Community noticeboard

Rename global Interwiki administrators group to "Global Interwiki administrator"?
Currently, the global Interwiki administrators group is simply known as "Interwiki administrator". This sometimes causes confusion as in name, there's no distinction from local Interwiki administrators and global ones. A user also recently asked me about this and whether the listing on one's CentralAuth of being an "Interwiki administrator" indicated they were one globally or on one wiki so the name itself isn't the best. We make distinction between roles such as a local sysop and a Global Sysop and local rollbackers and Global Rollbackers but seemingly don't when it comes to Interwiki administrators. As such, I propose that the global Interwiki administrators group be renamed to "Global Interwiki administrator" and it's group name be changed to "global-interwiki-admin," to match other groups like Global Rollbackers (global-rollbacker), Global IP block exemption (global-ipblock-exempt) and to provide further clarity about this positons reach. What does everyone think about this? Agent Isai Talk to me! 06:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see "global" as part of the name.
 * I was wondering about that in Discord support. Until I found this post, I thought that all local Interwiki admins could do something globally.  I actually rationalized it down to that these folks were volunteers who were willing to learn to do something most wiki founders aren't quite ready to learn to do for themselves... Imamy (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would this as well, it's well within reason and makes sense to match. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 13:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible to me. --Raidarr (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This change would remove ambiguity, easy . --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Collei (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Agent Isai. --1108-Kiju /Talk 06:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * per above. by Buehl106·Talk·e-mail 06:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * --  Joseph  TB  CT  CA   14:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

How to to a complete backup
The functionality to generate a complete dump of the wiki seems to be gone. Some months ago on the special dump page I was able to create image files which had some megabytes of data. Now on the current dump page I can only create JSON and xml files, which just have a few kilobytes. (How) can I get a complete backup of my wiki? Kleinholdermann (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The XML backup is a backup of all your wiki articles. That's the format MediaWiki has always used for backups. The only option currently unavailable via DataDump is image backups but if you need one, you can file a Phabricator task. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 20:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Mediawiki Client Tools' Mediawiki Scraper Python 3 dumpgenerator script. --Rob Kam (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. Can you maybe give me a hint on what this is and how it is run? Do I have to install this on my PC or is there a way to integrate it into the miraheze wiki? Kleinholdermann (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a Python 3 script to run from the command line on your PC/Mac. Once installed it's just a single (configurable) command run it. It will dump almost any wiki, XML with/without history, images and files and a list of settings and extensions. You'll need to download the script from GitHub and install Python on your PC/Mac to run it. The instructions are at Mediawiki Scraper. Rob Kam (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I'd like to do a monthly backup of the complete wiki (i.e. with all the uploaded files in it) in order to be able to restore it completely in the case of data loss (as ist has happened recently on miraheze). Filing a task each month which will then probably be processed manually by members of the community(?) does not seem to be the correct solution to this for me. Is there any other way to achieve what I described? Kleinholdermann (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Requests on Special:DataDump are completely automated. We're working on fixing image backups and hope to have them back soon but text backups are 100% operational. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 06:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on community-run news wiki about Miraheze
Per advice from a Steward, I'm opening this discussion on the possibility of a community-run news wiki about news involving Miraheze. The proposed wiki would include news involving Miraheze as a whole and major Miraheze-hosted wikis, with policies on writing articles in a NPOV and including references if required, so as to not violate the Content Policy. The wiki request for the proposed wiki is here if you'd like more information about it.

Below are sections for voting (support if you like the idea, oppose if you don't like it, and Abstain if you're undecided/neutral). Tali64³ (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) as proposer. Tali64³ (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I see nothing wrong with it, although I'm not sure if this needs a vote regardless, as it isn't an official project. Collei (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) I suppose? I don’t see an issue. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 00:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) An interesting concept. I think we should let it play out, see if administration is good there first, and if there are any issues that arise from it, have Stewards investigate and take further action as necessary. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 01:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This wiki running smoothly just has way too many ifs attached to it for me to feel comfortable supporting this idea. I wouldn't trust Stewards, let alone everyday users, to correctly determine if a particular case of user/wiki drama is news-worthy, cover it in a neutral fashion and source it properly. And that's without taking into account that even if all of the above are accomplished, there's still a good chance that making said drama better known only serves to exacerbate it. I don't want to be a Miraheze user in the timeline where this wiki gets accepted, becomes popular and suddenly you have a bunch of toxic users from up-to-now mostly self-contained wikis/communities jumping from one drama bandwagon to the next. - CabraComunista (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Another wiki creator expressed their concern about articles covering drama, and I decided to disallow it indefinitely if the wiki is created. However, that wouldn't preclude a community vote to allow neutrally-written articles on wiki drama in the future, if there is a demand for it. If articles about drama were to be allowed for whatever reason, there would obviously be rules preventing drama from speading to the wiki. Tali64³ (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per above
 * 2)   While I think such a concept could work, after thinking on it a bit longer I perceive a great risk for magnification of a particular on-wiki drama by well-meaning contributors with insufficient judgement -- the risks of amplifying problematic behavior and inspiring bad behavior "to make the news" outweigh the benefits.  As the original party involved with the request, consider this vote struck if it would be a deciding vote in the negative --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With a news wiki focusing on Miraheze wikis/users, that is something to be concerned about. However, it's less of an issue with a news site with articles being edited by anyone, since for example, if a user were to find a poorly-written news page with incorrect information and bias, they could correct it themselves instead of asking the author to do so, as the author may not be willing to rewrite their article. If it were a typical news site with a group of editors, then there is a greater chance of bias, since there are less editors. Additionally, there would be rules in place that would prevent users from writing articles about conflicts they're involved in or related to in some way, to reduce bias and drama even further. Tali64³ (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

