Wikiquote:Village pump

Community portal Welcome

Reference desk Request an article

Village pump Archives

Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion

Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump comment | history | archive General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Reference desk comment | history | archive Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

Archives

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is the place if you (a) have a question about Wikiquote and how it works or (b) a suggestion for improving Wikiquote. Just click the link above "create a new topic", and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

---

All articles are now linked to a Wikidata item

All articles are now linked to a Wikidata item. Well almost all. The (current) circa 90 exceptions here. I believe all on that list are in a deletion/move/mergeto process (or victims of a distributed transaction fail) and my basic intent is that they will get a sitelinked wikidata item if that process does not complete or is stalled. That UnconnectedPages(main) has always been a small proportion of the articles of Wikiquote, though it probably rose to over 1800 with the surge in #SheSaid articles at the beginning of December though this was resolved by the start of 2023 with about 1245 on the list from memory. While I was able to use some automation to resolve part of that at the start of January over 600 were resolved on an article by article basis. Connecting the Wikidata item for articles with an associated English Wikipedia article is trivially easy, and mostly takes under a minute for most cases unless there's an underlying discrepancy (e.g. bio article linked to disambiguation page). While most of the action for this has occurred on Wikidata a visible effect here is my decision to send articles to the VFD process when it seemed there was both a good reason to do so and I was not prepared to create a Wikidata item for them. I'd prefer the VFD list was under 40; not over 50 at a push; and certainly not over 60. Obviously I've pushed that up to circa 83. I was at one point thinking of deferring adding items to the VfD list. In weighed my priorities, difficulties if momentum of the reduction of hte Unconnected page list was lost and the painful though of getting back into it, the unexpected option of getting a relatively good run on the last part of that list meaning the endpoint was in sight. In particular 11 February 2023 or soon after might see my contributions over the WMF wikis in totality change considerably and I wouldn't want to leave outstanding stuff on Wikiquote. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 21:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:Djm-leighpark:

RE:

All articles are now linked to a Wikidata item. Well almost all

What about other pages such as categories templates, etc?

Also, who will take care of new pages after you leave?

Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Broadly speaking that's up to the community, and remember most pages were sitelinked before I came here and up to recently many were sitelinked soon after being created. Any its almost a trivial case for any article that has an associated English Wikipedia item. The problems can get trickier if there is no associated English Wikipedia item. Over the past month I've been really hot on getting new articles sitelinked ASAP but that was only so I could really keep an eye on the Special:UnconnectedPages list. It my view its only the mainspace articles that really matter with regards to links to Wikidata items. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 01:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Re:

It my view its only the mainspace articles that really matter with regards to links to Wikidata items.

Why not categories & templates? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Not bovvered. Yes they it might be nice. So would sitting in the garden. Not a great time/effort/value and I've better things to do. Ask someone to write a bot about it if your that concerned. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 06:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"In particular 11 February 2023 or soon after might see my contributions over the WMF wikis in totality change considerably" Can you unpack that some? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I see my contribution pattern changing, I've been heavily on Wikiquote/wikidata but xxWP; commons and wikidata are my more natural home than WQ and I am minded I will be more active on those if I remain contributing on WMF wikis: there's reasons I may not and RL is one of a number of possible reasons. Regards -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 01:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Authority control

Now that this excellent milestone has been achieved, it would be good to consider making {{Authority control}} pull in its values from Wikidata, as it does on other projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the term Authority control and the link Andy included above leads to 8 pages of what to me looks like gobbly-gook. Can anyone here enlighten me pease? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I've added {{Authority control}} added it to W.B. here and on simple. Whereas here I've had to set explicitly VIAF=46768718 on simple a load of identifiers have been picked up from Wikidata automatically with no effort on my part. I'm probably more used to the Gaelic Wikipedia where whole infobox grab stuff from Wikidata which help's even a simple stub sometimes look quite impressive for minimal effort. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 22:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I am also not familiar with the following terms:

• W.B
• VIAF
• Load of identifiers
• infobox grab stuff
• simple stub (I think I understand wq-stub, but which stubs are simple and which ones are complex?)
• Gaelic Wikipedia (I assume it is a wikipedia in the Gaelic language?)

And only faintly acquainted with:

• WIKIDATA

Ottawahitech (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Okay. more fool me for wasting my time trying to give an example to you. I'll refrain from trying to assist you in future. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

+1 ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: You don't need to understand the template to be able to see what Authority Control does. What it does is that when placed on a WP page, it provides the information where the relevant material (to the subject of the page) can be found in world libraries. It is usually placed on a person or a book-related article (how I understand it).

