Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Forum)
Jump to: navigation, search
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
Arabic Coffee.jpg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit

Actual watchers of this page[edit]

According to a new feature at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&action=info, 276 watching users have visited this page recently (in the last 180 days), out of 1000+ having it in their watchlists. I would have thought worse! Comments on the feature itself also welcome at phabricator:T51506. --Nemo 16:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd have expected worse. Excellent feature. Ijon (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
+1 to the usefulness. The number is not a surprise for me because I've always suspected that the number of active Meta users is probably in the few hundreds e.g. less than four hundred users took part in the last steward elections. Thank you for getting this done. Green Giant (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Number of users who took part in steward elections is not really an indicator of number of active Meta users because stewards are elected by the global community, not the local Meta community. --Glaisher (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 :P I know but I think it's an example of how much more needs to be done to change casual users into active users, because Meta shouldn't be a small community regulars but a thriving hub. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
One of the reasons for this is the fragmentary and fragmented nature of WMF institutional and staff involvement. See for example, the page histories of Communications/Wikimedia Foundation, Community Tech, Call to Action. The transparency and accountability guiding principles would appear to mandate a more sustained and coherent involvement at Meta by WMF. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Azvikipedia[edit]

This discussion should be continued on the Stewards'_noticeboard. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(I wrote about it. But there was no reaction ?! The reason I am writing again. Please avoid vandalism.)

User:sefer azeri' is engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out.), 2 (Without any major wiped out the picture., , ) , 3 (Fraud. Map changed. 100 years have reduced the state's history.), 4 (Insult.)... Requires block it for at least a year. But it was never punished for their work. Sortilegus always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out), 2 (The name of the state, has been removed.), 3 (Reliable sources wiped out)... Wertuose always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Picture of the article - az:Bakı xan sarayı), is deleted.. 2 (insult; Əxlaqsız ifadələrə görə...) and 3. The 3 users blocked me, without any reason! We do not have arbitration and appellate courts. Therefore, administrators dictator. No one can give me an answer?! To whom should I complain? Perhaps now would be the reaction?. -Idin Mammadof talk 08:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Aydinsalis, this is the wrong place to ask. The only people who could intervene are the stewards but the might be unable to do so if the wiki has other active admins/bureaucrats or dispute resolution channels. If you have been left no other option (and I really mean "no other option"), then you could try asking at the Stewards' noticeboard, but make sure you read the notice at the top. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Per Green Giant, you can left that RfC on Stewards Noticeboard.--AldNonymousBicara? 19:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -Idin Mammadof talk 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Aldnonymous and Green Giant, I wrote. There is no reaction. But then what do I do? -Idin Mammadof talk 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Prevent non-contributive users from endless reverting[edit]

Moved from Meta:Babel. Matiia (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The worst thing about Wikipedia is that sometimes you cannot add information to an article without arguing with users and administrators who did not even read the article. Many users (especially administrators) act as if they own articles, even if they never read those articles. They tend to use the revert function too much. They will drag you into arguments over almost every edit you do, but they themselves will never add any information to the article. They do not really improve the content. They only annoy people trying to the improve the content.

Wikipedia should introduce a way to force users into contributive editing rather than annoying people trying to improve the articles. It does not make sense for a user or administrator to keep reverting without adding anything to the article. There should be a limit on the revert function. If somebody wants to revert other people's edits, they have to contribute to the article. It is very annoying for me to keep arguing with users and administrators who do not add anything to the article, while I am adding information with citations, pictures, etc.--HD86 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you, if the admins do not do all the work they do to protect these wikis they would become a garbage can in very little time. In many wikis admins are the only ones who do this work, not grateful and essential, and they're also criticized for this.--Syum90 (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against admins doing routine work like reverting vandalism etc. What I am talking about is when an admin argues with me over a word I added to an article without reading the other 2000 words which I added to the same article, and without looking in the citations which I added to the article, and without having any background on the subject. This is very annoying. If you want to argue about the information in the article, you have at least to read the article and look in the citations.

Administrative privileges should be limited to routine work that is unlikely to be controversial. As regards the information in the content, nobody should have privileges. If somebody has not contributed information to the article and has not even read the article, they should not be able to change information in the article and engage in lengthy discussions with editors who have contributed significant information and citations to the articles.--HD86 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What you comment applies to any user, not only to admins. Furthermore no user, neither the admins, has more editorial power than any other user, and sysop permission is not a "privilege" but just a set of tools or technical capacities. All users must agree on the controversial changes to the talk page of the article. Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that any information that pass the verifiability policy and satisfy the MoS can be reverted with a valid argument. --Wintereu 09:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Only vandalism/spam/test edits can be reverted, constructive edits should not be reverted with rollback flag. If an user is not capable to discriminate between constructive and unconstructive edits then he/she should not be an admin. As I've indicated above, all users must agree on the controversial changes to the talk page of the article, admins included, of course. --Syum90 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest with you, many admins do not discuss before reverting. One of them pointed out to me this rule BRD. It appears that Wikipedia allows editors to revert without discussing beforehand. It is usually the admins who are bold enough to revert a big constructive edit. Sometimes they will do that without even reading the article. They will ask you to explain your edit. This is easier for them than the hassle of reading the article and looking in the citations.

If you want to make Wikipedia better, you should eliminate all the rules that allow reverting without discussion. If I waste hours of my time to contribute to Wikipedia, I find it unacceptable that an admin reverts my edits with some lame edit summery that shows that he did not read the article or the references.--HD86 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know en.wp rules because of I don't contribute there, but if it is a local essay you can ask to be modified, or you can report that someone doesn't apply it properly; in any case I think it is an issue to be discussed better there on en.wp.--Syum90 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Help with spurious checkuser verification[edit]

Hi all, I'm coming here in order to get independent advice and help.

I've been falsely accused of using a sockpuppet to edit in the Spanish Wikipedia (see here: La relación es clara, that is, "the relationship is straighforward"). However... I have no real idea about who the alleged sockpuppet is (a certain Pelayo Calderón) and therefore, is really annoying that such a "straighforward" relationship has been "found".

I've basically fully packed the last three months working in the organization categorization of Wiki Loves Earth 2015 in Spain. Therefore, and as I've accessed the code of pages in the Spanish Wikipedia there is an access log in the Spanish Wikipedia that is accessible by the checkusers in the Spanish Wikipedia (that makes more annoying the alleged match). Besides of that, there is an extensive access log in all the projects, mainly in Commons, Wikidata and the Catalan Wikipedia. Therefore, there are plenty of data to compare and obviously discard any relationship (as, as said, I don't have any relationship with the "sockpuppet").

I'd like to request an independent verification, having into account, if necessary, all my access logs in any Wikimedia project, so that such a spurious match can be clarified. I've asked the remaining checkusers in the Spanish Wikipedia to clarify this issue, but they can't access the logs in the remaining projects (I guess). Is that possible to get such an independent verification?

