Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73

Should Biographies include audio excerpts of an individual's voice?[edit]

For some time now, inspired by articles like Mikhail Gorbachev, Tim Pool, and Vaush, I have been adding audio excerpts to various Wikipedia biographies. Whereas it has largely been received with indifference, my addition of an audio excerpt to Jenna Ortega has appeared to cause some stirr amongst some editors (see Jenna Ortega: Revision history and Talk:Jenna Ortega). Admittedly, there has been very little discussion on Wikipedia in regards to audio files, even with somewhat prominent articles like Richard Dawkins and Jimmy Wales having them, so I seek to initiate a discussion that will hopefully initiate further insight and WP:Consensus. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in favor of audio and video files on biographies. If we're excluding video and audio files, then we might as well exclude images; they essentially serve the same purpose. The only difference is that they have an audio aspect instead of just a visual one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a project on WikiCommons to get people to pronounce their own names so they could be added to articles. I think we should support other speech as well. Rmhermen (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, ping @Pigsonthewing may be interested in this convo. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note the referenced discussion is specifically on including audio links in the biography's infobox. There is no disagreement with the standard method of linking to related media at Wikimedia Commons. isaacl (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Voice intro project includes the line "Embed that in an infobox if possible". And Stephen Fry, one of the earliest[1], has it in the infobox. Now speech that does not include the person saying their own name is something else again. I would suggest that be included in the article but not the infobox. Rmhermen (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as these are free media clips, this seems reasonable, and given our disallowance for non-free images of living persons, the same would be true of voice clips (we'd not allow non-free voice clips on the basis that a free clip is possible). There's a few more gotchas to this, but zero problems as long as we are talking free content clips. --Masem (t) 01:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand, we allow non-free clips of copyrighted music, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples. Why would a famous person speaking a non-free sentence or two instead of singing a non-free verse or two be treated so differently? Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the guidelines are within legal parameters governing sample usage and length. It is a good idea I think to make such application universal (i.e. covering both free and non-free sources). There is a possibility that over time 30-second samples of spoken/video materials may proliferate in any single article (there may also be technical aspects to this). I would also strongly suggest that there is clear guidance for media content be properly referenced with citations for attribution and verification just like text content. (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Should is a funny word here. If you have free or properly licensed media, be it video, audio, or image, you can add it to the article. If you feel it adds value to the article, you're allowed to add it. I don't see any problems, but I also don't see where it's something we should do. You can feel free to do so, but I don't have any expectation that one is compelled to. --Jayron32 02:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nor should the expectation be that it is "required" to do so. And there will be plenty of articles where the consensus will be against including it.
    Personally, I don't think anything is added by adding random audio clips – and the same goes for images of signatures – in the vast majority of biographies.
    And they almost certainly should not be in the infobox, as it's a clear violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to do so. And if editors are getting instructions to put these in infoboxes, those directions need to change. --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I quite like these, please do keep adding them! As for "should": not sure there could be consensus to mandate it, so it's likely you'll keep running into this every now and then. DFlhb (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you'll want to talk to Andy Mabbett about the Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I actually quite like this idea, but I think there should be a standard of quality to the clips. I think the Vaush one is very good (no background music or effects and serves as a nice introduction to the person); on the contrary, the ones for Tim Pool and Jenna Ortega are fairly poor (both have excessive music and effects, and are just poor in general). Curbon7 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, audio clips of a subject’s voice should be added if possible and the quality isn’t lousy. Dronebogus (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the various pings. Yes, we should aim to include the voice of the subject of all biographies, where that is possible, and we have ten years of precedence for doing so. Ideally, they would be saying their own name (so we have the correct pronunciation), but otherwise at least demonstrating what they sound(ed) like. As with images, high quality is preferable to low quality, but we must work with what we have. And, as with the main image, the infobox is the place to put it. WP:WikiVIP refers, and c:Commons:Voice intro project explains in more detail why we should do this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a great idea and project. Anyone who asks living people for freely licensed photographs should be encouraged to also ask for a voice sample. —Kusma (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolute garbage new interface[edit]

