Meta:Babel/Archives/2023-04

Ready for translation: Education Newsletter March 2023

March 2023 education newsletter released for translation. Please help our readers to read education newsletter in their native language. The latest education newsletter is ready for translation: here Newsletter headlines link for translation: here (please translate by April 08, 2023) Individual articles for translation: Category:Education/Newsletter/March 2023. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the Meta inactivity policy

Hello. I am proposing an amendment to Meta:Administrators/Removal to increase the period of time allowed to inactive administrators to sign and keep their permissions from 7 days to 30 days. Interested users can participate in the discussion on the policy's talk page. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the CentralNotice admin policy

Hello. I am proposing a specific inactivity policy for Meta:CentralNotice administrators. Interested users can participate in the discussion here. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Unblock Babel AutoCreate

Hello! Over the past months, major bugs have been fixed when creating categories for the Babel extension. It seems to me that now the bot Babel AutoCreate (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) can be properly configured and unblocked:

1. It stopped creating preview categories
2. Improved attitude towards language aliases
3. Now when creating a category it can insert templates that can categorize categories

Iniquity (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

fyi @MarcoAurelio Iniquity (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I would be interested to see a list of any related phab tasks that were opened regarding the prior behavior, and that they are resolved to move forward - can you provide these @Iniquity? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, yes, I can :)
phab:T211665, phab:T64714, phab:T170654, phab:T184941, phab:T33074, phab:T112868, phab:T62824, phab:T63993, phab:T306539 Iniquity (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose. Thanks for the ping, but I don't want to see this broken bot unblocked. It serves no useful purpose that cannot be achieved by a couple of edits. I also wonder if this bot has stopped creating categories for invalid language codes not present in the CDLR and/or ULS repos. It was a pain to manually delete that kind of stuff and I'd rather have a redlinked category than to cleanup stuff again. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio, "for invalid language codes not present in the CDLR and/or ULS repos". Which one, for example? Iniquity (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Iniquity: The bot used to create categories for any code inside a #babel box (e.g. Category:User:Es or Category:User ES being es the only valid code). I see this may be fixed at phab:T63993, but that issue led to many deleted categories due to wrong/invalid language codes and duplicate categories. I don't want to get all over that again. Special language codes may be disabled now if phab:T306539 is right, but apparently that'd be a list you'd need to manually update for each special code you'd like disabled (I don't get what MediaWiki:Babel-category-override really does or how it'd work). I am not convinced that Babel AutoCreate is useful at this stage, after many years without it and no apparent issues with categories. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I have not been able to create such categories in the Russian Wikipedia, so I suspect that it does not create them anymore :) Iniquity (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This comes down to:

1. Whether babel still populates incorrectly-named categories.
2. Whether this wiki wants such categories, given that they are populated, to be red or blue.
3. Whether this wiki is keeping up with creating any red validly-named Babel categories.

The answer to 3 is clearly yes - I did a database query and found no categories the bot would currently create if it were unblocked. Hence, that makes the other two questions moot, and I see no good reason to unblock. The probable reason for this is that categories for all or almost all languages have already been created, and Babel is currenty configured to only populate "Category:User <language>" and not "Category:User <language>-<level>" categories on Meta. For the record, I have no idea whether 1 is still an issue or not, and am not involved enough with administration on this wiki to have an opinion on 2. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 18:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Well for me (and I guess the many projects that got fed up of the bot) #1 is really important :) If there's no assurances that Babel will be creating categories with/for valid and normalised language codes, then I don't think we should unblock. For es.wikipedia, for example, I see the bot keeps creating empty categories. I am not sure if this got fixed via gerrit:882241 but useless empty categories are a concern for me as well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The bot's most recent creation on the Spanish Wikipedia was on March 7. The MediaWiki version that included the linked Gerrit patch was deployed to Spanish Wikipedia on March 9. That looks to me like the patch fixed the empty category issue.

On the general questions, if the answer to 2 is "blue" then 1 is irrelevant - this is the English Wikipedia's position, where pages in red-linked categories are considered a sin to avoid at all costs. I suspect that the English Wikipedia would at this point be OK with unblocking the bot, but 3 is true there as well so there's little point. You seem to be implicitly acknowledging that the Spanish Wikipedia's answer to 2 is "red", which is fine, and suggests that the bot should remain blocked there, which is fine, but should be explicitly acknowledged. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 22:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose That bot-like account made several fires and furies edits around several wikis, not only WMF wikis, a global ban should be considered. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Admin activity review/2022

How is it going? I suppose that it had been done as the review normally finishes in March. cc. @Elton and Stanglavine. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 09:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeking volunteers for the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct process