Best regards --Discasto (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ecemaml/Discasto, how have you been? Every time you used a sockpuppet account you have always denied. As a matter of fact, a year ago, when a checkuser at Spanish Wikipedia discovered that you were using your current account "Discasto", you refused to be Ecemaml. Not once, but several times, in your page user and even in this forum. But sooner or later you finally recognize who you really are, presuming the work you have done with each of your sockpuppet accounts. So, the story is the same one. Please do not insult our intelligence. --Jaontiveros (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jaontiveros, don't try to do foul play.
A CU verification is a technical matter based on technical evidences that has to be handled in a quite careful way, as there are persons' privacy and reputation at stakes. Bernard has claimed a "straighforward match", and he simply can't. Therefore, I'm here to request a double-check for two main reasons: the first one is that I have nothing to do with said Pelayo. The second one is the subsequent uncertainty of the CU statement. I don't care about my personal situation in the Spanish Wikipedia. This the usual fabrication I'm used to undergo (you're usually quite enthusiastic when shouting "harassment"... imagine the current situation, with the usual suspects filing a vague complaint and immediately resolving it).
No. The problem here is not me, but how (and even if) the checkusers in the Spanish Wikipedia can be trusted or not. That's an issue that goes far beyond my personal situation (I've been fully packed the last three months working in the organization of Wiki Loves Earth and in categorization of the images we have obtainted), but to the very essence of the trustworthiness of the checkusers and about their "verifications". As said, I want to grant access to all my logs in any Wikimedia project (commons, wikidata, cawiki, anwiki, glwiki, enwiki...) so that a proper CU verification is performed. If the CU verification were fair, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with a double-check, isn't it? However, it Bernard is fabricating an spurious coincidence, it would be the time to wonder how fair previous verification were. Again, Bernard is not telling the truth when saying ("there is a straightforward coincidence"). You can believe my statements or not, but it would be simpler to perform a global and independent verification --Discasto (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Fully packed? But you said to a friend (or exfriend now, maybe?) that you had a lot of free time... :P Anyway, I've been checking the contribs between Pelayo Calderón and Discasto and there is no a single time where both of them edit simultaneously, which is... a bit suspicious. I ain't no CU, though. But Montgomery, who is indeed a CU, has already backed up Bernard's analysis. How many more CUs do you need? — Pólux (σ) 18:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Pólux, "fully packed". I know you don't understand what the expression means, as you've ever been a specially prolific editor. I've been fully packed trying to sort and review the images that WLE has uploaded to commons (here). Mind how stupid your statement is, that I have had to ask legitimate users in the Spanish Wikipedia to include the categories I've created or the images I've reviewed in the natural sites' annexes (or, foolish enough, creating articles to be included in the Spanish Wikipedia by other people). You know it as you've been reviewing my contributions, so that I assume you're here simply to play the venomous game (hope you don't bite your tongue). And yes, Montgomery has somehow backed Bernard's analysis, which only means that the analysis and its conclusions are flawed (why? I don't really know).
I'll give you an additional argument to make this verification foolish. I'm perfectly aware of the huge amount of information these guys record about me (in fact, I don't care). Do you think that, if I wanted to use a sockpuppet, I'd connect from the same locations/providers? There are plenty of VPN providers that work fine in the Spanish Wikipedia and, if wished, I could have used them. --Discasto (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hola.Soy un profesor que colabora en diferentes departamentos universitarios en campus de Moncloa, Móstoles, y Villanueva de la Cañada. Me han expulsado de Wikipedia España pues dicen que soy un títere de Ecemaml y que he saboteado una votación. Las pruebas que presentan son que edito sobre temas españoles y que mi nombre contiene el de dos literatos españoles, además de haber hecho una revisión de estilo parecido a la del mencionado Ecemaml, y haber puesto en mi página una foto con el castillo de mi pueblo, donde ahora me encuentro de vacaciones. Pues bien, no soy Ecemaml, ni tengo ninguna relación con él. Me han sometido a un proceso de "investigación" ilegal, pues no he hecho nada malo o irregular que justifique ese preoceso. Me han impedido editar para pedir explicaciones o defenderme, y han ridiculizado y se han mofado de un escrito exculpatorio mío, después de haberlo eliminado. La última edición que hice fue en un ordenador de Moncloa, con Windows 7, ¿aporta eso alguna luz?. Creo que todo este proceso no es de recibo, y sí parece un sabotaje, pero no hecho por mi, si no por checkusers que malusan, abusan, y equivocan sus atribuciones. A quien le interese.--Pelayo Calderón (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC) P. D. Agradeceré que alguien traduzca esto, pues no tengo suficiente fluidez en inglés para hacerlo yo mismo. Gracias.

Sorry, I won't translate because I don't have time to do so. But, basically, you are a Literature professor that signed up 4 months ago and in that time, already created several articles, knew how featured articles were selected and how to review them, and what's more, voted negatively during the last day of the first nomination you participated in. Now, you "discover" the existence of this forum, the powers and responsibilities of checkusers and that they are comitting an abuse. I've heard fairy tales more believable than this. You should admit that you are Discasto, move on and stop wasting everyone's time and patience. Over and out. — Pólux (σ) 20:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Pólux, I don't know who you think you are to assign identities based on, what exactly? Your vehemence seems to be just an evidence of you knowing too much about this issue. You'll have the time to explain why. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


This is an excerpt of the message I've just sent to the OC. As the last time I went to it it took more than a year to answer, I don't really expect they react before the checkuser logs have expired, but I have to try.

Dear sirs,

my name is XXXX, from XXX (I can provide identity proof if needed). I edit in the WMF projects under the username 'Discasto' (previously as 'Ecemaml'). I'm currently banned in the Spanish Wikipedia and perform the most of my work in commons. Also in wikidata and in other wikipedias, such as the Catalan or the English Wikipedia.

My request to you has been sketched in meta (see here), without any reaction.

I've been told to contact the Ombudsman Commission. I initially rejected this suggestion as the last (and only) time I asked the OC to handle a claim it took more than a year to get a response. If you're not handling this request as soon as possible (there are checkuser verifications involved and the logs expire), please, let me know.

The facts are as follows:

  • As mentioned, I'm currently banned in the Spanish Wikipedia. Therefore, I can't edit in there.
  • A certain Pelayo Calderón was deemed to be a sockpupped of mine by local checkusers. After no more than 90 minutes, according to a CU in the Spanish Wikipedia, the relationship [between Pelayo Calderón and me] was "straightforward" [La relación es clara] (mind that I'm not editting in the Spanish Wikipedia, so that there are very few records about my access to such Wikipedia: mainly access to articles' code when still logged, as I'm heavily working in the 2015 edition of Wiki Loves Earth... BTW, I'm a member of Wikimedia Spain).
  • The key point of this request is that I'm not such a Pelayo Calderón. I don't have the slightest idea about who s/he is. That's the actual reason why I'm coming here.
  • As I'm not such a Pelayo Calderón, I asked the local checkusers to clarify the verification. My initial conclusion was simply that the checkuser providing the verification result was lying. However, it does not seem to be the case, as another checkuser provided some information (he claimed he couldn't provide more details on privacy grounds). According to him, he agreed with the initial analysis as, "there are previous records of mine and the outcomes of the analysis allow to draw such a conclusion" (Existen antecedentes y los datos que arroja el análisis checkuser permiten llegar a esa conclusión).
  • I can't refute an unknown and hidden "analysis" (in practise, it means that I'm simply defenceless) but my understanding of the statements provided by the second checkuser is as follows: the connection details of said Pelayo Calderón could be similar to my previous records (again, I'm just guessing, as I haven't been provided any justification about this false positive). Therefore, the checkuser analysis is simply flawed. At most, and according to my understanding, the checkuser could have stated that the analysis results didn't exclude the possibility of a match. That's quite different to a "straightforward relationship".
  • Such Pelayo Calderón seems to have devised to be caught: according to the initial request in the CU board, s/he was a user with an obvious knowledge of the wikipedia policies, editing in areas I had edited in the past and, as far as I understand, editing from a similar location/ISP to me (again, that's only a guess, as I haven't been provided further details). As I'm perfectly aware of the checkusers keeping an extensive record about my connections in the undocumented checkuser wiki, it seems really weird to create a sockpuppet so easily traceable.
  • My connection records are extensively known. Everybody knows that I connect from XXX, using XXX as ISP. I do know that checkusers access more information. However, I have reasons to believe that said information could have been leaked (if you query your records, you'll verify that my previous complaint related to a checkuser of the Spanish Wikipedia using CU information outside wikipedia).
  • Having said this, I just want to request a global checkuser comparing my connections with the ones of said Pelayo Calderón. At least the ones in commons, wikidata and the Spanish Wikipedia. As definitely we're not the same person (I sincerely think this is farce, staged by unknown persons with unknown purposes), the global checkuser verification cannot be but negative. I urge you to carry out this "global" checkuser verification, as I know the records expire.
  • I can provide any further information the global checkuser performing this task could need. I've been working intensively in commons in the last months. As said above, I'm a member of WM-ES and have been working in the organization of the WLE contest and, once finished, in the review and classification of the contest outcomes. There are literally thousands of editions in commons in the last months. Also in wikidata and other wikipedias. I assume that the comparison of such editions with the editions of said Pelayo Calderón will provide the necessary evidences to clean my name. Furthermore, I can provide some information that can be easily verified and possibly could help to carry out the investigation: I connect through very few IP addresses. At home, I don't frequently switch off my router so I guess my IP address is kept for long periods of time. I'm connecting right now XXXXX. [non disclosable text removed]

