Wikimedia Forum

The 5 admins "elected" in that way were: Fabexplosive, Snowdog, Barbapedana, DracoRoboter and Remulazz: according to the cited definition, they should be considered (allegedly) recruiters (=meatpuppeters). The detailed analysis of the attack is above [23]. But what was the origin of the meatpuppets (as definition) and of the meatpuppeters (as definition) ?

It's difficult to find were the meatpuppeting attack was organized, but perhaps the cultural environment origin (source) of the meatpuppeting attack can be found. Let we analyze the following evidences:

1. the meatpuppets (as definition) DracoRoboter (as Draco), Xaura, Ilario, Marcok, Paginazero, Nemo, Fabexplosive, kiado and M7 (as M/) took part to the organization of the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Italian Wikimedia Association (WMI), as we can see [24]. In the page there are also Nick1915, but see later;
2. the meatpuppet (as definition) Nemo (first edit on LMO 17:14, 4 dic 2007, voted after 38 minutes for 3 admins [26];
3. a steward (Paginazero) was heavly involved in the attack (maybe naivly): he voted for 3 admins ([27]: only 4 edits in total and then disappeared. Here we can see Paginazero receiving a premium for the Italian Wikimedia Association [28];
4. another steward (Nick1915) backed up metpuppets and meatpuppeters for a longtime, till in the RFC [29] was explicitly requested to stop to backup the attackers and to follow better the Steward_policies, where it says "Stewards should always be neutral";
5. the meatpuppet (as definition) Remulazz is an active member of the Italian Wikimedia Association, as we can see [30];
6. the (allegedly) recruiter Snowdog has been vice president of the Italian Wikimedia Association [31].

And so on ... but it could be enough for now.

Yattagat 21:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

All I know is that .snoopy is a well-standing admin here. I might return to comment more later. Fabexplosive himself is also a well-known global user. —Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 13:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

Unfortunately the main definition of "meatpuppet" is clear: "Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member if the new member was (allegedly) recruited by an existing member only to back up the recruiting member's position". And, in the same way, the logs are clear. Yattagat 21:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

This seems to be a Wikimedia horror story.--Kozuch 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

I don't see how.  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

Mike.lifeguard, erroneously you (on 20-dec, 21:07) destroyed the comment "A Case Study - The meatpuppeting attack on the LMO wikipedia - Corrective actions requested", writing "rm dupe section". Instead the informations and the analysis were not duplicated. May I restore the section? or almost the sections "Analisys of Dracoroboter's election" and "Analisys of Remulazz's election" ? Thank you, Yattagat 21:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

Four day ago, I requested the permission to restore the informations and the analysis that Mike.lifeguard erroneously destroyed, writing: rm dupe section, while the informations were not duplicated. Having received no answer, I suppose that NULLA OSTA to restore. So, the analysis of the election of DracoRoboter and Remulazz will be restored. Yattagat 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

DracoRoboter was not elected by te community, but by people that came from away. Let we analyze the election of DracoRoboter, as we can see here: [32]. The votes of 18 people on the total of 20 (90% of the votes) were as follow:

1. Fabexplosive - [34] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD
2. Ilario - [35] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted after 1 minutes and then disappeared
3. Marcok - [36] - first edit on 20:06, 2 dic 2007, voted after 4 minutes and then disappeared
4. Paginazero - [37] - his vote is his 4th edit and then disappeared
5. Veneziano - [38] - first edit on 20:53, 2 dic 2007, voted after 23 minutes and then disappeared
6. Tanarus - [40] - first edit on 10:06, 4 dic 2007, voted after 5 minutes
7. bramfab(=Barbapedana) - [42] - his vote is his 5th edit and then disappeared
8. Nemo - [44] - first edit on 13:40, 5 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD and then disappeared
9. giacumìn - [46] - first edit on 10:58, 5 dic 2007, voted after 03:38 and then disappeared
10. Lusum - [47] - first edit on 20:34, 5 dic 2007, voted after 1 minute and then disappeared
11. Kiado - [49] - first edit on 20:31, 6 dic 2007, voted immediately and then disappeared
12. Loroli - [50] - first edit on 20:32, 6 dic 2007, voted after 1 minute and then disappeared

Dracoroboter resigned and leaved the adminship in the wiki-IT yet [51]. The recruiter (= meatpuppeter) and recruited (= meatpuppet) Dracoroboter, is also an active member of italian Wikimedia Association [52]. -- Yattagat 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Remulazz was not elected by te community, but by people that came from away. Let we analyze the election of Remulazz, as we can see here: [53]. The votes of 16 people on the total of 17 (94% of the votes) were as follow:

1. Dracoroboter - [55] - his vote is his 13th edit
2. Fabexplosive - [57] - first edit on 08:48, 3 dic 2007, voted after 1 day, 7 hours and 52 minutes
3. .snoopy. - [58] - his vote is his 7th edit and then disappeared
4. Balabiot - [60] - first edit on 17:14, 4 dic 2007, voted after 38 minutes
5. Xaura - [61] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted immediately for Snowdog, voted after 2 days for Remulazz
6. Olando - [62] - first edit on 13:40, 5 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD and then disappeared
7. giacumìn - [64] - first edit on 20:34, 5 dic 2007, voted after 2 minute and then disappeared
8. Civvi - [65] - first edit on 10:58, 5 dic 2007, voted after 1 day and then disappeared
9. Kiado - [67] - first edit on 20:32, 6 dic 2007, voted after 6 minutes and then disapeared
10. Ripe - [68] - first edit on 20:31, 6 dic 2007, voted after 18 minutes and then disapeared
11. Veneziano - [69] - first edit on 20:53, 2 dic 2007, voted after 23 minutes for Snowdog, voted 5 days after for Remulazz and then disappeared

The admins of the LMO wikipedia, Fabexplosive, Snowdog and Barbapedana were elected (as detailed above) by users that suddenly accessed the LMO wikipedia, immediately or after few minutes voted and then disappeared. If the main definition of "meatpuppet" (Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member if the new member was (allegedly) recruited by an existing member only to back up the recruiting member's position) will not be changed, the recruited users should be considered meatpuppets and the recruiters should be considered meatpuppeters.

