Wikiquote:Village pump archive 61

	Archives
	; 2003; 2004; 2005: 01–06 · 07–09 · 09–12; 2006: 01–05 · 06 · 07–09 · 10–11 · 12; 2007: 01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05–06 · 07 · 08–11 · 12; 2008: 01 · 02–04 · 05–06 · 07–08 · 09–10 · 11–12; 2009: 01–02 · 03–09 · 10–12; 2010: 01–06 · 07–12; 2011: 01–05 · 06–08 · 09–12; 2012: 01–02 · 03–04 · 05–08 · 09–12; 2013: 01–06 · 07–12; 2014: 01–04 · 05–08 · 09–12; 2015: 01–03 · 04–08 · 09–12; 2016: 01–03 · 04–07 · 08–12; 2017: 01–06 · 07–12; 2018: 01–06 · 07–12; 2019: 01–06 · 07–12; 2020: 01–06 · 07–12; 2021: 01–06 · 07–12; 2022: 01–06 · 07–12; 2023: 01–06 · 07–12; ;

Help needed

Originally when GRP create the ED page I forgot about it, now he's doing it again, could someone help get it deleted? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 06:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The harder you try, the more likely it is to remain, and the more people will want to look at it. It's like that old fable of trying to catch your breath by running after it.

My advice: let it go. Let it go. Let - it - go. Antandrus (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Antandrus:

Done will do that, thanks for the advice. Also, I got a message from them as well, here. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 18:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results of Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is out!

Please help translate to your language

Hi, Greetings

The winners for Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is announced!

We are happy to share with you winning images for this year's edition. This year saw over 8,584 images represented on commons in over 92 countries. Kindly see images here

Our profound gratitude to all the people who participated and organized local contests and photo walks for this project.

We hope to have you contribute to the campaign next year.

Thank you,

Wiki Loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD

The Main Page is missing a QOTD! – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. I made a redirect for the time being. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Wow! That was fast. Also, surprised that managed to slip through. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Also, did you get pinged? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

did and got an email in my inbox. Thanks! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Why did you get an email? (I didn't send one) – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 03:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Huh? I don't see an email option there. Also, could you please deal with the massive backlog over at WQ:VIP? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 03:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you not ping all the admins in your message? This left me rather confused as there was no visible ping and I wasn't involved. If something needs urgent admin attention, please go to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. --Ferien (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Please do not ping multitudes of people at once, and please do not hide invisible pings so nobody can see what is going on. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse Filter feedback

What are you thoughts on my proposed additions to the Abuse Filter? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 06:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf, Ferien, Antandrus, UDScott: Thoughts? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 06:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the abuse filter before, but I'm not a whiz at it. Note that blocking edits outright based on some of these filters would certainly disrupt standard editing. I feel like this is probably not the best way to stop vandalism and would want to get more consensus from the community. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Which in particular concern you? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 06:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily see someone writing "globally blocked" and tripping an abuse filter tag or your username for that matter. Of course, some settings in the abuse filter will completely block an edit from happening and others will just log that it occurred, but either way is not desirable: stopping legitimate edits is bad and a log that is full of false positives is bad. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: In my request it says that "globally blocked" would only trip it if it was in that specific capitalization (all letters capitalized). – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 06:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But also "globally blocked lta" (any capitalization) and "et al"? Those are totally valid words that could be used. Also, as I recall, the edit filter takes a toll for computing on the backend, so it's best to not have many edit filter entries. I could be wrong about that, tho. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Well it says that it is only applies non-auto confirmed, so not that big of a deal. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 07:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily imagine a not auto-confirmed user writing "et al". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf:

Fixed Any others remaining that you are still concerned about? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 07:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thx/thanx would probably be it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf:

Fixed Any more? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 07:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: So, do you support now? And can you add it? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 08:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs consensus and I believe that the edit filter has a kind of high toll, so I'm still on the fence. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: High toll in terms of what? Also, (roughly) how many for votes for a consensus for something like this? 1? 2? 3? 5? 10? 100? The entire population of the United States?^[humor] – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 08:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I was unclear: I've had a hard time sleeping. What I mean is that, in my recollection, the filter needs to do a lot of computing work, since it needs to review the contents of every edit in real time, so adding a lot of filter rules is advised against. I could be wrong, again, I'm not an edit filter whiz, but I have edited it a little on a couple of projects. Plus, as I called out before, there's a kind of human toll where you may end up with false positives or blocking edits that are valid and that takes manual oversight, so it's hard to know exactly what ruels will result in the most efficient use of time. As for how many are needed for consensus, I don't have a hard number in mind, but I would like to leave this open for a few weeks and I hope get a few others giving feedback, since I'm not terribly confident about my skills with the filter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, I'm failing to see the point in even adding that to the abuse filter now you have made it public. The reason the abuse filter is private is to make sure LTAs have a hard time trying to edit. Not simply noticing "oh I can't say these words so let me change my behaviour/what I say". This LTA is always trying to get past the abuse filter and sometimes succeeds. There is a reason this abuse filter is rarely discussed on-wiki. Discussing abuse filters should not be on talk pages, let alone anywhere near the village pump. -Ferien (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose statements for the 2022 Election Compass

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi all,

Community members in the 2022 Board of Trustees election are invited to propose statements to use in the Election Compass.

An Election Compass is a tool to help voters select the candidates that best align with their beliefs and views. The community members will propose statements for the candidates to answer using a Lickert scale (agree/neutral/disagree). The candidates’ answers to the statements will be loaded into the Election Compass tool. Voters will use the tool by entering in their answer to the statements (agree/disagree/neutral). The results will show the candidates that best align with the voter’s beliefs and views.

Here is the timeline for the Election Compass:

July 8 - 20: Community members propose statements for the Election Compass

July 21 - 22: Elections Committee reviews statements for clarity and removes off-topic statements

July 23 - August 1: Volunteers vote on the statements

August 2 - 4: Elections Committee selects the top 15 statements

August 5 - 12: candidates align themselves with the statements

August 15: The Election Compass opens for voters to use to help guide their voting decision

The Elections Committee will select the top 15 statements at the beginning of August. The Elections Committee will oversee the process, supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance team. MSG will check that the questions are clear, there are no duplicates, no typos, and so on.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add template editor right

Some of the most used templates here are protected so only admins can edit, which is important for stopping vandalism, but, a lot of potential for fixes and improvements within these pages is also lost because of it. So, do you think that a separate template editor right should be added? (I'm not specifically talking about me, and by "improvements" I don't mean radical changes) – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 05:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally in favor of breaking off some of the admin user rights for individuals who have skills and motivation to do certain technical work (templates, interface admin) without doing things like blocking, protecting pages, deleting, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea to me. Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 13:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support with caveat - Does this differ from 'interface editor' on other projects? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: What is 'interface editor'? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

m:Interface_editors ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Yes, very different, 'template editor' only includes the right to edit protected templates. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 15:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really consider myself much apart of the enwikiq community, but while I'm here just dropping a tech note. "template editor" currently would do nothing, for it to be useful the community would need to decide they want another protection level (normally more stringent than "semiprotected" and less stringent than "protected"); then administrators would need to actual configure this protection level on pages. The community would need to determine how this new template editing access should be managed (normally it is "by administrators" technically, with varying local policy rules that you would determine), then add this group to editors that you want to be able to edit the pages that are protected at that level. Most "smaller" (in terms of active editing communities) don't bother with this, the none/semi-protected/fully-protected scheme is sufficient. Xaosflux (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux,thanks for your contribution to this topic.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying, but I believe this is about potential complications in creating a new class of Wikiquotians due to the size of WQ? If so, can you (or someone else) tell us on which wmf wikis this class of users has already been established, and why you believe this wiki is too small.

Thank in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech Of the hundreds of WMF wikis, only these 11 projects use "templateeditor" restriction level: commonswiki, enwiki, enwiktionary, enwikivoyage, hewiki, huwiki, mrwikisource, rowiki, viwiki, zhwiki, zhwiktionary. enwikiquote has <500 total active users - which is why I'm suggesting there isn't a need for this overhead. It would fall on the ~8 active administrators to manage both the new page protections, and the new user entitlements as well - so you would want to get buy in from them first. Xaosflux (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per Special:ProtectedPages There are currently 84 fully protected templates and no fully protected modules on this wiki. I do not think it is a good use of time to set up a user group, assign it to people and pages, create policies about use/abuse/granting/revocation, update everything else that comes along with big changes in user rights (templates, scripts, policy, help pages, interface messages, etc) when this new protection level will probably be used on 30-40 pages and will be probably only be granted to 1 or 2 people, it just seems like a lot of extra bureaucracy for not much benefit. 192.76.8.85 00:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that only 12 projects have template editor rights enabled, and one of those is the testing wiki. 192.76.8.85 00:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fundamentally tainted proposal given the proposer's propensity to propose new user groups seemingly for the sake of doing so rather than to fill any actual need. Pppery (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I have had many occasions where this right would be useful for me. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 03:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Please see WP:HYE. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 03:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Is this really a valid reason to vote against something? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 23:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason could be valid, but I don't think this is a very compelling reason for a no and were I closing this conversation, I don't know that I would count this as being very on-topic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I often come across flawed templates at WQ and have not been able to figure out who has the experience needed to fix template problems. It there was this class of users here, it would be easier to locate someone who can help Ottawahitech (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This request by ILMD might be considered moot, since the requestor has been blocked indefinitely and locked globally, with good reason. Given the prodigious quantity of this requestor's templates at VFD, the request to make template editing a restricted permission is quite ironic: ILMD is the first person I would blacklist from receiving such permission were it required.

Nevertheless, there could be valid reasons to require advance permission to edit in the template namespace, such as an unmanageable amount of vandalism or an excess of disruptive technical experimentation. Fortunately, Wikiquote does not have enough trouble of these kinds that we need to bar public participation, the way the much, much larger Wikipedia evidently does. I oppose restricting permission because I support "anyone can edit" as much as is practical. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ningauble & others:

Are you saying that there are currently no restrictions whatsoever on template editing at WQ? I see one of the participants here has said: "There are currently 84 fully protected templates and no fully protected modules on this wiki".

BTW: I don't believe we have a WQ rule saying that topics started by indef-blocked users are moot? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this proposer seems to be a user who is locked globally. Taking this into consideration, could it be that the proposal itself is a way for him to try to disrupt?@Ottawahitech Lemonaka (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add revision importer right

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Withdrawn and starting new vote.

Voting results as of July 17, 2022

Template:Election results

@Koavf: This is still in very early stages, but here is a proposal for a new user group containing the following rights:

import
importupload
override-export-depth
mergehistory
tboverride
noratelimit
autoconfirmed
delete-redirect
suppressredirect
oathauth-enable
The ability to self-revoke the right from yourself.

What do you think so far? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 06:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential concerns

Comments

It's not obvious to me why all of these are lumped together and it seems like straight up importer would work, if the community thought it was necessary or a bureaucrat/steward saw fit to give someone the right. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Well, I am posting this in hopes of getting it approved on phab. Also for the explanations:

import Self-explanatory.
importupload Self-explanatory.
override-export-depth Useful for advanced importing.
mergehistory For merging older revisions into page that were not originally imported.
noratelimit In case the rate limit triggers from sending too much data.
autoconfirmed Basic right.
delete-redirect If a page imported page needs to be moved without redirect.
oathauth-enable Security reasons as with other user groups.

– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 07:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it. If you file a ticket at phab:, they will want to see more consensus than this before changing the site preferences. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I needed to post this here to get consensus and to get feedback on possible improvements. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 23:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Also, do you think this right should be granted by stewards or bureaucrats? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 23:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this should have to escalate all the way up to stewards. I think the only rights that should be like that are CheckUser and Oversight, but I know that I'm in the minority on that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Wait, what rights other than those two require stewards? Also, I do agree with you. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 23:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. bureaucrats cannot remove any rights other than those that admins can and the bot flag. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 01:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I don't know that this is really needed, but I'm not as familiar with the way things work here on Wikiquote. Maybe there's a need that isn't covered by the importers user group? Maybe that group should be modified to include these additional rights? I don't know, so I'm neutral on this proposal. Nihonjoe (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Changed to oppose.[reply]

Oppose, for several reasons.

