Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2020-10
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2020, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Vandalism on Mediawiki.org
https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Groups&diff=0&oldid=3844635 I can't revert as my SUL isn't working on that site. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reverted, abuse filter already blocked. Might want to file a phab task for the SUL issue --DannyS712 (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- This was a cookie issue from several weeks back and it seems resolve don all other WMF wikis but not MediaWiki.org. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sometimes if you click "login" it will actually login automatically. Nemo 06:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
CC BY-SA license
My editor at Oxford University Press says that I cannot reproduce an unaltered Wikimedia image with the CC BY-SA license, even with attribution, because the "share-alike" feature would invalidate the copyright on my whole book. Is that correct? I am a complete novice on such matters so please keep it simple. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatchedhut (talk)
- @Thatchedhut: I don't believe that to be the case. Publishing your work containing something in the public domain, be it due to age of publication or a creative commons licence, should not have any impact on your copyright to your work. You would need to suitably cite anything used from here by the CC criteria. You would do best to look at the copyright guidance by your authoritative body in the UK. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio image uploaded to wikimediacommons.beta.wmflabs
The user on it has an inappropriate username and uploaded an image claiming public domain but is a copyvio - [see here]. Not sure what can be done, since it's a .beta.wmflabs.org and there doesn't seem to be a page to request help there. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted. – Majavah talk/contribs/sul 10:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Question on Beta Cluster wikis
What should we do about requests for help from sysop/bureaucrat there, if people need it? Should there be a local page there?
Currently, it seems requests are handled via Phabricator, but I'm not sure how things are dealt with for those wikis.
--Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Generally, requests are done on pahbricator, but there shouldn't be much need. I can also help with anything needed on the beta cluster, where I have developer rights DannyS712 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Coolest Tool Award 2020: Call for nominations
The second edition of the Coolest Tool Award is looking for nominations (see announcement on wikimedia-l). Please submit your favorite tools by October 14, 2020. The awarded projects will be announced and showcased in a virtual ceremony in November. Thanks for your recommendations! -- for the 2020 Coolest Tool Academy: --JHernandez (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric
Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language.
Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback. One is about changes to the Bylaws mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members. The other one is about a trustee candidate rubric to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new Board candidates. The Board welcomes your comments through 26 October. For more details, check the full announcement.
Thank you! Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the criteria?
I am a professional, well-researched article writer and want to post my piece of research on this platform. Please give a permission or guide me how to get and where to get permission to post here. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loramartin2343 (talk)
- @Loramartin2343: If you are talking about creating a wikipedia article, then please take your question to the wikipedia where you are looking to edit. Also do make yourself aware of that Wikipedia's requirements regarding paid editing and/or conflict of interest editing. We cannot give that specific advice here. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Loramartin2343 and Billinghurst: From that site: "DRAGON CITY MOD APK is one of the most playing game[sic] in the world. It has 100M Downloads with 4.6 star rating. It is 100% Safe and Trusted Game.[sic]"
- I lolled — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- In cricket idiom my reply is called "playing a straight bat" and I would classify yours as "a gentle sledge from the keeper". — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Allowing the use of global locks for disruptive socks
It seems there is some limitation in policy that sometimes results in more bureaucracy than needed.
