken itself. However, I'll stop commenting now as I myself appear to be giving you a stage for what still seems to me as a rampage. --Erwin(85) 10:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't try and distort history. The email was sent directly to the Arbcom. Because the Arbcom is currently disfunctional, I then asked others to put the case on the page, which is perfectly allowed. Guido den Broeder 10:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Erwin's actions on the nl:Arbcom pages have been undone. That is something, at least. Guido den Broeder 11:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Would you please stop all these lies. This is not productive for wikipedia and its related projects. Annabel 12:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- True, as a sysop it's my job to stop edit wars. You forgot to mention though that I informed this user that you should mail your request directly to the committee, edit. Like it should be done according to w:nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken itself. However, I'll stop commenting now as I myself appear to be giving you a stage for what still seems to me as a rampage. --Erwin(85) 10:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is basically that Oscar is the downfall of the Dutch Wikipedia. How is that, in the above words, not a personal attack? Please don't give me another reason to block you here. I don't think any of us would benefit from that. Besides that it is still a case for the Dutch Wikipedia. A Dutch user requested arbitration which he says is on your behalf. That's the last resort. Meta can't overrule that. --Erwin(85) 09:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Dutch ArbCom assigned Oscar as Guido's mentor as the result of a request for arbitration. Guido has made clear that he doesn't agree with this. One of his friends even organized a poll about stopping the mentorship, which didn't succeed and received a lot of resistance. In short, the mentorship has been assigned by the Dutch ArbCom and has sort of been confirmed by nlwiki's community. As his mentor Oscar has blocked Guido. Apparently the Dutch community agrees, so please don't come to Meta complaining about this. Oscar is not a sysop on rampage! Please don't misuse Meta for what appears to be your own rampage. The Dutch Wikipedia should deal with it and if you don't like how they do it, please don't come complaining here. --Erwin(85) 08:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC) (nlwiki and meta user)
- Tried to, the sysop blocked me, as well as my IP address, and took away my email privileges. Guido den Broeder 08:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
yawn aleichem 15:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- There may be grounds for the description "the local Arbcom is disfunctional as on nl:Wikipedia", but this case is a happy exception. The ArbCom roused itself to deal with the matter: it slapped an indefinite block on Guido den Broeder (for threatening to sue, a major infraction; see here). - Brya 16:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have not threatened to sue anyone, thanks. The hibernating Arbcom has made a grave error here. That said, an indefinite block is the normal way to proceed when legal action has been announced. It will be lifted when the procedure has been completed. [4] We also should not discuss my complaints any further here now for the same reason. Guido den Broeder 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you started this. I am sure everybody will be relieved to drop it. - Brya 06:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have not threatened to sue anyone, thanks. The hibernating Arbcom has made a grave error here. That said, an indefinite block is the normal way to proceed when legal action has been announced. It will be lifted when the procedure has been completed. [4] We also should not discuss my complaints any further here now for the same reason. Guido den Broeder 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- There may be grounds for the description "the local Arbcom is disfunctional as on nl:Wikipedia", but this case is a happy exception. The ArbCom roused itself to deal with the matter: it slapped an indefinite block on Guido den Broeder (for threatening to sue, a major infraction; see here). - Brya 16:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yawn A recent desysop procedure against this "sysop on the rampage" (ended 2008-07-01) was rejected (14 in favour, 111 against). Apparently the nl-community does not fully agree with Guido den Broeder. Wammes Waggel 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The desysop procedure only dealt with Oscar's removal of his talk page. Guido den Broeder 09:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Top 10 Wikipedias (poll)
This is a poll about a rearrangement of the top ten wikipedias that are displayed on the main wikipedia portal (http://www.wikipedia.org). The poll will start on July 6, 2008 at 00:00 UTC and will end on July 31, 2008 at 23:59 UTC
- Introduction
This topic has been wandering around for a long time on Talk:www.wikipedia.org template, coming to surface in many occasions, especially on the times around the milestone of 100.000 articles of the Chinese and Russian Wikipedias.
After a tentative wrap-up of all the proposals made in that page throughout the months in Talk:www.wikipedia.org template#rethinking the top ten, a discussion was launched in Top Ten Wikipedias, to which all the major Wikipedias have been invited to in their village pump.
A lot of good opinions have been collected and discussed, and a vote proposal has been made and received some feedback. That proposal is now being implemented (see link below).
- Vote requirements
Any Wikimedian may vote, provided that they (1) Have a user account created at least 3 months before the start of the vote (i.e. 5 March 2008) on any Wikipedia; (2) Have a user account on Meta, with links in the user page to the other project(s) userpage(s) and (4) Have a minimum 500 edits (across all projects) total.
- How to vote
Voters should choose only one of each option for the questions below. If an option has sub-options, the parent option shouldn't be voted on, but rather one of the sub-options. The most voted option of a question will be chosenThe sub-options will count individually against the top-level options.
The poll has been moved to Top Ten Wikipedias/poll. |
Heh?
Note that "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." However there is an age limit for CheckUser, Oversight, Stewardship, and OTRS access, anyone care to comment? Mww113 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Certain aspects of those roles makes being of age a legal requirement. Majorly talk 23:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, in the USA, age discrimination protection doesn't kick in until someone is at least 40 years old, so the WM can do whatever it wants to people under that age, especially when there are other laws, like privacy laws, that come into play. MBisanz talk 00:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- ... and there isn't an age restriction for general OTRS access, just the CU/OS privs (and thus consequently Stewards).
- James F. (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Additional permissions such as those you mentioned have nothing to do with being a user or employee. The Foundation is well within their rights to restrict those access levels however they want. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- How does one proceed when discriminaton occurs? Guido den Broeder 07:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- It would depend on the discrimination. If you see an admin blocking a user explicitly because of one of the criterions listed above, that would be something handled on-wiki wherever it happened, versus someone applying for a job and being discriminated against, which you'd have to report to.. well, I'm not entirely sure, since I don't float around the Foundation-level stuff. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- How does one proceed when discriminaton occurs? Guido den Broeder 07:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at my suggestion regarding this proposal - it is a discussion regarding social conventions rather than policy. All input welcomed. Thanks, AP aka --Kelsington 18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's a long page; I put the section name in your heading. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)