To sum up, I simply want to have this global verification performed. I don't really know to ask it but my baseline is that a person, any person, must be given the possibility to adduce evidence relevant to the defence. Unfortunately, it's you the ones who keep the evidences and not me. It's really important for me to have my name clean, as, again, I have nothing to do with this Pelayo Calderón. Best regards and many thanks into advance

If the process is fast enough I hope it can sort this issue out. I'm crossing my fingers --Discasto (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


Mira Pólux, yo no tengo la inteligencia y facilidad que tú tienes para escribir en inglés, pero ¿sabes? no soy imbécil. Por eso te ruego que no me trates como si lo fuera. Me imagino que desde la seguridad que te produce creerte portador de la verdad, te es fácil ridiculizarme recurriendo a un sarcasmo apto para idiotas. Pero créeme, métete esto en tu brillante cerebro: ni soy idiota, ni soy Ecemamnl. Con los elementos de juicio que tenéis, deberíais haber llegado a esta conclusión hace tiempo. Si no lo habéis hecho, es porque no habéis querido, y porque estáis prevaricando. ¿No lo he dicho claro? permíteme que repita: prevaricando.

En dos días he aprendido (a la fuerza, a la fuerza que me habéis forzado) más de Wikipedia que en los meses que me dedicaba tranquilamente a editar lo que me parecía. ¿Te extraña que después de expulsarme sin darme motivos, haberme insultado, borrado mensajes, haberme impedido pedir explicaciones, haber bloqueado IPs de vecinos, compañeros y amigos haya buscado y encontrado lo que de este asunto se ha escrito en Wikipedia, y lo que en el mismo Tablón de bibliotrcarios se ha reflejado que ha dicho Ecemamnl en este sitio? Pólux, ¿de verdad has creído que soy tan tonto de remate como para no haber sabido a quién dirigirme? Pólux, ¿es tan pobre tu concepto de la inteligencia media de un ser humano como para creer que para llegar hasta aquí hace falta ser un experto wikipedista saboteador? Pólux: NO SOY ECEMAMNL. Y si probar que lo soy es bastante difícil, probar que no lo soy es muy fácil. Si no lo haces es porque no quieres, y prefieres contestar con mensajes graciosillos y "ocurrentes" como el de arriba.--Pelayo Calderón (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And if Im lucky enough, Discasto will edit at the same time as me... well, Im in Ávila, where is he? Shame on you, Pólux!--Pelayo Calderón (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC) P. S. Pólux, did I say "Literature professor"? No. You did.--Pelayo Calderón (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Si es cierto lo que Discasto afirma, que eres un títere de otro, deja de flamear, irte por las ramas, arremeter contra otros y de esconderte. Di entonces quien presuntamente eres. Saludos--Yeza (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Nop, "quien presuntamente eres" no debe ser singular, sino plural: quienes presuntamente son. :) --Jaontiveros (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Qué ingenioso, Jaontiveros, qué ingenioso. Te estaré esperando para que me pidas disculpas. --Discasto (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
So, your challenge for today is not the substance but the form, although everyone knows who is the hand that rocks the cradle. What a pitty! (mí, mí) --Jaontiveros (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Como parte indirectamente involucrada ya que se me acusó de votar en esa misma VAD conociendo que Pelayo era Ecemaml, cosa que he negado y que es imposible verificar (ya se sabe, al final das el beneficio de la duda como en el caso de una Calle Berry que fue acusada de ser títere de una actual bibliotecaria) recuerdo que uno los "players" actuales pidió confirmación a los checkusers de una IP que había dicho algo negativo sobre un exbibliotecario. Fui a la página WhoIs y vi que la IP era de Bilbao mientras que el acusado no solamente vivía en La Coruña sino también que varios estábamos al corriente que esa misma mañana estaba ingresando en el quirófano. Se trata de Ensada. La respuesta del checkuser fue bastante vaga, dejando caer que podía ser. Así que no me fió ni de los métodos ni fines de los checkusers. Al final, murió estando bloqueado por provaciones cocinadas en un blog externo, incluyendo una consulta de borrado donde participaron varios usuarios. Ah, Yeza, en ese mismo blog también uno dijo que tú y yo erámos la misma persona y a punto estuvieron de pedir los servicios de un checkuser hasta que una de las cabecillas lo aclaró. Cuando quieras te cuento más detalles. --Maragm (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Doy fe de lo que cuenta Maragm sobre Ensada. Lo viví exactamente así. Y yo tampoco puedo confiar en la OC, porque tanto mi esposo, Rapel, como yo misma, escribimos allí en alemán y en inglés sin ningún resultado. Nos quedamos con la impresión de que solo era una instancia burocrática, instaurada nada más que para guardar las apariencias y para que nadie se quedara con la sensación de que las interpretaciones de los checkusers eran inapelables. Pero al final, solo se trataba de que, tras un año de espera, uno mismo tenía que demostrarles a ellos (y en breves palabras, porque no aceptaban la exposición completa de los hechos, rechazándola por ser "muy extensa") que alguien había violado la política de privacidad... Muy rara esta institución, ciertamente. Mar del Sur (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: Igual es raro que tengamos que venir cada cierto tiempo a Meta a discutir en español (o a esforzarnos cada uno como pueda con su inglés) solamente porque Ecemaml/Discasto - un indiscutible miembro de la comunidad de Wikipedia en español, que está presente a diario en todo el devenir del proyecto - continúa "expulsado"... por razones insondables. Mar del Sur (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Insondables no. Es bastante claro: usó títeres para agredir e insultar compañeros. Y lo admitió abiertamente luego, así que no hay duda alguna de que sucedió. es:Magister Mathematicae 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Sí. Completamente insondables, se trata de cuestiones que ocurrieron en un pasado remoto. Está lleno de usuarios (algunos con permisos de bibliotecarios), que en algún momento temprano de su vida wikipédica cometieron errores similares o peores, llegando incluso a vandalizar. Hay quienes ni siquiera lo han admitido, ni menos se han disculpado. Ecemaml se disculpó y explicó sus faltas. Así que reafirmo: las razones por las que justo Ecemaml, uno de los usuarios más productivos de Wikipedia en espanol y de otros proyectos está expulsado, son completamente insondables. A quien, en cambio, he visto sistemáticamente y durante muchísimos años insultar a compañeros con todo desparpajo y en toda impuunidad, con la cuenta principal, en la página de usuario, por todos los cafés y tablones, con múltiples títeres y sin ellos, en el IRC, en un blog "musical", en el twitter personal y en cualquier parte donde apareces, de manera completamente desrvergozada e impune es a ti mismo, Magister Mathematicae. Y dicho sea de paso: TODAVÍA ESTOY esperando que retires la información privada sobre mis datos personales que tú publicaste e insistes en no quitarla, a pesar de que ya se te ha pedido en innumerables oportunidades (pública y privadamente). Los "chanchitos" del blog de La Marrana, a quienes trataste de "hijos de p***" en el café de Wikipedia, te aplauden y se unen a ti cada vez que te vas contra Ecemaml. Esa es la brecha que has encontrado para vivir entre las sombras. Una pena tu vida wikipédica si depende de esa brecha. (Y con esto creo que doy por respondidas también gran parte de las dudas del usuario anónimo que no firma y que ha escrito aquí más abajo. Igual le contestaré específicamente)Mar del Sur (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(Por respeto a quienes quizás me leen, pero les resulta muy difícil hacerlo en español, agrego mi intento en inglés)