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello,

As follow-up to the message about the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Vice Chair, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, I am reaching out about the next steps. I want to bring your attention to the next stage of the Universal Code of Conduct process, which is forming a building committee for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). I invite community members with experience and deep interest in community health and governance to nominate themselves to be part of the U4C building committee, which needs people who are:

• Community members in good standing
• Knowledgeable about movement community processes, such as, but not limited to, policy drafting, participatory decision making, and application of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects
• Aware and appreciative of the diversity of the movement, such as, but not limited to, languages spoken, identity, geography, and project type
• Committed to participate for the entire U4C Building Committee period from mid-May - December 2023
• Comfortable with engaging in difficult, but productive conversations
• Confidently able to communicate in English

The Building Committee shall consist of volunteer community members, affiliate board or staff, and Wikimedia Foundation staff.

The Universal Code of Conduct has been a process strengthened by the skills and knowledge of the community and I look forward to what the U4C Building Committee creates. If you are interested in joining the Building Committee, please either sign up on the Meta-Wiki page, or contact ucocprojectwikimedia.org by May 12, 2023. Read more on Meta-Wiki.

Best regards,

Xeno (WMF) 19:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Proposed logo

Hello. I was wondering what to do with Template:Proposed logo and the files bearing it in light of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and our policy not to allow fair use here. I don't know which license Wikimedia used back then but, is it accurate to assume that every proposed Wikipedia (or other sister projects) logos that were uploaded on Meta-Wiki are copyrighted with all rights reserved? The text "this image being freely licensed could preclude its use as an official Wikimedia Foundation logo" seems also innacurate since Wikimedia logos, notwithstanding trademark rights, are licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (example: c:File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg). This seems to conflict with proposed logos tagged {{GFDL-presumed}} as well. In any case, I suggest we review the files tagged with any of these templates and for every file that does not have clear information about authorship, source or license, tag them for deletion via {{nosource}} or {{nolicense}}. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Just {{Historical}} them? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

And what about the copyright status of the files tagged with it? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

OS em? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Dummy comment to prevent section archiving. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I made a new post at #Non-free_content_on_Meta not seeing this discussion. According to Meta:Fair use fair use is not allowed on Meta. Also WMF released the logos under a free license in 2014 according to this.

So I do not think that {{Proposed logo}} should still exist. As I see it there are only 2 options: Delete all files og relicens the files. There are also some logos in Category:Presumed GFDL images. --MGA73 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@MGA73: Looking earlier versions of MediaWiki:Uploadtext I see a vague reference to Meta:Image and media use policy which was never a policy and was created in 2008, with some files dating back from 2006. GFDL is not a suitable license for non-text media. I've sent an email to the Foundation's Legal department and asked them if they could offer us some information or guidance about this matter. On one hand, deleting them seems to be the safest approach (legally speaking) if it's not possible to determine source/licensing, but on the other hand I think it'd be interesting to keep them (properly licensed) as a historical reference, and then transfer them to Wikimedia Commons. I don't think we can simply relicense these files on our own, given that copyright belongs to the author and his heirs/successors, but I am not an expert in that field. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

MarcoAurelio I hope they have a good advise for us! If uploader is still active they can simply add a license. I wonder if the contest had any rules like "If you participate you agree that the rights for your logo is transferred to WMF." It would not make sense if I designed a new logo and won and then said "No, it's my logo! You can't use it.". --MGA73 (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that for example version from 26 April 2005 had the text:

By uploading a file here to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the
GNU Free Documentation License.

If you do not want to use the GFDL, you must upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons.

That is a good indication that the files are GFDL unless otherwise noted (for example {{PD-self}}) or if the file if the work of someone else. --MGA73 (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

At International logo contest I don't see any mention about licensing. However at Logo § Proposing new logos it mentions that you shall not use GFDL and instead transfer the copyright to the Wikimedia Foundation, because "free-using license on a logo is legally a very baffling thing". Obviously they no longer feel that way but this is a messy situation. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Good catch! I see a similar text was added long ago. So that could be an indication that copyright belongs to WMF. --MGA73 (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@MGA73: I received a reply to my inquiry some days ago. They're looking into this, and agreed to give us their opinion on the matter. However it may take some more days, considering that in requires browsing through ancient wiki history. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, just to confirm, still working on a response that can resolve some confusion without creating more. Thanks for understanding. SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've collected a mountain of old pages and interviewed a handful of people, so now I feel comfortable with drafting a response. Feel free to follow up since I'll start with a simple version. I also want to make sure that my assumptions are correct.