I don't know where else to put this, but I just want to say that the new webpage design is absolutely, irredeemably awful. I genuinely think that I will stop using this website, and that many others will too, if it is not quickly changed back, because the amount of blank space at the sides of the redesigned page layout is simply obnoxious, not to mention all the other awful features of this sudden and un-asked for change. I highly, HIGHLY suggest at the very least a "legacy mode" option that can be used to return to the previous user interface, because as it is this website frankly looks like trash. (Duplicated because I realized I posted this in the wrong place before) 2601:405:4400:9420:DC22:E380:D2EE:15A9 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 'Enable limited width mode' box should be off/un-checkmarked by default. Some1 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Some1: Where do you even find this option? (A screenshot would help!)... Thanks. --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IJBall, if you're using the new Vector 2022, it's under Preferences -> Appearance tab (link: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering) -> scroll down to Skin preferences -> then it should be the second option (Enable limited width mode) Some1 (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The setting should also at least be persistent between pages to make the absolutely dogshit UI changes on desktop somewhat more palatable. It's amazing how these changes are somehow just as bad as Fandom (website)'s browsing experience. (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And there should be a [Set a local exception for this global preference] option in the Preferences too so editors don't have to un-checkmark that mode every single time when visiting other wikis. Some1 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does one make this garbage just go away ? (Asking for a friend.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To get back to ye olde skin, see near the end of User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#What_happened_to_Wikipedia? - ok "Go to your "Preferences" and then "Appearance ", and then select "Vector (2010)" and save your change". I have to say that (despite usually being as conservative in such matters as anybody), I switched to try the new one some weeks ago, & haven't yet switched back. It does seem to be slower though. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My friend said their watchlist and tabs across the top went away completely so they couldn't even find a starting place; just, Wikipedia went kaplooey. So, the previous default was Vector 2010 ? Thx, Johnbod. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clicking on the three lines next to the MP globe leads to the dropdown menu - but not the other-language WPs ([Wikipedia languages[ is right at the bottom), and access to the 'preferences' (where one can select the old layout and even Monobook, among others) is only available to signed in users. (There can be many reasons for not signing in, including 'different computer, one minor typo, no point signing in' etc).
A so-named 'click here to show what aspects you want on permanent display/preferences' would be useful. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: how see an editor's contributions? I am willing to give this new interface a try. But how I am to navigate to see an editor's contributions, which I often want to do, under this. There is no longer a User contributions on other editors' User and User talk pages. A too-awkward workaround is to navigate to my own contributions, then edit the URL to put in another editor's username. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doncram - try changing preferences to one of the other options available.Jackiespeel (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also take a non-committal look at the new interface thru one of the other Wikipedias where it has been implemented. After a few minute's poking around, I found the French Wikipedia has been migrated. (I noticed that is still set to the old interface; maybe the Foundation is scared of taking on both en.wikipedia & de.wikipedia at the same time?) -- llywrch (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The links are hidden in the menu that's displayed by clicking the two arrows ( << ) next to the Wikipedia logo on the top left corner. Some1 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, i see that and more now. I was expecting that top left would be about high level Wikipedia, instead, i suppose. It's not immediately intuitive for me, but i think i may like it. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, people, it's different and it's not "garbage" because of that. For one thing, it uses icons/symbols which are universal. It's good for you, probably, to get used to them. I notice that I am more able to navigate this more easily because I had relatively recent experience in a different wikimedia project where the symbols were used. There, at first, I did not understand, say, the symbol with three horizontal lines and a star, but now i am getting it. User:SandyGeorge, User:Some1, do you remember when the bell symbol showed up? You eventually figured out that means "Alerts", I hope. And it is more elegant and better, actually, than a text string which uses up more space and which I bet is harder, perhaps for you and definitely for many others for whom English is not their first language, to immediately grasp. It will help you to understand the symbols when you occasionally go over to other-language Wikipedias and to other types of wikimedia projects.