Yes. Completely unfathomable; these are issues that occurred in a distant past. There are many users (some with librarians permits), who at some early point in their Wikipedia life committed similar errors or worse, even vandalized. Some do not even have admitted, much less have they apologized. Ecemaml apologized and explained his faults. So I reaffirm: the reasons why just Ecemaml, one of the most productive users of Wikipedia in Spanish and other projects has been expelled, are completely unfathomable. Whom, however, I have consistently and for many years seen insulting companions with all brash and and impunity, with your main account, on your user page, through all the cafes and boards, with multiple puppets and without them, on IRC, in a "musical" blog, on your personal twitter and wherever you appear, in a fully unashamed and unpunished way, is yourself, Magister Mathematicae. And by the way: I'm STILL WAITING you remove the private information about my personal data you published and insist in not removing it, even though you have already been asked to do so on numerous occasions (publicly and privately). The "little pigs" of The Sow blog, whom you tried as "sons of b ***" in Wikipedia village pump, do applaud and join you every time you go you against Ecemaml. That is the gap that you found to live in the shadows. A pity your wikipedia life if it depends on that gap. (And by this I think I also answered many of the questions from the anonymous user who does not sign his statement and has written here below. Even so, I will answer him specifically.)


¿Luego Ensada no estaba criando marvas? te dejo la inquietud Maragm

Ecemaml fue expulsado por: 1. Abusar de títeres (Shonen Bat, Pa ti la perra gorda) 2. Acosar a usuarios (Acosó a Elemaki revisando sus artículos y acusándolo de plagio) 3. Actuar como juez y parte (caso Nixón) 4. Insultar a usuarios 5. Mentir a la comunidad haciendo que con sus mentiras bloquearan a otro bibliotecario 6. Forear en el TAB y en el café creando un ambiente tenso (¿no te suena esa historia, Mar del Sur?) 7. Molestar diciendo que el IRC es esto, lo otro... pero decir que el bloquéame no (¿no te suena esa historia, Mar del Sur?)

Hola ilustre y valiente anónimo: Te agrego cuatro cosas a lo que acabo de poner más arriba:
  • Deja a mi difunto amigo Ensada descansar en paz... todo debería tener su límite ¿no? Creo que ese es uno y... clarísimo.
  • Ciertamente, las personas que hemos sido sistemáticamente vilipendiadas en el IRC, donde se han COCINADO bloqueos y expulsiones... pues es obvio que tenemos que "molestar". Una vez "molesté" publicando un log anonimizado (aunque lo tengo con nombres) sobre la manera en que no solo se me insultaba a mí en un "canal de bibliotecarios de Wikipedia en español" sino que se buscaban directamente resquicios en las políticas para tener alguna excusa para bloquearme. Me pareció un desarrollo muy grave. No tanto para mí misma, sino para el proyecto. Me decidí a publiacrlo y mira el resultado: aquí estoy yo, expulsada por razones (estas sí que no insondables, puesto que es cosa que hagan transparentes mis últimas ediciones, borradas arbitrariamente, contra toda política)
  • El único que actuó "como juez y parte"... ¡es el propio Nixón!!! Tanto así, que él mismo se disculpó por ello (mira mi página de discusión).
  • El usuario Elemaki,de entonces (como ahora Link o Irwin) son usuarios que no han comprendido que este proyecto, es más, ESTE SOFTWARE se desarrolló justamente para que otros te corrijan allí donde metes la pata. Considerar eso un "acoso", alegar que "siguen mis ediciones", "wikihounding" y otras cosas por el estilo atenta contra la mismísima filosofía wiki. No sé si Ecemaml (no lo vi entonces o no lo recuerdo ahora) pero a mí sí me consta y me acuerdo perfectamente de que Elemaki incluyó textos que violaban copyright. Le avisé, los borré, revisé sus otros artículos, pedí que se borraran los plagiados ¡y ya está! ¿cuál es el problema? Mar del Sur (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Intento dejarlo también inglés:

Hello illustrious and courageous anonymous: I added four things to what I just put above:

  • Leave my late friend Ensada rest in peace ... everything should have itslimit right? I think that's one and ... very clear.
  • Certainly, as people who have been systematically vilified on IRC, where blocks and expulsions have been cooked ... it is obvious that we have to "bother". Once I "bothered" by publishing an anonymized log (although I have it with names) on the way I was not only insulted in a "channel of admins from Wikipedia in Spanish" but cracks were sought directly on policies to find any excuse to block me. I found it a very serious development. Not so much for myself, but for the project. I decided to publish it and look at the result: here I am, expelled for reasons (these now aren't unfathomable, because it would be enough if they made my last editions transparent, which were arbitrarily deleted against anypolicy)
  • The only one who acted "as judge and party" ... is Nixon himself !!! So much so that he apologized for it (see my discussion page).
  • The user Elemaki, then (as now Link or Irwin) are users who have notunderstood that this project, moreover, THIS SOFTWARE, were developed just for others to correct where you mess up. To consider that a "harassment", claiming that "they follow my edits", "wikihounding" and other such things against the very wiki philosophy. I do not know whether Ecemaml (I did not see it then and I do not remember it now) but I do know very well and I do perfectly remember that Elemaki included texts that violated copyright. I warned him, erased them, reviewed his other articles, requested the plagiarized to be deleted, and done! What is the problem? Mar del Sur (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Te quejas del IRC, pero tú en el bloquéame hacías exactamente lo que dices que pasa en el IRC. Incluso defendiste tu derecho de insultar en otros lados, pero atacabas al IRC, cito tus palabras:

Opino que no se puede extender la aplicación de las reglas de Wikipedia fuera de Wikipedia. Principalmente por la mantención del deslinde que señala Camima, pero también hasta por razones prácticas: Si apenas damos abasto para vigilar que se apliquen correcta y sistemáticamente a lo que sucede aquí dentro. Tampoco podemos prohibir hablar de Wikipedia fuera de Wikipedia, entre muchas otras razones porque habría que prohibir primero que todo la actividad de difusión que hacen los capítulos. Menos aún se puede exigir a los editores que solamente escriban aquí o en foros no relacionados con Wikipedia, donde el deslinde nuevamente es un lío (si hasta facebook está enlazado) y nos faltan editores por doquier, de modo que exigir que para editar aquí de manera digna una persona se comprometa a no participar en otros lugares de la red o renuncie a tener su propia página, blog, foro o lo que se le antoje, me parece no solo poco sensato, sino que hasta ilegal (al menos aquí en Alemania lo sería). Tampoco es lícito exigirles que se comprometan a no hablar afuera de su trabajo aquí, como si aquí existieran secretos de estado que guardar. Yo encuentro hasta sumamente sano que exista eso de discutir afuera. Porque la otra posibilidad es discutir adentro. Las dos cosas a la vez, es decir borrar opiniones aquí por ser "foreo" y condenar que la gente hable cuanto quiera con quien quiera afuera es una situación insosteniblemente insana. Yo creo que si mañana salgo a la calle y alguien me dice "estúpida" evaluaré, de acuerdo con las leyes del país en que vivo, si me vale la pena querellarme judicialmente, y con lo que reembolsa mi seguro para gastos de abogado. Pero de una cosa sí estoy segura: no preguntaré al agresor si por casualidad escribe en Wikipedia y bajo que nick lo hace para ver si podría aplicar WP:NAP. Porque acaso ¿son otra cosa que la calle o la vía pública los blogs de los wikipedistas? ¿sabemos cuántos hay? Yo he visto varios más por ahí, aparte del mentado Bloquéame (cuya principal gracia era la amplia participación hasta hace poco tiempo atrás) y aunque algunos son bochornosos, otros son de gran calidad informativa. Por eso, pienso que no deberíamos elevar a categoría de virtud el "no participar en foros externos" y condenar como "feo, caca, pis" el hacerlo. Pero otra cosa, es cómo se participa y qué se hace. La concertación saboteadora para manipular elecciones, revalidaciones, borrado de artículos, manipulación de discusiones, planes orquestados con etapas para "salvar" Wikipedia de las malvadas fuerzas que la dominan, me parece que está evidentemente entre las cosas que aunque pasan afuera, debemos cerrar filas aquí dentro entre todos y detenerlo con medidas drásticas. Mar del Sur (discusión) 01:41 26 jul 2011 (UTC)