The admins elected in the way detailed, don't have the trust of the LMO community, they only had the vote of the meatpuppets. As corrective action, the following are proposed:

1. the admins Fabexplosive, Snowolf and Barbapedana should resign and leave the LMO adminship;
2. all the votes of meatpuppets and meatpuppeters, involved in the meatpuppeting attack, should be discarded during the polls on the LMO wikipedia (until meatpuppets and meatpuppeters will demonstrate, with their contributions, to be good wikipedians).

Yattagat 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

On friday 16 jan 2009, the admin Fabexplosive resigned and leaved the adminship in the LMO wiki.

Users of the LMO wiki are waiting for the resignation of Snowdog (an ex steward) and of Barbapedana (alias Bramfab), the other two admins "elected" during the meatpuppeting attack of december 2007.

Yattagat 14:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Reply

The LMO users are asking the resignation of the admins "elected" during the meatppeting attack of december 2007 : "Ti chiedo di dire a tutti i tuoi soci di scegliere o di mettersi a contribuire e amministrare o di dimettersi. Grazie" [70].

The admin Snowdog, as ex steward and ex vice President of the Italian Wikimedia Association, should be the first to resign.

The admin Snowdog was not elected by te community, but by people that came from away. Let we analyze the election of Snowdog, as we can see there: [71]. The votes of 20 people on the total of 23 (87% of the votes) were as follow:

1. Dracoroboter - [73] - his vote is his 5th edit
2. Xaura - [74] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD
3. Ilario - [75] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted immediately and then disappeared
4. Marcok - [76] - first edit on 20:06, 2 dic 2007, voted after 4 minutes and then disappeared
5. Paginazero - [77] - his vote is his 4th edit and then disappeared
6. Veneziano - [78] - first edit on 20:53, 2 dic 2007, voted after 22 minutes after and then disappeared
7. Tanarus - [80] - first edit on 10:06, 4 dic 2007, voted after 5 minutes
8. bramfab(=Barbapedana) - [[82] - his vote is his 4th edit and then disappeared
9. Nemo - [84] - his vote is his 3rd edit and then disappeared
10. Olando - [85] - first edit on 13:40, 5 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD and then disappeared
11. giacumìn - [87] - first edit on 10:58, 5 dic 2007, voted after 03:36
12. Lusum - [88] - first edit on 20:34, 5 dic 2007, voted immediately and then disappeared
13. Kiado - [90] - first edit on 20:31, 6 dic 2007, voted immediately and then disappeared
14. Loroli - [91] - first edit on 20:32, 6 dic 2007, voted immediately and then disappeared

Yattagat 18:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

That's only a dialectal wiki. it.wiki is at http://it.wikipedia.org 93.47.44.238 16:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I'm very glad to see that the developers now have their own global group; "system administrators". It seems that this group has been correctly set up to give the developers the ability to temporarily give themselves any permissions they require, but to be minimally-intrusive otherwise. In this context, it no longer makes sense for developers to also be members of the "steward" global group, into which they have been 'grandfathered' for many years. It is also no longer necessary for the developers to retain local groups that relate only to user rights; particularly 'bureaucrat'. Brion is a bureaucrat on eight wikis; still a member of the defunct local "developer" group on three, and an admin on a whopping thirty eight. Tim Starling is a 'crat on three wikis but, bizzarrely, not a local "developer" on any of them.

I'm not trying to make any suggestion to the effect that the devs should not be 'allowed' the technical permissions associated with these groups; indeed it would be the height of folly to suggest that of someone with root access to the servers :D. I'm concerned rather with the distinction between the technical access the groups give, and the expectations of the roles themselves. Just because Tim is a sysop on eight wikis, doesn't mean that he is 'qualified' to close XfDs or protect pages on those wikis. Brion having the 'crat flag in as many places doesn't mean it would be appropriate for him to close RfAs. Just because they have the steward flag, doesn't mean that they should be poked over trivial SUL renames. It is both 'tidier' from a technical perspective, and more transparent from a community perspective, for the developers to be "system administrators", rather than "stewards", "bureaucrats", or local "developers". I propose, therefore, that we politely ask the four developers (Brion, Tim, RobH and Kate) who have large numbers of user rights floating around, to spend a few minutes seeing which user rights they genuinely need, and which are just hangovers from situations that are no longer relevant; and ask the stewards to remove those rights that they do not have a use for.