Also, I am not used to it either, but the left hand side has been freed up for a new purpose, showing the table of contents (TOC) of the current page. I am thinking "having TOC on the left" probably is good, enabling better navigation. Given that is in place for myself and most others, now I realize I could/should adjust to take advantage. For example, on my own Talk page, I think that "TOC on the left" would not be very helpful if there are literally hundreds of discussion sections (as there were until I recently archived a couple of years worth). So it makes sense now for me to curate my own Talk page a bit more, so that "TOC on the left" works better for others. Frankly, the TOC's on many/most noticeboard pages and Talk pages have not worked very well... it is a pain to go all the way back up a Talk page to see them, and generally they have seemed to be less helpful for navigation than they should be. Now, with "TOC on the left", I think i will find it easier for myself to navigate some long pages. Especially if others sensibly curate those pages to enhance the usefulness of "TOC on the left".
And perhaps there are other reasons why the new interface was developed, too? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the new design is "garbage." I'm actually using it right now and have no plans to switch back to 2010 Vector. The floating TOC is easily the best feature (well, my favorite feature) of the 2022 Vector skin (though it is a bit buggy and the links don't always bring you to the correct sections sometimes).
I have a few suggestions for the 2022 Vector skin, though:
  1. Add a [Set a local exception for this global preference] option for 'Enable limited width mode' so that editors don't have to un-checkmark that mode every single time when visiting other wikis.
  2. Unhide the Contributions link and the clock from the dropdown menu.
  3. The Preview (when clicking 'Edit source') shouldn't show the article with limited width when 'Enable limited width mode' is disabled.
Some1 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Some1, I think you're looking for Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-rendering in your first item.
I haven't minded the "hidden" UTC clock. Given how infrequently I use it, I am willing to trade that for no longer getting logged out when the clock finally appears – and shifts all the other items in the bar – just as I try to click on Special:MyContribs. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the link, Whatamidoing (WMF). Speaking of the Log out button, I'm not a big fan of having to click three times just to fully log out (the drop down menu, log out button, then submit), especially if I'm in a hurry. I'm not sure if the bar shifting has ever happened to me; I never got accidentally logged out while using Vector 2010. Some1 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Some1, how often do you intentionally log out? I might do that, um, once or twice a decade? I don't need to share my laptop with anyone who might try to edit Wikipedia, and I don't try to edit from public computers. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatamidoing (WMF), quite often, e.g. I usually log out every time I leave the house (to prevent possible session hijacking and all that). The button being hidden isn't too bad, but the "Do you want to log out?" prompt is annoying (Yes, that's why I clicked the Log out button). Anyway, it's good to see that the clock is back and unhidden. Some1 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Some1 If I've followed the threading correctly, it was you who said, "links don't always bring you to the correct sections sometimes". There's a number of bugs open in phab about this. I think T327350 is the right place to start, and explore the various other bugs that links to. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doncram, I believe that the limited width is supposed to be much better for the ~10% of people who have dyslexia. It's not my own personal favorite feature, but there are sound reasons to support it, especially on an education-focused site like this one. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm one of those and it is better..... that said I also don't use a mouse very often and that has declined in accessibility for me. But I think it looks better. Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 03:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hate it, hate it, hate it, hate it! Thought I'd get used to it, but nope, It really disgusts me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Managed to switch back to previous layout. Thank you for that! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a built-in opt-out button.
In case anyone's trying to switch, you can click "Switch to old look" in the side bar, which will take you to the exact section of Special:Preferences that you need to be in. (If the sidebar's collapsed, then click the Hamburger icon.svg Hamburger button by the logo to open it.)
The "preview" option for each item listed in prefs will let you find the style that you like best. After you've made your choice, remember to click the big blue button at the bottom of the page to save your prefs. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update from Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

