Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2014-12

sDrewth

Piramid
 ion  08:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm this at [3] [4]. This looks like bug phab:T41041. --Glaisher (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Hope it will be corrected soon. I just wondered whether I'm not doing anything wrong :)-- Piramid ion  21:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Planet Wikimedia backlogged
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please could someone attend to the backlog at Planet Wikimedia#Not yet added and Planet Wikimedia#Pending? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really.. two new entries were added last month and that page was not updated. (In fact, there's one from rsc.org at http://en.planet.wikimedia.org right now). There is just one entry now which hasn't been added. I've updated that page accordingly. I could submit a patch later for the latest request. --Glaisher (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Adopting a global child protection policy
Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

We have a concise child protection policy that has been around as a proposed global policy for a few years.  I believe that all wikis with their own policy have one that is at least this broad, and it describes the current position of the WMF.  It seems appropriate to have a global policy about this.  
I've started a request for comments about ^{simplifying and} adopting a global policy on the talk page.  Please comment there.  –SJ talk  02:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Child protection is indeed a worthy topic which calls concrete action. I see there is a Guide to action, did you read it yet?
I propose that the WMF retweets something from https://twitter.com/unicefprotects regularly. --Nemo 07:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC) P.s.: [5] [6], repeated by them, seem rather effective: can we start with those? P.p.s.: [7]
@PiRSquared17: might be worth setting a multilingual message to go out through message bot.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Nemo, I appreciate your helpful sarcasm, and I feel the reason many Wikimedians (and other online communities) care about preventing grooming and coordinated pedophilia advocacy on the projects is aligned with those UNICEF ideals - to help children avoid violence, exploitation, and abuse.
PiRSquared17, billinghurst, let's wait until there's agreement on language and framing: the policy as it stood was still too broad and ambiguous, it is being revised.  My thought is the policy page should concisely describe current policy as enforced (mainly from our Terms of Use, and how that is interpreted when carrying out office actions), and how that varies across different projects. –SJ talk 
@Sj and Billinghurst: sorry for my recent inactivity. Is this still needed? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sj: I was meaning an message alert about your RFC, not the policy as stands.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense.  Not now, perhaps in a few weeks, after another iteration. –SJ talk  19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that this policy appears to essentially ban Islam, depending on the person's interpretation of the blessed (?) wedding of w:Aisha and whether they are willing not to commend it publicly.  On English Wikipedia this is circumvented by putting the whole thing in ArbCom's lap, which then reinterprets what is written to mean whatever they want it to, and renders decisions in secret to avoid anyone knowing what that is; but here, who would interpret the global policy?  Since it looks like there are votes to pass this, who would you ask to find out of Islam is allowed? Wnt (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There is ambiguity in the language, but it has never been interpreted as you fear.  In fact, the Arabic and Farsi and Indonesian Wikipedias – all with extensive Muslim communities – use similar language in their child protection policies:

ar:   المحررون الذين يحاولون استخدام ويكيبيديا لمتابعة أو تسهيل العلاقات غير الملائمة بين البالغين والأطفال، أو الذين ينادون بها على أو خارج الويكي (مثلا عن طريق الإدعاء بأن العلاقات غير الملائمة مع الأطفال غير ضارة لهم)، والذين يعتبرون أنفسهم مشتهي الأطفال (غلمانيين)، سيتم منعهم منعا دائما.
fa:  کاربرانی که قصد استفاده از ویکیپدیا برای تعقیب یا تسهیل روایط نامناسب بزرگسال-کودک را داشته باشند، حامی روابط نامناسب بزرگسال-کودک باشند (مثلاً ابراز این نظر که روابط نامناسب به کودکان صدمه نمی زند)، یا خود را بچه‌خواه نشان دهند بی پایان بسته خواهند شد. 
id: Penulis yang mencoba untuk menggunakan Wikipedia untuk mengejar atau memfasilitasi hubungan orang dewasa-anak yang tak pantas, yang menganjurkan hal-hal tersebut (misalnya dengan mengekspresikan pandangan bahwa hubungan yang tidak pantas tidak berbahaya bagi anak-anak), atau yang mengidentifikasi diri mereka sebagai pedofil, akan selamanya diblokir.
That said, I think the current meta proposal is clearer, with a separate section describing local policies.
Interpretation: To my knowledge global policy on these matters is interpreted by WMF staff, when problems are brought to their attention (sometimes resulting in office actions), and by local admins on wikis that have nothing like an ArbCom and must decide how to handle such issues when they arise. –SJ talk  02:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Why we need child protection? Wikimedia has freedom of information, and this can destroy the right of everybody to have free acess to all information, which provides Wikimedia projects. Ochilov (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Ochilov, this describes how abuses are currently responded to.  How can this destroy access to information? –SJ talk  01:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently responded to? By whom and where, based on what policy? --Nemo 07:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, by WMF staff or local ArbComs or admins, when problems are brought to their attention; after investigation, and based on the terms of use or on local policy.  It happens rarely but persistently. Cases aren't widely talked about, to preserve user privacy; the ones I hear about are handled on en:wp.  But for every case that results in clear evidence of abuse, there are others that are reported but are less clear.  –SJ talk  23:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
De-federalizing the role of Meta policy
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The discussion at Child protection has highlighted a basic philosophical issue with Meta policies where ordinary users are concerned: they largely duplicate the Terms of Use.  I see no obvious reason why any policy important enough to mandate on every Wiki project would not be important enough to make part of the Terms of Use and thus advertise appropriately on each project page.  Meta policies, and the discussions that determine them, don't really get much attention from ordinary users.  In part of course because there's a huge issue of language; while the eventual result may get translated, there is little practical chance for non English speakers to become involved.
Now looking over the first section of Meta:Policies and guidelines, what jumps out at me is that there really is very little Meta policy that concerns the average user.  Things like Oversight policy and policies on creating and deleting language projects really only affect stewards and a small number of people who are delegated power by the stewards.  The only apparent exceptions are the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy which are part of the site web pages, and the more miscellaneous No open proxies, Office actions, and in extremis Global bans.  Even these exist largely to prescribe stewards' behavior (such as when to permit editing through a proxy), though they imply some behavioral requirements for ordinary editors.
My feeling is that it would be clearer and more efficient to extract what is actually necessary (and no more) from these policies and explain it in the Terms of Use, then redesignate all the other 'global' policies as being policies for stewards and persons with special privileges assigned by stewards.  There shouldn't be two different global level ways to ban something - either something is part of the advertised Terms of Use, or it should be up to the individual project.  (I don't see why the question of allowing open proxy editing isn't left to the individual project by the way)  Of course, Meta would keep its policies concerning Meta only separate from this. Wnt (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So, do you want the legally binding clauses we force our millions editors to sign to be expanded or reduced? Cf. Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-10-11#Concerns with the present text, Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-10-06#Harassment, threat and abuse, Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-12-13#Definitions, examples, and critiques. --Nemo 22:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I was indeed very skeptical of the Terms of Use and saw it as a backdoor method of forcing through unwanted policies, i.e. censorship, when it was introduced.  That said, the Terms (a) have not been abused and (b) they were adopted.  Given a choice between one governmental mechanism by which limitations can be placed on any Wiki, or two such mechanisms, either one of which can have that effect and be enacted independently, it is better to have only one. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
False dichotomy. The point of the terms of use is that when you sign them you're subject to M megabytes of legal obligations, with M arbitrarily large. --Nemo 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If website terms of use and software shrink wrap agreements ever start becoming genuinely enforceable, you will have hundreds of thousands of people who try playing some simple free game on a web site, then get sued for their houses and life savings based on obscure bizarre fees written in the fine print.  At that point either a couple of the victims will drive car bombs into the headquarters of such predatory companies until congress and the media line up to say how wrong it was for them to do that, or else people will resign themselves to visiting only web sites on a list of a few thousand 'reputable companies' certified by somebody like Microsoft.  In other words.... let's hope that the legal enforceability remains dubious. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia should have a contingency plan for a total sitewide password "reboot"
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I am concerned that North Koreans and other hackers emboldened by Sony's capitulation will eventually target WMF projects.  I think WMF needs to have a clear, specific, workable plan now to deal with several what-ifs, beginning with: what if hackers obtain the plaintext passwords of everyone with an account on a WMF site?
I understand, of course, that multiple measures are taken to prevent that from happening and that this is the most basic task of computer security.  But national level attackers may have access to backdoors in operating systems and encryption algorithms that we don't even think are possible.
I think you should work out something like:

WMF employees and holders of the highest level permissions who are required to be known to the WMF should give you their phone numbers -- to be stored on a piece of paper in a safe place in your office, not online!  This way you can send them messages to call you, and when they do you call them back to confirm their identity and reestablish a password.
Though having a right to be anonymous, admins should be required to submit a "committed identity" (a hash of a unique passphrase known only to them, generated offsite).  These should be posted to their user pages but also archived regularly to offline storage, i.e. flash drives, just in case your servers have been wiped out.  Producing the passphrase -- securely, in the same stream in which they transmit their desired new password! -- gets them a password change.
Other users should be encouraged to use the committed identity mechanism, but many will need after the fact verification.  People who have been reestablished should be able to interview people in live chat and ask them questions about various things they've written in the past, then give a guess whether this is the same person or not.  It's not pretty, not 100%, and takes some time, but it should be good enough.  Alternatively, after the initial crisis, those claiming an account should get to operate it with a provisional tag (no special privileges) which goes away if there are no rival claims in 90 days.
This isn't all that should be done - for example, you should look for a way to spin off the email contact data to some independent secure server, without being accessible from the normal servers any longer, so that when NK breaks in they can't look up the email addresses of people who have edited articles they don't like.  This does mean that you wouldn't be able to see your email address in your preferences; you could only change it from there. Wnt (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean something like these?
wikitech:Server access responsibilities#If your equipment gets compromised
October 2013 private data security issue
mw:Requests for comment/Passwords
--Nemo 19:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Nemo_bis, these are useful links but they're all predicated on the idea that the whole list of passwords won't be divulged to plaintext.  The problem is, despite getting stung on plaintext passwords back in 2011, [8] the hacked files about Sony still included a huge list of plaintext passwords this time. [9]  And this isn't the only company it's happened to.  Either it is really, really hard to discipline any organization not to use plaintext passwords.... or maybe there are back doors in things people think are beyond reproach, put there by some spook outfit or another, and they really didn't have plaintext passwords that they knew of.  Either way, I see some room for worry. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The passwords are salted and hashed in the DB, and login/account creation now uses TLS (with Perfect Forward Secrecy ensured by elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman) by default. Of course, that does not help if the WMF's unencrypted traffic is somehow intercepted, but I think it's enough to stop the majority of attackers (but probably not the NSA, for example). How paranoid do you want to be? I think requiring CUs and oversighters to have a committed identity (generated offline) makes more sense than requiring all users or even all admins to have one. Even if you require all users to have SHA-512 or some other form of proof of identification, the users could have keyloggers which send the DPRK all their passwords and inputs to MD5/SHA-1. Already MD5 has been said to be broken, and there are theoretical attacks on SHA-1 too (they may be practical for large governments in the near future). It might be only a matter of time before the other popular ones like SHA-512 are broken too. Adding committed identities couldn't hurt though, except for greatly increasing the technological barrier for admins. Requiring real names/phone numbers for all admins seems like it could work too, but would violate the privacy policy. I'd be worried about hackers accessing CU data or server logs too, not only emails. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: I agree the other data is worrisome, and left it out only to try to focus on one thing first.  When the press manufactured a 'controversy' about Amy Pascal's emails, self-righteous commentators turned out more or less to say don't put anything in an email that you don't want tattooed on your forehead during your next job interview.  I don't believe that is a right standard for society to have, but it should be clear that Wikipedia, going by this standard, should not keep secret discussions about contentious issues on the servers imagining that they aren't going to come out.  If something is too secret for even ordinary admins to have access to, it doesn't belong on a machine connected to a network - any network.
Ultimately, though, I have to admit, I'm not an expert on computer security.  I just want to say heads up, WMF, please have those who are be ready.  Don't just assume North Korea won't be interested in us, because that tends to blur into "let's make sure North Korea isn't interested in us."  Whereas what we should be thinking is, if we haven't included anything to make North Korea furious with us yet, then we haven't been doing our job as well as we should have. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree adding a committed identity wouldn't hurt, but it might be confusing for users who aren't familiar with it already. If you want to keep your email secret, then don't send it. If you want to keep the content hidden from most people (at least until quantum computing/Shor's algorithm becomes practical) use strong encryption (e.g. PGP/GPG). I definitely agree that "secret" data should not be on a machine connected to any network. I'm not an expert on security either, but I agree with most of what you say. I just don't think this requirement should be added unless it is easy for tech-unsavvy users to understand, and I don't think we should recommend MD5 (even though pre-image resistance only has theoretical attacks AFAIK, collisions have been found, so it seems like a bad idea to use it). Requiring all users to give personal contact information to the WMF would definitely cause a large number of users to leave, although it makes sense (and is already required) for users with access to private info (CU/OS). PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not suggest having all users, or even all admins, give private information, since that would significantly sweeten the pot for any potential hackers.  The email contact data alone is already dangerous in the hands of the sort of people who threaten another 9/11, once they start mailing threats and trying to look up article contributors. Wnt (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Required attributions for OpenStreetMap removed abusively from slippy maps displayed in French Wikipedia (possibly others).
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