Thoughts? Happy‐melon 23:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

Why discuss it here? Just go ahead and ask them. If they say no, we can talk about whether it is worth pressuring them to do it, but if they are happy to do so, there is no need for discussion. --Tango 12:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

I have, in as much as I e-mailed Brion a couple of days ago, but have had no response. I suppose he's a busy guy... Perhaps someone should grab him on IRC? Happy‐melon 16:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

As I recall, they've repeatedly said that they do not care if you remove their admin/crat/dev permissions. If they require them again for whatever purpose (as has indeed happened) they will simply grant it to themselves for tasks on an as-needed basis. Which is the whole point of having staff and sysadmin global groups. Just Do It.  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

Go on then :D. As and when the board confirms your nomination, of course. Congrats, by the way! Happy‐melon 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

It is good custom for developers to remove their own group rights when they do not need them. Guido den Broeder 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

Where do I file such a request? Brion has made 11 edits on Wikispecies and last edited in July 2006 but an admin & crat?! I think that qualifies for inactive user. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 05:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

Each project wanting the inactive rights removed would want to develop its own discussion on the matter. When you come to a local consensus on the matter and can point at a policy page allowing for removal of inactive rights, point the stewards at both and they'll perform the removals. Kylu 06:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

So we need to develop seven hundred and fifty separate policies to govern the rights of four users? What ludicrous bureaucracy. As Mike notes, the devs have carte blanche to do whatever they think they need to on any wiki, regardless of local policy. And remember that we're not actually removing any permissions whatsoever; being members of the global sysadmin group, any permission they need is just two clicks away. Easy come, easy go, even easier 'come again' if necessary. This is a totally different issue to removal of inactive rights in general. Happy‐melon 09:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

It is probably a good idea to create a central policy of some sort for this. I suppose if local projects want the rights removed, they can form consensus to. If they don't really care then there's not much point in it really. Majorly ^talk 13:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

No, if local projects "don't care", then they don't care; ambivalence is not the same as support for the status quo. If anything, the fact that the xx.wiki community "doesn't care" if one of its bureaucrats is removed, is evidence in support of the assertion that these rights really are useless, both to the projects and to the developers who hold them. However, I certainly think that such local communities should be given the opportunity to comment here (as should the devs themselves). I'll draw up a list of which wikis are affected, and we can make an effort to contact them about this discussion.

I'm not sure we need anything as elaborate as a full formal policy; a few words added to System administrators would probably be sufficient - that page needs overhauling anyway to focus more on how the devs' interact with Wikimedia. Happy‐melon 13:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

I'm fine with having this setup as it seems to actually make sense rather then any of the older approaches. Still retaining the ability to move into different groups when needed/appropriate seems to be all that we need. If it makes administration easier and more consistent then I'm for it. If it ends up getting in the way then we can revisit but for now it seems fine. --Tfinc 21:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

I'll just say this: my adminship on the English Wikipedia was granted by due process, long before I became a developer, due to my work on Wikipedia articles. I'm proud to have it, and hope to keep it as long as local policy will allow, whether or not I remain a developer. I'm not concerned about the rest, and don't wish to be involved in any discussions about those rights. -- Tim Starling 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for commenting, Tim, and you raise a good point, which is that not all of these flags were set in the course of the devs' work, just most of them. Upon compiling the table of flags that may be affected (there are 88 of them in total amongst seven devs!) I've also come to note that rights on fishbowl wikis and at www.mediawiki.org should be excluded. Barring those, there are flags on 74 wikis that may be affected. Happy‐melon 08:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hi, Tim thanks for commenting. What would you say about your bureaucrat right on English Wikipedia? Do you still want/need it? Majorly ^talk 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

I believe Tim's enwiki crat right was granted in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to Brion's enwiki crat right), which would indicate to me that the general rules (crat for life) apply. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Also, if someone could look into it, is enwiki en:user:Jasonr a developer? He was given adminship for technical purposes, I think relating to the April 5, 2003 server crash, but otherwise has made 4 edits ever. Admins no longer can test things (that is why we have testwiki), and if he is a dev, shouldn't his adminship be converted to some sort of SVN/testwiki access? MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

He already has an SVN account under "jasonr", it's probably fine for his adminship to be removed on the English Wikipedia — he's not active anymore, so he probably won't miss it. Cbrown1023 talk 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

OK, so I've had a request to finish this off. I think there's support to do this, so I'm looking for any further objections at this point. I'll be contacting the users shortly, in case they've got something to add. The list Happy-Melon has provided appears to be accurate. Access which should have been turned off and which is no longer required will be removed. Access which is still likely to be needed, or where the user in question was elected through the normal methods will of course be left in place. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

There seems to be no objection, other than making sure that users retain all the rights for which they were elected. Conspicuously missing from this discussion has been their steward rights. AFAIK, they should be removed (in fact, should have been removed at the time that staff and/or sysadmin status was granted - those global groups were explicitly intended to replace their steward bits).  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 18:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

For clarity, I'm planning to only remove permissions which obviously were intended to be temporary and which are no longer needed. In particular, that means I am not going to remove meta or enwiki permissions unless the community asks for that to be done (or the user, I guess).  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

(From User talk:Mike.lifeguard) As best I can determine, the rights break down as follows:

I'm not even sure if some of the fishbowl wikis at the bottom are accessible through the CentralAuth network, but they might as well be left anyway. Happy‐melon 12:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Looks to me like some of these need to be double-checked:Reply

• All the enwiki ones
• All the meta ones

Which I'll do now...  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

As well, some of these are old... All developer rights have already been removed. I imagine this is simply due to replag.  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Probably; the s3 cluster was only synced this morning, so many of these data will be from before 5 January when the s3 replication was halted. Shall I recheck the data?