I am back to post a brief follow up message to my November note. Following the close of the RfC, the Wikimedia Foundation set up a co-creation page to seek input from community members on proposed messaging for banners. We posted regular updates on the campaign's performance to this page. In brief, over 450+ banners were tested during this year's campaign, and $24.7M of revenue was raised against an original $30M goal (a shortfall of $5.3 million). During the first few days the new banners resulted in about 70% less revenue than on the corresponding days in the prior year. Additional information on the campaign results are posted here. Next year, the fundraising team will continue to engage with the community on banner messaging. We look forward to building on the process we created this year.

I wanted to provide further updates on a few other issues that were raised:

  • Given the reduced revenue from the English campaign, the Wikimedia Foundation has reduced its budget projections for the current year. At this point, we don’t expect to see the same year-on-year growth in the Foundation’s budget next year. We will have more information by April on future financial projections.
  • The Foundation’s annual planning this year is being led by the needs of our Product & Technology departments. This will be the first time since about 2015 that these two departments will undertake joint planning. @SDeckelmann-WMF has asked me to pass along this update: "We've made progress on PageTriage issues raised by New Page Patrollers in an open letter. In the last 120 days, 141 patches have been reviewed through collaboration between the Foundation and the community. There have also been several meetings between community members and staff to talk about the future of PageTriage and the newcomer experience, and there is now work planned in Q4 to update the extension. We continue to engage with Commons as we are making critically needed software upgrades to community prioritized tools. The Foundation's Wishathon (leading up to the community wishlist kickoff for 2023) involved about 40 staff contributing time over a week in December to deliver 71 patches and 4 wishes granted. We are working with the community to make Vector 2022 the default skin, after 3 years of development work, feedback and iteration with wiki communities. More to come in March!"
  • Some comments were made in the RfC about the unclear role of the Tides Foundation in managing the Knowledge Equity Fund. Over the next few months, we will be moving the remainder of the Equity Fund from Tides back into the Foundation. The Wikimedia Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal Revenue Service, so we are in the process of setting up its financial systems and transitioning out of Tides.