 * I agree with this and think very nice idea.I also think users can notice miraheze news on even meta, so seems not needed. by Buehl106 ·Talk·e-mail 00:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposal sounds as though the wiki would assemble news from actual news media covering Miraheze. That sounds like a modest and sensible bit of self-promotion, which would, over time, help Miraheze justify having a page at Wikipedia.  On the other hand, the objections sound as though the wiki would include insider news on individual wikis, written by the participants, which might veer into drama (and would fortify Wikipedia's view that this is a private club that doesn't deserve an entry).  It is hard to write about drama neutrally, and it is very hard for those mentioned to agree that it was written neutrally.   00:50 4-Mar-2023 00:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The news wiki would cover news concerning Miraheze as a whole or major wikis (which may or may not include news media covering Miraheze). There is a valid concern that insider news written by participants of a certain wiki might veer into drama; however, the benefit of having news articles be editable by anyone ensures a neutral point of view.
 * There are arguments against your statement that insider news "would fortify Wikipedia's view that this is a private club that doesn't deserve an entry"; for example, several drama pits, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica (which is entirely based on drama) have pages on Wikipedia. In contrast, Miraheze doesn't have a page there because it's not considered notable enough for inclusion. Tali64³ (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm paraphrasing "Wikipedia's view", but their standard of notability rests on mention by established news media. The Wikipedia article on ED has 86 footnotes, some of them from established sources.  Some of the news articles document efforts by independent services such as Google to restrict access to ED.  That's notable.  It would not prove anything that Wikipedia didn't apply its principles consistently or that ED is not as useful a website as Miraheze; ED got more notable by practicing "racism".  If our proposed wiki assembled independent mentions of Miraheze, it would help prove notability.  On the other hand, being open for editing by many people does not ensure neutrality.   18:40 4-Mar-2023 18:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments
I have certain questions to help determine the feasibility of this idea: I could see other issues being dealt with as the wiki moves along, but these two stand out to me as fundamental issues in a wiki that wishes to cover a global aspect of Miraheze. --Raidarr (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you see the wiki being administered, as a global 'sattelite project' in the vein of Dev, Commons and Test wiki, while avoiding their problems (ie, a largely inactive administration)?
 * 2) How would you reconcile the scope of this wiki with this rfc closure, which reiterates the not-quite-official nature and sanction of wikis like the ones listed above?


 * The wiki would be community-run and would not be officially endorsed or sponsored by Miraheze. However, if any Stewards/Global Sysops expressed interest in contributing, they'd be free to do so.
 * Per above, there would be a notice stating that the wiki isn't officially endorsed/sponsored by Miraheze.
 * Tali64³ (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Having thought of this some more, I believe that this concept should be downscaled to a community initiative operating on Meta. This could be realized through a handful of volunteers who produce a monthly summary of what's going on and what's new for the platform and prominent or up-and-coming wikis. This could be organized through a central page (with project discussion on its talk page) and dated subpages for each issue which could be advertised on Discord, the Community Noticeboard and if it goes well, perhaps the main page (with admin collaboration and after community feedback on the project). The central page can explain what's up, what the standards are (say notability: not advertising literally any wiki that has just been approved but with a substantive bar for changes worth checking out), and have a section to suggest items for the next entry. It would be produced from a core group of volunteers who'd of course be open to submissions and feedback or taking on fellow organizers as needed. This would satisfy the interest in covering Miraheze news and I think the volume would fit one nicely made page per month just fine (or another interval as possible/practical). It would avoid the raw volume and likely issues of a full-fledged wiki on the subject, and it would be a chance to demonstrate the concept. If it's apparent that a full wiki is needed to further realize it, the topic can be revisited with that experience so the current skepticism can be cut through. This is something I'd personally support and even be willing to help produce. If successful I'd say it should be the point where the current Gazetteer of wikis is retired as obsolete, as we'd then have a responsive list of everything via WikiDiscover plus an actively curated highlights feature for the community. --Raidarr (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the indecisive conclusion on this subject and the stalling of discussion I'd suggest moving forward with this path or something like it. --Raidarr (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a very early draft of MCN: User:Tali64³/Miraheze Community News. Is there anything you'd like to suggest? Tali64³ (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would develop it by having a set of guidelines; what's appropriate, the boundaries and so forth. Something for notability perhaps. It would be good to collaborate how to fill each section and perhaps have a summary publication of what made news and what gets spotlight (ie, the monthly thing). That's something which could wrap in as well if we want to discuss it here, the draft's talk page or even through discord. --Raidarr (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Slideshow (Wiki Coding)
Hey, I am trying to make a slideshow on the Main Page for quick Admin access. I tried Copy/Pasting the code from another wiki, that I got the idea from, but it doesn't work. Could I have proper coding to make it a slideshow? Thanks! Slideshow page I would like it to be on Slideshow code I tried and got idea from 《Commetian_Empire》 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like you don't have the Javascript Slideshow extension enabled on your wiki. Enabling that should fix it. Tali64³ (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I got it to work, fixing that! 《Commetian_Empire》 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I have briefly returned
Yes, I am back and have matured significantly. I am now in university however (will not say which one) so I will have some time constraints.

I now have an alternate account that is only intended for use on the Polandball Wiki.

Also, I'm not sure if this is a topic to talk about, but I think it might help in some way. I am a Christian who, fortunately, does believe in rational things while staying true to Biblical doctrine (I now have doubts about young-earth creationism). (One of my affiliated church communities) I do not intend to force my beliefs on others; neither am I extremist or believe in irrational and dangerous things, unlike many fanatics who sadly taint my beliefs by taking up our name. Sadly, however, I was swayed by them in a period from 2019 to 2021. It was only recently that I recognized that some "Christians" are pushing unbiblical and irrational doctrines that are downright dangerous, so I think it might be a good idea that these be blacklisted throughout Miraheze to make this a safer community. Upon request, I can give examples of dangerous extremist sites to blacklist.

Thanks and God Bless Joey717 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (Joseph D. Pelobello)


 * That's nice and all, but why is this on the community noticeboard? Collei (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You do not intend to force your beliefs on others but you want to have beliefs you don't like blocked from the platform. You will need some thorough examples connected to actual policy for that statement to sound good. The rest is not topical to this board. --Raidarr (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't want to block Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, neo-Pagans, etc. of course; I was just talking about extremism and disinformation.
 * Joey717 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm not sure if this is a topic to talk about" here, I'll help you out: it's really not. Good for you on your personal journey, maybe go read some Dumbing of Age to see how Joyce you are. Calling for religious-based censorship unprompted is a bad look. Miraheze has policies for extremist content and hate speech already, we don't need to make this a Crusade. Chantolove (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we should end it at that. I don't want to be misinterpreted, I only wanted to ban extremism and hate speech. Thanks for the advice! Joey717 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Extremism and hate speech are already banned, both by UK law and Miraheze policies. Collei (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think merely being an extremist is illegal in the UK. It's also a very broad term that could be easily misinterpreted, or used maliciously. I don't know of any Miraheze policies that prohibit "extremism" either. Bbbtest (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The UK does not have the same level of free speech as the US. Hate speech (,, etc.) is illegal in the UK. Collei (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. I will note that this conversation, given the sensitive nature of the topic, could easily probe the waters of GCP violations, and VCP for some involved. It hasn't yet, but just something to keep in mind because of the topic at hand. Reminder to keep everything respectful, even if we don't necessarily agree with another user's point of view.
 * 2. Extremism is banned by the UK in some cases, not all. But hate speech would likely violate Articles III, V, or VII anyway, so likely not a problem Content Policy-wise. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I already know that hate speech is illegal in the UK. Extremism is banned by the UK in some cases, not all. Which cases? (Thanks)
 * P.S. I replied to you on freeeditingwiki if you weren't aware. Not sure if you received my reply, as Miraheze - unlike Wikimedia - does not appear to give cross-wiki pings. :) Bbbtest (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cross-wiki pinging must be enabled by users in their own preferences. --Raidarr (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh. Doing that now. Thanks. Bbbtest (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note that for Collei to receive it cross-wiki he also needs to have it enabled. I think it is good for anyone to have enabled though, and perhaps it should be better advertised or even a default... --Raidarr (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would most definitely endorse it as the default. Can I start a phab task? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail | please vote on my adminship ) 14:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know the consequences and arguments/counterarguments that might appear but it's probably worth discussing. --Raidarr (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, can I phab it or not? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail | please vote on my adminship ) 15:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Up to you. I don't see why you can't. --Raidarr (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Feel free to endorse it here. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail | please vote on my adminship ) 15:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that depends what you mean by extremism. Violent and hateful extremism is banned in the UK. Collei (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * By that. do meaning that acting on said extremism is illegal? Or merely holding those beliefs? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail | please vote on my adminship ) 19:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Acting on it Collei (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that would mean that extremism isn't illegal. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail | please vote on my adminship ) 21:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some examples of extremism? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 06:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What the hell did I just walk myself into? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it was necessary to 'walk the hell into it' with nothing to add to it, quite frankly. --Raidarr (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it was necessary to 'walk the hell into it' with nothing to add to it, quite frankly. --Raidarr (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Twitter tag extension isn't working?
Hello everybody. It's my first message in this community noticeboard. First, thank you for Miraheze, it's the best wiki hosting I know.