Osea que tú puedes insultar y los demás no. Bonito caso cangrejo 178.21.175.29 23:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Suscribo cien por ciento mis palabras de entonces y pienso que hay que tener serios problemas de comprensión lectora para ver allí dónde es que digo que yo supuestamente sí tendría derecho a insultar a alguien. Ni lo he hecho, ni me parece que nadie deba hacerlo. En el citado comentario me refiero (y a propósito de algo que ocurría hace cuatro años atrás) a la capacidad que tendría la comunidad de Wikipedia para fiscalizar lo que ocurre afuera. Perdón, pero es que esto ya.. Mar del Sur (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A ver MAr del Sur ¿Cúal es la diferencia entre el IRC y el bloquéame? ninguna, son dos sitios extrenos a Wikipedia. Y si te pones a mirar las contribuciones de Ecemaml ¿por qué no desbloquear también a los usuarios con más de 80000 ediciones en Wikipedia? o todos follamos, o la puta al río 178.21.175.169 02:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC) PD: tu marido Rapel no había denunciado a Magister Mathematicae por usar Twitter? la paja en el ojo ajeno, ay Dios

¿El canal IRC de los bibliotecarios de Wikipedia en español no tiene ninguna diferencia con un foro o blog cualquiera? ¿Que los administradores de una enciclopedia en la que colaboras productiva y desinteresadamente durante muchísimos años te insulten en su canal oficial mientras cocinan la manera de deshacerse de ti, aunque no hayas violado ninguna regla es equivalente a que cualquiera te insulte en la calle?
Does the IRC admin-channel in the Spanish Wikipedia have no difference with any forum or blog? That the administrators of an encyclopedia in which you productively and selflessly collaborate for many years insult you on their official channel while "cooking" how to get rid of you, even if you have not violated any rule, is tantamount to anyone insulting you in the street? Mar del Sur (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: Sin embargo, tras la tremenda digresión del usuario anónimo, me gustaría mucho que pudiésemos retomar el tema del hilo. Supongo que sin esta discusión se ha abierto en Meta no solo es porque Discasto no puede editar en Wikipedia en español, sino porque espera y confía en la ayuda que puedan prestar los colaboradores de otros proyectos a su petición muy simple: Demostrar que Pelayo Calderón no es un títere de Discasto. Dado que Discasto tiene ediciones recientes en Commons, Wikidata y Wikipedia en Catalán y también aquí en Meta y sostiene que está siendo víctima de una atribución falsa, imagino que no hay que hacer tanto trámite ni dar tantas vueltas para probar eso.
PS: However, after the tremendous digression from the anonymous user, I would very much like if we could retake the issue of the thread. I guess that if this discussion has been opened in Meta, it is not only because Discasto cannot edit in Wikipedia in Spanish, but because he hopes and trusts that help can be provided by collaborators from other projects to his very simple request: to prove that Pelayo Calderón is not a puppet of Discasto. Since Discasto has recent editions in Commons, Wikidata and Wikipedia in Catalan and also here in Meta and argues being victim of a false attribution, I imagine that it is not to do so much process or many laps to prove that.Mar del Sur (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ajá, y en el bloquéame también se cocinaban acosos, bloqueos, se intentaron deshacerse de Elemaki, intentaron bloquear a Gaijin, incluso Gaijin y Magister Mathematicae recibieron un insulto de un usuario desde el bloquéame, y hasta acosaron a Jaontiveros y a Prades desde allí. No hay diferencias. Y no insistas con lo del titere porque ya el CU confirmó que son la misma persona

Hi all,

I've intentionally got away from the discussion as getting into an endless discussion wouldn't be useful for anybody.

However, as I've been trying unsuccessfully to provide some counterarguments to the checkusers in the Spanish Wikipedia and given the mood and content of some of the messages, I think some clarifications and remarks would be useful indeed:

  • First of all, I have to reinforce my initial statement: I have nothing to do with Pelayo Calderón. Therefore, what Bernard claims is simply not true (according to him, "the relationship [between both accounts] is clear").
  • My particular case is not really important. What is really important is to determine whether there is a clear taxonomy of what the checkusers can and can't claim (that is, the difference between a "straightforward relationship", a "likely relationship", an "inconclusive relationship" and "no relationship"). Checkuser verifications are based on technical evidences and the community should be provided the most precise and objective, leaving no room to the checkusers personal feelings, dislikes, bias and the like. Otherwise, it might happen, as in this case, than a likely or sensible relationship translates into a straightforward one. It might seem the same, but it's not the same.
  • I'm saying that because other checkusers have provided a somehow different statement: No tengo ninguna razón para dudar del análisis que ha realizado mi compañero sobre esa cuenta en Wikipedia en español. Existen antecedentes y los datos que arroja el análisis checkuser permiten llegar a esa conclusión ("I have no reason to question the analysis performed by my fellow checkuser about [Pelayo Calderón's] account in the Spanish Wikipedia. There is a history and data coming out from the checkuser analysis allows us to come to this conclusion"). My understanding of the statement is pretty clear: althought there are no conclusive evidences (about the relationship between both accounts), Pelayo Calderón's editions are compatible with my previous editions. Given my "criminal record", it seems likely to conclude there's a relationship. Up to here, I can definitely accept that, given my history, the relationship between both accounts, inconclusive, might seem the most likely conclusion (although there could be others, discarded because they seem less likely)
  • However, when the conclusion depends on one person's reasoning, it is definitely conditioned by said person's subjectivity
[
  • let's imagine that one admin invents on the fly a new rule requiring unanimity to acceding to the return
  • in that case, would be such admin the less biased person to make a conclusion over the same expelled users taking as input inconclusive evidences?)
]

Therefore, it is sensible to require that extra verifications could be requested when no conclusive evidences are considered and when partiality can be suspected, isn't it?

  • However, there is no established way to request this double check. When asked, I've been referred to the Ombudsman Commission. However, it's naturally reluctant to accept the request, as its scope seems to be restricted to violations of the WMF privacy policy and the access to nonpublic information policy. I assume that being falsely accused by checkusers of having a sockpuppet is, in itself, a privacy violation.

