Wikiquote:Village pump archive 61

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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[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[reply]
@Antandrus: Yes check.svgY 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[reply]

Results of Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is out!

Please help translate to your language

Wiki Loves Folklore Logo.svg

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[reply]


@User:Aphaia @User:BD2412 @User:DannyS712 @User:Ferien @User:GreenMeansGo @User:Illegitimate Barrister @User:Jusjih @User:Kalki @User:Koavf @User:Mdd @User:Miszatomic @User:Ningauble @User:Pmlineditor @User:UDScott @User:Ilovemydoodle The Main Page is missing a QOTD! – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice find. I made a redirect for the time being. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
@Koavf: Also, did you get pinged? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 00:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
did and got an email in my inbox. Thanks! —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlistJustin (koavf)TCM 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
My bad: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echoJustin (koavf)TCM 03:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]

@Koavf, Ferien, Antandrus, UDScott: Thoughts? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 06:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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)TCM 06:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: Which in particular concern you? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 06:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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)TCM 06:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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)TCM 07:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
I could easily imagine a not auto-confirmed user writing "et al". —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: Yes check.svgY Fixed  Any others remaining that you are still concerned about? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 07:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thx/thanx would probably be it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: Yes check.svgY Fixed  Any more? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 07:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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)TCM 08:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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)TCM 14:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Propose statements for the 2022 Election Compass

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.


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[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[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)TCM 07:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems like a good idea to me. Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportIlovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 13:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support with caveat - Does this differ from 'interface editor' on other projects? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: What is 'interface editor'? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
m:Interface_editorsShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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. 00:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting here that only 12 projects have template editor rights enabled, and one of those is the testing wiki. 00:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
@Pppery: Please see WP:HYE. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 03:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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)TCM 01:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]

Add revision importer right

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[reply]

QOTD emergency

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

I just posted it a couple minutes ago — it is certainly NOT any extraordinary emergency. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 00:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Redlinks on the front page are a pretty big deal. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: Absolutely agreed. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 02:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

Feedback on proposal for new user right

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.


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


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:

  1. Import the original page (from the other wiki) 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) 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AC9016, Nihonjoe, Antandrus, Koavf, Stang, ShakespeareFan00, Rubbish computer: Thoughts? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 01:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. 01:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a vote, please read the header. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 01:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please point out where I voted? Please read my comment. 01:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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. 02:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you modify a revision with regular import? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 02:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can use the "import from a file" option and edit the XML before you upload it. 09:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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. 09:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see example 1. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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? 09:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anywhere between 2 and 4. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
The view-deleted-imported-revision would fall afoul of meta:Limits to configuration changes, specifically Allow non-admins to view deleted stuff. 02:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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. 09:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a way of storing it separately. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. 09:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be stored in the main archive table, it would be differentiated using the unused field ar_flagsIlovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 09:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
No. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Not really. I just think this is your proposal. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: Do you support it so far? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 05:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Just asking for them and the community voting, just like with other rights. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't object, but I don't have strong feelings on it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Yes check.svgY DoneIlovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 19:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]


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[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[reply]

Announcing the six candidates for the Board of Trustees election

Hi everyone,

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

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.

Read more here about the next steps in the 2022 Board of Trustee election.


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[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements

Vector 2022 showing language menu with a blue menu trigger and blue menu items 01.jpg

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.

Read more. See you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote for Election Compass Statements

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

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


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[reply]

Names for cleanup categories


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. 11:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content in the main namespace can be "articles" for sure, especially if that makes it easier. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:
  1. Roll it back to the old, wikiquote specific version
  2. 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).
  3. Try to simplify the new template to produce something that works well on this project.
  4. 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:
  1. 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?
  2. 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}}. 11:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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)TCM 04:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reverted back to the old version since no objections were raised. 15:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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? 15:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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. GMGtalk 16:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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.

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:

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.


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[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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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[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[reply]
mw:RevisionDelete. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

RD1 Comments

  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Sensible and it helps keep this a free culture community. While very unlikely, it also shields us from legal risk. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

RD2 Comments

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[reply]

RD3 Comments

  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support This adds no value and actually detracts, so deny it as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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)TCM 17:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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"? 17:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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? 19:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]

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


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:


Movement Strategy and Governance

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

Yes check.svgY DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 03:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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[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:

  1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
  2. To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
  3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
  4. 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[reply]

The Vector 2022 skin as the default in two weeks?

The slides for our presentation at Wikimania 2022

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.

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[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 languagesPlease 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.


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[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[reply]