MIskander-WMF (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall, very nice work. Thank you to both you and @SDeckelmann-WMF for making efforts to communicate with us, listen to our needs, and improve community relations. Of course there is always room for more, but in general I am encouraged by recent developments. I think the needle is moving in the right direction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for keeping us informed. The news about NPP and Tides are welcome signs that the goals of the WMF and the communities may be converging. The reduction in income may seem worrying but coincides with a very difficult financial climate for many potential donors and may represent money remaining with readers who need it to cover basic necessities. Certes (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After the debacle that was the Vector 2022 rollout, the WMF could really use a win if it wants to retain its credibility. Maybe this will prompt the WMF to find a cure for WP:CANCER. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the communication and update, it is very good news. PageTriage improvements will make a significant difference to, and Commons has great room for enhancement. CMD (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
During the first few days the new banners resulted in about 70% less revenue than on the corresponding days in the prior year. Interesting. So do I take this to mean that the new banners that the community specifically suggested, or at least collaborated with the WMF on, actively resulted in less revenue being pulled in? If so, hmm. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a WMF staff (thankfully) but that is correct. The banners that received the largest feedback and were what was posted before the start of the campaign dramatically underperformed. The banners that the foundation staff suggested during the course of the campaign but which complied with the RfC did better but still underperformed banners from previous years. Of course many would (and did) argue that this is a price worth paying to have fundraising more aligned with Wikipedia's values but you are correct @WaltCip that the foundation paid a price. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is good news. We have (for the most part) stopped lying to readers to convince them to part with money, in some cases when they cannot afford it; still the website is able to function and the WMF is able to run.
I hope that next year we can emphasise that what we need first and foremost is readers' labour, not their money, as this encyclopedia is and must remain written by its readers in a volunteer capacity. We have a crisis of editor shortage but no funding crisis. With these more tame and more democratic fundraising banners, the WMF was still close to reaching its excessive goal of $30 million.
A legitimately noble first step in adjusting the budget would be for Maryana (and other decision-makers) to make up the $5 million by cutting six-figure salaries of senior staff, starting with her own. It is correct that the projects of NPP, critical software on Commons and Vector 2022 are important foci for the WMF and should be priorities. — Bilorv (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a market for senior executives. The market for non-profit senior executives is less than the market for for-profit senior executives so they should make less than those people. But let's not ignore that there is a market. I want talented people to work for the Foundation because an inept foundation is no good. I hope the Board knows whether foundation employees, and especially senior staff, are paid at top of market, middle of market, or bottom of market and to be able to defend why. That's the place I would start with rhetoric about senior executive pay. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, the foundation should have a well-paid and ample staff. The fundraising is going to the staff of a foundation that runs the website as well as the intellectual partnerships of the chapters and the international outreach. But, largely, the business of the foundation is fundraising and paying the bills, and so we should be happy if they seem to be good at doing that because there's never enough money and there is a lot of time left in human history that we want to have a website for. People get annoyed because they don't understand why community projects aren't staffed, but maybe they should instead think about software projects as open source projects that volunteers would contribute to if they have the time or the inclination to do so. Andre🚐 22:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read this again today and I have a couple additional thoughts:
The Foundation’s annual planning this year is being led by the needs of our Product & Technology departments. This will be the first time since about 2015 that these two departments will undertake joint planning. It sounds like WMF is shifting its Annual Plan to focus on software and technology more? I missed this on the first reading, but if so, this is an exciting development. I think the idea of WMF shifting funds towards software will be well-received. Feel free to emphasize this more in your communications. I think volunteers will really like this.
We are working with the community to make Vector 2022 the default skin, after 3 years of development work, feedback and iteration with wiki communities. This is a not-so-exciting development. The Vector 2022 deployment on enwiki has not gone well, and has arguably been against community consensus. This might be a good issue to backpedal a bit on.
Thank you for posting the above update. It's not always easy for WMF staff to talk to us on our talk pages and village pumps, but we welcome the effort. I think it's good for community relations. I'm looking forward to future updates and discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I came across this sentence: The removal of cataracts was a common surgical procedure in Djenné[35] (as in many other parts of Africa[36]). on the article Cataract_surgery#West_Africa. It made me think if these references were in a good place according to manual of style but I couldn't find it so quick. Doesn't it have to be "The removal of cataracts was a common surgical procedure in Djenné[35] (as in many other parts of Africa).[36]" ? Thanks Coldbolt (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to be bold. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Coldbolt, it doesn't have to be that way, especially of the second source is only meant to support the content inside the parentheses. There are multiple acceptable ways of formatting that. Some people would put both refs at the end of the sentence, for example. If you're working on that article, then please use a placement that makes sense to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tool to look for related users by edit history?[edit]

does a tool exist, given a user, list users/ip that have edited the same pages with the given user in the past x days? like, given my username and 10 days, the tool will check all pages i edited in the past 10 days, identify users that also edited the same pages in the past 10 days, and list these users by the number of pages for each.

the use of this is, currently i found two accounts operated by the same person (because they edited some pages one after another), but i dont know if other accounts exist, so if a tool like this exists, i can detect and check anomalous related edits. RZuo (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Editor Interaction Analyser can compare two or more users if you already know their account names, but it doesn't go fishing for accounts similar to one model. Certes (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a bunch of tools that do similiar sorts of comparisons. My recommendation is to file a report at WP:SPI. The folks who work SPI have a wealth of experience doing this kind of thing and know all the tools. The standard SPI templates will provide you with links to some of them, but the clerks have lots of things in their toolkits, not all of which are publicly available. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a few prolific editors around, particularly gnomes who specialise in making minor corrections to numerous pages. The chances are that they have edited many of the pages you've edited recently, with no suspicion of sockpuppetry on either side. You may want to refine your search, but even then you'll pick up innocent editors whose interests happen to match. Better still, as RoySmith suggests, pass it on the experts. Certes (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there's no vandalism yet (or else it would've been straight to checkusers). and the activity is not on enwp. i asked here because enwp being the largest wiki often has tools other wikis dont.--RZuo (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last call to vote on revised UCoC enforcement guidelines![edit]

Hi all,

A friendly and final reminder that the voting period for the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines closes tomorrow, Tuesday, 31 January at 23:59:59 UTC.