I think you're going out of your way to harass anyone who is voting against (or in my case, neutral about) your proposal. Your attempts to strike Ferien's vote (or any of the votes of others whose reasons you deem "invalid") are especially disturbing. How about you let people have opinions that differ from yours, and leave it at that?
The gigantic warning (added and continually made more obnoxious with each edit here, here, here, here, and here is completely unnecessary and only serves to make you look unhinged.
As others have pointed out, you don't seem to fully grasp how the various user rights work, and your proposal contains a lot of unnecessary rights bundled together apparently because you want all of the bundled rights and not because they serve any useful general purpose bundled together as proposed.
Going off the last point, you have repeatedly failed to express valid reasons how this would be useful to anyone other than yourself.

For all these reasons (and probably a few others I forgot while typing this), I don't see any valid need for this new user group. Nihonjoe (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay; not really sure why it is needed, but I don't seen any compelling reason for not, so I guess that's a tentative support. Open to persuasion if I am missing something. Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Antandrus: Here is some more information/context:

import I regularly need to import a lot of templates (including revisions), so this would be nice.

importupload Useful for doing the above automatically, mass-importing pages from another wiki, or importing multiple levels deep.

override-export-depth Useful for advanced importing.

mergehistory For merging older revisions into page that were not originally imported.

tboverride If a page/template you are importing contains/is on the blacklist.

noratelimit In case you trigger the rate limit for creating too many pages.

autoconfirmed Basic right. Also, similar to above.

delete-redirect Deleting a page after it has been merged.

suppressredirect Same as above.

oathauth-enable Security reasons as with other user groups.

– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 05:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Import is quite a dangerous tool. On Simple English Wikipedia we do have the importer right but it is rarely used or given out, mainly because you have to be really trusted to use it. Seeing as import could cause so much damage and that damage isn't really reversible without admin tools, you have to have a very large amount of trust in someone to give them import, and at that point if you can trust them so much to use import properly, why not give admin so they can clear up any mess they might make as well. While this is the general attitude on simplewiki, it applies to any WMF site. --Ferien (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: Yes, it is a powerful tool, but why are you against this? If it is dangerous, we'll just be extra careful when giving out, like any other user right. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 19:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a powerful tool and it's very difficult to reverse mistakes if you are not an admin. If you're not careful, you can import dozens of templates at once that may not be the ones you wanted to import, and you have to fix these pages or call an admin to delete these pages manually. I am also not voting against you as you seem to be implying below, import is already included in admin and so you are suggesting it should be given to non-admins, which I oppose for the reasons above. Ferien (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: It already is given to non-admins on many other wikis. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 19:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, but not on Wikiquote. Just because many other wikis have done it wrong doesn't mean we should do it wrong too. --Ferien (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien:

Template:Blockquote

I am not sure if this is humorous or not, but, if it isn't:

This is a ridiculous comment, just because you don't agree doesn't make it "wrong". Considering this has been done on dozens of wikis, it is probably a good choice for at-least some wikis. By making this comment, it makes your original vote look like it was made in bad faith.

– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, they have done it wrong in my opinion. Your opinion may be different but as I said, I think the same applies for most wikis and unless you are including delete in importer or importer is only added if you have a role like one on some wikis called eliminator which has delete tools and block tools, but not protection, abuse filter etc, I do not think importer on its own is appropriate. That does not make my !vote done in bad faith. --Ferien (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: If you don't think this should be done on any wiki, make a request on meta, rather than voting here. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: Since your vote is about generally being against the import right for non-admins and not specifically about my request, may I please strike it? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, not sure why you want to strike my vote, because that is exactly what your request is about. While it doesn't specify non-admins specifically or mention non-admins, that is exactly what you are asking for. Admins already have the import right. --Ferien (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, I never said that importer being given on other wikis should be reversed. That wouldn't be done on meta anyway, it'd be done for individual communities as they decided to add it there. If other wikis feel that's what works for them, then that's fine. I am not really part of many other wikis' community. Only simplewiki, enwikiquote and to some extent metawiki and enwiki. However, what you were suggesting was that we should give non-admins importer on this wiki because it's done on other wikis, and as I disagree with the importer right being separate as a whole, I do not agree with that argument. --Ferien (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien:

Template:Blockquote

I am suggesting it should be done "because it is done on other wikis", I was just pointing that out. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 08:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, I have already read the message. --Ferien (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: Could explain exactly why you oppose the creation of this right? You have already explained that it is dangerous right, in your opinion, and should be restricted, but why do you not want it created? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: What are your thoughts on this reply? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 19:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we should have importers and who should be importers are two different things. Admins have all these rights and more, so I don't see the problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien, Koavf: Koavf, just what I was thinking! This isn't an RfRI, this is a feature request. While I would like to have it, whether I get should be held in a vote for that, not if should exist at all. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Can the vote be striken-off as invalid? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume you're talking about my vote? Is there any reason why it should be struck as invalid? --Ferien (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalki: Could you vote? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 19:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any compelling need for creating such a user group, and do see that it could develop complications and problems that would have to be sorted out in often tedious ways. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 20:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose this - for many of the reasons already articulated above. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalki, UDScott: Could you be more specific, so I could try to improve/re-submit this? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 16:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UDScott: Could you give me some recommendations on how to improve my proposal? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 17:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of making tweaks to your proposal that will suddenly convince me - I just don't think this is something we want. I would rather see more users become admins if qualified, rather than adding more roles. I also worry about imports being done improperly and causing other issues. Bottom line is that I just don't see the value in doing this, regardless of how the proposal to do so is worded. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UDScott:

Template:Blockquote

Well, I would assume if someone is given, they would know how to import properly. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 18:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite the logical fallacy you've got going there. Just because someone has garnered enough support to be granted a role in no way means that a process will be performed correctly. Everyone who has been in the admin role has at one time or another made an error - because of a misunderstanding, a lack of technical ability, or simply a mistake. The nomination and approval process that results in one gaining a role does not remove risk of issues. I just don't see the need for this role, especially given the risk involved (and the fact that if errors are made, it is a bit tedious to correct them). I do not support this proposal - I've explained this multiple times, even though I don't believe that I need to justify my lack of support. And a tip, especially as we are in active discussion: there's really no need to continually ping me every time you respond. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UDScott: As Koavf said, "Whether we should have importers and who should be importers are two different things. Admins have all these rights and more, so I don't see the problem." Wouldn't that also apply to this vote?

Template:Blockquote

That's usually how a one-to-one discussion works.

– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 18:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am applying it to this vote - to me the risk is too high for anyone to have it when I don't see the need for it. And no, pinging someone and just addressing them in the text of the conversation are two different things. Imagine if we were standing at a door having a discussion. You could easily say my name and make your point - or you could ring the doorbell every time before you speak. One is standard behavior and the other is a bit annoying - see the difference? IMHO, pinging should only be used when you have received no response and wish to gain someone's attention. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the risks to importing? I understand how it could be used maliciously (e.g. spamming, faking edits, etc.), but I don't see how it could be destructive when used in good faith. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 18:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Ferien outlined the issues very well above. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UDScott: Well, there already are the import and importupload user rights. I never said what the requirements would be or how strictly it would be given out, only the user rights it would contain and how it would work. Are you against the very idea of non-developers importing? And if so, wouldn't you the rights removed entirely? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 18:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Do you have any suggestions as to how I could improve this proposal? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 16:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. It seems like community consensus is tilting against it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Currently the results are: 3 Support, 1 Neutral, 3 Oppose. So, even. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 01:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oppose does not seem needed or useful, extremely sensitive rights --DannyS712 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Please explain further. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 11:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

neutral I was aksed to leave feedback, but I rarely edit Wikiquote, how often would this need to be used? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Very often. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 14:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:log/import since the software started logging imports in late 2007 the right has been used a grand total of 171 times, with 97 of those uses being the same person on the same day in 2019. The claim that this would be used "very often" appears to have no basis in the available facts. A breakdown of yearly usage stats for this right:

Extended content
2022 - 1 import 2021 - 16 imports 2020 - 2 imports 2019 - 98 imports 2018 - no imports 2017 - no imports 2016 - 1 import 2015 - no imports 2014 - no imports 2013 - no imports 2012 - no imports 2011 - 16 imports 2010 - no imports 2009 - no imports 2008 - 37 imports

There are also some parts of this proposal that seem bizarre and poorly thought out to me - e.g. why are you including autoconfirmed in this group? Anyone with this right should already be autoconfirmed - this isn't something that should be given to newbies. History merging is quite possibly the most dangerous user right on the site, and should not be given to anyone except admins who have the technical ability to fix any messes it creates. In what situations is the "delete-redirect" right going to be useful - pages don't need to have the exact same name on all wikis, and if there's an existing template redirect in the way importing a new template over the top of it could cause a disaster. "Supress redirect" seems to be unrelated to the act of actually importing pages and seems to have been chucked in so you can history merge stuff? Wikiquote also already has the unused importer and transwiki importers user groups, which seem to do exactly what you're already asking for.

I don't know if wikiquote allows IP votes in policy decisions, but I would Oppose this proposal on the basis that the import functionality is so rarely used that the current workload can easily be handled by existing admins, this particular proposal seems to be poorly thought out and bundles a load of rights together that are, at best, tangentially related to importing pages, and that user groups to allow users to import pages already exist. 192.76.8.85 20:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed is a basic right.
How is history merging the most dangerous???
Delete-redirect is required for this to be done properly most of the time.

Because it is needed if new revisions are added to the page that the revisions are being imported from.

– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read the banner at the top. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@192.76.8.85: Does this count as a vote or comment. (I am assuming a vote for the timebeing) – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're directing me to read your idiotically large, obnoxious banner (made extra large and obnoxious in response to my comment!) and to ask you for technical explanations when your responses here are utter nonsense and demonstrate that you don't actually understand what you're proposing.

Autoconfirmed is a basic right. - yes, which is why it is utterly pointless to bundle it into an advanced user right supposed to be given to trusted members of the community. Everyone who is granted the import right will already be autoconfirmed. There is no point giving them the right again, it makes as much sense as giving the edit right to admins.
How is history merging the most dangerous??? - because it can easily make an enormous mess and it has no "undo" functionality. If you accidentally merge together two pages with long co-existent history the only way to unmerge them is to delete the page then manually undelete individual revisions one at a time to separate the page histories out again. Fixing a history merge mistake can take literally hours. It is also completely unnecessary for importers to have this right because it is already built into the import function.
Delete-redirect is required for this to be done properly most of the time. Because it is needed if new revisions are added to the page that the revisions are being imported from. - this makes no sense at all, I actually cannot understand what you are trying to say here. The import function can directly add old revisions to an existing page, you just set the import location to the title of the extant page - you don't have to import pages to some other title then merge them together afterwards.

You can consider this to be a vote. 192.76.8.85 20:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History merge is necessary for the follow reason:
- Let’s say that Person 1 manually imports Page 1 to Page 2, then Person 2 (who is an importer) wants to properly import the revisions, but in between these two events Person 3 has modified Page 1, this would cause the import to fail. So what the importer would do is:
  1. Import the original page to Page 3.
  2. Merge all revisions in Page 3 (before Person 1 copied Page 1 to Page 2) into Page 2.
  3. Redirect Page 2 to Page 3.
  4. Merge all revisions before the redirect in Page 2 into Page 3.
  5. Use delete-redirect to delete Page 2.
  6. Use supressredirect to move Page 3 to Page 2.

– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 20:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make any kind of sense. You import the page with it's whole history, split the history via the history merge function (?), then combine the history back together, then delete the mess of pages you created? What you would end up with if you followed those instructions is page 3 with the entire edition history of persons 1 2 and 3 included?

Again, this work flow is complete and utter nonsense. If you want to perform an import and merge revisions into existing page then you just have to tell the import tool to include history information, and the merge will be done for you. If you just want to import the revisions from before the history fork then make an XML dump of the revisions you want and import that. There is no need at all for this histmerge and redirect mess.