For example: if you go to any WP page, e.g. Mark Twain, then scroll down to the bottom of the page to Authority Control (usually under External Links), then you can click on any link there, for example WorldCat Identities and you can search in which libraries you can find any of the books. That is all that is and it is done automatically with the data available in Wikidata. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Emilijaknezevic. It is nice to have information rather than a response mocking my perceived ignorance. Until I saw your post above I did not know what it meant. I have resisted clicking on authority control when I saw it in the past because I associated it with enforcing obedience and was afraid of tangling with edit filters for the offence of clicking on a wrong button. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think what you are saying makes sense. I am also not sure why exactly is it called "Authority Control" and personally I dislike the word authority, too and do not prefer control either. It might or might not have something to do with authorship. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support: After casting a coldcold eye on this. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC) The "cold eye" actually is a part of poem on W.B. Yeats' grave in North Sligo ... with that taken to cold that makes a nonsense probably best described in a typical south Sligo profanity and I apologise for any confusion caused. The key point is Andy Mabbett's proposal makes fantastic sense in my opinion and I'd support its implementation ASAP please -- (formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 19:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support: It does make perfect sense to have Authority control on Wikiquote pages. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Need consensus from members of this community for connecting pages to wikidata

I have asked User:Mike Peel, who operaes a Wikidata (WD) BOT which currently adds new ENWP new articles to WD if we can have a similar service to add new ENWQ articles to WD. The answer I got was yes, conditonal on achieving consensus here. So, can we get support for this:

• ‘’Support Ottawahitech (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support: With tentative concern to what the algorithm used is to avoid duplication and linking to the wrong wikidata item issues. My understanding is the enWP bot only works on curated pages (but that assumption is based on educated guess based on some observations). With most new wikiquote articles coming in (Q) that haave English wikipedia article (A), and {{Wikipedia}} template with no parameters so that the names (A) and (Q) are the same and the Wikidata item (I) associated with (A) is not already linked to another enWQ article (Q2) then sitelinking (I) to (Q) is almost always safe. The farther one gets away from that the more the risk of making an inappropriate link. Equally its possible to create a wikimedia list item/list of quotes for and Wikiquote article but they may then requite merge on Wikidata. But other nnWQ languages wikis may be using this form of bot already (eg Sweden?). The evidence of what I've been about in the field is available via my contributions on Wikidata. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Djm-leighpark: The setup would be a Wikidata game with potential matches (found through Wikidata search), like [1], which the bot would fill in daily. Then unmatched pages would have new items created for them. For Wikipedia, the bot also matches up articles about humans using birth/death dates etc., but I don't think that makes sense here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Mike Peel: Thanks for that. By the way the link you are supplying is currently reporting to me: "The distributed game: This game has produced an error. Maybe talk to Mike Peel about that? New Wikipedia article and category matches Match new Wikipedia articles and categories with Wikidata items, and add the sitelink to Wikidata. Pi bot is thinking about creating new items for these articles, but first it wants your help to match them to existing items. If the match is right, please add the link to Wikidata using "Match". If it is clearly wrong, select "No". If you are not sure, press "Skip". Bug reports and feedback should be sent to User:Mike_Peel. Entry type :. It is remotely possible my indef block on the enWP may be a contributor to that error message. An an aside I've been sitelinking new stuff as it comes through at the moment; mainly to keep the UnconnectedPages/main length stable and not get away (Approx 10 on it relate to newer articles in a deletion process and about 50 historic limbo'd in deletion processes, but I don't anticipate circumstances leading me to doing that for much longer, and it was only an RL event that leaves me active here at the moment). A few final questions: Does this game require manual intervention or is it automatic? And would it have handled Special:Diff/1832129143 linking (w:Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Reynaldo Gonzalez v. Google) ? And am I correct in saying English Wikipedia articles are not sitelinked until currated, unless done so manually, which is do a degree consistent someone manually sitelinking at this enWP AfD. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    • • @Djm-leighpark: I saw the error as soon as I'd posted the link here ... sorry about that, it's now fixed (had to update it from python2 to python3). I forgot to mention that it should avoid pages marked for deletion (by avoiding specific templates - would have to double-check that list for this wiki). The game automatically gets new tiles, but requires manual yes/no decisions. The script just runs a search on Wikidata, you can test specific cases just by using search yourself. At the moment the code does create new items after 14 days, regardless of matches, but I plan to change that soon so it requires decisions through the game first. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Mike Peel: You game player you! Yes looks better albeit I'm not played it but it looks playable. This gameplay stuff is all right its all right, and when it wrong then its very wrong! (Quoting: Farmer A. in South Sligo with "intensive famring" replaced by AI/SANS/Caching/Bitcoin etc). Some techniques for viewing articles in the deletion process are embedded here if it helps: [2] (it misses mergeto's with is a TBD) but primary documentation would be better for you. I'm a gui-avoiding Luddite at heart yearning for an 80-column card punch and paper tape to cut my fingers on. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 10:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support It works really well on simplewiki, and I think it'd work really well here as well. --Ferien (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: @Mike Peel. I'm still currently working actively manually ensuring new articles are linked to Wikidata items as they come providing they are not deletion process candidates, but my doing so may reduce the number of cases your BOT will have to work on. If it would be helpful at any time for me to stop doing this to allow cases for your BOT to process please don't hesitate to let me know. In the absence of such a request I'm reluctant to back off doing this especially as that list remains long partially due to failure to process the deletion lists in a timely manner for pre-2023 articles (If anything survives a VfD I'll create a wikidata item for it but some cases can be more complex to create a non-trivial wikidata item for). -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 04:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Djm-leighpark: Keep it up, and thanks for the work! If we move forward with this, we can figure out a transition, e.g., through the suggested Game. But until there's consensus here, I don't want to start setting things up. (& please keep pinging me, since I'm not often on this wiki, but I get cross-wiki notifications.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Mike Peel: Okay. People have been actively creating new articles today and I have 33 to deal with by towards day-end. Luckily I(well my alt Deirge) has a program "Lollypop2" that can deal with a feed of simple cases via Quickstatements and this sorted 31 of 33, with Marad Massacre and Robert de Nobili needing to be dealt with manually as Lollypop2 does deal with {{Wikipedia}} pointing to an enWP redirect. By by the time I used it 4 more new articles appeared and I dealt with those manually, Lollypop2 only becomes efficient for batches of over 10. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 00:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggest there is a consensus for MP bot