I am trying to use Twitter tag extension. I enabled it yesterday, but it doesn't show the timeline, just a link to Twitter. Am i doing something wrong or it's broken?

Thanks. Emijrp (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems to be working now, try again  20:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

interwiki for 2 wikis





 * working on this now
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There's an extra space at the end of  URL. Ora &#38; D (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I tried to be extra judicious about removing those this time after the last batch I did for one of your requests. I didn't see it when going into edit so I just did a removal and re-add.  Can you test again and confirm if it's fixed? --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's easy to miss. All good now! Ora &#38; D (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't actively add trailing spaces just to trick unsuspicious interwiki admins. Ora &#38; D (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh 100%, not implied as such. It's a vestige of copy-paste from tables, but easier to sneak through on right-to-left language pages since the cursor doesn't always behave consistently in trying to find them depending on how the browser's feeling at any given moment. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 20:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, you guys actually enter local wikis, type, and locally edit their interwiki entries? I assumed there was some kind of global interface. Ora &#38; D (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup! Some stuff can be done through global pages on Meta, local interwikis aren't one of those things.  That can pose some unique challenges at times. :) --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 01:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * RTL wikis must look upside down. Is 'no' the default option (forward & transclude)? Ora &#38; D (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's correct, it flips around the location of a few interactable items, but defaults remain the same. Forward & Transclude are still default no and must be intentionally opted in.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Very unusual issue on my wiki
When I ping more than 33 users, the page containing the ping is added to the Category "Pages with too many expensive parser function calls" I don't know why is happens, but the ping still seems to work. Example: https://freeediting.miraheze.org/wiki/Template:Ping/2/sandbox Bbbtest (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I doubt the feature was intended to support such aggressive pinging and it probably overloaded whatever it's using to make the calls. SRE could probably enlighten on this one, but it would probably be a low priority to address or fix. Flow and related features can be a bit delicate. In the meantime I'd avoid distributing so many pings and finding a more efficient way to mass notify; if you need that many people then for example a sitenotice is probably appropriate. --Raidarr (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't need to mass message. It just showed up when I was testing my ping template implementation and I was curious to why. Bbbtest (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a default upper limit of either 50 or 100 expensive calls when parsing a page, as I recall. I don't recall how many a single ping uses up, but probably more than 1 if you're hitting the limit w/ 33 pings and nothing else going on on the page. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look here: https://freeediting.miraheze.org/wiki/Template:Ping/2/sandbox Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail | please vote on my adminship ) 15:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Content Policy Amendment - Derogatory Language
Given recent gaps identified in community understanding of content policy 3 (unsubstantiated insult/hate/rumors), I am proposing the following changes to clarify intent and permissibility of certain types of derogatory language that have proliferated on the platform.

Proposals here should be read as only impacting article content, not amending or superceding any of the Conduct Policies (Global, Volunteer, MSCoC), which apply to talk pages and other modes of user-to-user interaction.

Upon consultation with stewards, given single-issue scope of changes and intent as a policy clarification via amendment, this vote is being launched as a CN Feedback Request instead of a RfC post per RfC Policy.

Initiated By: NotAracham (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Amend Content Policy 3)
Add the following bolded clause to the end of Content Policy 3, changing reading to:

''Content on wikis must be fairly balanced, meaningful or substantiated by independent referencing. Wikis which have a clearly identifiable comedic or satire value are exempt from needing to substantiate claims as these provide a meaningful value in terms of relevant content.'' Exceptions for comedy/satire do not cover derogatory language based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, age, disability, or other marginalised groups.

Rationale
The comedy/satire exception today is being widely abused as rationale for 'racism/sexism/bigotry is okay if it's a joke' by individuals with a variety of goals/ambitions, and is without fail a step towards larger policy violations under CP3 (unsubstantiated hate/insults), CP5 (toxic communities) and CP10 (Making problems for other wikis).

Factors listed are intentionally duplicative of those listed and approved by the community in Content Policy 7 to avoid inter-clause reliance

While Stewards generally will act on these instances when found, the reputational damage for allowing unchecked behavior of this kind is sufficient to merit closing this perceived loophole in my opinion.

Support

 * 1) as proposer. --NotAracham (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree. --1108-Kiju /Talk  01:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation is clarified, as it could easily abused. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail | please vote on my adminship ) 22:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Definitely reasonable. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts about my above concerns? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 01:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not really sure how it would be abused. Could you provide an example? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See the 'Comments' section for a simple example. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 02:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  Parody must not be used as a "loophole" that would allow a person to circumvent the policy by claiming everything is "parody". --DeeM28 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) As this proposal applies only to content policy, this change would not govern or impact re-appropriative use of derogatory terms in person-to-person interactions, Conduct policy would supercede in these cases. --NotAracham (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) marginalized? I don't why that's necessary. It could also easily be abused. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail | please vote on my adminship ) 22:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The language was selected to explicitly mirror current community-approved language in Content Policy clause 7, as this wording was already approved and doesn't need to go through full RfC. Agreed though that there is room for improvement/clarification.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 00:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What about "gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation"? Couldn't that easily be abused? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 01:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth remembering that the assessing and enforcing party in these instances will generally be stewards, who have already demonstrated a high level of fairness, sound judgement and community trust in securing and retaining their role.
 * If local leadership is abusing this wording in the other direction (e.g. a malicious actor trying use this as cover to purge any mention of non white/cisgender/heterosexual individuals), that would not go well for them.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 01:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that stewards would enforce it fairly, but different users may come to have different interpretations of the same rules if they are unclear. Example: A user with creationist views may think that content against such views would violate these policies. And they very well may be right, if the rules are not clear. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 01:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While I hear your concerns, this is a hypothetical that hasn't played out for the duration of the language above existing in CP7.
 * Updating the already-approved language would be out of scope for this FR as it would shift this from being a single-issue proposal (and would likely need to go through a proper RfC as it goes beyond minor clarification.)
 * I would likely support that clarification if proposed, though. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 01:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have thought of a way to clarify it, but the explanation is pretty long, so reply if your interested. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 19:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Amend Content Policy 7)
Add the following bolded clause to the end of Content Policy 7, changing reading to:

''7. Miraheze does not host wikis that promote violence, hatred, or harassment against a person or group of people. This include wikis which promote violence or hatred against people or groups of people based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, age, disability, or other marginalised groups. Derogatory language based on these factors is not allowed except when relevant to documenting an event, e.g. controversy about the inclusion of derogatory terms in a book. ''

Rationale
While CP3 is intended to cover these sorts of instances, an explicit declaration of intent in CP7 will hopefully cut down on proliferation of bad actors operating under the protections of 'comedy/satire'.

While Stewards generally will act on hateful instances when found, setting a global baseline is healthy for Miraheze in the long-term.

Support

 * 1) as proposer. --NotAracham (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) It is a reasonable proposal. --1108-Kiju /Talk  01:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail | please vote on my adminship ) 22:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Per above. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) As this proposal applies only to content policy, this change would not govern or impact re-appropriative use of derogatory terms in person-to-person interactions, Conduct policy would supercede in these cases. --NotAracham (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) NotAracham What do you consider to be included in the definition "documenting an event" and what would not qualify under this provision? And additionally does this provision only include the use of specific terms or would it include a general view being expressed? --DeeM28 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My general framing intent on this is 'If the term or language is meaningfully relevant to necessary context within an article'. The use of the phrase derogatory language is intentional to cover more than specific terms. Describing someone's bigotry would not be a violation, but bigoted speech would be a violation.
 * E.g. writing an article about antisemitism or an anti-semitic event doesn't give a free pass for use of anti-semitic language throughout the article, while an article about a Roald Dahl book getting edited due to specific use of the N word or similar may require the term (or terms) to be listed for full context. Similarly, it doesn't give a free pass to use bigoted language throughout the article.
 * Determining what's in or out of bounds is a mess to codify systematically, but as stewards are the intended enforcement mechanism for this provision, some leeway is given to their discretion in the matter on what does or does not qualify.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Co-founding a wiki
Is it possible for multiple users to found a wiki? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 00:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Being a wiki founder doesn't really mean anything. The 'founder' group doesn't exist on wiki, the highest you can go is bureaucrat. If you want another user to have as many rights as you, just promote them to bureaucrat. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What I meant was if more than one user can co-create a wiki. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 01:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The CreateWiki system only supports a request from a single user account. That user account is free to grant bureaucrat and administrator roles to anyone else following creation, that essentially gives the follow-on users equal standing to make requests on behalf of the wiki.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 01:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * From the social perspective of 'can two users come up with, design and administer a wiki together' absolutely. It's just that one of them needs to put in the request and give the other equal rights upon creation. --Raidarr (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, can you close this discussion now? I can't seem to find the template to do so? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 01:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are some discussion templates to do it but we tend not to close it outright unless absolutely necessary or it is a formal one ie, an FR or an RFC. --Raidarr (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Anchor
I'm trying to insert an anchor into the page: , but the anchor is not added, but a link to the template appears. With what it can be connected? Wiki: ovik.miraheze.org Dimok911 (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you make a demo of the issue in English so I can help? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 19:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbbtest I switched the wiki interface to English and recorded a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC793Gb5CSs . Address of the created test page: https://ovik.miraheze.org/wiki/Test Dimok911 (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is currently no content on the Template:Anchor page, hence why it is forming a redlink. Templates are logic written in wikitext that perform tasks, without code on the template page nothing happens.
 * It looks like you attempted to load the template itself a few times from another source (maybe wikipedia?) and deleted it a few times, if you didn't see a change after doing so you can always use the 'purge' action on the page where you're seeing the error to force the server to re-parse the page.
 * This version of Anchor from mediawiki looks like it might meet your needs, but do be aware it also requires you to import Module:Loops and Module:TableTools.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * NotArachamThanks for the answer! I found the Anchor template without using the module:https://ru.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD:Anchor&action=edit and it worked!
 * I also wanted to clarify, if I want to add modules, then I need to make a page, for example, Module:Loops, as well as when adding a template, and add code to it already? No additional steps are required when adding a module? Dimok911 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, pages created in the Module: namespace work like templates, e.g. copy the source code from a module on another wiki, create a page on your wiki by the same name like Module:Example, paste in the code, and save.
 * The only big difference is that Modules use Lua code instead of wikitext to function. If it's not properly formatting as code and instead looks like a generic article when saved, you may on rare occasions need to use the Special:ChangeContentModel page to change the content model of the module page from generic text to Scribunto (how wikis parse Lua).
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To ping a user, you need to . Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 07:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Site question
Any news on the status of the Drawn Feet wiki site? I miss being a member on it. --Spare-tire (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Those working to resolve the issues of the wiki were unable to do so within allotted time, this wiki is now permanently closed.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Changing username
How do you change it? 12.202.154.138 03:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Login to your account and click here. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 06:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for feedback: Donor global group
Hi everyone!

SRE is seeking your input on a potential new global group. As part of our annual fundraiser, we are seeking to create more ways to entice users to donate. One such way would be to provide visible identification that a user donates. On Discord, this is planned via a new "Donor" role. On-wiki, we are seeking to create a new "Donor" global group which would identify a user as a donor.

The group itself would grant no extra privileges and the only right in the group (a minimum of one right is needed for a global group to exist) would be a very miniscule right that's already included by default to all users (such as editmywatchlist or oathauth-enable). Having this global group would not entitle any user to preferential treatment or priority, it would only be an on-wiki indicator that a user has donated to Miraheze and an incentive to do so. The group would be grantable by Stewards primarily (or system administrators if Stewards are unavailable) and group membership would be at the discretion of the organizer of the fundraiser who will request users be added or removed from the group, in order to ensure upkeep of the group.