It could be considered to allow global locks for alternative accounts (not the main account) where:
- The main account has a community-supported block (does not have to be indefinite) on at least two projects
- The alternative account has been used to circumvent that block
- There is a reasonable expectation that the alternative account may also be used to circumvent community-supported blocks on other projects. (otherwise you're just making stewards waste time, this is also why the main account must be blocked on at least two projects)
The main benefit of this is probably that disruptive socks can be globally locked without going through an RfC for a global ban, which may not be desirable anyway. None of this would affect policies like w:WP:CLEANSTART. This is just a rough idea, it may be bad, just putting it out there to brainstorm. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Accounts are locked in line with the guidance at and interpretation of global locks, and that alone, is my understanding. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I know, some of the reasons on that page could probably be combined into one (there is little difference between vandalism and spam for this purpose), but the above could be an additional reason. But since nobody else has replied to this topic, I'm not so sure it would be worth creating an RfC. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue is global locks is a bit unclear and not a policy either. In my opinion it is a fundamentally broken process. For your proposal I will not support it as 1. the criteria does not indicate that a steward action is needed (probably they may be resolved locally) and 2. Not every wiki have "community-supported block"; for example it does not exist in Chinese Wikipedia.--GZWDer (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: If an alternative account already has been used to circumvent one community-supported block and there is a reasonable expectation the account will be used to circumvent more, wouldn't that be enough to warrant a steward action? As for wikis that don't discuss blocks at all, those are supposed to be excluded. Can you really not discuss blocks on Chinese Wikipedia? That sounds like dictatorship, how.. appropriate? If people are blocked by a single dubious admin and/or for violating a dubious policy, creation of alternative non-abusive accounts (my suggestion/proposal does not require active vandalism) to circumvent that shouldn't be faced with global locks without an RfC. But anyway, I'm thinking all this may be too complicated to deal with globally. Well, it was just an idea. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1. Multiple account is usually permitted unless they are used abusively, so there should only be blocked in wikis that blocks are evaded (unless the edits are also disruptive in other wikis, which may be a case for global blocks). 2. Chinese Wikipedia does discuss blocks, but admins does not only follow the result of community discussion (such an action is similar to ostracism). Admins decides whether there are valid and sufficient grounds for a block. Similarly, an unblock is not decided by community either.--GZWDer (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: 1. That is a description of the current
policypractice, which could change if the community decides so. 2. In that case there can be community-supported blocks on Chinese Wikipedia. My suggestion/proposal doesn't require community-imposed blocks, only community-supported. If a single admin places a block, the community discusses the block and the consensus is that it is a good block, then the block is community-supported. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)- Please do not concatenate accounts and people. Stewards are able to lock an account where it is problematic from a global perspective, just let them do their job.
Please do not conflate it with a block, community issues etc. as stewards are not dealing with community level disputes; nor bans which are the community's response and direction to stewards.
The community, as I see it, has not wished to implement partial measures against PEOPLE (please do not talk accounts). If you wish to talk about the discipline and control then take the recent discussions from a failed global ban, and look to discuss more broadly how we implement controls that are in between the current binary of globally banned or not. Talking about accounts is symptom chasing. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Policy regarding people won't change anytime soon I think, so I thought about accounts. By now I'm also doubting this could work well and don't expect any change in this area anytime soon either. This thread can be archived as far as I'm concerned, unless someone else wishes to discuss it, though I doubt that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not concatenate accounts and people. Stewards are able to lock an account where it is problematic from a global perspective, just let them do their job.
- @GZWDer: 1. That is a description of the current
- 1. Multiple account is usually permitted unless they are used abusively, so there should only be blocked in wikis that blocks are evaded (unless the edits are also disruptive in other wikis, which may be a case for global blocks). 2. Chinese Wikipedia does discuss blocks, but admins does not only follow the result of community discussion (such an action is similar to ostracism). Admins decides whether there are valid and sufficient grounds for a block. Similarly, an unblock is not decided by community either.--GZWDer (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: If an alternative account already has been used to circumvent one community-supported block and there is a reasonable expectation the account will be used to circumvent more, wouldn't that be enough to warrant a steward action? As for wikis that don't discuss blocks at all, those are supposed to be excluded. Can you really not discuss blocks on Chinese Wikipedia? That sounds like dictatorship, how.. appropriate? If people are blocked by a single dubious admin and/or for violating a dubious policy, creation of alternative non-abusive accounts (my suggestion/proposal does not require active vandalism) to circumvent that shouldn't be faced with global locks without an RfC. But anyway, I'm thinking all this may be too complicated to deal with globally. Well, it was just an idea. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue is global locks is a bit unclear and not a policy either. In my opinion it is a fundamentally broken process. For your proposal I will not support it as 1. the criteria does not indicate that a steward action is needed (probably they may be resolved locally) and 2. Not every wiki have "community-supported block"; for example it does not exist in Chinese Wikipedia.--GZWDer (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I know, some of the reasons on that page could probably be combined into one (there is little difference between vandalism and spam for this purpose), but the above could be an additional reason. But since nobody else has replied to this topic, I'm not so sure it would be worth creating an RfC. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Important: maintenance operation on October 27
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language
The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
They will switch all traffic back to the primary data center on Tuesday, October 27 2020.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
- You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Tuesday, October 27. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (14:00 WET, 15:00 CET, 10:00 EDT, 19:30 IST, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 03:00 NZDT on Wednesday October 28).
- If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
Other effects:
- Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
- There will be code freezes for the week of October 26, 2020. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.