• @Mike Peel: Activity on this seems to have ground to a halt but per this close suggestion there appears to be consensus for this bot. In the interim I've generally been connecting new articles to wikidata items manually as the come in. But Paddy's day seen over 40 new articles created and I used my lollipop2.py program and quickstatements to do the sitelinking (Due to being half asleep and a pesky token these got run in by by abandoned account Djm-leighpark rather than DeirgeDel). Given its been suggested that an admin here reviews by conduct on the English Wikipedia and on Wikiquote and and suggests they might examine the possibilities of me being subject to a global ban - I don't think that admin is likely to do that but I am mulling the totalilty of things and will likely withdraw from sitelinking either due to being banned or from disenchantment. for that reason I think it would be great if you were to consider implementing your bot as soon as reasonably possible. Hope this helps. thankyou. -- (formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 22:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  NB: I happened to be attending a online meetup where Mike also was last week and he said he hoped to look at this in a couple of weeks time. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 04:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE

Per the Global bans policy, I'm informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) about banning a member from your community. Thank you.--Lemonaka (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: Global bans are a dime a dozen. Just curious why you picked User: PlanespotterA320 in particular. Who/what is RespectCE?

Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, RespectCE is a sockpuppet of PlanespotterA320. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech, RespectCE is a sock of PlanespotterA320, and one of the reasons for global ban. Regards. Lemonaka (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for for risto hot sir?

Thanks @Ferien, @Lemonaka I did not know that an RFC is required before locking globally. I believe both of you only started getting active here at ENWQ after the big dust up in 2020 (updated Ottawahitech (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)) regarding User: Babe Kebabe User:Babe kebab (updated Ottawahitech (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)) who was accused of being a sock of User: risto hot sir. Can you speculate why there was no RFC held on META before risto was globally locked? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, there's a difference between global locks and global bans in policy, although it appears the line between them has been more blurry recently. The reasons for global locks on request are relatively uncontroversial: clear vandalism-only/spam-only accounts, or extensive sockpuppetry. Anything that is less uncontroversial than that requires a RfC global ban proposal on Meta. While I am not familiar with Risto hot sir and the circumstances surrounding their lock, this may have been one of those cases where a global lock was not appropriate and a global ban proposal would have been preferable. I remember talking to you before about ILMD and how they were globally locked inappropriately (User talk:Ilovemydoodle#Block). The same thing happened with Eaglestorm but I requested they be unlocked (this also took way too long with little to no communication from the locking steward). Tbh I have been very disappointed recently with stewards using their tools to extend an indefinite block into a global lock for no reason with little to no consultation from the community and not responding to any concerns the local community has. This is a recurring issue, with multiple stewards, even getting to the point where stewards are locking accounts for minor username problems now. But IAR to protect a couple of other local projects I guess?... :/ --Ferien (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien: User: risto hot sir made 39,148 contributions to ENwQ before they were blocked. How can anyone consider this global lock to be uncontroversial? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there were sockpuppetry issues? I wasn't around at that time, and that is what I've heard in the past. Personally, I never interacted with or saw the user around so I can't comment on whether they should be globally locked or not. --Ferien (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien, risto was globally-locked here. User: Praxidicae, a global-sysop, instigated this action saying:

Risto is a disruptive editor, blocked indefinitely on several projects for a combination of things including competency issues, self-promoting, socking and lacking in the ability to collaborate.

Another global-sysop, who now uses a different userID, endorsed this global-lock and added:

I will support even a global ban as his activities crosswiki are a net negative to Wikimedia on a whole

User:Wim b, a Steward, locked risto with no explanation.

This clearly should have been handed through an RFC, not merely rubber-stamped by a Steward. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech Hello. For appealing a global lock, you should appeal it to stewards group. If someone is global lock, they could not be global banned because you cannot execute somebody by firing squad twice. If you believe there is something wrong, please appeal to stewards directly, we cannot revert stewards action.
PlanespotterA320's lock from AmandaNP was reverted by appealing from local community trusted members, if you really think so, you can have a try. Lemonaka (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Global sysops cannot endorsed global-lock, this right was only held by WMF staff and stewards. Although, ehhh, maybe long long ago, global sysop can endorse global lock but now they cannot. I have forwarded this discussion to Vermont. Lemonaka (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ottawahitech, Risto hot sir engaged in a pattern of abuse on dozens of small projects, being blocked on a good number of them. He refused to stop, and created a second account to continue editing on the projects which he was blocked. That was pretty clear cross-wiki abuse with multiple accounts, and necessitated a global lock. At this point, he's created dozens of accounts to evade the blocks and is very far from being able to appeal. Vermont (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vermont: Can you please tell us which of the following items were used by user: Wim b, who is an experienced Steward as the reason to globally lock risto?:

Reasons to request a global lock

The following is a list of common reasons for global locks. As a general rule, global locks happen almost always in clear-cut situations. There is no community-approved policy governing global locks, but this list represents de facto practice.

1. Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock. Please include links to block histories or other evidence of abuse on other projects, and indicate where the account is still active.Accounts whose only intent is to spam on Wikimedia wikis.
2. Accounts whose names are offensive or abusive are also eligible for locking, and may be hidden from logs as well.
3. Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis, such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal information about others which may endanger them
4. Accounts that are suspected to have been compromised, as a temporary measure to maintain account security until the owner is contacted.
5. Accounts that have been globally banned (community or Foundation).
6. Accounts that have been created to evade a global ban (community or Foundation).
7. Accounts whose owners are known to be deceased.
8. Accounts belonging to former Wikimedia Foundation staff members or contractors (done by WMF staff).

Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech, this is according to #1 and #3 Lemonaka (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ottawahitech, to note, this is a list of reasons to request a lock. It is not a limited list of reasons to make locks. However, Risto was locked for cross-wiki abuse and sockpuppetry, which pretty easily falls under 1 and 3. Vermont (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

When do we finally see examples of their disruptive edits, abuse and sockpuppetry? Where's the motive? - to make about 100,000 useful, unreverted contributions to damage the project!--Ila Dee Dali (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Vermont - gone with the wind?--Ned Ali Laden (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Meh movie. Vermont (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems that Vermont can't find examples. Is this project some kinda banana republic where evidences are not needed?--Adolf Loda (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vermont I've blocked this person, mind you lock them? Lemonaka (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Instead of answering Vermont uses the good old/new Russian method: eliminating critics. —This unsigned comment is by Pelttarin Arvo (talk • contribs) .

I don't think this is constructive, Pelttarin. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparent Anti-Semitism on "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" page

Hi, I would like to inform Wikiquote about a page that appears to have been created with Anti-Semitic intent. That page is the page about "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" (or "Protocols" for short), a well-known hoax written in Russia during the 1900s that purports to be the secret plans of the Jews to take over the world. This hoax is infamous as it was promoted by the Nazis as supposed "proof" that the Jews are evil and needed to be exterminated, which in turn lead to the Holocaust where over 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. This page was created by the user "MusenInvincible", who in his latest edit to the page, greatly expanded it and added several quotes from the Protocols themselves and from some other sources. An interesting to note here is that all the quotes from the other sources from other Anti-Semitic works which discuss the Protocols, all of which despite the evidence, falsely claim that the Protocols are genuine. MusenInvincible also added some images to the page, including some rather unusual ones, such the flag of the United Nations (UN), the seal of the American CIA and a portrait of Protestant reformer Martin Luther. In some of the quotes for the Protocols themselves, MusenInvincible links to pages that when combined with the images mentioned, imply that the Jews created television, the UN, the CIA, and Protestantism, caused the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and hijacked other governments, culturally, financially and politically. All as part the supposed "plot" by the Jews to take over the world. The user "Philip Cross" had gotten some of the quotes from other works but didn't seem to take a closer look at the page itself. I've tried adding quotes that proved that the Protocols are fake and why they were popular but the word filter removed them for the reason labelled "GRP" which doesn't really explain what I did wrong. One last thing, MusenInvincible is editing other pages to place Anti-Semitic quotes (including some from the Protocols) on them, such as this example linked here https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=War&diff=prev&oldid=3244582. I recommend that all of MusenInvincible's edits are checked for Anti-Semitism as it seems to be a common theme with them. I would also recommend that the page on the Protocols add some more quotes (including the ones I tried adding) that show that it's a hoax. Thanks in advance. 109.76.97.207 20:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"I recommend that all of MusenInvincible's edits are checked for Anti-Semitism as it seems to be a common theme with them." I have a better suggestion: invite MusenInvincible to this conversation, and ask them to explain their motives. Do the same for Philip Cross. Here is a link to MusenInvincible's talk page, and here is one to Philip Cross' talk page. I would suggest that you add a message to both pages, informing them about the conversation that is taking place here on the Village pump page, encouraging them to take part in the conversation, and assuming good faith.

I have another suggestion as well: that you make a user for yourself. That will make it easier for other users to contact you and collaborate with you. Furthermore, it may prevent the strange "GRP" error you were encountering earlier. I am not sure what may have caused it, but I speculate that it may be due to Wikiquote's spam filter, which could have been triggered for reasons unknown. If you register a user and it reaches autoconfirmed status after a couple of days, the spam filter will be less suspicious of you, and hence you should have an easier time contributing in good faith.

With regard to the Protocols page, let me offer a few opinions. I think the best approach to take with regard to such a work is a scholarly attitude, with emphasis on factuality and sources. For example, what are some of the theories on how the text came into being? What is the scholarly consensus with regards to the origins of the work, and what are some books and articles where scholarly and well-sourced opinions can be found? A scholarly attitude here means that we concern ourselves with the facts of the matter about the text, without buying into the antisemitic tropes that the text itself espouses. It means that we study the ideology without becoming ideologically possessed.

There are other issues that may be discussed, such as the use of images and links. The Protocols talk page would be a good place for a discussion about what the Protocols page ought to be and how it should be structured. One main benefit of having a page for Protocols is that every quote from the text can be collected in one place: on that page. Since the text is in all likelihood a forgery, it cannot be used as the source for anything, and so one should, I think, avoid quoting it on other pages.