Interestingly, the 'donator' global group was actually the first global group to ever be created on Miraheze (yes, it precedes the sysadmin and steward global groups!) and was the 10th log action on Meta and the first global group appointment ever was QuimGuil being promoted to donator (which was also the 11th Meta log action). From what I'm told, the group was removed as no one oversaw its upkeep and maintained it up to date with actual current donors. This new global group, via it's guidelines, would periodically remove older donors who haven't donated in a while (say, over a year) to further encourage users to donate. Please let us know what you think. Thank you! Agent Isai Talk to me! 03:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Donations are inherently a way to donate. Recognition on the page is enough and we certainly do not need a group of that kind. Also a group that has no permissions is pointless on its own, groups are not supposed to be badges. Naleksuh (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't support the idea of the role existing just to exist, but if it's a means to try and up the donation count, then I would support it. Miraheze is very thinly spread in terms of resources, and any additional $ helps, no matter the amount. That being said, I would like to see some minimum donations in order to get the role (ie. $5/month or something), but otherwise this seems fine to me. Again, though, only as a means to up the donation count. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 04:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's also turn their name giant purple if they donate! That'll really up the count! Naleksuh 04:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want, we can look into making this a possibility. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 06:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would view this as a 'membership' badge, which I don't think is inherently a bad thing, even if those with giant purple names disagree. While it might be a bit of extra administrative work to manage a '2023 supporter' list for discord and/or meta or global wiki-users, I suspect it would be worthwhile to pilot as an inexpensive way to drum up additional support in a time when we need it more than ever.


 * At bare minimum, it raises visibility to Miraheze being powered by donations and interest in 'how'd you get that cool discord role?'


 * Agreed that a minimum (e.g. 5 or 10 USD) should be established as a prerequisite if this moves forward.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 04:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not really sure I see the benefit to having a global group over simply overhauling Finance or creating a new page to track and spotlight donors. The main reason I think this is because there's practically nothing in stock MediaWiki that shows of global group membership like a badge. (We could create a gadget to add in a badge or something, but it would be more stable to not use global group membership for this purpose). Unless the donation group actually is going to be used for more than just a badge of honor, I think we're better off with a "Special thanks" type page. -- Void  Whispers 04:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It shows up on Special:CentralAuth, that's where it's most prominent and the intent was for it to show up there specifically so users browsing CentralAuth see it. Anyhow though, I will take into consideration potentially adding a special thanks section to Fundraiser and asking Owen if it's acceptable to add such a section to Finance. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a userbox for people who have donated? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 07:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

sibebar help ?
Can someone help me modify sidebar on this wiki? https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar

Marieke Timelab (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * also interested in this! ZBlace (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what your specific question/challenge is you want to solve. Here's MediaWiki's documentation on how to customize the sidebar, if you have a more specific question we're happy to help...
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can see the source of Sidebar page *https://timelab.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&action=edit, then you can also see it is not interpreted/used in Sidebar menu at all, as if there is override with defaults..is that not problematic? --18:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, it appears that there was a bad cached version of the page. I used the More >> Purge action to force a re-render and your sidebar changes now show up. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @NotAracham thank you!
 * @Marieke Timelab any other help needed? ZBlace (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @NotAracham are you sure it was cache issue? I tried purging it also but now did not get newest version :-(
 * -- ZBlace (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Bar contents are appearing, there are just issues with the source code as entered today. See attached screenshot, one of the issues is that they're trying to use inline links for partial text with  and , while MediaWiki only supports exact_pagename|text_to_display without brackets for the sidebar, to my understanding.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I added code for you and @Marieke Timelab to test out for the sidebar, you can find it on:
 * https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar
 * It worked flawlessly on my personal instance, hope it helps! Cheers, --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Example Shot Of Sidebar.png


 * navigation
 * Commoning Art Practice
 * Reshaping Production
 * https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotfactory|Knotfactory
 * https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotplex|Knotplex
 * https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotpot|Knotpot

Using Meta as a comparison
 * navigation
 * mainpage|mainpage-description
 * recentchanges-url|recentchanges
 * randompage-url|randompage
 * Requests
 * Special:RequestWiki|miraheze-requestwiki
 * Special:RequestImportDump|requestimportdump
 * Special:MyLanguage/Request features|miraheze-requestfeatures
 * Requests for reopening wikis|Request to reopen a wiki
 * Requests for Comment|Requests for Comment
 * Noticeboards
 * Community noticeboard|Community noticeboard
 * Stewards' noticeboard|Stewards' noticeboard
 * Meta:Administrators' noticeboard|Meta Administrators' noticeboard
 * Meta:Community portal|Meta Community portal
 * Miraheze
 * Special:MyLanguage/Help center|aboutsite
 * Special:WikiDiscover|Discover wikis
 * Special:MyLanguage/FAQ|faq
 * Donate
 * Donate|miraheze-donate
 * SEARCH
 * TOOLBOX
 * LANGUAGES

Help with Infobox:country
Hello! I need help with formatting for my infobox. I assume that I have most extensions, Modules, and Templates needed to make this work but the infobox still isn't formatting like a normal one should. If someone knows what the problem is, please help!