The UCoC supports Wikimedia’s equity objectives and commitment to ensuring a welcoming, diverse movement, and it applies to all members of our communities. Voting is an opportunity for you to be a part of deciding how we uphold this commitment to our community and each other!

To vote, visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki, which outlines how to participate using SecurePoll.

Many thanks for your interest and participation in the UCoC!

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

JPBeland-WMF (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The UCoC supports Wikimedia’s equity objectives and commitment to ensuring a welcoming, diverse movement..."? Please do not canvas for votes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JPBeland-WMF Dubious for the UCOC to be a commitment to each other, as well? The BOT have stated that they ratified the document, but the vast bulk of those affected by such were never given a chance to sign it off (the same applies to the recommendations - they also never received a mandate) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit close to the deadline, but I have boldly fixed the link in the initial comment posted by JPBeland-WMF above to the voter information page, in case those who read the notification wished to follow the link to that page. CMD (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello all,

The vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now closed. The results will now be counted and scrutinized to ensure that only eligible votes are included. Results will be published on Meta and other movement forums as soon as they become available, as well as information on future steps. Thank you to all who participated in the voting process, and who have contributed to the drafting of Guidelines.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

JPBeland-WMF (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please note that Ross Gillespie died on 31 january according to Google. Thank you. (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have posted about this at WP:BLPN#Ross Gillespie, as that's a better place for discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Private Incident Reporting System FAQ Update[edit]

Hello, community,

We have an update about the Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) Minimum Viable Product (MVP) development.

We have created an FAQ on the project page to help answer your questions. Please check it, and give feedback, or ask additional questions if you have more.

Best regards, Trust & Safety Tools team. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • How will you deal with forumshopping, vindictive reports, lies, sockpuppets, ...? Basically, is there anything at all to discourage problematic reports/reporters? For example, WP:ANI#Stalking from a blocked user, the PIRS runs the risk of simply providing this stalker a new venue, and a better chance for them of having some success as people at the PIRS may be unfamiliar with the situation. We have long-term pests like "Vote X for Change" who likes to take things out of context or to misrepresent events and policies to create problems for their victims. Giving them another venue, and I presume making it impossible for anyone at enwiki to be aware of this (will anyone here know that complaints are made, will anyone know who made the complaint, will e.g. a checkuser on the complainant be possible?), seems like a well-intentioned idea with bad consequences. Fram (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New layout[edit]

Hello! Is there a debate or survey anywhere about English Wikipedia's new layout, where I can say how much I hate it, and why? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia and Amazon Alexa[edit]

A friend, a Wikipedia novice, asked how to use Alexa to access Wikipedia. I am unfamiliar with Alexa, but Googled and found a couple of tips. I have summarised them at Wikipedia:Amazon Alexa, but input from someone more familiar with Alexa would be appreciated.

We should probably make similar pages for Siri and other digital assistants; and add a note about privacy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan[edit]

I hadn't seen this noted or discussed elsewhere so thought I should note it somewhere: the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority has blocked Wikipedia over a dispute about 'blasphemy'. BBC article: [2] --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting article expansion help in Pakistan economic crisis article[edit]

Already article 2022–2023 Pakistan economic crisis is not in good updated condition, moreover recently WP has been censored in Pakistan. The article seem to need article expansion help to keep adequately updated.

~~~~ Bookku (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]