Fundamentally though fixing history forking issues is not a job for page importers - it is a job for administrators who have access to the proper page deletion, undeletion and history toolbox. It makes no sense to give users some administrative tools to allow them to, via a unnecessarily convoluted methods, fix an issue that has never actually occurred to date. 192.76.8.85 21:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have this issue very often, that's why I proposed it. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Is history merge very dangerous? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What "issue" are you actually having, because "import revisions from another wiki and merge them into an existing page" is functionality that the import tool already has - you don't need all the extra user rights to do it. 192.76.8.85 21:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant merging within a wiki. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"merging within a wiki" is not a part of any sensible workflow for importing pages. User rights should be set up as groups of related rights that multiple people should find useful, that have similar access requirements, and generally the ability to do an action should be bundled with the ability to undo it. Creating a user group isn't an opportunity to put together a "grab bag" of rights that you personally think you would like. An "importer" right should just contain the stuff needed to import pages, i.e. import and importupload. 192.76.8.85 21:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That why is called "revision importer" and not just "importer". – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the supposed difference between this "revision importer" and the regular "importer" right? You can already import revisions and add them to the history of pages using the import and importupload rights. To me this looks like a combination of you not actually knowing what the import right does, a bunch of utterly bizarre suggestions (like the bundled autoconfirmed right) and you trying to make your own personal user group with just the stuff you want in it. 192.76.8.85 22:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "revision editor" or "revision manager" would be a more accurate title? Also, this isn't just for me. If it was, it would also include many other rights (e.g. rollback, templateeditor). – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 22:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a user group that allows certain people to edit page histories, they're called "administrators". I do not think a user group which allows editors to screw up page histories but does not include the tools to fix them is a good idea. this isn't just for me. seems to be in direct contradiction to your statement below that the big issue with the existing importer groups is that Neither of which fully covers my needs. which is it - a general "importer" group for everyone, or a user group specifically tailored to what you want to do. 192.76.8.85 00:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A revision editor would be for revisions, not general administrative rights. Revisions editing includes imports. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between "general administrative rights" and "revision" rights. They are, as far as I can tell, the same thing. Pages on wikis are nothing but a string of revisions, how is messing around with revisions a distinct operation from messing around with pages? 192.76.8.85 00:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say it was used very often, I said it would be used very often, if implemented. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 22:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got pinged here from enwiki: enwikiquote already has local admins which have transwiki access, and if there is a good reason this community needs xmlimports the "importer" group could also be added via the existing group process. xmlimport can be "dangerous" so I'd suggest that you not add it to anyone that wouldn't otherwise qualify as an interface admin here. Xaosflux (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: This would only be given to users who are at least as trustworthy as interface admins. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Also, could you ask me more questions, so you could come to a final decision? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really consider myself part of the enwikiquote community - the primary governance of permissions for this project belongs to them. Xaosflux (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Please, very few regulars here actually vote in these. Outside feedback would be very helpful. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikiquote already has importer and transwiki importer groups, but they're not currently used. 192.76.8.85 21:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which fully covers my needs. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

Reverse-protection cross-(wiki?) RfC (phab)

What is your opinion on this feature request? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 22:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD emergency

WQT:PAA QOTD is missing! Y Done by Kalki. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted it a couple minutes ago — it is certainly NOT any extraordinary emergency. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalki: Was already marking as fixed while you were leaving your comment. In-fact a got an edit conflict message. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks on the front page are a pretty big deal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Absolutely agreed. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 02:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, please stop pinging all administrators. If there is genuinely an emergency like this that needs an admin, please make your way to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. --Ferien (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice about the revision importer proposal

Originally it was planned to be a discussion only for feedback and improvement, and not a vote since it was nowhere near done. But it accidentally turned into a vote, and as such, failed, as I could provide sufficient information about purpose or how it would work. I will be closing it shortly. I will start a new only for feedback and not voting, after I think it is sufficiently done, I will start a new vote. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on proposal for new user right

Notice

This is not a vote, this is simply a discussion related to improving and fixing potential issues with this proposal, users who oppose this may provide feedback on how to make it less unappealing to them, but if you are entirely against it and have no constructive feedback to offer, do not comment here.
You may also ask questions here, regardless of what you think of the proposal.

This is a proposal for a 'revision importer' right, this would be primarily used for cross-wiki importing, though it will also be used for other purposes.

This is needed because a lot of pages and templates that exist on other wikis do not exist here. Also, this can also be used for importing lost pages from dead wikis. (e.g. simple English Wikiquote)

This right would be appointed by bureaucrats.

Here are the user rights it is planned to contain so far:

import
importupload
mergehistory
tboverride
autoconfirmed
delete-redirect
suppressredirect
oathauth-enable
editcontentmodel (due to issues with moving pages)
delete-imported-revision (note: this has not been implemented yet, but it would be if this proposal is accepted), this would include the following abilities:
- The ability to delete imported edits (from both import and importupload)
- The ability to delete edits marked with 'bot flag' (in-case a bot edited a page while you were in the process of a multi-step import)
- The ability to delete your own edits.
- Note: all edits deleted this way would also be marked that they were deleted with this right.
view-deleted-imported-revision (note: this has not been implemented yet, but it would be if this proposal is accepted), this would include the following abilities:
- View all deleted edits deleted using the delete-imported-revision right.
- View edits you have deleted. (in-case they were deleted using delete-redirect)
restore-deleted-imported-revision (note: this has not been implemented yet, but it would be if this proposal is accepted), this would include the following abilities:
- Undelete all deleted edits deleted using the delete-imported-revision right.
forcemerge (note: this has not been implemented yet, but it would be if this proposal is accepted), this would include the following abilities:
- Delete edits preventing a history merge (with the option of inserting them into a different page instead, assuming they have the insert-revision right.
- Note: all edits deleted this way would also be marked that they were deleted with this right.
view-mergeconflict (note: this has not been implemented yet, but it would be if this proposal is accepted), this would include the following abilities:
- View all deleted edits deleted using the forcemerge right.
restore-mergeconflict (note: this has not been implemented yet, but it would be if this proposal is accepted), this would include the following abilities:
- Undelete all deleted edits deleted using the forcemerge right.
insert-revision (note: this has not been implemented yet, but it would be if this proposal is accepted), this would include the following abilities:
- Insert one or revisions from one page into the revision history of an other.
- Revert an action made using this right.
The ability to self-revoke the right from yourself.

Here are the reasons for each right:

import — Self-explanatory.
importupload — Self-explanatory. Also helpful for mass-importing pages and in cases where revisions need to manually be modified.
mergehistory — This is needed if a template that has been imported, has been updated on another wiki.
tboverride — If an imported page is on the title blacklist.
autoconfirmed — Potential rate limit issues. (this might not be neccessary)
delete-redirect — Similar to mergehistory
suppressredirect — Same as delete-redirect
oathauth-enable — Security reasons as with other rights.

Examples

Here are some examples where this right would preform better than regular importers or administrators.

1

Let’s say that Person 1 manually imports Page 1 to Page 2, then Person 2 (who is a revision importer) wants to properly import the revisions, but in between these two events, Person 3 has modified Page 1, this would mean that if it was imported traditionally it would either fail, or would appear to succeed, but all revisions in-between wouldn't be valid for this wiki. (e.g. if a template has to have all mentions of 'Wikipedia' changed to 'Wikiquote', this is pretty obvious, but you could imagine more subtle issues). Then, if someone didn't like certain changes that were made, and rolled-back to an earlier revision, the new versiom wouldn't be valid for this wiki. With this type of importing, the revision import could manually edit the revisions before importing, so all revision would be valid. This could be done via the following process:

Import the original page (from the other wiki) to Page 3.
Merge all revisions in Page 3 (before Person 1 copied Page 1 to Page 2) into Page 2.
Redirect Page 2 to Page 3.
Merge all revisions before the redirect in Page 2 into Page 3.
Use delete-redirect to delete Page 2.
Use supressredirect to move Page 3 to Page 2.

Comments

– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AC9016, Nihonjoe, Antandrus, Koavf, Stang, ShakespeareFan00, Rubbish computer: Thoughts? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 01:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you wasting everyone's time by repeating the exact same discussion as above which will lead to the exact same conclusion? This is an terrible idea for a user group - it is completely redundant to the existing "import" group, contains a load of disjointed and disconnected rights that have no business being bundled together and per the discussion above the proposer is unable to justify why this group should exist or what purpose it is supposed to serve. Going through the list of rights:

import — Already in the import group
importupload — Already in the import group
override-export-depth — Not enabled anywhere for any user group, even stewards. Has the ability to crash medium to large wikis, so the devs are unlikely to approve enabling. The proposer doesn't appear to understand what this does, it has nothing to do with templates, it's intended for content pages, when you export a page with this setting enabled it also exports all linked pages, and all pages linked to those pages and so on until you hit the depth limit.
mergehistory — Unneeded, Import can already merge page histories, extremely dangerous and can easily make a huge mess, should remain restricted to administrators.
tboverride — Unneeded. Not a frequently occurring issue, if a title is deemed unsuitable by the blacklist it can just be imported to a different title, pages don't need to have the same name everywhere.
noratelimit — Unneeded, no-one should be importing pages so quickly they hit the rate limit.
autoconfirmed — Unneeded - everyone even being considered for import user rights should be autoconfirmed.
delete-redirect — Unneeded, not related to importing pages, only included because the proposer apparently doesn't understand how importing pages works.
suppressredirect — Unneeded, not related to importing pages, only included because the proposer apparently doesn't understand how importing pages works.
oathauth-enable — Already in the import group

The "proposed" user rights are not possible to implement (the database doesn't track which revisions have been imported) would not get past wmf legal (you cannot view any kind of deleted content without passing an RFA or equivalent process) and duplicate existing admin functionality.

My opinion is that the proposer here does not understand what they are proposing, how user rights work, how importing work and has no idea what this user group is supposed to be used for. I am unimpressed that rather than answering the question "what is this supposed to be used for and how is it different from importer/administrator rights" they have decided to shut down the discussion above and start another one on exactly the same thing. I am even more unimpressed that they have left another "notice" telling people that unless they are coming here to tell them how amazing their idea is they are unwelcome to comment. 192.76.8.85 01:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, please read the header. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 01:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out where I voted? Please read my comment. 192.76.8.85 01:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

override-export-depth — This might a problem, I will look into this. Thanks for the feedback.

mergehistory — Already explained.

tboverride Not frequent, but if you are importing a lot of pages, this could be an issue.

autoconfirmed Specific cases (e.g. second account, changing accounts, bots, etc.), also there is no harm to adding this right.

delete-redirect — Already explained.

supressredirect — Already explained.

– Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 02:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't "explained mergehistory delete-redirect supressredirect. You've posted a completely ridiculous workflow which would involve using them to do something the import right can already do.

Why would tboverride be useful? What kinds of pages are you intending to import where the title would be so terrible it would hit an entry on the blacklist.

noratelimit you clearly do not understand what this does, I'll give you a clue, it has nothing to do with the "amount of data" that you're sending to the server. Another clue, import actions aren't even rate limited.

autoconfirmed why on earth would you include a user right that the person already has? It's a complete waste of time. If for some reason you need to import pages using a brand new alt account why couldn't you do the normal thing, and assign the user the "confirmed" user rights?