That is all I can offer in terms of advice and opinions on this topic. I have not myself contributed to the Protocols page, and I have no immediate plans of doing so. The text does not interest me much because it is in all likelihood a forgery, and as such, I cannot take it seriously. The only thing I can take seriously is scholarly perspectives about the text. If such perspectives are contributed to the Protocols page, I think it would greatly improve the quality of the page. BurningLibrary (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You are both quite correct in pointing to problems with this page. I have cut down the number of quotes from Henry Ford in the past, and now added the second paragraph from the Wikipedia article's introduction and removed some of inappropriate display quotes. It is a repellant article and difficult to work on. Philip Cross (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. Before I came here the first time, I did try to edit the page in question to add quotes that showed the Protocols are fake as well as some explaining why the conspiracy theory became popular (and also replacing some of the image captions to include the new quotes), but the edit filter messed it all up. I looked at the page's "Abuse filter log" and my edits seems to be there. Incase you were wondering, yes, I did include "scholarly perspectives about the text", one of those quotes is by author Umberto Eco from his book Foucault's Pendulum. I basically took the quotes from sources used on enwiki to start the improvement of the page. Philip Cross is already here so there's no need to contact him but I'll contact right MusenInvincible now. Thanks again. --109.76.97.207 21:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"Incase you were wondering, yes, I did include 'scholarly perspectives about the text', one of those quotes is by author Umberto Eco from his book Foucault's Pendulum." Right, and this is commendable, in the same way that Philip Cross' efforts to clean up the page are commendable. Of course, there is a great irony in the fact that your good-faith contributions were the ones to get censored by the filter. In any case, I think you will have an easier time working with difficult topics if you register a user for yourself. BurningLibrary (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, that's done now.--109.76.97.207 22:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

MusenInvincible is at it again folks! He made a page contain quotes from Henry Ford's work, The International Jew. I had to remove the Anti-Semitism from the intro by replacing it with the one from the Wikipedia article.--109.76.97.207 17:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you propose be done? Any suggestions?

Currently, a full-text search for "The International Jew" on Wikiquote reveals that there is a number of quotes from the book on the The Holocaust page, where they surely don't belong. I would suggest that these be moved to the The International Jew page, or simply deleted.

In addition to the The International Jew page, there is also a subsection for it on Henry Ford's page: Henry Ford#The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem (1920–1922). I propose that these be merged, so that there is only a single place for quotes from the work to go.

To my mind, the issue is one of categorization: quotes from works like these should be stored in a single place, not spread all across the wiki. Collecting everything on one page also makes it easier to enforce a limit on the maximum amount of quotes from the work, and one may add commentary, scholarly quotes about the author and the history surrounding the work, etc.

On a final note, I think outright censorship (e.g., a blacklist of "offensive works") would be a colossal mistake here. Censorship has a tendency to elicit the Streisand effect, and in any case it distorts history. Better to let history be what it is, even when the historical facts are unpleasant. Henry Ford, the founder of Ford Motor Company and the chief developer of the assembly line technique of mass production, wrote The International Jew. That is a historical fact. I would not attempt to cover up that fact, but I would not spread it all across the wiki, either; I would represent it in a single place, along with scholarly quotes and commentary, and let that be the end of it. BurningLibrary (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to censor, I'm here mainly to add quotes but since I've noticed pages like that here, I'm now also here to debunk some of the Anti-Semitic nonsense people keep adding here. I've just added a quote to the page about the Protocols from Will Eisner's graphic novel The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which shows the true story about how the Tsarist Russian secret service forged the Protocols to serve as an excuse to persecute Jews. The fact I added that quote to the page was not a response to your concern and is actually a total coincidence because I only saw your message after I was done. My idea is not for the Anti-Semitic nonsense to be deleted but to also feature stuff from other sources to show a full picture of the work. This would show that the nonsense is indeed nonsense and not truth. I think BurningLibrary would very much like my proposal. Thanks for reading.--109.76.97.207 23:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"I think BurningLibrary would very much like my proposal." I am all for it. But note that for it to be effective, all quotes need to be collected in a single place. The Wikidata item for The International Jew is Q1198947, and the Wikiquote page The International Jew is associated with that item. This leads me to conclude that Henry Ford#The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem (1920–1922) should be merged into The International Jew. If this is carried out, perhaps with a main reference from Henry Ford to The International Jew, then the work is "contained" within a category that is appropriate for it. One can then work on improving that page with quotes from other sources, and so on. BurningLibrary (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! You do that, then! I'll improve the page on the Protocols in the next few days while you improve the page on The International Jew. The only regret I have on this whole thing is that MusenInvincible ‎is too much of a coward to come here and discuss his edits with us.--109.76.97.207 22:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the quotes found on the The Holocaust and Henry Ford pages to the The International Jew page. Other than that, I don't think I have much to contribute to this topic, but at least everything is in one place now. BurningLibrary (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've now started my work on the page about the Protocols and managed to add almost all the quotes I wanted to add in. All the quotes used were used in the Wikipedia page about the Protocols. I put them into the Wikiquote page one by one. The only quote I wasn't able to add was the one by Nora Levin from her book The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933–1945, which was in the "Germany" section of the Wikipedia page. That one gave me the same "GRP" block I had last time. Those mysterious three letters were listed as a "brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched" and "automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed". At least I now know what caused the problem the first time. Part 2 of my improvements will likely involve adding images and correcting links. For now, would you like to tell me if I did a good job so far? You'll boost my confidence if you do! Thanks in advance.--109.76.97.207 23:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It is all good as far as I can tell. I have added the missing Nora Levin quote. I did not encounter any errors when doing so, probably because I am an autoconfirmed user. Which goes to show that it is easier to work on pages like these if one has registered a user for oneself. BurningLibrary (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me, I will start part 2 of my work soon.--109.76.97.207 23:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Part 2 is done. I corrected some links at the bottom of the page and added yet quote there, this time from a Swiss judge called "Walter Meyer" who presided over the Berne Trial, a court case which took place between 1933 and 1935 in Bern (also spelt as "Berne"), the capital city of Switzerland. The case concerned the distribution of books with a German translation of the Protocols by the far-right Swiss National Front in Bern. The Swiss National Front were sued by two local Jewish groups who claimed that the Protocols was an anti-Semitic forgery, the fact that the Protocols was a forgery was proven during the trial and the Jewish groups won the case. The Swiss National Front was then fined by the court. For the record, Walter Meyer was a Christian gentile and had previously never heard of the Protocols before the trial. Once again, I took the quote from the Wikipedia page. I also tried to add move up the Nora Levin quote up a few lines (the quotes seem categorized by last name so she would be at "L", not "N") and add a link to her Wikipedia page but the same "GRP" problem persists. This will be problematic for me because I plan to use that quote as a caption for an image as one of the elements of part 3. Once again, I invite you to take a look at my work and see if it's good or not. I'm done for today. Thanks for reading.--109.76.97.207 21:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"The quotes seem categorized by last name so she would be at 'L', not 'N'." That is a mistake on my part. I have corrected it.