moved to a separate page Requests for comment/Required attributions of OpenStreetMap missing in slippy maps of French Wikipedia (to avoid duplication). verdy_p (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
New world language
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In reply to Waters.Justin
I did not want to jump into the thread with PiRSquared.and edit the conversation.
However I have a few comments about a new world language that has been  developed in Montreal.
But first, stating that:

>>> a similar project is underway, otherwise known as English.
English has become such an international language in large part
because it is a common sewer of languages, fairly readily accepting
loanwords from many sources...
does not reflect the reality that "English" is not a language where everything that is expressed is rendered by a unique word.
If a human can understand that 'surname' is the true identical substitution
to 'family name' in another 'flavor' of English or  'given name' is equal
to first name', or 'while' is the same as 'whilst', the computer cannot.
So much for English being a coherent language.
Language flavors are introducing various words for the same purpose so a language becomes foreign to  itself!
The best we can do is gather all ways to express 'the same thing' for all
languages and every single word AND expression (> 1 word) and map it to an abstraction of this 'word' or rather 'concept'.
But therefore sometimes losing hues of meaning in the process - as for instance there are six words to designate 'rice' in Mandarin, 18 words to designate 'snow' in Inu language, etc. And much more depending on inflections, declensions -
grammar/syntax. 
In this portmanteau language, each 'smart word' as abstraction has
knowledge of its lexical class (name, noun, verb, preposition, etc.) and
points to contexts (namespaces) and thesauri.
It is currently used to implement global interoperability in EHRs in the USA.
It allows for rule and ontology-based systems exactly as the RDF framework but expresses predicates in a different way than RDF.
Any comment, feedback, question is welcome