You still haven't answered the fundamental question - what is this right supposed to do that the "import" right can't already do, and why do you need all these extra user rights to re-implement functionality that already exists. 192.76.8.85 02:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you modify a revision with regular import? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 02:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the "import from a file" option and edit the XML before you upload it. 192.76.8.85 09:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...which would require the removal and replacement of the existing revisions. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you be replacing revisions with things that didn't actually exist? The whole point of the page history is to serve as the legally required record of who contributed what content to a page - there is no situation whatsoever where it would be appropriate to replace actual revisions with stuff you made up. 192.76.8.85 09:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see example 1. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

example 1 is a completely ridiculous workflow that only demonstrates that you don't actually understand how anything works. Even so, at what stage of example 1 do you need to make up revisions that don't actually exist? 192.76.8.85 09:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere between 2 and 4. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user right would not allow a user to view deleted content. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 02:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The view-deleted-imported-revision would fall afoul of meta:Limits to configuration changes, specifically Allow non-admins to view deleted stuff. 192.76.8.85 02:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would only allow the viewing of content deleted using this right, which would be stored separately to admin-deleted content. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 02:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you don't appear to understand how anything actually works. Mediawiki doesn't store deleted revisions separately, they're in the main revision table but flagged as deleted. Non-admins are banned from viewing deleted content, it doesn't matter how it was deleted or what user right was involved. This is a hard limit by the WMF legal department and cannot be overturned via feature requests or consensus. 192.76.8.85 09:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way of storing it separately. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the current version of Mediawiki there isn't. Even suppressed material is stored in the main revision table with the DELETED_RESTRICTED flag set. 192.76.8.85 09:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be stored in the main archive table, it would be differentiated using the unused field ar_flags – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Do you think more should be addressed in this proposal? If so, what? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Sorry, I just realized this now, I meant to say "more questions addressed". – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 02:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I just think this is your proposal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Do you support it so far? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 05:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Also, what do you think the requirements to get this right should be? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 05:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking for them and the community voting, just like with other rights. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object, but I don't have strong feelings on it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a frequent contributor to Wikiquote, but I was asked to comment. I don't see a problem with the overall proposal if it meets a community need. However, I would not include noratelimit. There's almost no legitimate reason for a human being to trigger that limit. Save that right for bots. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 19:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you should not have started another discussion. It was going fine and people were still giving their opinions on it. In fact there was a point I wanted to respond to you on but couldn't because you closed the discussion. Secondly, seeing as 50% of people opposed, and only 30% supported, I'm just curious why you are still trying to push this idea and encouraging others to not oppose it despite quite a clear result voting-wise but also consensus-wise that the community doesn't want this. And I'm especially concerned about how you have closed another discussion and opened another one where apparently if you are entirely against the proposal, you are not allowed to comment. This makes it harder to find the community consensus that seemed to quite clearly be "we don't want this." --Ferien (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue provided was that there wasn’t any reason to do this (because I did not include one in the original vote), so I am trying to redo this in a better way. Thanks. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 19:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could have always edited the reason in the original discussion, and that would have had the benefit of not freezing the discussion for everyone else who participated... --Ferien (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am redoing the whole proposal, so most of those votes won't matter anymore. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 19:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the proposal is very similar to the one you just suggested. Just because you don't think those "votes" don't matter anymore doesn't mean you should move to a completely different discussion on the exact same topic, with some bizarre restrictions on what I should comment and what I should not. I see no reason for you to have opened another discussion and am considering merging it so the community are more aware about what your plans are. --Ferien (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original vote was poorly conceived, this is my second attempt, please don't associate this with the original. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 22:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I see no reason to not associate this with the original proposal. Yes, there are a couple of changes based on feedback, however your proposal is essentially the same, but instead, you have decided to discourage people opposed to it from commenting. --Ferien (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok seeing as my opinion is clear at this point - that giving importer to non-admins is generally a bad idea - let's focus on the problems with this proposal. Autoconfirmed is unnecessary. It shouldn't affect rate limit, for autoconfirmed users. Merge history is not needed, although I'm unsure if this is included within importer - you can just import the page again, or update it manually for situations where it's updated on one wiki but not another - which is rare. tboverride - not sure when an imported page would ever be on the title blacklist? Overall, seems as though even more unnecessary admin-level tools are going into a right where not as much trust is necessary. If a person needs this many rights, why not get admin?? --Ferien (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

For leaving feedback requests on far too many user pages, I have stopped, and will only ask users that are actually interested, and can help. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 12:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Strategy and Governance News - Issue 7

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 7, July-September 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the 7th issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! The newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the implementation of Wikimedia's Movement Strategy recommendations, other relevant topics regarding Movement governance, as well as different projects and activities supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) team of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The MSG Newsletter is delivered quarterly, while the more frequent Movement Strategy Weekly will be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.

Movement sustainability: Wikimedia Foundation's annual sustainability report has been published. (continue reading)
Improving user experience: recent improvements on the desktop interface for Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
Safety and inclusion: updates on the revision process of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines. (continue reading)
Equity in decisionmaking: reports from Hubs pilots conversations, recent progress from the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, and a new white paper for futures of participation in the Wikimedia movement. (continue reading)
Stakeholders coordination: launch of a helpdesk for Affiliates and volunteer communities working on content partnership. (continue reading)
Leadership development: updates on leadership projects by Wikimedia movement organizers in Brazil and Cape Verde. (continue reading)
Internal knowledge management: launch of a new portal for technical documentation and community resources. (continue reading)
Innovate in free knowledge: high-quality audiovisual resources for scientific experiments and a new toolkit to record oral transcripts. (continue reading)
Evaluate, iterate, and adapt: results from the Equity Landscape project pilot (continue reading)

Other news and updates: a new forum to discuss Movement Strategy implementation, upcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election, a new podcast to discuss Movement Strategy, and change of personnel for the Foundation's Movement Strategy and Governance team. (continue reading)

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the six candidates for the Board of Trustees election

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

The Affiliate Representatives have completed their voting period. The selected 2022 Board of Trustees candidates are:

Tobechukwu Precious Friday (Tochiprecious)
Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak)
Shani Evenstein Sigalov (Esh77)
Kunal Mehta (Legoktm)
Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom)
Mike Peel (Mike Peel)

You may see more information about the Results and Statistics of this Board election.

The Affiliate organizations selected representatives to vote on behalf of the Affiliate organization. The Affiliate Representatives proposed questions for the candidates to answer in mid-June. These answers from candidates and the information provided from the Analysis Committee provided support for the representatives as they made their decision.

Please take a moment to appreciate the Affiliate Representatives and Analysis Committee members for taking part in this process and helping to grow the Board of Trustees in capacity and diversity. These hours of volunteer work connect us across understanding and perspective. Thank you for your participation.

Thank you to the community members who put themselves forward as candidates for the Board of Trustees. Considering joining the Board of Trustees is no small decision. The time and dedication candidates have shown to this point speaks to their commitment to this movement. Congratulations to those candidates who have been selected. A great amount of appreciation and gratitude for those candidates not selected. Please continue to share your leadership with Wikimedia.

What can voters do now?

Review the results of the Affiliate selection process.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee</translate>

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 26 July 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 5304280674. Dial by your location.

Vote for Election Compass Statements

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi all,

Volunteers in the 2022 Board of Trustees election are invited to vote for statements to use in the Election Compass. You can vote for the statements you would like to see included in the Election Compass on Meta-wiki.

An Election Compass is a tool to help voters select the candidates that best align with their beliefs and views. The community members will propose statements for the candidates to answer using a Lickert scale (agree/neutral/disagree). The candidates’ answers to the statements will be loaded into the Election Compass tool. Voters will use the tool by entering in their answer to the statements (agree/disagree/neutral). The results will show the candidates that best align with the voter’s beliefs and views.

Here is the timeline for the Election Compass:

~~July 8 - 20: Volunteers propose statements for the Election Compass~~
~~July 21 - 22: Elections Committee reviews statements for clarity and removes off-topic statements~~
July 23 - August 3: Volunteers vote on the statements
August 4: Elections Committee selects the top 15 statements
August 5 - 12: candidates align themselves with the statements
August 16: The Election Compass opens for voters to use to help guide their voting decision

The Elections Committee will select the top 15 statements at the beginning of August

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Names for cleanup categories

Hello,

I'm going to start localising a load of imported clean-up templates over the next few weeks, and I wanted some feedback from the community on what terminology to use for the associated categories. Some of these clean-up templates sort main space pages into categories of the form "Articles needing foo", some of them sort them into categories of the form "Wikiquote pages needing foo" (and some templates have been half-localised and sort them into both!). What is the preferred terminology for these kind of pages? "Article" or "Wikiquote pages"? Just thought I'd get some feedback before editing dozens of templates and making dozens of categories. 192.76.8.85 11:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content in the main namespace can be "articles" for sure, especially if that makes it easier. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf Thanks, that's really helpful. I'll make a start localising and cleaning up these templates so they don't sort pages into nonsense like Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup.

There's one other template I'd like some feedback on, {{cleanup}}. This template seems to have been hijacked and now does a completley different function to when it was a wikiquote specific one; it used to be for articles that didn't fit into any of the specific cleanup categories, now it's a generic "tag everything" type template. As it stands this template has been copied from the English Wikipedia and has a lot of complexity and features that don't make sense here. As I see it there are a few ways we could move forward with this template:

Roll it back to the old, wikiquote specific version
Try to localise the current template properly (I'm not keen on this, it is way too complex and has way too much subcategorization for a project of this size).
Try to simplify the new template to produce something that works well on this project.
Remake the template in the new style, but replicating the functionality of the old clean-up template as much as possible.

There are also a couple of features of the new style template that I'd like to get some feedback on whether they're actually useful here, to start:

The new template asks you to submit a reason when tagging a page for cleanup, is this required on this project and is populating Creating Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field useful?
Is categorising pages by namespace useful? e.g. sorting pages into "Wikiquote categories needing cleanup", "Wikiquote templates needing cleanup", "Wikiquote Articles needing cleanup" etc? My gut feeling is no, given that there are less than 100 pages tagged in total.

As you might be able to tell I'm a bit lost when it comes to figuring out what to do with {{cleanup}}. 192.76.8.85 11:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this project is big or active enough to need to be sorted by namespace with cleanup templates. If you think it's best to revert back to how this template functioned back in April, then I support that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give it a few days to see if anyone else has any comments, if not I'll revert back to the old version of the template. 192.76.8.85 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to the old version since no objections were raised. 192.76.8.85 15:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative quotation templates

What is the community's opinion on decorative quotation templates like Template:Blockquote? The manual of style and guide to layout says that articles should be composed of plain bulleted lists, but these templates have been added to a few places, e.g. Jill Biden. Should they be removed, or should the manual of style be updated to allow them? 192.76.8.85 15:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan. I see it as a similar discussion regarding the bolding of quotes. To me the different ways of presenting quotes is a bit jarring and there does nto seem to be any criteria used for which quotes use this alternate style. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful on other projects. But it's a little like having a specially formatted box on Wikipedia for prose. Uh...prose is kindof the main point of the project. GMG ^talk 16:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not a fan - I'd prefer as little markup as possible in our pages, since I think markup is off-putting for newbies. Text only is good. I personally tend to be a minimalist on such stuff. Antandrus (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you love somebody, let them go

"If you love somebody, let them go, for if they return, they were always yours. If they don't, they never were."
Seems attributed to Kahlil Gibran by random image search results. A similar variant "If you love something, let it go free. If it doesn't come back, you never had it. If it comes back, love it forever." is attributed to w:en:Douglas Horton by another random image search result. Is either of these correct? If not, perhaps the misattribution could be mentioned on Kahlil Gibran? Alexis Jazz (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any tutorials?

Hi Wikiquote friends, I'm TheAafi, and I mostly contribute on English Wikipedia. I happen to be founder of Deoband Community Wikimedia, a recognized Wikimedia user group affiliate. I recently organized a series of events to bring attention of DCW volunteers to Wikiquote (see: this page for details). Is there any training material already available that I could utilize for this purpose. If not, DCW would be like to aid in this necessary endeavor. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delay of the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

Hi all,

I am reaching out to you today with an update about the timing of the voting for the Board of Trustees election.

As many of you are already aware, this year we are offering an Election Compass to help voters identify the alignment of candidates on some key topics. Several candidates requested an extension of the character limitation on their responses expanding on their positions, and the Elections Committee felt their reasoning was consistent with the goals of a fair and equitable election process.

To ensure that the longer statements can be translated in time for the election, the Elections Committee and Board Selection Task Force decided to delay the opening of the Board of Trustees election by one week - a time proposed as ideal by staff working to support the election.

Although it is not expected that everyone will want to use the Election Compass to inform their voting decision, the Elections Committee felt it was more appropriate to open the voting period with essential translations for community members across languages to use if they wish to make this important decision.

The voting will open on August 23 at 00:00 UTC and close on September 6 at 23:59 UTC.

Please find this message translated in additional languages here.

Best regards,

On behalf of the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Movement Strategy Forum

Hello everyone,

The Movement Strategy Forum (MS Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about Movement Strategy implementation. It provides a great opportunity to share your Movement Strategy(MS) work, find collaborators, and get even more support and ideas for your MS projects. We are inviting all Movement participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to build community collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.

The Movement Strategy is a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment to a full-time project.

Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, say hi here and go ahead and join or start a conversation on the recommendation you are most passionate about! Feel free to discuss your MS project ideas and plans or even reports from MS projects you have worked on. To get started, you can also watch this video.

The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal for this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just published the Community Review Report. It includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about the next steps.

We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!