I have looked over your changes, and they seem good. I especially appreciate the detailed comment about the Meyer quote. Personally, I wish there were more comments of that kind on Wikiquote, although there seems to be an unspoken rule that such comments should not be too long. You may then ask what exactly constitutes "too long", and, well, there seems to be no official stance on that issue. Just something to keep in mind. There are guidelines to the effect that the introductory part of an article should not be too long either.

I think the present conversation is sufficiently rich in information that it would be worthwhile to archive it on the article's talk page. Doing so, however, would serve to embed your IP address even more deeply into the digital record than it is now. I don't know how you feel about that. If you register a user for yourself, you avoid such problems, but you seem resistant to registering for reasons that I do not understand. BurningLibrary (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikimania 2023 Welcoming Program Submissions

Do you want to host an in-person or virtual session at Wikimania 2023? Maybe a hands-on workshop, a lively discussion, a fun performance, a catchy poster, or a memorable lightning talk? Submissions are open until March 28. The event will have dedicated hybrid blocks, so virtual submissions and pre-recorded content are also welcome. If you have any questions, please join us at an upcoming conversation on March 12 or 19, or reach out by email at wikimania@wikimedia.org or on Telegram. More information on-wiki.

Proposal to increase time period for VfD discussions to 14 days

There are often only 1 or 2 people voting in the VfDs. While it is difficult to increase the number of voters, one can increase the time period for voting, which makes it more likely that more people participate in voting. I believe smaller wikis should have a longer period for the VfD discussions than larger wikis like wikipedia, where many more users participate. Wikipedia has a period of 7 days for discussion, but there are many more users and much more participation. The wikipedia main page has an average of 5 million page views per day. Wikiquote has only an average of 5000 page views for the mainpage per day. This makes wikiquote a smaller wiki by a factor of at least 100x.

At smaller wikis like the Wikiyoage wiki the time period for VfD discussions is 14 days, instead of only 7 days [3]

At wiktionary it is even one month time [4] for discussion.

I believe it would be better if the time period would be increased here as well so more people would vote. ᘙ (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me, especially since in practice, many of these run much longer anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaning oppose: my key wish is that VfD's are closed sooner and not drag on months. I'd prefer the close date remains for 7 days and uncontroversial decisions closures are taken at that time. But no objection to less clear cases being around for say up to 3 weeks, but no longer. And a no-consensus close made at that time if necessary. Ultimately VFD's are a necessary evil but a drain on community time. A uncontroversial guidance delete close might be 3 votes from autoconfirmed users including one administer voting delete with no opposition votes and no contributions in the previous 48 hours. An uncontroversial keep might be 3 keep votes from autoconfirmed users including one administrator with the nominators delete vote excluded and no contributions in the last 48 hours. In general if I see a deletion discussion with sufficient support going the way I'd expect I'd not normally participate in that discussion. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 23:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

These are good suggestions. --ᘙ (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

South Asian sites that are blacklisted elsewhere added en masse here

The following was brought to my attention off-wiki:

Sites that are blocklisted at en.wp:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#OpIndia
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Swarajya

Have been added many times here at en.wq:

• https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3Aopindia.com&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1
• https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3Aswarajyamag.com&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

Obviously, we have not blocked them here or else these edits would trip our own filters, but 1.) this seems like a coordinated effort and 2.) these sites seem blocked on en.wp for good reason. My proposal to other Wikiquoters is we should also block these sites locally and remove these references from our project. Do others agree?

