Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2020-02

Does being banned from Wikimania carry over to all future events?

Hi everyone! Due to an unfortunate incident in Stockholm last year, I was escorted out and banned from attending the rest of Wikimania. However, it wasn’t clear whether that ban prevented me from attending any future events? I’m very excited to go to Bangkok this year and I hope there won’t be any problems. Thanks! Gropecu (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gropecu: Have you tried asking the person who asked you to leave in the past? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gropecu: The Event Ban policy and process are maintained by Trust and Safety. You should email cawikimedia.org if you have any questions.--GZWDer (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gropecu: When you create a user page at Wikimania with a dick pic, I would think that you are going the right way about it. All trolls look and smell the same to me, and I am getting that whiff.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This was a sock of Architect 134. Ruslik (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Stats

Until last year Wikimedia Statistics site used to be very helpful and informative. However, lately it was not being updated, instead it displayed the promise: "In January 2020, this site will be replaced with the new Wikimedia Statistics". Now January is over, but nothing changed. Does anybody know how the things are and is there any hope for renewal of the site? Al Silonov (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Al Silonov: Did you see wikitech:Analytics/Wikistats/Deprecation of Wikistats 1? It has phab: tickets that you can follow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen all this, it's of no use for me. They should have either fulfil their promise or at least change the misleading banner... Al Silonov (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Al Silonov: I'm not sure why you think it's useless: the best way to get someone's attention to change things like that banner is via phab: and posting to the appropriate tickets. If you subscribe there, you will get emails when there are changes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I just asked "Does anybody know". I am not ready to propel this project, I'd rather create several more entries in my Wiktionary instead :) Al Silonov (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Al Silonov: There's no need to propel anything (tho you can if you want): I'm telling you the best way to stay informed which is germane phab: tickets. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Duration

Hi! There maybe possibility of a temporal block following some possible mistakes whether repeadly or without; there is likely a good hope of unblock whether appeal for unblock or not, when a date of block and unblock has been fixed which gives the author a sense of good hope and courage to be more constructive editor. But when the date of unblock is not fixed or too far date for unblock, it seems that the editor will lose hope, and would forget about it. In my suggestion, i would appreciate if a short date of unblock would be fixed for the editors continuation to avoid abandonment of many projects. As majority of people tends to learn from the mistakes and be more constructive if the unblock duration is short?... Biafranedu (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been banned for not uploading the pictures.

(̴̴)

Respected Sir

It is already 5 years or more after banning me not to upload the pics. to wikimedia commons. Kindly forgive me and grant me permission to upload the pics taken by my own camera. I will be ever grateful to you sir. In future I will not violate rules of the Wikimedia foundation.

With regards,

-Radhatanaya, Mumbai

@Radhatanaya: The correct plact to appeal your block is c:User talk:Radhatanaya. You can still edit this page.--GZWDer (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A bug?

I had made over 600 global edits by October 8 2019 and I still didn't get the permission to vote on according what it says on tools.wmflabs.org even though it was clear that I made over 600 global edits (see my CentralAuth) and my user page says it. LITERALLY. What might have happened? Znotch190711 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's as of the 1st of November. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

GUC seems to support this. You should have been at around 630 at that point. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@RhinosF1: So what? Am I eligible? Znotch190711 (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Znotch190711: the automated tool shows you were short on edits. It is possible this is wrong. If you are confident that it is wrong I suggest you do the following: (1) Go ahead and vote. A volunteer will likely end up marking you ineligible; (2) Appeal the ineligibility at Talk:Stewards/Elections 2020 where someone from the election committee can make a ruling. It will be most helpful for you to come armed with facts, such as a specific list of projects that show you had the correct number of edits in the required time frame. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Note the requirements are both:

• have made at least 600 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis) before 01 November 2019;
• have made at least 50 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis) between 01 August 2019 and 31 January 2020.

— xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Improving tools for handling vandalism

An update: Back in August, we posted about privacy enhancement and abuse mitigation. In short: The rules about the use of personally identifiable information on the internet are coming under more and more scrutiny, and we have to figure out how to respond to the incoming changes. Publishing people's IP address on the internet is not going to be a viable solution forever, but how do we make sure we don't add to the burden of patrollers and those who keep the wikis free from vandalism, spam and harassment? IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/Improving tools has three proposed ideas that would benefit from your feedback at the talk page. What are some costs, benefits and risks we might be overlooking? How can we improve upon these ideas? What sounds exciting, what sounds sub-optimal? /Johan (WMF) (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Stack Exchange and active editors

It looks like Stack Exchange no longer feels on a trajectory to overtake the Wikimedia community as they used to around 2014 (which was also the peak of SO). Now they sound a bit like Wikimedia Foundation in 2010:

• Though our active user base continues to grow, our engagement has remained the same. What this means is that while more users are coming to the site every month, the number of users who engage meaningfully in the site does not increase proportionally.
• To change this dynamic, we will balance investing in improving our tools and features that benefit our long-term users with initiatives that convert new users into engaged ones.
  — Teresa Dietrich, The company’s commitment to rebuilding the relationship with you, our community

Nemo 07:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nutzung von nicht vertrauenswürdigen Anbietern

Ich habe es in letzter Zeit ab und an gesehen, dass hier irgendwelche Sachen auf völlig indiskutablen Plattformen wie Google oder Facebook erledigt werden sollen. Solche Aktivitäten schließen all jene aus, die einen Hauch von Privatsphäre wünschen und sich nicht durch diese Datenkraken ausspähen lassen wollen. Warum ist es erlaubt, irgendwas auf solchen nicht vertrauenswürdigen Plattformen zu machen? Gibt es da nicht irgendwelche Abmachungen, dass die WMF solche Dinge schlicht nicht verwenden darf? Ich erwarte das einfach, dass alles hier im Wikiversum (oder im RL) stattfindet, und nichts, in Worten nichts, bei Google etc. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Fonts of japanese kanji, which are not acurately depicted on @cs.wikt, but fine on @en.wikt

For example, it is hanzi 与 in chinese (mandarin) versus kanji in japanese. Can someone help with this problem? (causes desinformation for readers) Thank you in advance. --Kusurija (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, both are actually spelled the same "Yo(u)" did cs.wikt somehow mistake Chinese as Japanese?--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 18:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Kusurija Where did you find this? Probably translation mistake on translatewiki.net? Need link to see where this happens.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 18:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

与 (cs) vs 与 (en). Such pairs there are very much, not only this. --Kusurija (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see just a content mistake, I think normal editors can fix it themselves, or you can fix it yourself, I thought this was mistake that came from Translatewiki.net.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 19:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Just move your cs.wikt page of 与 to 与 I guess the problem can be solved. Suggest adding this template too {{ja-forms|与|与|[[與]]}} (get the template from en.wikt)--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(with editconflict; neglecting answer) I think, that it is problem on [software] cs.wiktionary. Aktually, there are more problems with editing policy on cs.wikt, e. g. pictures are often strongly disallowed by some users, so some entities leaves unclear, due to lack of a picture. --Kusurija (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay I'm gonna look into the translation on translatewiki.net tomorrow and try to find the mistake there.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 19:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(with editconflict; neglecting answer) As I'm not a sysop there, could you help with transfer/copy of en template {{ja-forms|与|与|[[與]]}} to czech wiktionary? --Kusurija (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Not from translatewiki.net, I think this had to be done with direct edit, also template from en.wikt are unusable there.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 19:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that the difference in formatting is caused by a CSS class Hani added to the heading on enwikt (as can be seen from the source code of the pages 与 (cs) and 与 (en)). The class is defined at en:wikt:MediaWiki:Common.css and somehow added to the heading using the span tag, although I am not quite sure how (if someone knows, I would be interested in learning more about that). Sintakso (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Long story short, on en.wikt it's included the following code: {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span class="Hani">{{PAGENAME}}</span>}}, but it's done via wikt:T:Han char → wikt:Module:zh-han → wikt:Module:headword, which is probably way more than what you're looking for. Anyway, browsers assume the character 与 to be Chinese unless otherwise specified. Throughout the page you need a template to output <span lang="ja">与</span> and get 与--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sintakso^.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 08:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional interface for edit conflicts on talk pages

Sorry, for writing this text in English. If you could help to translate it, it would be appreciated.