Best regards,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 Board of Trustees Election Community Voting period is now open

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

The Community Voting period for the 2022 Board of Trustees election is now open. Here are some helpful links to get you the information you need to vote:

Try the Election Compass, showing how candidates stand on 15 different topics.
Watch the candidate videos or read the candidate statements and answers to Affiliate questions
Learn more about the skills the Board seeks and how the Analysis Committee found candidates align with those skills

If you are ready to vote, you may go to SecurePoll voting page to vote now. You may vote from August 23 at 00:00 UTC to September 6 at 23:59 UTC. To see about your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel policy

Revision deletion has been used 278 times this year and 86 times across the whole of 2021... so, it's clear revision deletion on this wiki is becoming more used and fast. I think it's only right with increasing RevDel use to have a RevDel policy. While admins have RevDel reasons they can give when deleting a revision from public view, some are broad. These options are the following:

Copyright violation
Inappropriate comment
Inappropriate username
Potentially libelous information
Personal information

A few personal comments about this:

Inappropriate comment specifically is extremely broad. What does an inappropriate comment mean? Would calling someone stupid be eligible under this option? Or would the comment have to be more disruptive? Note that revision deletion was not created to deal with "ordinary" incivility.
Potentially libelous information and Personal information should not be openly dealt with by admins, to avoid the Streisand effect, and should instead be dealt with by oversighters. We currently do not have any local oversighters, so we contact stewards privately if oversight is needed here. These two options shouldn't be part of a RevDel policy, in my opinion.
Regardless of policy, options that should be used for oversight should be separated from common delete options to avoid extra attention.

I have a few ideas for future RevDel options, and if there's a consensus for them, these should be noted down on a Wikiquote: page as a policy, potentially as an addition to Wikiquote:Deletion policy or by creating Wikiquote:Revision deletion policy, also depending on the community's preference. These options can be changed on MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown.

I would appreciate anyone's opinions for these ideas, that are inspired by enwiki's revision deletion policy. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is RevDel? I assume it stands for revision delete, but this still does not tell me what it is. Deletion is an action by an admin that removes a page from the view of those who are not granted admin powers, I think. But what is revision deletion? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mw:RevisionDelete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD1: Blatant violations of the copyright policy

This would be fairly basic, a replacement to our current option "Copyright violation". --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD1 Comments

Support Sensible and it helps keep this a free culture community. While very unlikely, it also shields us from legal risk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material

A diff that has little to no project value whatsoever - for example, slurs, smears and grossly inappropriate material that has no project value, but not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. If a page has a grossly improper title, the page title can be deleted in the creation and deletion logs too. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD2 Comments

Support Per w:en:WP:DENY. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD3: Purely disruptive material

Purely disruptive material that does not help the project at all - for example, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing or virus pages, or web pages that disparage or threaten someone and serve no valid purpose. Spam links are not covered under this policy. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD3 Comments

Support This adds no value and actually detracts, so deny it as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD2-RD3 merged: Purely disruptive material

Purely disruptive revisions that do not help the project at all - for example, harassment, slurs, smears, grossly inappropriate material, threats, or attacks, malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing or virus pages, or web pages that disparage or threaten someone or serve no valid purpose - spam links aren't covered under this policy. If a page has a grossly improper title, the page title can be deleted in the creation and deletion logs too. --Ferien (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD2-RD3 merged Comments

Other RevDel ideas and general comments

Any other ideas for a RevDel policy can be put as another section with ===, above this one. Thanks for your input and help. -- Ferien (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: oversighters, we can go ahead and delete inappropriate material ASAP and then also ask for an office action to remove it entirely from the database, so that even admins can't view it. Removing the material shouldn't be gated by complete deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf, with that, yes, my point was that inappropriate material should be deleted, but not under the reason of personal information. So for example, deleting it under something that may not technically apply while admins wait for oversight/office actions, to avoid attention from other users/admins. I'm still thinking about how we could write this in our policy...--Ferien (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien Criteria 2 and Criteria 3 seem like they could be merged into a single criteria, I don't see the useful distinction between "disruptive" material and "insulting, degrading, or offensive" material? They also seem to contradict each other, criteria 2 states that ordinary personal attacks cannot be revision deleted, but they would seem to fall under criteria 3 as harassment? Perhaps instead we could use a single criteria to the effect of "Offensive or Harmful material with no project value"? 192.76.8.74 17:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With harassment, that is definitely different to an ordinary personal attack, in my opinion and RD3 is mostly about offwiki links and RD2 is more about comments onwiki. --Ferien (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In essentially all cases where revdel is appropriate wouldn't "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" be "Purely disruptive material" by it's very nature though? I just don't see why we need one criteria to cover material that is of "little to no project value whatsoever" and one for diffs "that does not help the project at all". I don't see why we need one criteria for "slurs, smears and grossly inappropriate material" and one that covers "harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks" - these just seem like different ways of saying essentially the same thing. Why are "web pages that disparage someone" RD3 material for example, is that not "insulting, degrading, or offensive material"? I also don't see why we would need to treat off-wiki disruption under a different criteria from on-wiki disruption, what advantage is there in separating this out? 192.76.8.74 19:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at merging RD2 and 3 later on today and see what people think. --Ferien (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't get back here as soon as I intended to. Let me know how you find the idea above. --Ferien (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between RD2 and RD3 is stronger that suggested by their headlines. Cf. detailed wording at Wikipedia: Criteria for redaction – RD2 (offensive) pertains, except for biographies of living people, to that which is "merely" subjectively obnoxious, while RD3 (disruptive) pertains primarily to that which is or could be actively harmful. The latter is much more worthy of efforts to redact, IMO, and the former appears to have been "becoming more used and fast". My own opinion is that the tool is best reserved for situations entailing safety, legality, and similar compelling need. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting is about to Close

Hello,

The Community Voting period of the 2022 Board of Trustees election started on August 23, 2022, and will close on September 6, 2022 23:59 UTC. There’s still a chance to participate in this election. If you did not vote, please visit the SecurePoll voting page to vote now. To see about your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page. If you need help in making your decision, here are some helpful links:

Try the Election Compass, showing how candidates stand on 15 different topics.
Read the candidate statements and answers to affiliates' questions.
Learn more about the skills the Board seeks and how the Analysis Committee found candidates align with those skills
Watch the videos of the candidates answering questions proposed by the community.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected VFD page

I nominated Jafar Frotan for deletion just now, but since I spend my time on other sites and haven't been active here on Wikiquote before, I'm unable to add Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jafar Frotan to the protected page Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. –JustAnotherArchivist (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:LOQ

I’m fairly new to Wikiquote and am wondering if someone else can explain to me why my additions to the Romy and Michele page were reverted. How do they violate the Wikiquote:LOQ guideline? Thanks. Spectrallights (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Enforcement Draft Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

Hello everyone,

The Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Revisions committee is requesting comments regarding the Revised Enforcement Draft Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). This review period will be open from 8 September 2022 until 8 October 2022.

The Committee collaborated to revise these draft guidelines based on input gathered from the community discussion period from May through July, as well as the community vote that concluded in March 2022. The revisions are focused on the following four areas:

To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
To review the balancing of the privacy of the accuser and the accused

The Committee requests comments and suggestions about these revisions by 8 October 2022. From there, the Revisions Committee anticipates further revising the guidelines based on community input.

Find the Revised Guidelines on Meta, and a comparison page in some languages.

Everyone may share comments in a number of places. Facilitators welcome comments in any language on the Revisions Guideline Talk Page. Comments can also be shared on talk pages of translations, at local discussions, or during conversation hours. There are planned live discussions about the UCoC enforcement draft guidelines; please see Meta times and details: Conversation hours

The facilitation team supporting this review period hopes to reach a large number of communities. If you do not see a conversation happening in your community, please organize a discussion. Facilitators can assist you in setting up the conversations. Discussions will be summarized and presented to the drafting committee every two weeks. The summaries will be published here.

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Vector 2022 skin as the default in two weeks?

Hello. I'm writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team. In two weeks, we would like to make the Vector 2022 skin the default on this wiki.

We have been working on it for the past three years. So far, it has been the default on more than 30 wikis, including sister projects, all accounting for more than 1 billion pageviews per month. On average 87% of active logged-in users of those wikis use Vector 2022.

It would become the default for all logged-out users, and also all logged-in users who currently use Vector legacy. Logged-in users can at any time switch to any other skins. No changes are expected for users of these skins.

Top of an article
Vector legacy (current default)
Vector 2022

A section of an article
Vector legacy (current default)
Vector 2022

About the skin

[Why is a change necessary] The current default skin meets the needs of the readers and editors as these were 13 years ago. Since then, new users have begun using Wikimedia projects. The old Vector doesn't meet their needs.

[Objective] The objective for the new skin is to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. It draws inspiration from previous requests, the Community Wishlist Surveys, and gadgets and scripts. The work helped our code follow the standards and improve all other skins. We reduced PHP code in Wikimedia deployed skins by 75%. The project has also focused on making it easier to support gadgets and use APIs.

[Changes and test results] The skin introduces a series of changes that improve readability and usability. The new skin does not remove any functionality currently available on the Vector skin.

The sticky header makes it easier to find tools that editors use often. It decreases scrolling to the top of the page by 16%.
The new table of contents makes it easier to navigate to different sections. Readers and editors jumped to different sections of the page 50% more than with the old table of contents. It also looks a bit different on talk pages.
The new search bar is easier to find and makes it easier to find the correct search result from the list. This increased the amount of searches started by 30% on the wikis we tested on.
The skin does not negatively affect pageviews, edit rates, or account creation. There is evidence of increases in pageviews and account creation across partner communities.

[Try it out] Try out the new skin by going to the appearance tab in your preferences and selecting Vector 2022 from the list of skins.

How can editors change and customize this skin?

It's possible to configure and personalize our changes. We support volunteers who create new gadgets and user scripts. Check out our repository for a list of currently available customizations, or add your own.

Our plan

If no large concerns are raised, we plan on deploying in the week of October 3, 2022. If your community would like to request more time to discuss the changes, hit the button and write to us. We can adjust the calendar.

Request for more time to discuss the change

Also, if you'd like ask our team anything, if you have questions, concerns, or additional thoughts, please ping me here or write on the talk page of the project. We will also gladly answer! See our FAQ. Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2022 Board of Trustees election process. Your participation helps seat the trustees the community seeks on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

These are the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election:

You may see more information about the Results and Statistics of this Board election.

The Board will complete their review of the most voted candidates, including conducting background checks. The Board plans to appoint new trustees at their meeting in December.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee.

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Mantel

I'm only an occasional contributor here; I'd be grateful if sone could check the formatting of Hilary Mantel, which I just created . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four new Wikiquotes were just created

Welcome our friends at bcl:, bn:, ig:, and tl: if you get the chance. These are the first new Wikiquotes since sah: back in June 2018 and that was the first one in five and a half years! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf What would we do without you, our global ambassador? Nice to see that the wikimedia movement continues to produce new language editions of WQ, which I assume the above are. I am curious to find out where there is a list of all the WQs by language. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am but a humble servant, OHT. Thanks for your support. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and I should add - one who keeps many editions of the Village pump alive across the wikiverse. Cheers Ottawahitech (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just talking to someone who linked me to w:List of Wikipedias. Interesting that this is an article on enwp (not META), and that it in mainspace. I wonder why we don't have a List of Wikiquotes, mainspace or otherwise.

Anyone care to speculate? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because this project is much less active. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this project is less active, but does the wq-community like this status quo? Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just made my first ever "edit" at the Igbo WQ. But now I am worried.

I value my privacy and don't know if anyone has the authority to check my IP address. I contributed in good faith using google translate, but have no idea how these WQs are managed and if anyone looking at my edits has checkuser rights on the igWQ.

Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no local CheckUsers at ig.wq. Of course, stewards or developers with access to the server logs can check, but that's always true. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf and anyone else reading this: You mentioned "stewards or developers" and I wonder if this is something Users should worry about. I know that Stewards are not supposed to use their powers beyond what is specified, but I have seen several comments in the the portions that are open for public input in the current stewards elections/confirmations that specifically mentioned check-user. I assume that this is because there have been cases of Stewards misusing tools, but I am only speculating here because no diffs were provided, I think?

I am not sure I am making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what the problem is, no. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ottawahitech. As for Wikiqoutes in other languages, if you go to Main page and then look left down "In other languages", these are all WQ projects in different languages. There are quite a few languages. As for your privacy concerns, I would be far more concerned about my privacy when using Google Translate. Privacy concerns/protections are the same whatever WMF project you participate in. WMF does not create a profile on you to target you with advertising, and Google does. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emilijaknezevic: Thanks for sending us over to the main page. I forget to check it on a regular basis, and it does have some good information and sections that some may not be aware of.