AGLV01
(not posting my name but no objection to it if required or harmless [cf privacy policy]
English is simply a commonly understood second language. It is required in some contexts that persons understand and speak it, but I do not see any chance that the world will consolidate on using one language. English is a rich language (there are many ways to say the same thing - so many that most sentences of six words or more are unique and have never been used by anyone else, ever), but a hard one to learn, because it makes little sense (no means yes, yes means no). Computers though, are getting better at translation. In zh-wiki, there are two types of characters, simple and traditional, and they are automatically translated one to the other depending on user preferences. Google Chrome offers to translate websites automatically, but does not yet do a very good translation, but enough to get an idea of what the page is about. But that will continue to improve, and while professional translators disagree, will probably become transparent not too far in the future. Myself I would like to see an encyclopedia structured like the Rosetta Stone, with the same articles in every language, with the same sections for each article, the same depth for every article in every language, and simply a drop down box to choose the language. An example of this is any of the pages here that have been marked for translation, such as the election for Stewards. Apteva (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Where edit my report about wikimedia activity?
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello wikimedians,
I would like to know were and in witch form can I post and edit such a report ?
That's about my participation on Wikimania 2014 and a recent experience in south of India like Wikimedia ambassador making workshop in secondary school.
An other question concern my French native language and I would like to know if it's possible to found on Meta-wiki people interested to translate my text in english.
Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉  Wiki ou eMail} 16:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
So... No answer means I do what I want ?
--Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉  Wiki ou eMail} 20:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Choose a title and start writing. If you write in French, it's best to use Category:FR. --Nemo 20:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nemo. --Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉  Wiki ou eMail} 21:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
error 404
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

when i click desktop show any aricle then return 404
like this https://hi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php%3Ftitle%3D%25E0%25A4%25B5%25E0%25A4%25BF%25E0%25A4%25B6%25E0%25A5%2587%25E0%25A4%25B7:%25E0%25A4%25AF%25E0%25A5%258B%25E0%25A4%2597%25E0%25A4%25A6%25E0%25A4%25BE%25E0%25A4%25A8/Amitprabhakar%26mobileaction%3Dtoggle_view_desktop

Tried to go to this page now, but couldn't. Also have 404. --Ochilov (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
What (mobile) browser are you using? --Stryn (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like an escaping issue, but the HTML looks correct on m.wikipedia.org footers. --Nemo 16:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
About copyrighted quotes
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Currently we have in wikipedia in Spanish a discussion about if the use of copyrighted quotes in the articles of Wikipedia in Spanish is compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0, or depends on a particular agreement in wikipedia in Spanish or there is no problem. Since the question is not entirely clear I come here, and so we can obtain any help to clarify this issue.
On one hand the term of use establishes:

You may import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, but in such case you warrant that the text is available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license (or, as explained above, another license when exceptionally required by the Project edition or feature)("CC BY-SA"). Content available only under GFDL is not permissible.

Content that is in the public domain is welcome! It is important however that you confirm the public domain status of the content under the law of the United States of America as well as the laws of any other countries as required by the specific Project edition. When you contribute content that is in the public domain, you warrant that the material is actually in the public domain, and you agree to label it appropriately.

Likewise the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works establishes the right to quote, and here: Strasser, Richard (2009), Music Business: The Key Concepts, Routledge ISBN 9781135845209, p.20 ([10]); is explained:

Article 10
Certain Free Uses of Works:
1. Quotations; 2. Illustrations for teaching; 3. Indication of source and author
(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.
(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.
(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author if it appears thereon. 
Article 10bis
Further Possible Free Uses of Works:
1. Of certain articles and broadcast works; 2. Of works seen or heard in connection with current events
(1) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction by the press, the broadcasting or the communication to the public by wire of articles published in newspapers or periodicals on current economic, political or religious topics, and of broadcast works of the same character, in cases in which the reproduction, broadcasting or such communication thereof is not expressly reserved. Nevertheless, the source must always be clearly indicated; the legal consequences of a breach of this obligation shall be determined by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed.
(2) It shall also be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which, for the purpose of reporting current events by means of photography, cinematography, broadcasting or communication to the public by wire, literary or artistic works seen or heard in the course of the event may, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose, be reproduced and made available to the public.