With regards the meta and enwiki rights: I believe the local "steward" group is deprecated even for stewards, although there seems to be some lack of clarity here: I note that your promotion has involved you being given both the global and local "steward" flags; I'm not sure what's going on there. Checking the relevant processes on en.wiki, Kate is the only other dev to have passed a 'normal' RfA (w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kate); none of the devs have passed an RfB or AFAIK been confirmed as CU/OS by the en.wiki Arbitration Committee. On meta, Tim and Brion's flags have both been removed; see Meta:Administrators/confirm/Archives/2009-01 and Meta:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/January 2009#Brion VIBBER, leaving them only the local steward group. Happy‐melon 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

That's because they are inactive in terms of admin work on Meta-wiki. Tim and Brion gained sysop rights through other means prior to their involvement as developers. Their removal should only come about if enwiki creates a desysopping policy, and they fail to meet it. Majorly ^talk 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Tim and Kate, yes, I can't find any evidence that Brion ever gained +sysop in the 'normal' way. Happy‐melon 23:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Where's your evidence against? Majorly ^talk 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

(End from User talk:Mike.lifeguard)

There are no signatures of his on any RfA page where he could conceivably have been elected; there is no w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brion Vibber. There is no rights-log entry for him gaining adminship; so either it was directly hacked into the database tables or it was granted prior to the creation of bureaucrats in 2004. This post to wikipedia-l shows that Brion was given dev access from sometime before September 2002, and this puts a lower limit in April 2002. I have reviewed the entire archives of wikipedia-l around this period, and can find no discussion of Brion's +sysop. Either he got it when Jimbo sysopped a "bunch" of people on 26 March 2002, or it was added unilaterally at some point thereafter. Either way, there was no community discussion. Happy‐melon 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

He had no RFA, and was granted the rights very early on. The fact he had no discussion is totally irrelevant. Many admins had no/limited discussion for adminship, so why should Brion be exempt. What would be the point in removing him, considering he is active there? Majorly ^talk 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

The fact that him having the explicit sysop flat implies that he is 'only' an administrator, if anything. As noted above, it's not a question of "removing him"; that's not something we can even consider enforcing on our CTO. But it's not something I can bring myself to get particularly worked up about; it's not like this is some crusade against the devs. If anything, as I say, removing their 'normal' rights on local projects solidifies their position as having essentially carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to improve Wikimedia. Happy‐melon 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

In my view, Brion's en.wiki and eo.wiki admin rights should not be removed. If nothing else, consider the Clifford Adams precedent — that is, a user being granted +sysop on the basis of contributions to the Project. Brion has worked tirelessly for the past eight years on MediaWiki and on en.wiki and eo.wiki. The other rights, especially on wikis where he has few edits, I doubt he cares about (and in fact he has said on a number of occasions that he does). --MZMcBride 22:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

I wasn't aware that Brion was active on eo.wiki, but if it is as you say, then I certainly don't have a problem with him retaining it. Overall the principle should, IMO, be that dev rights should be removed unless the devs wish otherwise, for whatever reason; be that because they still need them for their work, or because like Tim above they have a genuine attachment to them. In neither case should we be making any attempt to 'force' the issue; that really would be playing with fire :D Happy‐melon 11:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Done  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

When I read an article like this:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

It convinces me that those who say that Wikepedia is also a biased source of information are exactly right. You may include me in the list of those who will no longer accept Wikipedia as being any more authoritative than the garbage of the New York Times.

Lifsabsurd

Wikipedia is indeed not a reliable source. But WP itself acknowledges this. Guido den Broeder 11:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Wow, you are convinced by an article that references itself several times as proof its correct. Here's a better article. Noticed how it references other sources besides itself. --MarsRover 01:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I created a PDF file from 7 pages of Wiki. But while taking printouts it showed a problem. The spaces between words is showing as a box in the printouts. Please let me know if there is any solution for this.

hi, I don't know if this is the right place, I made a translation of the main page into my native language (venetian - veneto). I put it here: Pazina prinzipal. Can someone please link this page from the english main page? thank yu very much bye bye

Hi all, I am working on a project and am using MediaWiki.

My website currently has a sidebar and header of itself, and I would like to replace the original WikiMedia sidebar and header with my own by using PHP include or something of the sort.

However, I cannot find the file to edit to replace the sidebar and header. I would like all my changes to be made on the MonoBook skin

Does anyone know in which directory the sidebar and header can be changed?

Thank you very much for your help!

You can change MediaWiki:Sidebar and relevant system messages. Good luck!--Kwj2772 (論) 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

You should also be asking this on the site about MediaWiki. They'd be more helpful than us. Cbrown1023 talk 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hello everybody,

I try to create an external page (just a search field, like the wikipeda splash screen with the search field) before the main page of wiki is entered and don't get it to work properly. I want to use some skin methods (like text(), msg(), and other methods from the wiki library but I just got half of them working. I am not shure if I instantiate them at the right time or if I miss something.

For example if i do

$skin = $wgUser->getSkin();

$skin->tooltipAndAccesskey( 'search-go' ); // --- print the 'search' label for button

works all ok.

But a

$tpl = new UcbTemplate(); // --- init skin 'ucb'

$tpl->text('searchaction'); // --- empty string

returns nothing but an empty string.