Anyway, Bernard's conclusions seem to be the most likely, don't they? Well, the could be at the beginning. However, I have provided to other checkuserd, privately, countless evidences that make such a conclusion extremely not plausible:

  • Pelayo Calderón's account seem to have been devised to be caught. It takes 100 editions to be eligible to vote in a featured article candidate. S/he did not many more than such 100 editions and voted, which triggered an immediate checkuser verification request.
  • The claimed relationship between Pelayo Calderón's editions and mine was determined according to my editorial history. As I've been warned many times about such history being carefully recorded, it makes no sense that I created a so obvious sockpuppet, especially knowing that such a relationship would be easily found.
  • As I've mentioned to Montgomery, I do have the means to edit, if wished, without being detected, by using a VPN provider. If I really wanted to create a sockpuppet it would not be connected to my previous history (I do have evidences).
  • In spite of that, I haven't edited in the Spanish Wikipedia for months. Moreover, as I'm an avid reader of the Spanish Wikipedia, I've found usually mistakes, non neutral sections, omissions... in such cases, I've privately asked other wikipedians to fix the articles (again, I can provide evidences). If I had a sockpuppet, fixing these articles (many of them not related to me or to my edition patterns) would have been a quicker way to increase my editcount and to blur my profile... in spite of that, I asked others to edit.
  • I have provided detailled information about my connection time frames and IP addresses. In some of the time frames I cannot edit but through permanent IP addresses that cannot be forged. A simple verification would show that Pelayo Calderón, when editing in the same time frames, cannot use such IP addresses.
  • Finally, I've asked for an across-wiki checkuser verification, as it will show again no relationship between both accounts.

I've been said that a check can prove two users are sockpuppets but it cannot prove they are not and that's right. The key point here is that the initial check (the one done by Bernard) didn't prove anything. It was his own preconceived position which come to the apparently clear conclusion. However, I've tried to explain above how, among the many conclusions that can come from the available evidences, he picked up the most unlikely.

Many thanks for your attention --Discasto (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ecemaml, haz el favor de no engañar a la gente de Meta: para empezar no eran 30 de 46 usuarios, eso fue una manipulación de tu amiga Cookie. ¿Phoenix58 y JJM a favor de tu desbloqueo? Jajajajaja, venga ya. Además, hay muchos usuarios que no expresaron su opinión y que, de haber sido una consulta vinculante, quizá se hubieran mostrado en contra... Y segundo y último, todo esto que está pasando ahora (sea o no provocado por tí, que tampoco me extrañaría nada que Pelayo fuera un meatpuppet tuyo... ¿quizá un compañero de oficina?) te lo has buscado tú solito. Bueno, solito no, con la inestimable colaboración de tus amigos Dodo, Mar del Sur, Petronas, Maragm y demases durante tantos años. Te lo digo de veras, ojalá llegues a recapacitar algún día, pero de verdad. No quedarte en "perdón, he usado unos cuantos títeres, pero lo del IRC es peor porque me están persiguiendo", sino reconocer que, aunque en general fuiste un buen administrador, también fuiste un pésimo mediador y bloqueador, y que eres en buena parte responsable del estado actual de la comunidad de Wikipedia. Por el bien de la enciclopedia, lo que de verdad importa.
(My apologies to all non-Spanish-speaking editors, but I don't have time to properly translate this into English. Perhaps someone could do that... Thanks.)37.29.137.125 14:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Si desbloquean a Ecemaml deben también desbloquear a todos estos ilustres: Ave Cesar Filito, Thor8, Mar del Sur, Rapel, Diegusjaimes, Vitamine, Nihilo y otros más que están todavía expulsados

Friendly spaces expectations revisited[edit]

Last spring, as part of the Inspire Campaign, a set of friendly space expectations was applied to the discussions around Inspire grants. The goal was to create an inclusive, collegial, and positive space for community members, grant applicants, the Grants Committees, and program officers to discuss the merits of grants.

The expectations can be seen here. The Inspire trial was successful, with some caveats. The focus of the Inspire campaign (gender diversity) brought some negative and misogynistic commentary to the main discussion page, as well as vandalistic proposal submissions. Meta admins helped to keep discussions on-topic and harassment to a minimum, although there was some differences about what types of comments would be hatted or removed. As this is a new approach, that is to be expected.

This summer, the Grants Committees and Community Resources at the Foundation wish to continue using the expectations, and expand them to all of the Grants pages. I’m posting here to get feedback from Meta admins and community about the expectations, and, importantly, how dispute resolution should be handled. Without support from the Meta community and administrators, the expectations are not enforceable.

The friendly space concept can be a path towards a more constructive, and less divisive, atmosphere on this project. It offers guidance on how to keep discussions moving forward, and how to ensure that participants feel safe being involved. The main question to be resolved is this:

  • While overt harassment and threatening language are promptly removed in the Grants spaces, and dealt with through existing processes, how should we handle more subtle forms of aggression against community members?

Thanks for your feedback, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You may find my perspective on this rather alien. My perspective comes from en.wn; when I first came to Wikinews I'd already been thoroughly indoctrinated in Wikipedia's AGF philosophy, so that, although I could see the importance of not assuming anything on a news project, for years I kept believing that AGF is right for Wikipedia and this is just one of the differences between an encyclopedic wiki and a news wiki.
Eventually, though, I've concluded that AGF is in the long term bad for any community.
  • Superficial civility doesn't prevent various forms of nastiness below the surface (it doesn't even have to be deliberate, though it certainly sometimes is). In fact, it's possible to needle others civilly until they react and then they get in trouble for incivility and/or not assuming good faith, so that AGF becomes not only a protection for those of dubious faith but an offensive weapon for them as well. I suspect even that behavior doesn't have to be deliberate, as one can probably learn it from others as a normal mode of behavior, and perceive oneself as virtuous for doing so.
  • AGF can also be a convenient excuse for not listening to criticism. This, again, has both deliberate and perniciously non-deliberate variants. When, for example, the Foundation does something outrageous (in the sense of creating outrage), it's then easy to dismiss complainants on the grounds they're not being civil.
  • The fact-finding motive to "never assume" on Wikinews applies elsewhere as well, of course: naivity is dangerous in any context, it's just that the consequences are more immediately obvious on a news project.
Do I have a magic solution for all this? Alas, no. Although I'm inclined to believe "never assume" should be a component of a solution, it's not a complete solution even on Wikinews; and Wikinews has an unfair advantage over (for example) Wikipedia in this regard, in that its workflow naturally prevents most disagreements from dragging on: if the writer and reviewer of an article can't cooperate and come to an agreement quickly, the article goes stale and then there's nothing left to argue about. --Pi zero (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I support the idea that different spaces in Meta-Wiki can operate differently, so as to facilitate the co-existence of different modi operandi and sub-communities (and therefore the merge of other wikis into Meta-Wiki). However, establishing a policy or even guideline requires consensus of the target community, or concretely some buy-in: top-down approaches and law by fiat not only are contrary to our customs, but simply don't work.
So, where was the local discussion supporting this proposal? If there wasn't one, are you going to hold one and how? If there is no shared space for discussion in the target audience, you can use Meta:Babel (note, this discussion shouldn't be on Wikimedia Forum either) and invite the Grants_talk namespace regulars. --Nemo 15:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
My thinking for posting here was that Grants brings in participants from the movement as a whole, and that behavioural guidelines, even in a limited space like Grants, are of interest to the movement as a whole. But I take your point about Meta specific proposals being better suited for Babel. In terms of discussions supporting the proposal, the expectations did get some supportive discussion on its talk in the spring. The expectations grew from the real-life events version, which was developed in response to concerns raised by events organizers and WMF Legal, both on mailing lists and privately, that movement events needed a guideline to ensure the safety of everyone involved.
The IdeaLab Friendly Spaces was a pilot, and the subsequent survey confirmed that an unfriendly environment was one of the major limiting factors to wider participation there. There is also this page (Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting), which indicates contributors support more protections for editors and a rethinking of some of our current approaches (or lack thereof). At least one project has proposed a specific sexual harassment policy recently, which appears to also have community support. These are some of the factors that have influenced the Grants team to push for the Friendly Spaces expectations to be further discussed by the community. In terms of consultations with grants space regulars, Alex Wang and I have been working on the mailing lists with committees (Grants, FDC) to gauge support and get feedback. This revision was based on their work. The feedback has been very supportive, with the caveat that several members are rightfully concerned about how escalation and enforcement will work within the F.S. framework. This is partly why I raised the question at the bottom of my original post; this is an aspect that can only be resolved through community discussion. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, what is AGF? --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@NaBUru38: it refers to the Wikipedia guideline of Assume Good Faith, which basically means that you should try to assume that someone else's edit is made in good faith. Green Giant (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked on Commons as globally banned when I'm not[edit]

Moved from WM:RFH. Matiia (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I was indefinitely blocked on the Commons a few days ago as "globally banned" when I'm not. All my attempts to question this have been instantly deleted and resulted in more IP blocks and user name blocks, even though I've made it clear that the user name is temporary and only used to ask about the false "globally banned" issue.[1]

The admin on the Commons, INeverCry as since been desopped on the Commons for falsely indefinitely blocking other users.