FILES AT ISSUE: It seems as if there's 39 items at issue here. So assuming that we can't determine proper licensing, then I also assume the solution would be to respect the resolution that restricts fair use. And to do this would either mean (A) getting the uploaders to re-license the uploads, or (B) removing the files entirely.

WHAT'S AT STAKE: I assume the apprehension behind "just deleting" is that (A) these are part of the projects' unique history, (B) generally we want to retain everything that is useful that is uploaded when possible. I assume that asking the authors to reupload could get tricky because most of them were uploaded between 2002-2006, so finding some of those users might be impractical. Personally, everyone I'd discussed this with would much rather keep the files if there's any legitimate way to do so.

ISSUES: Not every file is completely clear about which logo contest, it was uploaded for. But one can make some educated guesses. (A) For example, something uploaded between from July 20 to August 27 2003 that is a proposed Wikipedia logo is probably related to this International logo contest. (B) Something like this, File:Wiktionary logo dazb.png is associated with Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals. Each's rights could have been affected by several mechanisms. For example, "A" could be licensed under GDFL (because old Media Wiki uploader license text like this from April 2005) if that submission policy existed in 2003. And B could be "owned" by the Foundation assuming that contest rules, of the kind that the Foundation has used since ~2012 existed in 2009 at the time of the upload.

Finally, it's unclear if the "Proposed Logo" template was applied retroactively to the files and whether it's always accurate. It seems like something that would only have been tagged later, but that's just a wild guess.

INITIAL CLARIFICATIONS:

1. GDFL is technically effective for images. GDFL is practically unsuitable for images (for example, the requirement to provide the "entire license" with sharing). That said, it is "legally" suitable. So pre-Creative Commons, uploaded media was (probably universally) subject to GDFL licenses that still can be hosted, honored, and ported to Wikimedia Commons. So yes, anything that is GDFL can be ported to Wikimedia Commons, (assuming Commons still accepts GDFL licensed works).
2. Can you adapt the license. CC licenses are typically backward compatible (a 4.0 work can also be used as 3.0). In certain practical senses, they are often forward compatible as well (e.g. the vast majority of affirmative requirements on reuse for 2.0 remain the same for 4.0 versions). This is a drastic simplification. But I bring it up as an example to say that you probably could not relicense them (to a newer license with different terms) yourself. So again, a solution might be to invite the original uploaders to do so.

TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION: Each image would need to be looked at on a case by case basis. There are only 39 of them, so it's been possible to look at most of them. I do think it's possible to give close-to definitive answers about some of them based on the circumstantial evidence: when it was uploaded, for what purpose, what the uploader text was, and whether it was part of a contest with rules that shifted ownership in some way.

If I were to give a blanket suggestion, my suggestion would be to assume that most are GDFL since that was the default licensing pre-Creative Commons. That said, they can't "all" be treated the exact same because some are not.

I think it might go slightly beyond bounds to say which specific images should be kept based on circumstantial evidence and which can't at all be confirmed, but hopefully, this is a start. If you want to discuss specific images from that list that you find hard or controversial as you're making your decisions, feel free to ping me. Thanks for waiting. This has been a bigger question that I even assumed it would be based on the history of it. SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. There are also some logos in Category:Presumed GFDL images and I guess the same would apply for those. I agree that it is likely that uploader agreed to either GFDL or that WMF have the copyright. It would just have been nice if uploader had stated that explicitly. --MGA73 (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply @SSpalding (WMF). Partial reply from me for now: Unfortunately, it's not just 39 files. Much of the problematic files are at Category:Proposed logos too. While obviously not all of these may be affected, we have ~550 files to review potentially. I think building a timeline would help because a while ago c:Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration happened, but to qualify, files had to meet certain conditions. In particular (and for {{GFDL-presumed}} files) I do not think these can benefit from that process since we lack a clear rights release from the author, and "presuming" that someone released his work under a free license (when the law presumes the exact opposite) seems problematic to me. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Lucky enough, I've already had to start creating a timeline to provide the previous answer. Sorry for the continued delays, (I've actually been partially on vacation since I just got married 🥳), but I'll follow up with this substantively next week. For now, are there any other categories (other than what has been labeled with the Template: Proposed Logo and the one @MarcoAurelio pointed out above? SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@SSpalding (WMF): Congratulations on your marriage. I wish you lots of happy years ahead. Sorry if the above seemed like a request to you to build a timeline. It was just an idea to help out clear this mess. If you made one previously and wish to share it with us it'd be awesome though. As a follow-up, I started c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikinewsCitizenJournalists.jpg about a file that was initially uploaded here but later transferred to Commons, and that reminded me of the threshold of originality criteria which arguably may apply to some of those proposed logos hosted here. As such I've created Template:PD-textlogo here for those files that may qualify. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)