You might know the new interface for edit conflicts (currently a beta feature). Now, Wikimedia Germany is designing an additional interface to solve edit conflicts on talk pages. This interface is shown to you when you write on a discussion page and another person writes a discussion post in the same line and saves it before you do. With this additional editing conflict interface you can adjust the order of the comments and edit your comment. We are inviting everyone to have a look at the planned feature. Let us know what you think on our central feedback page! -- For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) 14:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions about OTRS governance remain unanswered

Six months ago I asked a set of ten question, the answers to which I thought should be both straightforward and readily available, on the OTRS Noticeboard on Commons.

Despite a very lengthy discussion there (and a thread on Wikimedia-l when I posted a pointer to that discussion), and a number of other people echoing my plea for transparency, they remain unanswered.

The questions are:

1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public?
3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided?
4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)?
5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?

[the originals are in my post timestamped '11:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)' in the discussion linked above]

I know the questions have been drawn to the attention of (apparently relevant) WMF staff, and raised on the (non-public) OTRS mailing list, but this has also not resulted in answers being given.

What do we have to do to get plain and complete answers to these questions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that I am writing a response to this. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mdaniels5757: So?.. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• There's a few components I need to think about, but I will probably help write a response on this. Give me a bit Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing, could you confirm that you have read OTRS and its subpages linked in its header? --Base (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes; and I said as much in the Commons discussion, linked above, on 29 February. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks. From my perspective the pages do answer the majority of the questions you are asking, so I wanted to have a confirmation before diving into what you aptly call a very lengthy discussion. --Base (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

They do not, as I made clear in that February comment - but if you feel they do, please feel free to point out where, specifically, any of the above questions are answered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 and Nosebagbear: (or anyone else) Any progress? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, it's simple.

1. Whatever OTRS operators and communities decide to enforce.
2. On OTRS subpages and related pages, and the OTRS wiki.
3. On the respective talk pages, mailing lists etc. Content and discussions which may reference private conversations are generally confined to private wikis and mailing lists.
4. Discuss in the above-mentioned places.
5. By OTRS admins.
6. Approval by OTRS admins.
7. If an agent damages a Wikimedia project, get them blocked or banned there. That will prompt reconsideration of their access or make them less harmful.
8. Become an OTRS agent and go review their past actions with the blessing of a discussion with other agents.
9. OTRS admins.
10. By OTRS admins.

HTH, Nemo 09:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No, those ridiculous non-answers do not help. Of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not? It's the reality. What are you trying to achieve? (I still don't get it.) Nemo 20:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, is this still an issue? The answers from Nemo_bis are completely accurate, and if you believe they're insufficient I'd be interested to hear why so I can help. Vermont (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis:So have I understood you correctly that in essence this means I have to volunteer as an OTRS operator to gain insight in this part of the organization because its decisions/oversight is not made public anywhere?--So9q (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes. The answer to question #8 is a tad surprising. Schwede66 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot OTRS on The chain of accountability. Despite being in userspace, feel free to add useful info. And this addition also immediately shows the problem the answer from User:Nemo_bis: the question simply shifts to "Questions about OTRS admins governance". I also have some questions about OTRS sometimes. They seem to act largely on faith, if someone says they are the copyright holder they believe it. Not all of them are very good at sniffing out copyvios. (yes, some people abuse the system) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)