Who should I contact about this?

Thanks, EChastain (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin on Commons but I started a discussion here about your request. Reguyla (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Reguyla. EChastain (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Opened user's talk page at commons to allow for unblock request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, billinghurst and Reguyla, but every time I log in at the Commons, whatever ip I'm on is instantly blocked because I logged in. My neighbours' ips have been blocked also, as well as a business ip of a friend of mine. And ip's aren't allowed to post at any relevant help there. (My email is disabled as well.) I don't want to try logging in at the Commons under my user name and risk anyone else's ip being blocked. But thanks.

(INeverCry also indefinitely blocked Fae on the same day she blocked me. When she was dessopped that was mentioned as one of the reasons, but I don't know how he managed to get unblocked.) EChastain (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

EChastain, your account is now temporarily IP-block exempt on Commons, so you can make an unblock request. Green Giant (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please excuse me; I keep loosing electricity and so lose my edits.

Green Giant, billinghurst and Reguyla, how does that unblock template work? I can't figure out how to get my reason for the unblock to show. And could you tell me what to say as reasons? And how do I discover my block ID and Green Giant requested on my talk page.

I have over 51,000 edits on the Commons with no problems. I'm accused of being Mattisse, but he hasn't edited on the Commons since 2011. The day INeverCry indefinitely blocked me on July 9, 2015, she also indefinitely blocked Mattisse and other editors, and created a category on the Commons "Sockpuppets of Mattisse" and put me and other editors in it. See her contributions on 9 July.[2] As well, there's a category "Sockpuppets of Matisse" which I'm in on my user talk page there. She also said on my talk page "your ban on en.wiki as an LTA sockmaster with many of those same accts registered here (Parabolooidal and EChastain are confirmed by en.wiki CU as socks of Mattisse)". This is not true. I'm not globally banned. I'm indefinitely blocked on en.wiki and not as a LTA sockmaster. And a checkuser was not done there. INeverCry was wrong to say that. The SPI en.wiki said my account is technically and behaviourally "very likely" to be past accounts and blocked me on that basis. I was not blocked as a "sock master" of anyone. See: [3]. I'm not that account. And another user there who knew Mattisse disagreed I was Mattisse.[4] What should I do? I'm fearful that I can't explain all this in my unblock request. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree its a difficult thing to explain. Not every case is easy and some, like this one are difficult. There are several things about this case that bother me and I stated those at the Admin noticeboard on Commons but I'll repeat some of it here:
  • Commons is not ENWP and block on ENWP need not and should not automatically extend there except in certain specific situations that this is not.
  • You appear to have been a positive contributor in Commons
  • You were first accused of being Sue Rangell and that was declined on the grounds it couldn't be proven, then you were accused of being Matisse and the same admin that declined the otherone, MikV, blocked you as a sock of Matisse.
  • The block on ENWP is listed as a checkuser block, but the checkuser tool only holds data for 90 days or so, and the case itself admits to being done on "behavioral evidence" which is not a "Checkuser block".
  • Most importantly, Matisse has been blocked for 4 years. I personally don't care about something that happened 4 years ago and I have no desire to loose what appears to be a good editors, even if you are the resurgence of a banned editor, due to heresay, unproven accusations and conjecture. Reguyla (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reguyla, the editor who brought up the SPI on en.wiki resulting in my block said in response to the editor who thought I was Sue Rangell: "To explain the (realistic) concern that Lightbreather raised about EChastain's first edit being to Mogollon Rim, I think that a good case could be made here for WP:MEAT (some of Sue Rangell's first edits indicate the possibility that Mattisse and Rangell could be acquainted-- if not IRL, then via email) ".

    Now a few months later Lightbreather, who thought I was Sue Rangell, has been banned from en.wiki by ArbCom for a variety of disruptive behaviours. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather So I don't think much trust should be put in these SPI's that are decided on this behavioural evidence and speculation. EChastain (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

EChastain: for someone who professes naivety about the politics of the English-speaking wikis, you have a surprisingly good knowledge. I would suggest that you concentrate on your issue at Commons, and not fuss or expand the politics of another.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This "user" was not blocked due to an en.Wiki ban. They were blocked for continuing to follow me around as they did on Wikipedia: ([5]). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That is a misleading statement considering that the statements in the block link it directly to the decision at ENWP. Anyone can see the edits and that they came directly from ENWP. As for "stalking" Rationalobserver's edits I would agree that perhaps a short block could be warranted, but not an indefinite ban based on lousy research and assumptions of guilt. Talk about a lack of AGF. I have stated my disagreements and it appears that this user will continue to be blocked on commons which I think is a shame. I also hate to say it this way but arguing that EChastain who has more than 50, 000 edits on commons is following Rationalobserver who has 240 edits, is pretty hard for me to take that seriously. I find it frustrating and disappointing that so many are lining up to indefinitely block this editor on multiple projects based on flawed and circumstantial accusations with no evidence. Its literally one admins word for it and it was the same admin that just a couple months ago said this wasn't another editor when they were accused of being a sock at SPI. Oh and its a brand new checkuser with little experience with the tool. There is just so much wrong with this block its stunning. Its the sort of thing I expect to see on ENWP, not at commons and this is a perfect example of why editors are leaving the projects, why edits aren't getting done and why the block logs are so long on so many projects. This is also a perfect example of why the WMF needs to have an appeal process that editors can go to when projects do something stupid. The WMF reserves the right to circumvent the community when thy block a member and won't even tell the community why, the opposite should also be true as well. Anyway, I am going to take a break from commons myself. I had hoped that the stupidity and abusiveness of ENWP didn't permeate into Commons but this event showed me I was wrong and that people really aren't here to build the projects, just their block logs and ego's and it doesn't appear that the WMF knows, cares or has any intention of doing so in the future.Reguyla (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Meta used to host a concerning content?[edit]

On this page [6]. It is offering a prize from an organization that does not exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The usual process is to undertake a deletion request to remove questionable material.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure there is an explanation but it does seem a bit odd, especially as the website of the apparent sponsor (Tanzania Revenue Authority) doesn't appear to have any mention of this. @Francis Kaswahili:, the user who has made the majority of edits to the page. Green Giant (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The user in question is now globally blocked [7] and the page in question deleted [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Not just deleted, the entire page history has been completely suppressed. Very strange. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links gadget[edit]

On some other projects there is an optional gadget that opens external links, when clicked, in a separate window rather than the same window. See the browsing section of English Wikipedia preferences for an example. Is it possible to have the same option available on Meta? Green Giant (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You can also load that gadget from your Special:Mypage/common.js or if you want it to be available on all wikis, your Special:Mypage/global.js. If others feel that it should be a gadget, we could install it here as well. Personally, I am used to opening new tabs for all links, so I don't really have a need for it. BTW, Meta-specific requests should be posted at Meta:Babel or RFH. Regards, --Glaisher (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I was hoping that it could be made available to any registered user, without having to add a script that they might not understand. Green Giant (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
If you identify the wiki and the gadget then we can look to add And give advice on how to add to your global.js.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I might be wrong but I think it is this one: mw:Snippets/Open external links in new window. It is available on English Wikipedia in your Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> Browsing section as Open external links in a new tab/window. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Glaisher: I've added it to my global.js but I don't think I've done it correctly, because it doesn't work even after purging. What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Only purging does not work always; can you try clearing your browser's cache as well? I tried it on my web console and it seems to work for me. Also rather than directly copying and pasting the code, can you add mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-exlinks.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); so that the when the gadget is updated, the changes will affect you as well. --Glaisher (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Gadget added (calling the script from enWP)  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you; much appreciated. Green Giant (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia brands[edit]