My main problem is I am not sure if I initialized everything the right why. I just want to have that splash screen dynamic and try to get all the strings from the wiki definitons just to be dynamic, so the user is able to switch languages of the splash screen and I do not have to define all these strings in that splash screen (to prevent double work). So basically I try to find a way to use the skin methods (also the inherited ones like msg, text, etc

So the initialization part of my splash screen is just the ones that is used in the index php, calling

require_once( "$preIP/includes/WebStart.php" );

require_once( "$preIP/includes/Wiki.php" );

$mediaWiki = new MediaWiki();

If I print out the $skin object to see what in there nothing is initialized, I see not the skin name 'ucb' and all that. So I think my initialization process is wrong or I am missing something. I also googled for an hour but nothing similar turns out. And first of I thought building a seperated / additional start page for wiki would be simple just putting out some strings (defined in wiki) and making that search box, maybe to integrate and outout of the newest additions in wiki. This would be alo interesting if there is a class or method where I could put out newest wiki additions.

Can anybody give me a start point where to look or how to initialze wiki or in what order I have to do the initialization part to use wiki methods? I am new to wiki and try to find out how it works but that can't be done in one day also my time is a little limited at this time.

So any help or hints are greatly appreciated. Maybe there is somebody out there that did the same thing and can drop me some science on that.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Andreas W Wylach

This project has become a reality not once but twice as a separate independent entity from Wikimedia and in both cases it has been deleted by outside sources. As in outside of the creator of the domain who both times had paid in full for the domain and server only to be nullified by the PTB even when the servers in question host adult content. Go figure that one out...

Anyhow at this point in time no Wiki containing adult material or subjects of any kind worth a damn exist anymore. That is a given. Much to the delight of of probably many here Oh well...

Hi. I did mention it at the Meta Wiki before but any discussion seems to get overidden with other discussions underneath and in the end it ends up being only two or three people commenting on it! I think that a WikiAtlas sister project would be a great idea and whereas with WikiMapia it is just a map with names, our own Atlas project could have the articles on wikipedia wiki linked on the atlas or at least a summary comes up when you hover over a place name etc so we take the maps a step further by actually providing information about these places by linking to wikipedia. Like WikiMini Atlas but obviously more professional looking maps and details, showing highways, towns and villages, evne landmarks like notable govenrment buildings and churches, airports etc with labels like wikimapia when you zoom in on them. It would also fit in with standard encyclopedias which always have a proper atlas for reference usually in the center. I just thinking that the information provided on maps should be part of our overall project goal to provide knowledge and the goal which WikiMapia is trying to achieve, "with the aim of describing the whole world" is pretty much our own philosophy within reason. I think the wiki project is large enough in scope to make it successful eventually. I know a great deal of people look for maps on the web of places for a reference but where we could differ from google and wikimapia in this respect we would have info summarised about these places too rather than just location. If given time to develop it might even help generate more traffic towards the site and project in the long term if more and more people use it for a reference when looking for maps too. I would very much like to help make something happen in this area, could you mention it to anybody on the board or suggest how we might start a fuller discussion on it? Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

If you are genuinely interested could you please mention it or suggest a way we can work towards making it happen? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Well it sounds interesting, but I don't have a clue how to go about making it happen I'm afraid. Majorly ^talk 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Is there any possibility of giving Wikimedia sites support for the https protocol? My school uses a content filter, and it's very annoying when I receive false positives on Wikipedia articles that are clearly safe. Has anyone considered it?

https://secure.wikimedia.org Happy‐melon 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

That's very useful! Thank you. 64.119.43.50 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

I'm having trouble finding information on the implementation of the notification service that generates a orange-spanned message on my current page when a new message on my talk page is saved. Any pointers would be appreciated.

I'm actually thinking about this in relation to a possible utility to generate small message flags that would appear on main pages on the border of sections that have corresponding talk_page comments (configured by the commenter to match an anchor placed on the main page section.) ----FGrose 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Try MediaWiki.org. Cbrown1023 talk 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

I was asked to try to spot copyvios on simple: where somoene copied and pasted from enwiki. The question I'm asking is what is the best method of attributing enwikipedia from simple when an article's text is taken. I'm told that Special:Import only works for articles with less then 500 revisions... so what would be the proper way for simple to attribute enwiki? Currently they are using edit summaries or the talk page to attribute the article to enwiki. This is dissimilar to what enwiki does with content taken from say w:Catholic Encyclopedia etc which is to put a template at the bottom of the article saying where they incorporated the text.

So the question is what is the proper way to attribute across wikis? I have a feeling this is something that has already been addressed somewhere but I'm not finding it. —— nix eagle 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

To be clear this question is only related to when someone copies and pastes an enwiki article into simple. How do they properly attribute the enwiki version. —— nix eagle 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

What I do to generally give attribution is that if I were to make an article from the English Wikipedia on the Simple English Wikipedia called Flame Nebula, I would put Start stub based on en:Flame Nebula in the edit summary. That is how I generally attribute across wikis. Hope this helps :). Cheers, Razor flame 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

I don't see any difference between this and the usual (encouraged) translation work across projects. We usually give simple attributions in the page history; if we want to be strict, we would provide the list of the last 5 major authors (which is observed in ja:, I think). Hypothetically, there may be copyright problems when the original article happened to be deleted. V:user:JWSchmidt has some thoughts on it in one of his wikiversity blogs. Hillgentleman 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

• Whenever I take anything from en.wiki to another wiki, I simply write "taken from permlink", pasting the permlink of the revision I harvested in the edit summary upon creation. That should allow easy backtracking for attribution. –xeno (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Why is it on topics where there is a potential for harm to the general public is there not a section that allows for common sense warning statements

I have noticed that there have been several topic pages that have had what seemed to be common sense warning statements posted that would have been good information for the general public to have in order to better protect themselves from potential harm either to themselves or those important to them.