(Page in question: https://landar.miraheze.org/wiki/Kh%C3%BBldran_Empire) Flaming (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I will be looking into this. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 23:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you give me admin access to your wiki to assist you? (Since your wiki only permits sysops to edit.) Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 23:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Granted. Thank you for the help! --Flaming (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 03:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --Flaming (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle rollback does not work
When I try to rollback using Twinkle, it just redirects me to the page I am trying to revert + "&twinklerevert=norm" and does not actually revert the edit(s). Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 06:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a limit for the number of wikis one can own?
Title explains it all. Patitocafe (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no limit to how many wikis you can own, but your requests may be declined if you make too many in a short period of time. Tali64³ (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Patitocafe (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Universal Omega's Request for IRC Group Contact
Hello, this is highly unorthodox and unprecedented request. I am not 100% sure if this is even how to go about it. However, I have decided to make this request (which may or may not be advisory-only to existing group contacts) to be an IRC Group Contact. My reason for this request is that currently there is only a single group contact on IRC. This means that when that one group contact is away there is no one else to handle requests. And ideally in order to balance things out, there should be more than one group contact, if not just to have a fallback to handle things requiring the attention of a group contact. Therefore, I am now making this request, and requesting confirmation from the community for the position as IRC Group Contact. Thank you! Universal Omega (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * 1) Below in MacFan's oppose section he said, "A private discussion between Miraheze staff members", do you feel private discussions should be a preliminary aspect of starting community discussions like this? It's interesting that 3 requests have come at once following a discussion that is not public and involving 2 groups labelled as staff when neither are Board appointed? Miraheze has had a long history of having a closed 'old boys' style club where decisions were made in private involving groups that either a) shouldn't be discussing community affecting things privately (stewards) or b) shouldn't be having a major influence on community aspects by definition (SRE). I find it slightly concerning that this line of proposals is coming out of re-igniting such a private and exclusive club. John (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No extensive conversation took place. I had voiced my intent to make this request, which I always wanted to be a community and not internal decision, or at least an "advisory" aspect on the decision of this. I then privately talked it over with Reception123, to make sure they were also okay with me nominating them for it, as I felt we needed at least two fairly active members of IRC as additional GCs. MacFan4000 and I had only briefly discussed in a PM. And in another conversation, it was voiced between a few users that there was a need, which is why I made this request.
 * I made this request before any other requests, or even voiced intents to make such request was even mentioned from other users. I believe that the community should have an opinion on the matter, which is why I made this, rather than requesting directly to you, or requesting it be inherited from any other position.
 * The "private" conversation that took place, should not have been said "staff" as was described above, but an unofficial group, that this was discussed on. Calling it "staff" decision or discussion was wrong, and the whole scope of the conversation was that it would be good to expand on the GCs, for numerous reasons, as I outlined in this request.
 * The last thing I would note, is the "private" conversation mentioned, was not even only SRE, or Stewards, but other users were also. It was never in an NDA channel, or any channel officially sanctioned by Miraheze, but a private discussion between the more trusted and active users. It was not necessarily a "sensitive" discussion, and the conversation was not meant to make a "decision" on the matter.
 * At least for me, the point of this request, while having no precedent for this exact request, was to in fact involve the community in the decision and discussion revolving around it. This for me was meant to take it out of just private areas into a place where the community could voice their opinion on it as well. Universal Omega (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the purpose of the channel has been further clarified to not include private/sensitive discussions, why does it exist only to include 'active and trusted' users if the discussions can be public? John (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) What steps would you take to ensure the community remains uninfluenced by such private and closed venues where the community can not suitably or appropriately assess need, necessity or content of such non-sensitive discussions? John (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I kinda answered this question above as well. I think there might have been a misunderstanding on the scope of the discussion that took place, it was not a long discussion, this post (and the ones that followed) are the majority of any discussion that took place prior to the request. Once the discussion was started it took place here, openly to the community. That is the majority of any discussion to have taken place, other then some passive mentioning that additional GCs might not hurt for various reasons (which I do admit I brought up), and potentially expanding them might be needed. But overall, it was not meant to be a solely private, secret, or hidden conversation at all, which was the point of this request, and my nomination for Reception123 below as well. Universal Omega (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion wouldn't have been the first one to have been had in a secretive venue though - so I would like a more broad answer over what steps you'd take to ensure such venues don't continue to be a source of where discussions can be had in private only privy to those allowed, rather than the whole community who should be engaged in them? John (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is fair. I do admit that this probably should never have even made its way into that channel. The conversations to usually take place there are related to some moderation, off-topic, and just random conversations. It's purpose is more inline of a group DM then an actual channel, but the channel is used on IRC to relay from Discord. It has had a place on Discord for years, as just a random conversation between a few users, that I do admit these type of conversations should not take place on. But it has only existed on IRC and relayed for about a day, it was never intended to have conversations that impact the community there, but sometimes things can veer off-course into foggy grounds in the matter. Though nothing ever NDA bound is discussed there. It's purpose has always been, on Discord anyway, as a group DM chat for users to ask others questions, have advisory for some things, or just discuss random things. The conversation that took place yesterday was fairly rare in the scope of it and we typically try to avoid such conversations.
 * I think this also answers your above question as well. I do agree with your point that most conversations should take place public, especially like these. But I don't agree that nothing can ever be private, there is a use-case for some private personal conversations (including between non-NDA users) that do take place, which is why that channel exists.. however, it should be noted that conversations such as these should not take place there in the future. Universal Omega (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) No problems. Though, I don't think Libera Chat reads RfCs, John can certainly ask for it if this is successful Naleksuh (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  CosmicAlpha can be the fully active group contact, since John is in and out. Trusted, not a problem. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  This is okay. --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   06:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  No issues with this request.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 12:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  This is a minimal-effort role that also requires a trusted user that is also an IRC regular.  CosmicAlpha (along with the other two proposed users) will give us an active presence and allow for normal maintenance/continuity of operations --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Reception123's Nomination for IRC Group Contact
Mostly for the same reason as my request above, for the reason of balancing things out on IRC as group contacts. I believe Reception123 would be great addition to that as well, as they are very active on IRC, and responsive to requests. It would make sense to have more than just one additional Group Contact as well. For that reason I nominate Reception123 for it as well. Universal Omega (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Universal Omega. I accept the nomination. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * 1) Below in MacFan's oppose section he said, "A private discussion between Miraheze staff members", do you feel private discussions should be a preliminary aspect of starting community discussions like this? It's interesting that 3 requests have come at once following a discussion that is not public and involving 2 groups labelled as staff when neither are Board appointed? Miraheze has had a long history of having a closed 'old boys' style club where decisions were made in private involving groups that either a) shouldn't be discussing community affecting things privately (stewards) or b) shouldn't be having a major influence on community aspects by definition (SRE). I find it slightly concerning that this line of proposals is coming out of re-igniting such a private and exclusive club. John (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) What steps would you take to ensure the community remains uninfluenced by such private and closed venues where the community can not suitably or appropriately assess need, necessity or content of such non-sensitive discussions? John (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Per nomination Universal Omega (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my above rationale. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 06:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about this, but he seems like a decent guy. If you disagree, I am free to change my vote if I find your argument compelling. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 06:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) per above. by Buehl106·Talk·e-mail 06:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Reception123 is a very trusted user and I don't see any issues with this request. I'm not worried about them becoming a 'poweruser' as I trust they're responsible and for the most part, over the course of almost 8 years, they've been responsible and almost generally always non-controversial.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  No reason to oppose, and Reception123 is clearly capable of this right. Nale's response makes little sense and acts as if someone is forbidden from being both SRE and a Steward (Requests for Comment exists if you want to make a policy on that - there is no policy as it stands). "Reception123 has since backed down from their stance that users who leave messages should get to reinstate them upon removal, exempt from the edit warring policy, but only because of the conversation of removal of warnings" has nothing to do with this. Again, open an RfC if you want to change policy. Someone performing an action that you don't agree with doesn't mean they are unworthy of this right. Collei (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Reception123 has maintained presence since near the start of Miraheze as an entity and was active on its predecessors as well.  They are well-regarded and trusted by the community and thus a logical choice for a maintainer role on IRC as outlined above. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose for several reasons.
 * 1) This request was immediately following Universal Omega's request. Why did you choose to make one then, and not the day before?
 * 2) Hats: This user is already both a Steward and SRE, which I believe there should not be both, and group contact on top of that? This is how "power-users" are formed and it is not good. There should be a limit on how many hats one person can have, and this should be it as well.
 * 3) For the same reason I opposed your RfS: I do not like the idea of inventing your own rules or treating sysops as freemen or even justifying actions on that alone. Community discussions are important, and sysops answer to the community. Reception123 has since backed down from their stance that users who leave messages should get to reinstate them upon removal, exempt from the edit warring policy, but only because of the conversation of removal of warnings. The subject of sysops declaring themselves exempt from edit warring did not come up. I do not want "I'm a group contact so I am right" coming to IRC.
 * 4) With Universal Omega's request above, there is no more need for any group contacts. Naleksuh (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to note, that this was a nomination from me, and was my idea, not Reception123's initial idea. Me reasoning for this, is that I believe in balancing things out, and Reception123's and my timezones are almost opposites, and with us both very active, one of us would almost always be around. It's understandable that John can't always be around, and lately has not been to much, as such I feel that if my request above is successful, I'd still be the only truly active GC, which doesn't help the situation of not enough GCs. It would be nice to have at least one more there as well. The current situation is almost no GCs being truly active and should both these requests be successful ensure in the future we have more GCs, and it is not dependent on just one for some things at a given time. Universal Omega (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the part of "inventing rules" I am sure that I have explained my reasoning before but it seems maybe it was not understood. I'll explain again. Not all rules must be explicitly written down in unambiguous terms - there will be conventions and practices that have developed over time. If the community doesn't like those it can vote and create policies. As for "users who leave messages should get to reinstate them upon removal" that was the practice that was followed by other administrators as well, until the community voted to repeal it. I am not one to claim "I am right" and accusing me of such behavior demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about me and how I frequently encourage community discussions and RfCs to clarify ambiguous positions. As for the hats issue, I would generally agree with that statement but unfortunately the reality is that we don't have enough trusted volunteers to fill out these positions. If we did, I would not have accepted to run. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Naleksuh. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 08:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it might be pertinent to consider my reply and not simply choose to believe the narrative that Naleksuh has created without being aware of the context. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the context. I understand that you believe it was a convention. But that doesn't mean you have to do it, nor does it mean edit warring to follow it. In particular, one result of that discussion is that "unwritten customs" are just that -- "customs" and should not be treated like policies or result in sanctions. The problem was "unwritten customs" being used to enact policies without them being policies, and I don't really think that was ever a custom. And even if we were to ignore that, it doesn't affect any of the other points-- both that CosmicAlpha is already requesting and that I do not any one person to have too many hats-- you already have more than I think one person should be able to -- no need for more on top of that! Naleksuh (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * > I am aware of the context. I understand that you believe it was a convention. But that doesn't mean you have to do it, nor does it mean edit warring to follow it. In particular, one result of that discussion is that "unwritten customs" are just that -- "customs" and should not be treated like policies or result in sanctions. The problem was "unwritten customs" being used to enact policies without them being policies, and I don't really think that was ever a custom.
 * You have been informed many times before that Miraheze does not follow Wikipedia policies. Please see WPESSAY and WPPOLICY. Just because you don't agree on what is and isn't a convention doesn't mean that Reception123 is unable to become an IRC Group Contact. Everything that you mentioned there has nothing to do with being an IRC Group Contact.
 * > And even if we were to ignore that, it doesn't affect any of the other points-- both that CosmicAlpha is already requesting and that I do not any one person to have too many hats-- you already have more than I think one person should be able to -- no need for more on top of that!
 * Why? If you want there to be a limit to how many roles someone can have, open an RfC, instead of opposing a vote for IRC group contact rights due to your opinion on what non-existent rules should become policies. Collei (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