As a secondary concern, do we want to have more coordination with the blocklist at en.wp? My assumption is that the blocklist there is much more comprehensive and represents some best practices for what should be blocked that we don't really have the bandwidth to keep up on. If we think that our blocklist should mirror those more, we may need to find an (semi-)automated solution for keeping them in sync. That said, I don't want this secondary proposal to distract from the first one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

May I ask which user made the allegation? If it is from an user without any edits, this reminds one of the TwoHorned account also known on wikiquote as Xsaorapa and MonstrumVenandi. If this is the case, then one should perhaps note that this user has been spamming genocide denial links on wikiquote, see [5] [6]. These links are in my opinion the equivalent of spamming holocaust denial links on wikipedia, as these are articles that deny the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and have nothing to do with a site for quotes. I was thinking of bringing this to the attention of admins some time. --ᘙ (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Primary: recusing: Such a block will likely have damburst implications. Too hard. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 22:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Secondary: Generally speaking I have some concerns about that blacklist (actually from memories there are two, one on meta and one on en:Wiki. I seen one reporter & new media output targeted by hiding them under another publication and the blacklist was in my opinion wrong with "trumped up" charges. However ultimately I found an article where that reporter was using a news information to article to mask SEO advertising so the blacklisting was ultimately correct, but for the wrong reason. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 22:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The use of news sources is different in several important ways for an encyclopedia than for a compendium of quotes (where verifiability and quotability are more important than if the opinion expressed in a quote is factual or neutral). And as GMG said recently, RSP isn't a policy or guideline, and DeirgeDel said recently about Chinese sources : "Following this through there is a real risk of only anti-establishment Chinese journalists being quotable." The wikipedia list has never been on consensus on wikiquote and it would not make much sense to apply the same list in the same way on wikiquote. Looking more closely at the wikipedia censorlist, these two sites are not actually in the worst category which is the deprecated category. The Daily Mail is in the deprecated category, and the Daily mail is many times more often quoted here. They are in the Generally unreliable category, which also includes Twitter and Facebook, New York Post, Fox News and others, and Twitter and the rest are many times more often quoted here. (Additionally they are in the spam blacklist, but looking at the history, this seems to be because the news sites published one news article where wikipedia and its editors themselves were criticized. The link to this news article was never posted on wikiquote to my knowledge.) Scanning the links shows that most are from interviews, and interviews are usually very quotable if properly attributed. These news sources have featured interviews with prime ministers, among many other notable interviews, so these are not fringe news sites that no one reads or quotes. There may be also be a certain bias in the wikipedia list itself, it only covers Indian sites from one side of the Indian political spectrum, for example The Wire, which has published fake news [7] [8] [9] [10] is not on the wikipedia censorlist. Out of curiosity: Can it be shown if the wikipedia list is based on actual evidence, and what the recorded evidence it is, or is it based, as I suspect, mostly on the opinions of some wikipedia editors? Does this evidence match something like these links about The Wire, which do look serious? (despite that the Wire is not in the wikipedia list). I am curious. Some sources like for example Chinese state media should of course only be used with caution for facts, but when it comes to quotes, it can be useful, for example for interviews, or for the opinion, views and position of Chinese officials, with proper attribution. (The comparison with China is perhaps not optimal, because journalism standards and freedom of press in China are not quite comparable to other countries). Historians and other social scientists quote all type of sources, with proper attribution.

If someone gives an interview to a news site, then he or she is aware of being interviewed, and possibly quoted from that interview. To forbid quotable quotes from an interview just because of who was the interviewer, or where the interview was published, makes not much sense. For example, should this Diego Maradona interview be censored just because he talked to the Daily Mail? --ᘙ (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines (described as "official policy") is clear: "The policies of Wikiquote's sister project, Wikipedia, usually apply equally well to Wikiquote. In addition, most of them are more mature and hence more polished than Wikiquote's policies, which are still in the process of being developed. Where not specified in Wikiquote, use Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and linked articles." We cannot ignore all Wikipedia guidelines, not least because quotes about living people may be libelous, on the other site the relevant policy concerns the Biographies of living persons. In the current situation on Wikiquote, it means when official Chinese sources attack "anti-establishment Chinese journalists" and other Chinese dissidents, those quotes can be included here. (I think leading figures in the Chinese/Russian/Iranian/North Korean governments, etc are likely to quoted in reliable sources). Similarly, a host of fringe sources could be quoted here which have no mainstream credibility, like the Wikipedia blacklisted Centre for Research on Globalisation (responsible for the Global Research website). It also means quotes from far-right websites such as Breitbart News can be legitimately included, perhaps in thematic articles where a wholly distorted impression of what Wikiquote is about could be gained. Philip Cross (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