Two examples are a common sense warning involving the potential dangers to a persons computer where P2P file sharing of any type is concerned on the "Lime Wire" page, and on an even more important level a common sense statement warning people to simply research deeper into the dangers involving the possible adverse health effects of the most common artificial sweeteners on multiple pages involving those products.

Both of these statements (which were removed in a very short time frame) were listed in the areas of the articles involving criticisms or known problems of these specific items.

It would almost seem that any article involving a potential hazard where a profit is being made by someone is being very tightly "policed" by those with a vested interest in keeping knowledge of the potential harm to the public under wraps.

I would hope that a project that puts itself out there as something intended to bring all possible knowledge into the public light for the betterment of the common man (as described by your founder in a TV spot on the "USA" Network) would zealously protect the right of the public to know all sides and would not allow information that could prevent harm to be suppressed.

If I may make a suggestion - simply put a link to a subpage or a discussion board where such public safety minded warnings/statements could be posted without the threat of being removed by someone with an agenda involving keeping information out of the public view (for example a chemical company not wanting the public to know where to look for data challenging it's own PR statements about a highly profitable product) - with a disclaimer that the statements posted are not a part of the official article but are posted responses to the article involved and that the person viewing the sub page/discussion board should use the information contained therein as a potential starting point for further research of their own.

As a matter of fact I challenge you to take this bold step in the spirit of what Wikipedia has claimed itself to be.

Thanks

Hello. Comments are welcome on the draft policy for opt-in global sysops. Please don't comment about implementation, which is entirely up to the local wikis who choose to enable them. Rather, is the policy wording adequate? Are there situations it doesn't cover, or sentences that are too vague? Do you have suggestions?

Global sysops will be live (only on wikis that decide to enable them) once the first wiki enables them. —Pathoschild 22:24:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I (homewiki: nl.wikipedia.org) don't know where to post this, so I post it here:

Since a few days it is not possible to view more than 500 edits in the Special:Recentchanges page (for resource limits?). At the Dutch wikipedia (nl.wikipedia.org) we have a vandalism system with 'patrolled versions', and have a backlog with +/- 2,000 pages. Our vandalism patrollers are now not able to patroll the oldest vandalism, from 16 march (already a week more than normal!).

It is not possible to use any other tools, only the Special:Recentchanges page were used to do this work, and external tools (such as VPopSpeed) does also not work. If there isn't soon (about 2 weeks from now) a solution to this problem, some of the vandalism will stay at our wikipedia without revert, so this problem should be taken seriously.

I have heard some wiki's also doubt with this problem, but at our system of vandalism patrolling it is now impossible to do the patrolling work as normal, we just can't do the vandalism patrolling properly and when there isn't a sollution soon, it will get really, really problematic! - Lolsimon 01:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

ps: Why isn't it possible to see the oldest edits on a way like Special:RecentChanges&days=30&hideminor=0&hidepatrolled=1&hideliu=1&hidebots=1&limit=5000&from=20090316153000&to=...? Can't the setting be reverted until this is possible, that would solve our problem and finally the resource limits problem (I have also posted it at bugzilla now, probably that is the right place and this isnt) - Lolsimon 01:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Yes, the request on bugzilla is the appropriate venue. There is nothing we can do for you, though I hope the technical team is able to find a solution to this issue ASAP.  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

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

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

After reading the NYT's piece on WP, I had a thought about a partnership that might create some interesting results. The NYT's website has that Reference Search feature where you can click on a word and be shown a brief definition of it from Answers.com. It might be worth seeing if the NYTs would integrate WP into that search so that people clicking on Hillary Clinton would be taken to our Hillary Clinton article or clicking Importance would go to our importance piece. Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 06:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hmm, that would be interesting. They would be far more likely to do this if they could link directly to a flagged rev, which is effectively what Answers provides. -- sj | help translate |+ 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I try editing the pages over there, but I can't. I get this message:
"This wiki has a problem.
Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading. (Cannot contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.0.235))".

Is anyone else experiencing that? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Yep. The devs are working on it. See http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/03/english-wikipedia-database-temporarily-down/ J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

...and it's been resolved.  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 23:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Thanks. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hello everybody.

I have the need to provide a default structure for ALL new pages that users create (better still would be to provide default content for all new pages in a specified namespace only).

Let's say I' d like to provide default sections like:

==Summary==
== Plot ==
==Characters==

For my movie Wiki, so that all users will just have to fill in the blanks.

Is it possibile?

Thx

Yes Kropotkine 113 11:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

• Simply put, you can use the <inputbox></inputbox, setting the preload=the_template_page, e.g.

Hillgentleman 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hello! I have a problem in copying some kind of templates into Turkmen wikipedia. I usually copy any template with its transcluded templates and it works. Then I localize it. However when I copied an infobox template with its transcluded templates everything was OK, but it appears on the left side and with no border lines. I guess I missed something of which I have no idea at all.