As far as your google comments, would you elaborate why you feel google cannot be trusted to shield the privacy of those who use it? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check this out, or this. Emilija Knezevic (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing those two enwp-links which explain why some people feel google cannot be trusted to shield privacy. I wonder if there is information about it at enwq? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘

We do not need more volunteers at wikiquote

I don't think, so no, I think those of us who work on the smaller projects would like there to be more active or closer to comprehensive like Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikidata, and Commons are. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Then why are the two of us having a dialogue on the Village pump. Doesn't anyone else have an opinion? I know it was thanksgiving in the USA but this page still had 180 pairs of eyes on it the day before. Just curious. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the ignorance, but an opinion about what? What is the discussion? Is it that you are looking for a list of other Wikiquote sites (besides en)? If that is it, then I can tell you that for me, I don't have time to think about other WQ sites - there's barely even enough hours to keep this one afloat (barely). I tend to focus my time here on other tasks than this (there are always plenty of open tasks here that are more critical, and such a list probably falls into the "nice to have" category). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UDScott, and thank you for stepping in. BTW it is never ignorant IMIO to ask questions (even Dear Abby said so in 1970 in a Dear Abby column in The Milwaukee Sentinel: "There is no such thing as a stupid question if it's sincere. Better to ask and risk appearing stupid than to continue on your ignorant way and make a stupid mistake." -- didn't we both work on a dear abby article/quote-compendium a while ago? ).

Anyway, back to your question, the answer is yes, at least as far as I am concerned, I'll let Koavf talk for himself. The initial question I asked was if we had a list of Wikquotes by language, then we got caught up in some banter, and I was wondering why no one else was participating, and I understand from your post that you feel overwhelmed by the amount of work that is required of you, so don't have time to engage in niceties? Did I get this right? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at times I can feel overwhelmed, but I was not really complaining (although sometimes I do wish I could spend more time on content) - what I meant was that I just do not have time for many of these kinds of discussions nor do I have time to figure out where such a list might be found (or compiled if it does not exist). More power to you and others that wish to figure these things out, but I find that there is too much work in cleaning up and improving the site that precludes me from joining in at times. But don't let me or my lack of participation in discussions hold you back. Cheers! ~ UDScott (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

although sometimes I do wish I could spend more time on content

Join the crowd, @ UDScott, I can think of many other wq-wikignomes who would love to spend more time adding content, undisturbed. Many of them have not yet chimed in into this thread Ottawahitech (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
We absolutely do need more volunteers. Adding content is easy. Making sure it's good content is not. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven, so does this mean we are only interested in volunteers who can hit the ground running, or are we also willing to help train enthusiastic noobs? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven how could I, any potential contributor for that matter, contribute new content that is "good" content? I want to contribute to one of the Theme pages. Unknow0059 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive admins for vote of confidence review

Per Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_25#Vote_for_confidence and relevant threads like Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_54#Inactive_administrators and Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_58#IMPORTANT:_Admin_activity_review, I would like to bring to attention the following admins who have not been active in awhile here at en.wq:

Jni (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log): no edits for almost a year, only seven edits in the past two years, and several helpful logged actions about a year ago, but no other use of admin tools for 2.5 years.
Miszatomic (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log): one edit in the past three years, no use of admin tools in 2.5 years and only two actions in the past three.
Pmlineditor (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log): one edits in three years and only seven edits in 6.5 years, four logged actions in the past three years.

With the usual caveats of thank you for your service, you can ask to be an admin at any time that you have the availability, and they may see this thread and be reminded that they are interested in doing this work again, etc., do we think that these three should retain their permissions? Is it time to remove adminship from any of these three? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Jni for now, last admin action and edit in December 2021. Global inactivity policy says to remove adminship from those who haven't edited or made an admin action for 2 years, I don't think we have a local one, but it hasn't been a year yet.
Remove from Miszatomic. Last admin action and edit over 2 years ago. Thank you for your service.
Keep for Pmlineditor for now, last admin action in November 2021, not a year ago yet and per global inactivity policy above.

Perhaps we should work on a local inactivity policy if the community think one is appropriate? --Ferien (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should have one, yes. I think that two years inactive is a valid starting point, unless someone has a compelling reason to change it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On simplewiki, you have to make 100 edits/admin actions in a year Jan-Dec or your admin will be removed. I think that's quite an unusual example and I don't believe the community here would support it. 1 edit/admin action a year seems reasonable to me and 50 edits/admin actions over 5 years - I think enwiki have done something similar? - so people don't game the system and just make one minor edit or page deletion every year just before their admin would be removed. --Ferien (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to me: there should be some volume of contributions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Thanks for posting. I just clicked on the first wiki-link in your message above and found out it is dated 2008. Has there really been no discussion of this topic since that time? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My second link is from a decade later. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an actual Draft Policy that was discussed in 2015. Note that the sole author of that draft, thus far, is no longer active. I imagine one reason it was not discussed very much was because there had been, at the time, some disagreement about several votes to de-sysop individuals for inactivity in the absence of such a policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I supported adoption of that proposal at the time, and would still. BD2412 T 07:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at VIP (Vandelism In Progress): Adding anti-Semitic vandalism to the "Talmud" page

Please see see for the discussion Ottawahitech (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 IPs involved in this discussion, 2 admins are addressing the implications:

Should the Talmud page which was created on WQ in 2004 by User: Kalki be deleted or not? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not. There are doubtless difficulties, but the work is a key world text. It might be a good idea to quickly review the entries for obvious inaccuracies, the help of someone like en:WP User:Debresser if he is still around. The next difficulty might be deciding which actually meet WQ:FAME. As far as the English corpus is concerned text may have been translated in many different ways. Thirdly if too much material remains, perhaps the page should be split into the various divisions, with only the most famous quotes being kept on the main page. Good luck! Rich Farmbrough (talk)

I think I would also remove much of the commentary, and PoV words. This is not Wikipedia, nor yet Wikibooks. Rich Farmbrough (talk)

@User:Rich Farmbrough, Thanks for the thorough reply! I believe the Talmud page has survived, so far. What I do not understand is: Did Talmud survive on Wikiquote (WQ) because it is special in some way, or do all topics that have been established as notable on the English Wikipedia deserve a main-space page on WQ? Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't answer for WQ history or procedures, I would say that any book where quote would be cited primarily to the book would be a candidate for a page. These would be primarily books with unknown (but also perhaps multiple (or both)) authors. For example the Poetic Edda could have a page, but the Prose Edda should be a section redirect to Snorri Sturluson#Prose Edda. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Jr./Sr. names

Wikipedia has moved all names with "Jr." and "Sr." suffixes to titles with no comma before the "Jr." or "Sr.", in accordance with prevailing style guide practice; should we follow suit? BD2412 T 07:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I am more familiar with and accustomed to ", Jr./Sr.", but that's just me. I'll defer to the community and I agree that consistency with Wikipedia is generally desirable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a script that can accomplish this, but it would have to be performed over a virtual platform because of inter-wiki variations in the relay analytics. Ronald Franklin McDonald (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the comma is helpful in delimiting the name proper from the generational tag (which, after all, is a type of dismbiguator). Rich Farmbrough (talk)

UCoC EG Community review period closed

Dear Wikimedians,

Thank you for participating in the review of the Revised Enforcement Draft Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). The UCoC project team and the Revisions Committee appreciate you all taking the time to discuss the guidelines, suggest changes, and ask questions.

This community review period lasted from September 8 to October 8, 2022. Over the past four weeks, the UCoC project team has collected valuable community input from various channels, including three conversation hours sessions, where Wikimedians could get together to discuss the revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. The Revisions Committee will review community input when they reconvene in the second week of October 2022. The UCoC project team will support them in providing updates as they continue their work and will continue to inform the community about all important developments and milestones as the Committee prepares the final version of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines that is currently scheduled for a community-wide vote in mid-January of 2023.

On behalf of the the UCoC project team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews question

Why does this page get less pageviews than Wikiquote:Community Portal? Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filter again

This really need attention, as innocuous edits by newbies or even vandalism reverts is tripping the filter.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TagaSanPedroAko: Thanks for posting. I am not familiar with filtering. Can You elaborate please. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's with the abuse filter. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, TagaSanPedroAko. I've disabled the filter temporarily while I take a look at it. --Ferien (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien,@TagaSanPedroAko, others:

I have been caught by this filter a few days ago when I used w:wp:hotcat to add a category w:wp:sort key. Since that time I have been pestered by a request to CAPTCHA every time I enter a new quote, and of course, every time I use hotcat to add a category sort key. It is a major annoyance for me (and possibly others?).

A kind WQer (@user:Lemonaka) has tried to help by posting this on my user talk page:

You are blocked the autopromotion of Ottawahitech for a period of 5 days by abuse filter...

Is there nothing that can be done about it Ottawahitech (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a dumb method, just leave here for about 5-10 days. The period will end, and you will get autoconfirmed. Lemonaka (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, a bureaucrat may be able to give you confirmed. --Ferien (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. @User:BD2412, @User:GreenMeansGo,@User:UDScott Ottawahitech (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Not really sure if it will work, because I'm not qualified to comment on the filters themselves. GMG ^talk 13:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo @TagaSanPedroAko: should have posted earlier: I have been CAPTCHA-free for a couple weeks. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A small idea

I have been observing this IP vandal for close to half a month and now I have a small idea about his vandalism. Since every time we reverted, he would clearly came back to the same place again and again with more IPs, why don't we roll back him just once, report it, then waiting for the sysop to protect the relevant page or block the relevant IP, and then roll back to the unvandalized version?

The previous steps are

Vandalized
We reverted
Vandal reverted our version
Harsh Edit warring with multiple IPs of this asshole
Block & Protect with large amount of nonsense history

Now the steps could be

This asshole vandalize
We revert only once & report
Vandal revert our version
Waiting for sysop instead of having fun with him, vandal being blocked, page protected
We revert back to unvandalized version

Is this a reasonable suggestion?

Courtesy to @User:Koavf Lemonaka (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you see edits consistent with this behavior, for sure report ASAP and do not ever feed the troll by responding to email, if you receive it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please follow the second set of steps. I'd also advise, if a sysop is around, for you to wait for a sysop to revert it, as sysops can use "botrollback" hiding both the change and rollback from recent changes and then can block the IP. --Ferien (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to try this approach. Might end up wasting less time too. Antandrus (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem with GRP is his extreme persistence (he's been disrupting Wikimedia for nearly two decades now in this fashion). He often waits for protections to expire to restore his drivel (I've seen this happen a lot), and will link to revisions containing the nonsense elsewhere to bypass edit filters and the blacklisting of his websites. And the worst problem is the abusive nature of the links. I therefore recommend that any edit by GRP containing links (or an attempt at one, with obfucsation to evade the filters) should be revdelled to prevent this behaviour. Java Hurricane 03:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to collect and analyse his edit pattern. I have some knowledge of filters and blacklists, but it's a little hard. I'd better urge someone who please contact Wikimedia foundation or police because I have seen this person harassing us outside the project. Lemonaka (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to attend “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter” Sessions

Hello all,

During the 2022 Wikimedia Summit, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) presented the first outline of the Movement Charter, giving a glimpse on the direction of its future work, and the Charter itself. The MCDC then integrated the initial feedback collected during the Summit. Before proceeding with writing the Charter for the whole Movement, the MCDC wants to interact with community members and gather feedback on the drafts of the three sections: Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities (intentions statement). The Movement Charter drafts will be available on the Meta page here on November 14, 2022. Community wide consultation period on MC will take place from November 20 to December 18, 2022. Learn more about it here.

With the goal of ensuring that people are well informed to fully participate in the conversations and are empowered to contribute their perspective on the Movement Charter, three “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter" sessions have been scheduled in different time zones. Everyone in the Wikimedia Movement is invited to attend these conversations. The aim is to learn about Movement Charter - its goal, purpose, why it matters, and how it impacts your community. MCDC members will attend these sessions to answer your questions and hear community feedback.

The “Ask Me Anything” sessions accommodate communities from different time zones. Only the presentation of the session is recorded and shared afterwards, no recording of conversations. Below is the list of planned events:

Asia/Pacific: November 4, 2022 at 09:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Chinese and Japanese.
Europe/MENA/Sub Saharan Africa: November 12, 2022 at 15:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Arabic, French and Russian.
North and South America/ Western Europe: November 12, 2022 at 15:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Spanish and Portuguese.