GMG has already said that RSPS isn't a policy or guideline. I should know. I wrote most of the prose there. ` In addition, there has never been a consensus on wikiquote on this matter. The guidelines from wikipedia should be seen in context: the context of an encyclopedia is different than that from a compendium of quotes. A quote expresses opinions, not necessarily "facts" like in an encyclopedia. The problem is with blanket approaches and simplistic impositions of mandates, or as Kalki once said: MANY years of experience here have provided abundant examples of people very often treating even suggestions presented as non-binding guidelines AS IF they were absolute mandates, and when another entire page which hardly anyone ever even looks at can be actually cited as "POLICY" AS IF it was fully supportive of some removal of material that someone simply for some reason does not like. (The line you quote was also not added by an admin [11].) Or we can also quote another (former wikiquote) admin, Jeffq, who said: en:Wikipedia's huge and incredibly complex set of policies and practices cannot possibly serve as a bible for any Wikimedia project except en:Wikipedia... Wikiquote has used Wikipedia as a starting point for its own policies. But it has always had to be much looser in interpretation and execution... We have been gradually developing Wikiquote-specific policies, many of which are required because of the different nature of quote compendiums vs. encyclopedias. There is also a difference betweeen sources like Swarajya magazine and webblogs like Globalresearch and Breitbart. The former has featured interviews with prime ministers and other very notable people, but webblogs like Globalresearch and Breitbart have never featured interviews with prime ministers. Swarayja has also much more elaborate Fact Checking and Correction Policy than these webblogs Globalresearch and Breitbart. See also their editorial philosphy. I understand the concern about this, but it should be seen more on case by case basis, not with simplistic blanket approaches. Some cases can be fixed with proper attribution. I have added many quotes with opinions that I don't agree with, or from sources that I would usually not recommend, but that I find quotable. Because it is properly attributed I don't see a problem with it, and I trust that the reader takes into account who is being quoted. I agree that some sites like Globalresearch and Breitbart are quoted inappropriately, but even there, there may be a handful of cases where a quote could be justified. Also Breitbart is quoted more often than Swarajya but I have not checked what kind of quotes from Breitbart are used. The problem is not really just about news sites, quotes from other sources are also quoted often inappropriately (a particularly bad example is [12]), but more about quotability. A bad quote is a bad quote even if it comes from the New York Times. When official Chinese sources attack "anti-establishment Chinese journalists" : I think it would be better to discuss concrete examples, on the talkpages of the articles. If the quote has quotability, and if it is properly attributed, than the reader should be able to see themselves if the quote is there because it is factual, neutral, or rather because the quote is eloquent but not truthful or neutral. Perhaps, at wikiquote we should develop our own rules and our own blocklist in this regard that take into account the specific use case here, which is a compendium of quotes and not an encyclopedia. You also mention far-right websites such as Breitbart News, but, half of the sites on the wikipedia censorlist are not far-right websites (Swarajya and Daily Mail for example is center right, Twitter includes the whole political spectrum). On the other hand, many far right websites which have actually been spammed on wikiquote many times, see [13], are not even on the wikipedia blocklist, so this nullifies the argument. Globalresearch is not actually quoted a lot on wikiquote at present from what I can see, but Breitbart is quoted the most. I think the best way forward is to verify what is quoted from Breitbart (or Twitter, Chinese and South Asian news, Daily Mail and the others discussed above), which quotes are problematic, and to discuss the concerns on the respective talkpages. --ᘙ (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is a distinction to be made between the following two cases:

• What a hypothetical news agency, Faux News, reports as being the case with regard to the state of the economy.
• What the finance minister is reported as having said in an interview with Faux News.

The second can still be quotable even if the first is not. For example, another hypothetical news agency, Wox News, might repeat the statements of the finance minister and cite Faux News as a source, without giving credence to any other claims made by Faux News. Here, Wox News trusts Faux News not to misquote the finance minister, and on that basis it reports on the case. BurningLibrary (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Quotabilty VFD's on bio articles

I think several member's of the community are aware that pending the hoped arrival of a bot system I am currently very much of the business of getting new Wikiquote articles associated with a Wikidata item (sitelinking) relatively soon after they are created. All too often it is appropriate to send items to a deletion process such as Votes for deletion (VFD) for (lack of) notability, spam or technical reasons. However the past couple of weeks has seen a number of articles nominated at VFD for the reasons of Quotabilty where the notability of the biographical subject is not in question; though perhaps emphasis is being placed on the adherence of sources to W:WP:RS guidelines. I have involved in some w:WP:HEY work to preserve some (but not all) of these. I suspect the community here may fall into who camps, one wishing to ensure Wikiquote is populated by only high quality substantial; the other camp may be aiming to achieve quotes for as many subjects/bios as possible. This might be the case for the #SheSaid campaign, Anthere being the example of a person running such a campaign. I suspect articles from #sheSaid and also some non-English language communities might be greatly affected by this. I'm just doing this as a opening of a discussion rather than let what happens be determined by some test cases at VFD. I simply do not have RL. bandwidth to get heavily involved in this matter at this time. -- (formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 23:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think often those who nominate articles for deletion do so without doing any w:WP:HEY work beforehand. It should be required to do some w:WP:HEY work before nominating an article for deletion. --ᘙ (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Board of Trustees have ratified the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all, an important update on the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines:

The vote on the Enforcement Guidelines in January 2023 showed a majority approval of the Enforcement Guidelines. There were 369 comments received and a detailed summary of the comments will be published shortly. Just over three-thousand (3097) voters voted and 76% approved of the Enforcement Guidelines. You can view the vote statistics on Meta-wiki.

As the support increased, this signifies to the Board that the current version has addressed some of the issues indicated during the last review in 2022. The Board of Trustees voted to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines. The resolution can be found on Foundation wiki and you can read more about the process behind the 2023 Enforcement Guidelines review on Diff.

There are some next steps to take with the important recommendations provided by the Enforcement Guidelines. More details will come soon about timelines. Thank you for your interest and participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification

Hello all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.

Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022, the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German, French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias, and Meta-wiki.

Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and Russian (12).

A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is published on Meta-wiki here. The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines can be found on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the Universal Code of Conduct project team

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)