Last time I copied infobox template:Infobox Monarch from English wiki to http://tk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Monarch as it is. When I copied this template used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_I to http://tk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_I with all the transcluded templates, everything was OK. But it just appeared at the left side of the page (and without a border line). (Would you please copy that ready infobox in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_I to http://tk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_I and see what happens) Something is wrong or missing about which I have no idea. May be You can help me or direct me to someone or somewhere to ask for help. It would be much appreciated. If you can help me I will localize it as soon as possible and many more other necessary templates. Kind regards--Hanberke 12:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I think you need to add some code to your tk:user:hanberke/monobook.css (if that is for yourself) or tk:mediawiki:common.css (if that is for everyone). Hillgentleman 18:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Thanks a lot but I didn't get your answer. Would you please explain it? what is some code?! --Hanberke 04:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I was referring to the section under /* Infobox template style */. But I don't see any problem with the infobox_monarch - it looks just like one on en: and it is sitting on the right hand side. Hillgentleman 11:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong Support Support – like global blacklists very important for smaller wikis. --Melancholie 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I've made a proposal at Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Wikimedia Quality to close the Quality Wiki, comments are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Why is it that Gujarati Language is not listed in the selection box of languages? Besides, I have one question. I wrote contributed to the article Sardar Patel University on English Wiki. For that I also created the Infobox and uploaded the images to English Wikipedia. Now based on the same article, I am writing it in gu.wikipedia.org in Gujarati. Do I need to upload the images separately on gu.wikipedia.org? What is the way out if I am using the same images in English Wikipedia and Gujarati Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Dr. Dinesh Karia ^{(Talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

What selection box are you talking about? You should upload your images to Commons if they meet COM:L - then you can use them on any wiki you like without uploading them multiple times.  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I think he means the selection box on Special:Preferences. However, Gujarati is listed there under "gu" (its ISO 639 code). SPQRobin ^(inc!) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I've been looking to install the skin found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_user_styles

The one called "Black Background w/ banner, similar to game forums"

I followed the instructions, placing the CSS file in myskin, renaming to main.css, changing the localsettings, however it just wouldn't work. When I manually change my skin to the "myskin" one it doesn't have any formatting at all! I'm probably doing something very simple wrong but any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Could somebody with a trustworthy bot fix the left faulty redirects in kl.wiktionary.org like this, this or this, please. All those wrong redirects show up as redirects (i.e. in grey) in Special:Allpages but a significant number of them are still not redirecting properly. Just changing the sequence REDIRECTS [[ into REDIRECT [[ would do the trick. Thanks. --80.5.88.40 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I can do that for You, tomorrow night, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

P.S. If You happen to be Everitt, please use "move" above the page next time, because replacing the page with a redirect and copying the content to the new title is not moving the version history to the correct title. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Many thanks :) No, I am not Everitt but I'll leave them a message with that piece of advice asap --80.5.88.40 10:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Need remove all rights on Wikimedia projects of this user.

User Innv in Russian Wikipedia has checked by Wulfson and indefinitely blocked for sockpuppet abuse and block evading. This user is a virtual of russian vandal Afinogenoff, blocked in 2007 for vandalism and trolling in Arbitration pages, also vandalism and mass sockpuppeting in Wikia Projects (creating vandal puppets in ru.history (for this abuse desysopped by Wikia Staff) and mass vandalism in ru.lgbt in 2007, GFDL-copyvio in ru.history and more other abuses), and voted via some accounts on election in Russian Wikipedia.

Also this user has sysop, checkuser and oversight rights on Traditio (global blocked via Spamblacklist), where violations of these rights through, e.g. check ip-adress of Zukagoy, and use this information to compromise this account (later blocked by bureaucrat). Also in Traditio this user repeatedly unblock vandalism-only account 'Пауло Мальдини' (blocked as a virtual of Russian Wikipedia serial vandal Aureliano Buendia, indefblocked for mass vandalism and offwiki harassment (publication realname and ip-adress of User:SA Ghost)).

Per all above will be correct remove rights of this user for prevent vandalism and other abuse. This a very dangerous vandal. --85.25.71.227 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

You're going to have to log in if you want to be taken seriously.  — Mike.lifeguard  | ^@en.wb 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

OK, I signed up and log in. --Ykmol 06:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (confirmed. --85.25.71.227 06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

So, (削除) she (削除ここまで) he was blocked on Russian Wikipedia as sockpuppet. But why he should be blocked, desysoped on other projects (ru.wikisource, be.wiktionary etc.)? Did he vandal there? No. Did he abuse rights there? No. He helped small projects. He initiate enabling ProofReading, FlaggedRevs on ruwikisource etc. So, why sould he be desysoped?--Ahonc 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I will write a detailed comment in your talk page. --Ykmol 06:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

English: Wikimania 2009, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is now accepting applications for scholarships to the conference. This year's conference will be handled from August 26-28 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The scholarship can be used to help offset the costs of travel and registration. For more information, check the official information page. Please remember that the Call for Participation is still open, please submit your papers! Without submissions, Wikimania would not be nearly as fun! --Az1568 (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hey,

There have been a number of discussions on en:User talk:Jimbo Wales about the absence of Josef Fritzl's name on de:Kriminalfall von Amstetten. Concerns have been raised as to whether this constitutes censorship, something enwiki objects to, and as to whether it interferes with other wikis through using redirects as interwiki links.

The relevant discussions on enwiki are at [92], [93] and [94].

I suggested moving the discussion here as it is clear a multi-wiki problem. Computerjoe 13:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I observe many of the interwiki links are missing too on dewiki. Computerjoe 13:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Hi!

It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?

Each small Wikipedia doesn’t have all variety of policies and guidelines which major Wikipedias have, and—it’s obvious—some time or other they will need such a list of all-projects rules. What I found for now is Help:How to start a new Wikipedia with the rules of copyright, license, NPOV and "What Wikipedia is not", but this page "is obsolete or no longer maintained" (and there is even no rule of "Five pillars"). There is also page Founding principles exists, but it seems to be relevant for all Wikimedia projects, not only Wikipedias ("Five pillars", "What Wikipedia is not" are missed). There are some other pages exist, but they all are not relevant here as well.

