Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2019-04

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 April 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Sbj.: “Technical Documentation”

(En) Sbj.: “Technical Documentation”

  “Technical Documentation” of High-Tech. devices is a subject about which I've developed a strong interest and some experience(*), so that I wander if such an interest is somehow shared by other people here around at Wikipedia, people with whom to possibly discuss ideas and projects. 

Thanks for your attention.

- P.M. [private answers to: Studio-PM <at> hotmail <dot> com]

- - - - -= (*) Some recent works of mine at: https://eric-ide.python-projects.org/eric-documentation.html - = -

[It] Argomento: “Documentazione Tecnica”

  Ho sviluppato un particolare interesse, ed esperienza(*), per l'argomento “Documentazione Tecnica” di dispositivi ad alto contenuto tecnologico, e gentilmete chiedo se tale interesse è qui condiviso da altre persone in ambito Wikipedia, persone con cui possibilmente entrare in contatto per valutazioni e progetti sul tema. 

Grazie per l'attenzione.

-P.M. [indirizzo privato: Studio-PM <at> hotmail <dot> com]

- - - - -= (*) Qui alcuni miei recenti lavori: https://eric-ide.python-projects.org/eric-documentation.html - = - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PMBox12-1 (talk)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation staff

How can I become a WMF staff and edit the Terms of Use? Owen912 (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You should ask WMF. Ruslik (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Wikipedia's admins have blocked me for no reason - what can be done?

I have asked all of them to point out the reason they have blocked me for. None have pointed out a reason for why they have done so. Here are my block history:

  • @Vikiçizer: blocked me on the 14th of June, 2018. I asked "Why?" but never responded or specified a reason or any action of mine that would need to be blocked. If needed I can share the links of the edits I asked him/her for reasons.
  • @Sakhalinio: blocked me on the 1st of July, 2018. I asked him/her on his meta page, we discussed many things but never pointed out or specified a reason for my block.
  • @Superyetkin: blocked me on the 12th of July, 2018. I was alleged of using a sock-puppet account. I asked the sock-puppet account I was accused of using, never pointed out a sockpuppet account.

If needed, I can scan the history and share the links of all the edits through which I asked the questions. The main part is: Can something be done with this mob-rule community? --Ruhubelent (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: During the conversations with @Sakhalinio:, he conceded that the content I was objecting to was a wrong content, he partially amended it. I then asked why am I blocked then instead of the ones who edit-warred me for that wrong content? He did not specify any reason or did not say anything about that. I am asking again, why was I blocked instead of the one who edit-warred me for the content he has partially amended? --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: This issue is far more important than it seems to be because this issue demonstrates Turkish Wikipedia has become a mob-rule dictatorship. Someone edit-warrs me there, I get blocked instead of him. When I call official to supervise the event they block me instead of supervising the event. The same user attempted to edit-warr me on the same topic on En.wiki but he immediately quitted after I reported him. There were some patrols who tried to supervise the conflict but all of them ignore to answer the main point upon which the user edit-wars me for. My own deduction is they are afraid of getting blocked, if need be I can show the links of those conversations as well. Is there a way to fight this mob rule dictatorship community? --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment trWP is a self-managing community. Previously others have started a Request for comment to put forward a point of of view with what they consider the background to a problem.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

  • Another patrol once showed up and evaluated the objections of mine and the statements by that edit-warrior patrol. The objections I raised, which was being prevented, sabotaged and even edit-warred by the edit-warrior, were concluded to be sound and the article was updated according to my objections, albeit with shortages as even that one patrol ignored the main part. But nothing was done to that edit-warrior patrol who kept on edit-warring me using his powers to maintain his own version of the story. Something ought to be done with this mob rule community. The user that edit-warred me talks to the admin and the bureaucrat, who blocked me for no reason, in a friendly and frankly manner which makes me think that is why the two patrols ignored the objection the edit-warrior patrol was sabotaging. In case they act against that edit-warrior patrol they may end up being blocked for no reason, like me and they do know there is no place they can appeal for being blocked due to no reason. --Ruhubelent (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Comment Comment as per previous complaints about communities, this is not the place for such complaints. Please try to resolve it with local trWP admins on their talk pages if they are willing to have the conversation, or start an RFC  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

billinghurst, that is pointless. trying to solve that problem with the mob-leader or seeking those mob members to comment of the incident? The Mob leaders just ignore when I asked them, other wikipedians on the other hand ignore the objections or questions I ask. What I deduce is they are afraid of getting blocked. Once an admin (Sakhalinio) were acting like superviser but he did not even ask the edit-warrior patrol to explain his view. He just blocked me. Two other patrols once tried to act as a mediator but when the critical point is asked they both ignored me. Other than the possibility of getting blocked, I can not think of any other reason why that 3 would first try to solve the conflict but then end up ignoring the objections. --Ruhubelent (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ruhubelent: trWP is a self-managing community, so every person here who is not a member of the trWP community is unable to do anything beyond commiserate. [The harsh reality is that complaining here is creating noise only.] The choices are 1) try to resolve it in community; 2) try to resolve it through an RFC; 3) try to show to the board that the trWP community is dysfunctional. 1) is your best chance, 2) expresses opinions and may alert community to issues, 3) is a leap, though as it is not the first such example of complaints about communities' function, building a series of cases may get their focus. Good luck with your endeavours.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia administrator abuse