On the other hand wikipedia in Spanish is not allowed fair use with image files and media files according to two votes in 2006 es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Cambiar políticas y reglas de uso de imágenes - es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Extensión de las políticas de imágenes a todos los archivos  because it cannot control/survey the use of such media and that there is a responsibility on the unauthorized reproduction of such copyrighted content. So, would the fair use include texts or quotes, or is it necessary to establish a vote in wikipedia in Spanish to specify it?
In addition, there is another problem with respect to legislation, since the right to quote in Spain is quite more restrictive when compared to USA or another country. Therefore, what is the law that applies to copyrighted quotes?: only USA? the more restrictive legislation to ensure ShareAlike? a free individual interpretation of Berne Convention? the legislation of the nationality of the user? Or a particular legislation selected by the community wikipedia in Spanish?
Finally in commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama

The question of what country's law applies in a freedom of panorama case is an unsettled issue. There are several potentially conflicting legal principles, any of which might be used to determine the applicable law (see en:Choice of law). The law used is likely to be one of the following: the country in which the object depicted is situated, the country from which the photograph was taken, or the country in which the photo is used (viewed/sold). Because of the international reach of Commons, ensuring compliance with the laws of all countries in which files are or might be reused is not realistic. Since the question of choice of law with regard to freedom of panorama cases is unsettled, current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken.

If we extrapolate this statement to the right to quote, it seems that this depended on where the book is published.
With these data, I would ask, is it permissible or is not permissible to use quotes in wikipedia in Spanish? Or does it depend on specific agreement in wikipedia in Spanish? Thanks. Trasamundo (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The right of quotation exists without fair use as well. Quotations within the right of quotation don't affect the license of the overall text. See also article 5(3)(d) Directiva 2001/29/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo. --Nemo 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it is very useful to know that the right to quote doesn't affect the license of the overall text. However, the fair use according the USA law exists because the Berne Convention allows this fair use, as similarly the Berne Convention allows other different rights to quote. So, it remains to clarify what is the legislation which would allow the copyright textual quotes in wikipedia in Spanish?: USA law?, the more restrictive legislation about the right of quotation to ensure ShareAlike?, the law of the country where the book quoted is published? the legislation of the nationality of the wikipedian user?, a free individual interpretation of Berne Convention?, a particular legislation selected by the community wikipedia in Spanish?, or a concrete agreement in wikipedia in Spanish to implement a Manual of Style? Thank you very much. Trasamundo (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Right of quotation exists in all copyright laws of the world, as far as I know. Follow the spanish practices (which being within EU bounds are rather restrictive) and you'll be fine pretty much anywhere in the world. --Nemo 21:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's very enlightening. Thank you. Trasamundo (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Autopatrolled
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What should I do and where should I go to get autopatrolled right in small wikis, which don't have their local policy, such as Esperanto Wikiquote? --Ochilov (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the small wikis don't have autopatrolled user group. eowikiquote also doesn't have it. Only admins and bots have the 'autopatrol' right. --Glaisher (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Local admin's action overridation by stewards
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

One says it's not possible and the other one actually do it, is there any policy about it? Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 11:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about different things. Stewards have the ability to grant rights, they just cannot grant minor rights to a wiki; there is a standard set of rights that we can allocate from meta, and that is due to the configuration of meta not knowing the scope of rights at any other wiki. The rights that stewards have are shown at Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/steward. Re the protection, there was no requirement to protect that page, no clear alignment with a policy, so it was undone. Closing of RFA is usually sufficient at other wikis, and protection is usually not the means to manage normal things. You seem somewhat set on being antagonistic about a number of issues, there is no conspiracy, there is just standard management.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused, did I ask anything about that action in here by any chance? Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 13:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
For the policy regarding Stewards, see Stewards policy. — Revi 11:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2014-12

New Wikipedia "look alike" - is it connected with this wiki?

Fundraising banner

Flagged revisions

Donating loses current page.

Local administrators should be able to view Commons deleted file history

Per Tech/News/2014/50

WMF policy when someone wants the Wikipedia article on him/her deleted

Why I'm blocked?

Design

How to change Account from Wikimedia to Wikibook while keeping the same username

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Translation administrator

"Help" namespace

Planet Wikimedia backlogged

Adopting a global child protection policy

De-federalizing the role of Meta policy

Wikimedia should have a contingency plan for a total sitewide password "reboot"

Required attributions for OpenStreetMap removed abusively from slippy maps displayed in French Wikipedia (possibly others).

New world language

Where edit my report about wikimedia activity?

error 404

About copyrighted quotes

Autopatrolled

Local admin's action overridation by stewards