MacFan4000's request for IRC Group Contact
Basically for the same reasons as in the above to requests. At least 2 or 3 new GCs would be a good idea so that we have active and available people who can deal with GC related requests. I am currently a GC for a different project, thus I am familiar with the policies and procedures, and am also already in the private GC IRC channel (run by Libera staff). I am reasonably active on IRC and can often be reached with a ping. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 13:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * 1) Below in the oppose section you said, "A private discussion between Miraheze staff members", do you feel private discussions should be a preliminary aspect of starting community discussions like this? It's interesting that 3 requests have come at once following a discussion that is not public and involving 2 groups you're labelling as staff when neither are Board appointed? Miraheze has had a long history of having a closed 'old boys' style club where decisions were made in private involving groups that either a) shouldn't be discussing community affecting things privately (stewards) or b) shouldn't be having a major influence on community aspects by definition (SRE). I find it slightly concerning that this line of proposals is coming out of re-igniting such a private and exclusive club. John (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We simply were talking about and agreeing on the fact that we really need to have another GC that has more availability. I want to make it clear that I did not start the conversation, though I did participate in it. Certainly it may have been a good idea for the discussion to have been held publicly.
 * So my point is more around why does such a channel where a community role and non community role co-exist that is utilised seemingly in such a way that public discussions can be usurped into a private environment to exclude the community from engaging in discussions/decisions initially that revolve around them? John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, one could argue that these requests would serve as a public discussion, and if people agree with the issue they can support the request and if they don't they can oppose it. The private discussion ultimately lead to public discussion through these posts. I see no reason that such a private channel could stay in existence so long as more of these discussions are held publicly and no final decision is reached in the private channel. In this case the only "decisions" that took place were me and UO individually deciding to post these requests. I will also mention that I wasn't even part of this channel until yesterday. Also re: your statement about the use of the word staff, I wasn't aware that there was any official definition? I used the term loosely. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So you see no reason a private channel can't exist to have discussions that should be public but aren't because people who are 'lucky' to be in the channel choose to have such discussions? John (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said that. This was more to get support from other people before starting a public discussion. If nobody had agreed that the issue was valid i would not have been pursued any further. For community matter I would always ultimately want public input on the matter, and we are getting it through these requests. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You say that's not the case, but then immediately go to say if this 'private channel' had not agreed it was a problem, you wouldn't have consulted the community - who are the ones who should decide if there is a problem in the first place. Or would you then gone into a public channel to start a discussion over what you had discussed in the private channel that no one agreed with you on? John (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Had I been the one starting the conversation, I would have done so publicly. Ether way I probably would have eventually some day posted this request. I had been thinking about it from time to time, but I don't often start discussions, nor do I very often participate in them. I also have no knowledge of any of the previous ones that took place in this channel. In this case requesting a role is a personal decision, and it was helpful to hear opinions before deciding to request the position. If I had decided I wanted even more opinions, I would have talked to more people. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 23:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) What steps would you take to ensure the community remains uninfluenced by such private and closed venues where the community can not suitably or appropriately assess need, necessity or content of such non-sensitive discussions? John (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I did not start the conservation. I think this would be a better question for to answer. Maybe in the future we hold discussions like this publicly. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked explicitly what you would do. John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I would make sure that if I start a discussion like this I do it publicly unless there is some reason it absolutely has to be private. This one probably could have been public. If somebody does start one of these discussions in private we can make sure not to come to a final decision until public discussion has taken place.