On the Meta page you will find more details; Zoom links will be shared 48 hours ahead of the call.

Call for Movement Charter Ambassadors

Individuals or groups from all communities who wish to help include and start conversations in their communities on the Movement Charter are encouraged to become Movement Charter Ambassadors (MC Ambassadors). MC Ambassadors will carry out their own activities and get financial support for enabling conversations in their own languages. Regional facilitators from the Movement Strategy and Governance team are available to support applicants with MC Ambassadors grantmaking. If you are interested please sign up here. Should you have specific questions, please reach out to the MSG team via email: strategy2030@wikimedia.org or on the MS forum.

We thank you for your time and participation.

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A query

I found an article that consists only of a single quote, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy". Should this be redirected or merged? Not sure what is the right course of action currently. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation itself should appear on relevant pages (beer, Benjamin Franklin) and the page should be deleted, as we don't have entries for particular quotations themselves. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Koavf. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help of testing a new report tool

Hello everyone, according to sysop @Koavf:'s instruction, I have created a report tool, mainly just a variant from WD on meta.
To install this, you could insert

mw.loader.load('//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lemonaka/WD.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

to your common.js and it will be loaded. This added a button Warn in P-change area and would enable us to send a warn or make a report just with one click.

If you encounter any bugs, please feel free to report them. Thanks a lot in advance. Lemonaka (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting opinions for site notice

MediaWiki:Sitenotice was very stale, so I commented it out. Does anyone have a suggestion for a site notice that is meaningful and may encourage further edits and engagement? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Maybe something related to WQ:Shesaid. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 09:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is just what I'm going to suggest Lemonaka (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about include recent activity wiki loves women? Lemonaka (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RC and L, that is so obvious, ~~holy crap~~goodness gracious. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[offtopic]

@Koavf: You and I go back a couple of years, before I got involved in the English Wikiquote, we share quite few values and tendencies IMIO, so I know you will not be offended by what I say. IMIO admins on wmf-projects,which you are on enWQ, get some perks that come with the job, but are also held up as an example by others in the wmf-community. They are considered leaders whom others emulate. The downside for admins is that they cannot, or should not, act freely and normally and must always consider their audience. I don't know much about religion, but I know enough to know that using the word "holy" in conjunction with that other word, may be either offensive to some, or give the allure to the VP as a low class establishment. Am I making sense?

(I have been doing too much "talking" lately, I blame this on User:~Riley who greeted me at enWQ a long wiki-time ago and said: "If asking questions lead to improving content, then you're on the right track". Where is Riley anyway?) Ottawahitech (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why a holy is offensive? I don't quite get that. Lemonaka (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OHT, thanks. I take your message in a spirit of good faith and constructive criticism. I think that what I wrote is probably only the mildest amount of offensive, but sure, someone could object to that language and I appreciate any feedback that someone gives me in good faith as an informal ambassador of the Wikimedia movement. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea for a brief time, but it is quite large (depending in window size) and very bright. Can you tone it down a bit? ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the size by 10% and made the color a little less blinding. Happy to get any other suggestions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:test2

Template:test2 seemed miss an icon compared to other templates in this series. Could anyone help to fix it? Thanks! Lemonaka (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering about stuff that is just blatantly wrong/I'm being a cry baby probs

If you go to add to an episode and encounter a lengthy addition to it that is blatantly wrong what is the thought process? I'm sure WikiQuote advocates accuracy so I was just wondering...This is my latest hobby as a cartoon lover and I apologize if this seems snarky... ToonFreak61 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you see wrong content on Wikiquote, please do remove it. Also, note that we have guidelines on the length of quotations and there are relevant American laws about fair use, so we shouldn't host lengthy excerpts from media, but something that is actually quotable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Justin. ToonFreak61 (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Movement Charter Regional Conversation Hours

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi all,

As most of you are aware, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) is currently collecting community feedback about three draft sections of the Movement Charter: Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities (intentions statement).

How can you participate and share your feedback?

The MCDC is looking forward to receiving all types of feedback in different languages from the community members across the Movement and Affiliates. You can participate in the following ways:

Attend the community conversation hours with MCDC members. Details about the regional community conversation hours are published here
Fill out a survey (optional and anonymous)
Share your thoughts and feedback on the Meta talk page
Share your thoughts and feedback on the MS Forum:
- Preamble
- Values & Principles
- Roles & Responsibilities (statement of intent)
Send an email to: movementcharterwikimediaorg if you have other feedback to the MCDC.

Community consultation hour for the Sub-Saharan Africa region will take place this Friday, November 25, on Zoom. It will be translated into French language. The conversations will not be recorded, except for the section where participants are invited to share what they discussed in the breakout rooms. We will take notes and produce a summary report afterwards.

If you want to learn more about the Movement Charter, its goals, why it matters and how it impacts your community, please watch the recording of the “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter” sessions which took place earlier in November 2022.

Thank you for your participation.

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuz (WMF) What is the Wikimedia movement? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: m:Wikimedia movement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Koavf

The Wikimedia movement is the totality of people, activities, and values

@Zuz (WMF): Does this definition include blocked users or not? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ottawahitech, Users can be blocked for various reasons and durations. So, I think this depends on the reason for which users were blocked and for how long. If a user is blocked indefinitely and for vandalism, I do not think they can contribute to the projects.Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying @Zuz (WMF). OK, so what about other blocked users, those not accused of simple vandalism? Are they part of the Wikimedia movement??

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shesaid campaign is heating up

I am not sure how many content contributors of WQ actually visit this forum, but if there are any, I dare anyone to pick one of the red-list items from: Wikiquote:SheSaid/RedLists#Suggestions_for_Botswana and come up with a suitable enWQ new article that will not immediately be speeded, prodded, or even in the rare case vfded. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thread at Wikiquote talk:SheSaid#Is this campaign encouraged by the establishment? also raised by Ottawahitech is perhaps a predecessor thread and I recommend people read comments there so theey don't have to be repeated here. -- 14:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: The root caused of the problem may be that many on that list may be non-notable and without an English Wikipedia (enW) Article which is perhaps the suggested standard to meet. There may be less of a problem for people who would almost certainly meet (enW) notability requirements such as politicians and perhaps some sports biography. I even probably more than you do not want to see people wasting their time attempting to create on Wikipedia only to see ones contributions trashed from history. I'd also note that you are probably aware myself and UDScott are probably responsible for most of the Speed'ing, Prod'ing, VFD'ing and tagging for Copyvio and cleanup. I'm reasonably sure there is no intention to deliberately target Botswana/Africa related articles by anyone including myself but there has apparently been high number of articles created in this area with no associated enW article in the #SheSaid (as far as I can tell). The #SheSaid campaign has been under administrative workload, has had administration in general here on enWQ, and we'd like better mentoring. In fact the reason I came here is Bogolo Kenewendo's contributes appear to me to continue to have problems albeit showing massive improvements. However I'd like people to consider recent edit history on Bogolo Kenewendo end determine if mentorship is necessary. The other thread has shown the need for mentorship, Mothusi has shown ability to learn community norms but it likely doesn't help there's not a standard for notability here as far as I can tell. I apologise if I sometimes seem bullying rather than assertive but I've but a fairly intensive effort in support of the #SheSaid campaign. check my and by alt accounts (global) contributions particularly including Quarry and perhaps Wikidata where I've been trying to ensure an associated Wikidata item is linked back to the article here. If people are concerned there may be be bias or systemic bias on the enQ there the correct place is to raise the matter first or perhaps the WMF if you remain unsatisifed. The ArBCom candidates are currently on at W:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates and there is surely rarely a better place to raise any concerns rather than whinging about it here. I'm going to ping a number of other people {who have been active/involved in this area to a bigger or lesser extent to try to get consensus of sorts or to get to get specific prescriptive proposals. @Anthere, Emilija Knezevic, Kolobetsoo, Saroj Uprety, Ferien, Rubbish computer: -- 14:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I didn't get a notification for this ping unfortunately. I think more oversight is needed for the campaign; I'd be willing to mentor if that helps. It's a shame that new users are coming to Wikiquote, actually creating content and that it is then all being deleted. I feel like it makes WMF projects seem completely inaccessible, when we could always do with more users. At the same time, I don't want to keep loads of articles that aren't notable. I think there has been a lack of communication between the people running the SheSaid campaign and the users of Wikiquote. Perhaps I could make a list of articles that need more established notability and work on having these kept, if it hasn't been done already? I'm totally ok with making lists of articles in userspace and working on them: see User:Rubbish computer/Wikiquote pages with no quotes. I'm busy moving currently but have some time to spare, and hopefully more time very soon once settled. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of every new SheSaid article anywhere also? Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Djm-leighpark Ottawahitech Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer: I've done a trio of Quarry queries which I think may help help identify notability problems at Wikiquote talk:SheSaid#Quarry Tools, and I think you might find the first and third of some use. There is a little bit of "art"/"training" to use those tools but broadly it relates to particularly identifying cases where there is no wikidata item linked to wikiquote and fixing the link to enW first if necessary, going to the wikidata item from the enW article and inserting any missing link to Wikiquote. The third query help identify new articles that may require a #sheSaid link, and I'm hoping an updated version of it may include a #SheSaid present column which would be even more useful. If you need more details that would be better asked in a new section. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 21:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark I have a question in regards to the Quarry tools:

Last year IIRC The Italian WQ created a lot more new articles about women. This year we are doing much better than we did last year, I think. Can your tools give some statistics? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the people Djm-leighpark tried to ping above but failed, @Anthere, Emilijaknezevic, Kolobetsoo, Saroj Uprety, Rubbish computer: --Ferien (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the newly created articles that we can identify as such are listed here : https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:SheSaid#New_articles. As Djm also pointed to, his query can help identify those articles. I ran a training session again last Saturday and insisted again on notability issues as well as does and don’t. I want to also emphasize that I absolutely do not believe in any country targeting in bad faith by admins. The situation is created by a few brand new editors and this is independent from where they come from or from who they write about. What might add an additional strain is that there are rather few Wikipedia articles about Botswana women (to pick up that example, but this is true of many African countries) so it is harder to rely on creating entries about women already covered by Wikipedia. Anthere (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I think there has been a lack of communication between the people running the SheSaid campaign and the users of Wikiquote.

If there is/was miscommunication between the people running the SheSaid campaign and the users of Wikiquote, it’s not for lack of trying by User:Anthere and other shesaid organizers. Postings about this campaign have been appearing in the Village pump on a regular basis since I first joined here in 2020: Here are links to some such postings:

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Village_pump&oldid=2875647#SheSaid

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=shesaid&prefix=Wikiquote%3AVillage+pump&ns4=1&fulltext=Search+full+text 50.67.179.38 20:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: mentioning the word "bias"

I want to clarify that when I mentioned an existence of a "bias" I did not mean by any particular person or any particular WMF project. What I meant is that certain groups of people are under-represented, on all projects, in general. One of those groups is women of colour. So, when somebody wants to create an article about a person who does not have an article on any WP project yet, the notability has to be proven, that is needed for sure. The article creator has to provide references to prove notability, and ... this is the way how it is on any project. If the fist article happens to be on enWQ, maybe just do not discard the attempt altogether if there is no related article on any WP or Wikidata yet. This is all what I am trying to say. I am sorry if my words in another post came across differently. Thank you all for participating in this conversation. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wikipedia

What does the community think of Criticism of Wikipedia? While this is certainly a valid topic for quotes, it's been used to pursue a very specific political agenda. I think it would benefit from a wider variety of quotations, or just merging into Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SheSaid Idea

How about for the rest of the SheSaid event, the admins could make the featured quote a women's for the meanwhile. - Some Wandom Noob (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. I suggested something similar for the first campaign, but there was a tepid response. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Wandom Noob: have you tried suggesting a quote to Quote of the day? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matters arising from a trawl through new articles since 1 October 2022