So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?

And one more question. What is the general practice of who and how can decide whether something meets the (all-project) rules or not?

(This message was also posted to foundation-l mailing list).

zedlik 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I too am curious. Computerjoe 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I will give you a short explanation for this case from the DACH-View: Deutschland, Austria, Switzerland:

1. if someone is finally convicted, it is allowed, to tell or write his full name.
2. this case is special: the perpetrator and the victims have the same lastname.
3. the victims have a special, very strong protection. (§ 7a, MedienG, Austria, I dont want to translate it)
4. therefore, their names can ́t be written. As a respect for the victims. And the law.
5. Urban legend #1 of wikipedia: the hosting server is located in USA, therefore, everything which happens is dedicated to US-Law. Forget it, this is for idiots! Show me just one court decision xxxxxxx vs. Wikipedia Foundation! Maybe in US, but I dont believe it. But you won ́t find a decision here in D-A-CH. We have some cases, but they all ended at an early stage, because we deleted everything on the server before. These are the facts! We don ́t have a ultimate decision from an German/Austrian/Swiss supreme court. This counts, nothing else!
6. fact is, right now I get every Wikipedia-content - even now on Meta.wikipedia - from 91.198.174.2. This server is located in US? Check it by your own! Its a dutch server. And the netherlands are part of the European Union. And, de:WP is not property of the Wikipedia Foundation. We here have WP-associations, they all are subjects of law. Some people say no, some say yes. I say yes. Do we really want to be sued in a probably very sumptuous law suit to verify this? What for? Don ́t we want to write an encyclopedia?
7. last, but not least: here in D-A-CH, we have a law problem, called "Mitstörerhaftung". That means, that, even if the crime or a civil law is realised in US, there is someone in D-A-CH, who was able to prevent this. If this person tolerate this, he is in the same way accountable as the contravener itself.
8. And who is able to prevent this? Every german, swiss, austrian administrator, every buerocrat, every steward! We don ́t need guidelines for all Wikipedias, we just need simple law-knowledge and no beliefs in urban myths.
9. Dont think about the possible renaming and new identities for the victims! Nobody really knows if this still happens or will happen in the future. And nobody can prove it.
10. Rethink your personnel conception of Freedom of Speak, your freedom of opinion. But even think about, that victims have rights. And those rights are probably stronger and more important.

Good night and good luck! Pardon me for my bad english. --83.64.115.243 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

What on earth are you talking about? :D Happy‐melon 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Ask user:Computerjoe --83.64.115.243 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for explaining this. He's discussing the Fritzl case. The Dutch server does raise an interesting point (although that surely is not subject to German law either?). It seems silly that DEWiki could be penalised for using information available in many sources. But IANAL. And this debate could continue ad nauseum but I expect neither of us are likely to change our opinions.

My country too cares about the rights of the victim, as can be seen through the Baby P case. That article seems to avoid using their names, which aren't common knowledge in the UK. And it notes that English editors have to exclude the name due to a court order. In my opinion, I could legally add Fritzl's name to the article because I am surely not subject to German/Austrian/Swiss law. I do note however that that places you in an awkward position. Lots of information, though, should therefore be removed from many articles. Are you in breach of Mitstörerhaftung for not removing his name from the enwiki article? Many complex legal issues here. I understand your hesistation. Computerjoe 12:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

@computerjoe: Off course, you can do this! Without any problems because of your US-citicenship, probably! But - as I explained above - if any of the de:WP-Admins may tolerate this in the german version, he may be sued. -> Mitstörerhaftung! During the last two years, a lot of laws changed here in europe, ostensible because of child pornography - in real, they just want to change the laws because the music- and filmindustry claim it. And we all know this. This all starts at 9/11. To get a stronger position, they then try this "Mitstörerhaftung". As long as I am not an autor in this article, I don ́t have to do anything. In my opinion, - and I haven ́t have even a short inspection of these articles ;-) , I will do nothing, because I am not even a administrator. Thanks god, that I ́am an atheist, thanks god, that I don ́t have to be a sysop. I never understood, why people voluntarily want to do such an unpaid, concierge-job with no or just very little prestige. --83.64.115.243 13:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

On the Italian Wikipedia, they have included code if (top !=self) top.location='http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/wikipedia_redirect.php'; that causes you to be redirected if you attempt to view a page through a frame. This seems to be because a website http://www.wikipedia.it is attempting to frame the Italian Wikipedia. The relevant discussion is here. The problem with this solution is that it makes machine translation of it.wiki basically impossible - upon putting an it.wiki URL in google translate or babelfish, you get the redirect error and translation fails. (This can be fixed by disabling javascript in your browser, or by copy-pasting text, but this is impractical because 99.9% of readers won't know this solution exists.) I have asked at it.wiki about this, but it seems they think that it is more important to thwart wikipedia.it than to allow machine translation. (It's not so easy for me to follow the conversation because I don't speak Italian... and in any event it's tedious to translate because I can't plug the URL into Google Translate!) Is this a discussion that should be happening at it.wiki, or is this an issue for the larger meta community? Obviously my feeling is that if wikipedia.it is doing something illegal (trademark infringement) they should be stopped using legal action, and if they're not doing something illegal (i.e. following the terms of the license) then they should be allowed to continue, and that redirecting is a big problem if it prevents non-Italian speakers from accessing Italian Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 14:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

• Wikimedia Forum
• Noticeboards
• Communication
• Meta-Wiki organisation
• Multilingualism

• Pages using deprecated source tags