Support

 * 1)  Has both a good reason to request this right and it's already an IRC regular. OrangeStar (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Diversification with trusted users that are also IRC regulars is wise.  MacFan4000 has proven to be both. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Apart from being rather inactive on IRC compared to CosmicAlpha and Reception123, I also find them to be much more problematic both with being more personal and ruder. Also this person used op permissions for personal issues once (disclaimer: I was the target; but it was still a personal issue). Plus, if CosmicAlpha and Reception123's requests pass, there will be no need for FOUR group contacts on such a small project. Please stop this "trend". Naleksuh (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not at all inactive. I am usually available if you ping me. It is frankly disappointing that we are unable to move past previous mistakes which can be learned from. I will note that I made this request following an internal discussion. I will also clarify for other voters that I did not misuse permissions. I was a channel moderator at the time, (and still am). I decided that because of what was happening, a ban was needed. Later another moderator disagreed with the ban and removed. Another moderator had told me at the time of the ban, that they were fully ok with it. It also was not at all for personal reasons. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Internal to what? There's currently only one group contact. Naleksuh (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A private discussion between Miraheze staff members (SRE, stewards etc). MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's another reason then. I would like to keep groups seperate and have them simply do what they are meant for; not draw some sort of "line" or have a private club. This is actually one of the reasons why SRE are no longer called sysadmins and a lot of their responsibilities were broken up into elsewhere. If you consider these past actions mistakes that you have learned from, I guess that's better than nothing, but there is certainly not a need for four group contacts, especially picked from people who already do far too many other things Naleksuh (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  Similar lines above, permissions have previously been used to be push a personal opinion/side of an argument rather than acting in a neutral capacity. Response to the question I posted as well does not provide me much confidence that they'll act in the community interest as they accepted a private channel to exclude the community from initial discussions is okay where the membership of the channel is decided by those not appointed to manage such a channel bit rather by virtue of their roles in either community or non community environments. John (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That was a single incident. I have learned from that, and now would not make a such a ban without first consulting other moderators unless nobody else was around and it was extremely obvious that a ban was needed. I will restate though that it was not at all for personal reasons, from what I can recall, conduct was getting out of hand and discussions not directly involving me were getting heated. Once again it was not my decision to hold this conversation privately. I would always act in community interest.
 * Respectfully, I find this to be a misread of today's situation. While I believe I understand your opposition to the existence of private channels more generally, private channels do have a role in coordinating relevant sensitive volunteer actions - the use of one such channel was critical in preventing widespread panic during the November/December outages as internal volunteer discussions about recovery were underway.
 * Such a chat taking place in general channels during the incident would have been rife with interruptions, disrupted other necessary support conversations, and been prone to misinterpretations that would have further slowed progress/damaged trust in the Miraheze platform, though admittedly communications weren't perfect in spite of that use.
 * MacFan's 'acceptance' of the channel in question was unrelated to this specific request for GC, but was instead prompted by UO rectifying a long-term disconnect in bridging similar Discord and IRC channels that serve the same legitimate coordination purposes.
 * I do agree that brief discussion about "Hey, there's a need for more GCs, let's put this to the community to decide" probably should have taken place in general instead of a private channel, but the CN was viewed as the correct public forum to broach this for public debate.
 * --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree with NotAracham on this front. The use of private channels are employed in some scenarios when it comes to sensitive information, as NotAracham stated with the db141 outages. While that may have not been the case here, the conversations in question that were done in private channels and served as preliminary ideas. It was not as if the solution that came out of the discussion was to appoint 3 new group contacts without community input. The decision was made to ask for community input. The public has the opportunity to voice their opinions here, now. Just because conversations about Group Contacts were made in private channels does not mean that they were bad. Plenty of conversations are had privately for varying reasons. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I respectfully would disagree that the use of such a channel during the data recovery incident was useful. In my view (and SREs and the Boards), it contributed to a fragmentation of discussion and ultimately lead to the community being poorly informed and at times - misinformed about the situation. This was picked up by SRE and it was agreed that said channel should not be used in the future for such discussions. Therefore, I would argue the justification for the channels existence is moot if that's the primary example. John (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing to delete/archive the channel? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Establish a "Translator Wiki" for global translators
Before I get started, let me state one thing: I don't know if Miraheze already has such a wiki to help translators in wikis like MetaWiki discuss translation norms.

A simple description of the problem scenario: a translator of a language translates a page and is unsure whether there is a de facto specification for some aspect, which results in a translation that differs from the rest of the page and ultimately makes the content incomprehensible to users.

One possible version: a translator's space with a translator's noticeboard, a translation norm and a translator's teahouse to address this type of problem.

For this one possible scenario, it is also considered that for other wikis that may need to be regulated, a separate translator space may not meet the needs, so a wiki may be needed to solve the problem.

So,

Solution - Translator Wiki

Site address: translator.miraheze.org

Acting on:

1) Norms in proactively accepted global wiki

2) A teahouse for translators

3) Some of the common translation norms in force for the global wiki

Reason for establishment：

See A simple description of the problem scenario and One possible scenario .

The specific implementation of the translator's wiki and related policies are subject to discussion.

Thanks. Chisato (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not against giving translation more attention especially since I think the way it's done now is problematic at best, but I'm not sure an entirely split wiki is proportionate. This seems like it would fit in an expanded guide for translators to learn the basics and its talk page that functions as a translation noticeboard. The suggestion seems to be 3 pages tops of content and could be more concise than that. If in the general sense, there is TranslateWiki.net though I'm not entirely sure what goes on there and couldn't say if it helps this niche. --Raidarr (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Set up under the right condition, this could be a useful tool. However, it would require creation of the "Global Translator" group, which would have to be an RfC. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, so I'm keeping the namespace instead (the namespace can be changed to anything else like that depending on the discussion). Chisato (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn't fully considered the 'global translator' thing. Honestly, we have such a limited and scattered group of translators in the first place that I would also oppose that role specifically. We don't even have a good way of holding the Meta translators we have accountable, I've seen enough questionable translations that I've been meaning to check them out but I lack the native understanding to know if the translated version is the same grade as the English understanding. Not enough wikis utilize the mechanic and in my frank opinion I think there's not much translation here does that can't be achieved by end users with one of numerous plugins on their browser. I'd revisit this if it is demonstrated that there is actually a need and for that matter, volunteering base to do it. And yes, establishing global translator as a group means this should be discussed in an RfC, but it is useful to discuss here so a concise RfC can be formed, if it is necessary. --Raidarr (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)