Background: I've been trawling through articles created since 1 October 2022 (current having reached 8/9 November 2022 - and may continue or give up depending on RL etc etc). In general I've been adding a (dummy) #SheSaid comment where useful and linking to Wikiquote from Wikidata when needed so Wikiquote is aware of the Wikidata item. But I've also actioned with some Prod & VfD's on the way where something has caught my eye in passing. Outcome: As a result of this crawl I've got a number of different comments/questions/suggestions: -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the crawl through: Essentially I dealt with or actioned everything related to new articles I'm interested in (subject to missing something) from 1 October 2022 to 17 November 2022. My next target, if I allocate time to the matter, is 18 november 2022 to 30 November 2022. My plan A will be to create a list of articles in that range needing SheSaid comments for an AWB jockey to apply; the pass(es) to manke any enWQ and Wikidata links set up; then a pass to check/raise any concerns that I haven't raised on the earlier pass. Hopefully this helps explain any random edit pattern that I may do but be aware I may also do other things too. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 01:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding missing SheSaid comments

I have compiled a list of articles created in October that could be marked with a SheSaid comment at User:Djm-leighpark/XX. I think I have taken reasonable care not to suggest any inappropriate gender re-assignments. These could possibly be done efficiently with AWW. @Rubbish computer I note you are a certified AWB jockey and wonder if you would be prepared to take on this mission - I'll be upfront :I can't give you no help and I won't clear up the mess if it goes wrong, that would be up to you. If you decide to pick up the baton please note you are doing so here and then also say if you've given up. If anyone else wishes to steal the AWB mount please say so here; if I decide to pull the baton back to process the list manually myself I'll also leave a note here. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Djm-leighpark, I will do so, just need to update my AWB first as haven't used it in a long time. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 10:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer I've added an additional list to be processed at the same location to cover those needing doing for November 2022. If you need help with AWB reg. expressions expressions let me know but (from memory) the device I use for AWB work has a flat, it a tad power hungry and ancient, and I don't think I AWB on any wiki currently so I'd be working off untested theory unless I take a dump. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer: I've now got authorisation to use AWB on my declaration alt. account Bigdelboy so I'll now hope to take up this task myself. Thanks for offering though. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 05:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: My alt. account Bigdelboy has just completed adding identified #SheSaid tags for October & November via AWB. I'll be looking to do the same for December in the run up to Christmas so hopefully coming towards the end of December things ill be up to date. While the order used may be essentially by date I may also use some quarry queries to identify candidates via categories and or stub templates and may do an initial stripe through that way. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 23:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've developed an quarry query that can, thanks to the contributions of a few individuals adding appropriate categories and templates to new articles, identify with reasonable accuracy a majority of outstanding articles needing SheSaig comment tagging for December, A results snapshot is now at User:Djm-leighpark/XX and Bigdelboy has processed up to and including articles created to 3 December 2022 from that list via AWB; but be aware manually intervention has been made while processing AWB batches to minimise the dummy edit changes. I'm going to pause processing that table for a short while, though I might do 2 or 3 short batches today but I intended to process that list more thoroughly to conclusion from 20 December 04:00 UTC hopin gto complete in a couple of days to enable a review & gap analysis. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 10:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles losing their English Wikipedia article

Is there a need here for a bot to monitor for article that have lost their associated English Wikipedia item. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Bot to link wikidata item to their associated Wikiquote article

I'm not sure oit is possible to create/operate a Bot to link a wikidata item to their associated Wikiquote article, or whether that count/would create problems. There may already be one out there, I think I've I've noticed a bot doing it on :d for :igWQ. Manually if there a good enWQ to enWP link and the enWP articles been curated or done by an autoconfirmed its a simple matter of putting the Wikiquote title in the paste buffer, clicking to the enWP article then clicking the Wikdata item link. At the Wikidata item locate the Wikiquote box, add a line for "en" and paste in the enWQ title from the paste buffer, publish it, and click back to the Wikiquote item as a confirmation. Only a sloppy half-asleep idiot could somehow get that wrong! Mote seriously the automated updates of Wikidata enWP (or even enWQ->enWP->Wikidata) [[:d:Talk:Q1149711|can get this stuff wrong with fake results]. But the question is should a bot be used for this and if so who it going to request it? -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you by chance seen Special:UnconnectedPages? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I wasn't aware of that Special: page, but ultimately it likely looks at the same field I'm looking at on Quarry queries at the moment so it possibly doesn't give me personally much help towards leveraging any solution here, though it is another trick up the sleeve and some might it useful as a feed into an off-wiki aggregation solution. I am personally minded the need for a solution here has become more acute with a recent surge in new articles created. Unfortunately most of these have not been linked to Wikidata items, though I suspect many have associated enWP articles where those have been curated a bot will likely have linked/created an associated Wikidata item. While I've trawled through in broadly create order sequence new articles from 1 October 2022 to 26 November 2022 the sparsity of linked wikidata items beyond this point means in my view a switch to at least semi-automation is now crucial. There are several here who could contact the WMF softies or otherwise put in a bot request. I have some p-language capability so I may look to consider e.g. PWB FrameWork: There's a risk of re-inventing the wheel but there's also risk of the bot having side-effects and I'd want to feel in control of that. I have a feeling if I put in the right bot request question precisely specified correctly to the right person I might get a suitable action fairly quickly. But that's a lottery though I have come up with a couple of wins in that area from helpful people recently. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 07:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on subpages

In general whats the policy with subpage articles in mainspace on enWQ, thoguhts on associated Wikidata items. I'd note the creation of a subpage at Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz was probably unintentional and a different use-case. (Sorry me looking this up for myself at this moment would be a distraction). And are some of these abusing "fair-use"? Thankyou -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC) User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz is not a subpage. It is a person's name. Saroj Uprety (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saroj Uprety: Thanks. OK. I've read w:Wikipedia:Subpages and while "/" it e.g. userspace denotes a subpage (as can be seen by a breadcrumb) in article space it doesn't. Thus none of the are actually subpages, though some might rely on inherited notability and not be expected to necessarily have a 1-1 relationship with an enWP item; though they might be expected to connect to a wikidata item in most cases I suppose. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 15:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am joining this conversation to offer some opinions.

First of all, I was unaware that Wikiquote handles subpages differently from Wikipedia. Nevertheless, if it only functions as a prefix, I still think the use of / to denote subpages makes for much better organization. For example, there is a page called Qur'an on justice. It would be neater if this page was moved Io Quran/Quran on Justice, with the old page, Qur'an on justice, as a redirect. Then one would have a single tree of pages pertaining to the Quran, with Quran as the root of the tree.

With regard to notability, I think the Islamic concepts of Jannah and Jahannam are extremely notable, so much so that one would be misrepresenting the faith if one were to leave out any mention of them. However, with regard to organization, it is probably for the better that everything is not placed on the same page, and the Quran page is very large as it stands now. Thus one has Quran/Heaven in the Quran and Quran/Hell in the Quran. It also makes for a better reading experience, I think, when separate things are kept separate and such diametral concepts as Heaven and Hell are covered on different pages.

With regard to fair use, The Clear Quran, which is the translation quoted, grants a limited license to reproduce excerpts not to exceeding 10% of the entire work.[1] As for quotations from Sefaria.org, most of their texts are in the public domain.[2]

These considerations could be generalized to other religious texts. For example, pages quoting books from the New Testament might be given the prefix New Testament/, to keep all such pages in one place. I think that would be an improvement, but I am curious as to what others think.

I hope this is helpful. BurningLibrary (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BurningLibrary: I'm not actually sure Wikipedia and Wikiquote actually handle subpages differently. I am not reasonably sure both do not have/permit subpages in (main) article space, but will permit them in other spaces. What I can say is I seem to be noticing the acceptance of the use of "/" in articles here on Wikiquote and I'm not sure if I've much if any use in that way on the English Wikipedia. In terms of splitting a large page to logical subpages as you suggest does to me make sense but I haven't checked policy here. Thankyou. -- 09:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Oldprod

For information: I've started a discussion at Template talk:Oldprod about a suggested change to bring it into line with w:Template:Old Prod at sister project enWP. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 06:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question

Technical question (sort of, I think?): Where can I find a cleanup(?) WQ-category that says the page is due for an update?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Special:SpecialPages? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did not explain myself right. What I am looking for is template/category to ask editors to add information to a page that has become outdated. For example when some dies or when a person gets elected to a new position, etc. Thanks n advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Are you looking for d:Q5617874 / w:Template:Update ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 03:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark, Yes, thank you. I believe this was what I was looking for. Do we have such a templateplate at enWQ?

@Ottawahitech Sadly, we don't have such a template at enWQ Lemonaka (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to provide feedback on the Movement Charter content

Hi all,

We are in the middle of the community consultation period on the three draft sections of the Movement Charter: Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities (statement of intent). The community consultation period will last until December 18, 2022. The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) encourages everyone who is interested in the governance of the Wikimedia movement to share their thoughts and opinions on the draft content of the Charter.

How do you share your feedback?

Interested people can share their feedback via different channels provided below:

Fill out a survey (optional and anonymous, accessible in different languages)
Share your thoughts and feedback on the Meta Talk pages:
- Preamble
- Values & Principles
- Roles & Responsibilities (statement of intent)
Share your thoughts and feedback on the MS Forum:
- Preamble
- Values & Principles
- Roles & Responsibilities (statement of intent)
Send an email to: movementcharterwikimediaorg if you have other feedback to the MCDC.

If you want to help include your community in the consultation period, you are encouraged to become a Movement Charter Ambassador. Please find out more about it here.

Thank you for your participation!

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey 2023 opens in January

Please help translate to your language

(There is a translatable version of this message on MetaWiki)

Hello

The Community Wishlist Survey (CWS) 2023, which lets contributors propose and vote for tools and improvements, starts next month on Monday, 23 January 2023, at 18:00 UTC and will continue annually.

We are inviting you to share your ideas for technical improvements to our tools and platforms. Long experience in editing or technical skills is not required. If you have ever used our software and thought of an idea to improve it, this is the place to come share those ideas!

The dates for the phases of the Survey will be as follows:

Phase 1: Submit, discuss, and revise proposals – Monday, Jan 23, 2023 to Sunday, Feb 6, 2023
Phase 2: WMF/Community Tech reviews and organizes proposals – Monday, Jan 30, 2023 to Friday, Feb 10, 2023
Phase 3: Vote on proposals – Friday, Feb 10, 2023 to Friday, Feb 24, 2023
Phase 4: Results posted – Tuesday, Feb 28, 2023

If you want to start writing out your ideas ahead of the Survey, you can start thinking about your proposals and draft them in the CWS sandbox.

We are grateful to all who participated last year. See you in January 2023!

Thank you! Community Tech, STei (WMF) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update for those in this community who can vote on META:

Phase 3

February 10 – February 24, 2023

Vote on proposals Ottawahitech (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Charter: End of the community consultation round 1

Hi everyone,

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC), we would like to thank everyone who has participated in our first community wide consultation period on the Movement Charter.

People from across the movement shared their feedback and thoughts on the content of the Movement Charter. If you have not had the chance to share your opinion yet, you are welcome to do so by giving the drafts a read and filling out the anonymous survey, which is accessible in 12+ languages. The survey will close on January 2, 2023. You are invited to continue to share your thoughts with the MCDC via email too: movementcharter@wikimedia.org.

What’s next?

The Movement Strategy and Governance team will publish the final report with a summary of the feedback received in January 2023. It will be shared with the MCDC and the communities via different distribution channels.

After receiving the final report, the MCDC will review the suggestions and communicate the changes by providing an explanation on how and why suggestions were or were not adopted in the next versions of the drafts. There will be additional ways to engage with the Movement Charter content in 2023, including early feedback on a proposed ratification process and new drafts of different chapters in the second quarter of 2023.

We invite you to sign up for the MCDC monthly newsletter, which will be delivered to the Talk page of your choice. Monthly updates are available on Meta to stay updated on the progress of the MCDC.

Interested people can still sign-up to become a Movement Charter Ambassador (MC Ambassador) to support their community. MC Ambassadors Program will restart accepting applications from both individuals and groups ahead of the next round of consultations in the second quarter of 2023.

We thank you for your participation, time, and effort in helping to build the charter for our movement!

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Sound Logo Voting: Final days!

Hello wikiquote (:

The Sound Logo contest presented the 10 finalist, out of 3,000 submissions from 135 countries.
Play a part and help us decide what the Sum of All Human Knowledge sounds like!

The voting is open until 19 December 2022, 23:59 UTC.
Check the info on how to vote on Wikimedia Commons; or about the contest on the project's page on Meta-Wiki.

Best,
CalliandraDysantha-WMF (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]