Please, protect me from the persecutions of the Russian Wikipedia manager user:Q-bit array. He got real paranoia about me. In every anonimous user from the en:Kazan (population≈1.2 mln) he tends to see my intrigues. Yes, yes, I'm realy modern Cardinal Richelieu! In 2017 he blocked me and another user from Tatarstan as one person forever. Recently RW Arbitrage reviewed my statement about this unfair decision, and decided to amnesty me. But sinless user:Q-bit array can't be wrong! He continues to fight with shadows. He is completely sure, that despite of the favorable decision for me I take underground activity under the guise of the this and this boys. Derslek (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If you are barred from defending yourself in ru.Wikipedia, then why do you edit the site? There are hundreds wikis having a similar agenda, both within Wikimedia and abroad. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in RW collaboration further, but it is principal issue - it's admin violates the rules in impudent way. --Derslek (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The Russian check-user perhaps made a false conclusion, but he was, at very least, motivated to defend his wiki from nationalist scrabbles. I edited ru.Wikipedia for several years and remember that various nationalists (Russian included) were a bane of the site. This evidently causes a reaction, harsh and sometimes unjustified. For comparison, aren’t check-users in English Wikipedia abusive without a decent rational pretext? Don’t we see users wrongfully framed as spammers because had too much foes somewhere? Unwise to expect Wikimedia to intervene against ru.Wikipedia’s establishment in support for several guys from Kazan, and unwise to rally for such things in the present conditions where a committed Wikimedian can be stripped of his/her account—the global account, I don’t discuss bans from specific sites!—over a nonce. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment Each wiki is a self-managing community, especially for wikis of the size of ruWP. There is no intervention that can be done for you from outside of ruWP. The best that you can do is try to discuss it with an admin from ruWP on their user talk page, looking at a possible solution, rather than making confrontational claims. Others have address systemic problems in wikis through the use of an RFC, though best that could be said is that it allows for an expression of opinions, especially in one's native language and away from the control of the specific wiki, though it doesn't usually lead to a change in circumstance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I think that the international community also deserves to hear my side of the story. Long story short: I'm a CU on the Russian Wikipedia. The user Derslek has been blocked by me for sockpuppetry after an SPI investigation (w:ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Derslek3). It was not his first violation of WP:SOCK and also not his first block - see the block log. Almost one year after the SPI and the block (long after all CU/IP/UA logs disappeared from existence and there is no way to confirm/disprove the results of the check), Derslek decided to appeal them at the ArbCom (w:ru:АК:1096). But the decision of the Arbitration Committee was not in his favor - they denied unblocking him. And now he's here, complaining about the terrible Q-bit array, who’s abusing his power on ruWP... -- Q-bit array (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Ooh, please forgive me sinless nobleman! I can't believe, that I hear Your explanations! But Your Eminence forgot to say, that Your unfounded suspicions (1 and 2) strongly influenced on the last Arbitration decision. Although the decision on the amnesty was ready. And You forgot to say that when You blocked me in 2018, I was unactive near half year. So Your Majesty. --Derslek (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg out of scope ruWP community issue, please resolve your issues with the processes available through ruWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on 11 April

10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User reporting system consultation

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken.

The success of this project depends on collecting ideas and feedback from people in a variety of different roles in the Wikimedia movement. To this end, there will be a multi-phased consultation where you can participate in ways that you find most comfortable.

Please visit the User reporting system consultation page to learn more about the process, to ask questions, or to offer feedback. You also can sign up to be be a liaison for you group, to translate pages or messages, or to host a discussion group (on or off wiki.)

Please share this message with other people who you think would be interested in this project.

Cheers, SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Typo

foundationsite:/2019/04/11/a-german-court-forced-us-to-remove-part-of-a-wikipedia-articles-history-heres-what-that-means/

"This sort of re-evaluation of claims in an article is a typical aspect of editing Wikipedia and is reflected in Wikipedia’s rules on sources and biographies of living people.[3"

This seems to be a typo. Pardon me if this isn't the proper venue. Benjamin (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF) and ADavenport (WMF):  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete.php

Is the tool Delete no longer stable? I haven't seen any announcement about it. And is there any other tool like this? Esteban16 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep no longer working Esteban16 that's why this bot request is the new replacement see Meta:Requests for bot status/Bot873.--AldnonymousBicara? 16:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing Wikimedia

How do I cite pictures on Wikimedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LigerTily (talk)

Hello. I think you may want to see commons:COM:REUSE. Killiondude (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Transparent real-time communication

There are some contributors with whom I would like to communicate in a manner close to real time, as we have striking differences in our views which we could both be willing to address. However, doing so on a personal talk page clogs the recent changes at a small wiki, and email has the disadvantage of hiding this conversation -- that may be relevant to other participants -- from other contributors at the wiki. Is meta-wiki a suitable place for such discussions, or is there another place that is more well suited? They're not willing to use IRC (and it is not sufficiently transparent anyway). --Gryllida 11:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You could use an Etherpad. Killiondude (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
^^^ this is a good choice, especially as it is an existing service and has its own interwiki etherpad:. That said, it is never a problem to have a WMF-related conversation at Meta, as long as it is not being used to obscure a conversation where one wants to demonstrate a consensus for a community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for a modification to the Language proposal policy

The Language committee has published a proposal to revise the Language proposal policy. The proposed revision can be found at Language proposal policy/4-2019 proposed revision, and discussion on that page's talk page. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

SNI block from China has been applied to all Wikipedias (and even the https://www.wikipedia.org/)

zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/消息#全部语言维基百科疑似被封 --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Therefore WMF staffs must continue discussing with PRC Governments' staffs within China-US economical discussions, to find a way to win-win each other. --117.14.243.223 03:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
And now, to all WMF wikis. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't get the IP's comment -- discussion to make PRC censorship authority happy? LOL nope. — regards, Revi 17:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sad news. Knowing the trends on PRC censorship, they're unlikely to go back on it. Leefeniaures audiendi audiat 20:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)