Is there an authoritative list of the brands owned by WMF or associated entities? I found one at Wikimedia brand survey but it is eight years old. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rogol Domedonfors, here is a list of Wikimedia Foundation-owned trademarks maintained by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. WMF might maintain its own list as well. harej (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
We have this [9] Not sure if there is a better list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Sadly these search links have expired. I will create a placeholder page and hope that someone has time to fill it in. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It turns out that there is a list at wmf:Wikimedia trademarks, which I have added to the other content at Wikimedia brands. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images[edit]

The thumbnail of this gif is of really bad quality.
How a PNG thumb of this GIF would look like

There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Aim for the Sky[edit]

--Rositazan2008 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)For my enemies--Rositazan2008 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"I don't need to hide anything from nobody , i am a woman of proud . I'll Never let my enemies to see my downfall , cause i am better than they are. I am Keeping my head up high and aiming for the sky. For the sky is my limit "

15 years of Wikipedia[edit]

Less than six months away. Perhaps it is time to share the planning with the community? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll start by questioning the terms "story", "brand" and "positioning". Who is telling what story? Wikimedia is a community, not a brand. We shouldn't be positioning, we should get people to write and read. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. These marketing efforts seem pretty silly given that Wikipedia already has enormous brand recognition. We don't need to explain what Wikipedia is to people, per se, we need to find ways to motivate people to edit and contribute. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

VP level changes[edit]

I see there have been some changes [10], presumably not unforeseen [11]. I am sure the community welcomes the new arrival and sends it best wishes to the departing, and indeed that the WMF does the same. Will those changes be announced formally at some stage? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is probably a better question for wikimedia-l. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Master Project List[edit]

I see from the mw:Team Practices Group/Goals/FY2016Q1 that this list will be ready in a few days time. I do hope that it will be published here on Meta, the global community site for the Wikimedia projects. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Though I hate the name Master Project List. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

disable VisualEditor globally?[edit]

Anybody aware of a tool that makes it possible to disable VisualEditor in every project? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You can use User:Innocent bystander/global.css and User:Innocent bystander/global.js to disable VisualEditor on every public Wikimedia wiki. Why do you want to disable VisualEditor everywhere? --MZMcBride (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not know of Innocent Bystander's opinion, but I find it annoying to always have to disable Visual Editor when I edit in a new Wikipedia version. There are certainly many users, as I, who like editing in the text, without Visual Editor. K9re11 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: I do not feel comfortable with VisualEditor or any WYSIWYG-software at all. I then, do not know what I am doing, and get random unwanted results, just like when I use Microsoft Office as a wordprocessor. Personally, I use LaTeX instead.
I know I can edit global.css/js, but adding this has not helped this far. Any ideas of what I can add instead? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The regular wikitext-edit links are still there on all wikis, right? So, disabling in this context just means removing the VisualEditor edit links. To do that, add the following CSS to your global.css: #ca-ve-edit, .mw-editsection-visualeditor, .mw-editsection-divider { display: none; } (Sorry if I've misunderstood the situation or the request.) --Yair rand (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment of pages which were assessed a long time ago ( Re assessment)[edit]

I want to grab attention of authority holders towards the fact that many pages were assessed a long time ago and since then have been changed. Thus their re-assessment is required. I can not find the right person to whom I can request for re-assessment. Thus I am posting it here. Help may please be extended by those who have knowledge about it. Vr parashar (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Underage Wikimedians[edit]

Hi there everyone, my name is Rogi and I mostly edit on the german Wikipedia. In the de:Wiki we have an "Organisation" called Jungwikipedianer. It's like a Portal for underage Wikipedians where they can talk, collaborate and take part in some competitions. So, we met up a few months ago and we had the question, if there are other Portals or WikiProjects for underage Wikimedians in other Languages and Projects. It would be interesting to see, how the other language versions of this Project work and if we could collaborate to make something new and revolutionary (Jesus, I sound like a Public Relations Managemnt Officer).
I hope you are intersted in this!
Greetings,
--Rogi (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for but there are the various Wikijunior sub-projects which are aimed at younger readers. If it is related (I think it is) then perhaps we should link them through Wikidata? Green Giant (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
No, Wikijunior is about articles. The Jungwikipedianer is for underage Wikipedians. I'm not sure if something like this actually exists outside of the de:Wp. --Rogi (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... well if it doesn't exist elsewhere, then I think this might be something worth expanding on and would be very much in the scope of Meta. Perhaps Jungwikimedianer/Young Wikimedians? Green Giant (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Really, it doesn't exist? Great, let's do something new! Do you think, this name is ok? --Rogi (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Since Meta is a multilingual wiki, we can have pages in any recognised language (and maybe even some fictional ones). I would recommend starting with a short description of the DE project and categorising it initially under Category:Community and a new Category:Young Wikimedians. To make it multilingual, you could use {{LangSwitch}} so people see the text in whichever language they prefer. Green Giant (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I created the cat, but I'm not so good in Cats. Could someone correct the mistakes I made in Category:Young Wikimedians? Thanks, --Rogi (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • We must have an effective child protection policy here at Meta before we take action of this kind that might put children at risk. Please stop until there is a clear consensus about the risks involved in any further actions and the advice and protection WMF can afford to children using this site. @Mdennis (WMF):,@Philippe (WMF): please would Community Advocacy look into this as a matter of urgency. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Rogol Domedonfors: I think it's really important, that children Are protected! --Rogi (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I will look into it, yes. Starting enquiries now. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Mdennis (WMF): but in fact: if there is such a matter with minor Wikimedians, how is it possible on the de:Wiki and the zh:Wiki? --Rogi (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Rogi, an enquiry doesn't necessarily mean that there is a matter. :) I will report back any feedback I receive. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If global policy isn't going to be approved yet, we can draft and approve a local policy under Meta:Child protection policy as a temporary solution. Thoughts? —MarcoAurelio 19:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
To be honest I'm surprised that there isn't a specific global policy. For the local policy, could we use some of the existing Wikipedia policies/essays? Green Giant (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Green Giant:. I have created a draft at Meta:Child protection policy, and it's open for everyone for discussion and modifications. I'd appreciate if @WMF Legal, Jalexander-WMF, Mdennis (WMF): could also have a look at it. English is not my mothertongue so I beg to please apologize in advance for any mistakes made. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What does a Healthy Community look like to you?[edit]

Community Health Cover art News portal.png

Hi,
The Community Engagement department at the Wikimedia Foundation has launched a new learning campaign. The WMF wants to record community impressions about what makes a healthy online community. Share your views and/or create a drawing and take a chance to win a Wikimania 2016 scholarship! Join the WMF as we begin a conversation about Community Health. Contribute a drawing or answer the questions on the campaign's page.

Why get involved?[edit]

The world is changing. The way we relate to knowledge is transforming. As the next billion people come online, the Wikimedia movement is working to bring more users on the wiki projects. The way we interact and collaborate online are key to building sustainable projects. How accessible are Wikimedia projects to newcomers today? Are we helping each other learn?
Share your views on this matter that affects us all!
We invite everyone to take part in this learning campaign. Wikimedia Foundation will distribute one Wikimania Scholarship 2016 among those participants who are eligible.

More information[edit]


Happy editing!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)