archiving stale since July; Miszabot hasn't worked here since early June. :/
← Older revision
Revision as of 15:25, 5 September 2012
Line 21:
Line 21:
|archive = Wikimedia Forum/Archives/%(year)d-%(month)02d
|archive = Wikimedia Forum/Archives/%(year)d-%(month)02d
}}
}}
−
−
== A crusader against private VPN? ==
−
−
Hello, I post this here since I don't know where it would belong otherwise. Apologizes if that isn't the correct place.
−
I know the policy about public proxies and I understand it. But I use a private VPN service at VPN Customers and a fr.wikipedia sysop has decided suddenly to go on his own crusade against VPN, banning all individual IP manually. Is this really a new policy in wikipedia or did he take this action on his own? -CobraSA {{unsigned|CobraSA|2012-03-30T08:44:57}}
−
−
: Open proxy IP addresses tend to be a source of heartburn for admins, as they tend to have a higher amount of troll activity associated with them (vandalizing pages, putting up silly stuff, or even subtle changes of content with deliberate errors in hopes that it will go unnoticed). As a result, blocking these kind of IP addresses helps to cut down the work that project admins need to perform. That well qualified users acting in good faith are sometimes blocked as a result is unfortunate too.
−
−
: This isn't really a new policy either, and has been for good or ill a long standing practice among many administrators... either inadvertently (because they knee jerk block every IP address that has troll activity) and in some cases deliberately if they've noticed a pattern with a particular IP address range.
−
−
: If you are referring to a particular project like fr.wikipedia, I'd suggest taking the issue up with that particular project's community. It looks like the particular actions you are concerned about involve a specific administrator. One of the reasons why administration privileges are very carefully handed out to any user is precisely this kind of authority you are complaining about, where if done improperly can do more harm than good. The fr.wikipedia community is very active and can govern this kind of activity very well without involving stewards or pulling in outsiders to take care of this issue... unless you feel that for some reason the community at fr.wikipedia is not even letting you raise the issue in the first place. --[[User:Roberth|Roberth]] ([[User talk:Roberth|talk]]) 14:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
−
−
::This isn't really my area, but last I heard, "open proxy" and "virtual private network" were not the same thing. OPs are unsecured, "anybody can use it" addresses. VPNs are about encrypting the traffic between two known points. Is there some particular reason that you believe VPNs should be treated like OPs? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
−
−
== Autobiography and privacy ==
−
−
I an an editor at sr wiki, and I need some input on these two policies and practices regarding them on other language Wikipedias, because I am sure that sr wikipedia doesn't understand these policies at all. I am going to tell you what happened, but I wont mention any names, because I don't want you to be influenced by the names (because some of the persons involved are active editors on other Wikipedias). Nevertheless, if it is impossible to get the answer without it, I will give the names. Now, this is what happened:
−
−
A User:X writes an article on Person X, i.e., article about himself. I have to mention that it is a completely unimportant person -- he is very young, and have just started his career in a theatre. His biography is referenced, but the references are for example, a theatre program in which it can be seen that he assisted to some director in some plays etc. No independent third-party sources on his work are mentioned, because there aren't any. I think it is fair to say that this person really lacks encyclopedic notability. Then User:X asks the change of his Username, and becomes User:Y. Looking for some completely other things, I discovered the change of the name in Changeusername log. I put the article to voting for deletion, although some admins told that they would have deleted it anyway because it was clear example of an article for speedy deletion. Anyway, somehow, he obtained necessary votes (canvassing at voting in sr wikipedia is another big problem, but it is not the main topic here) and the article stayed. I said, okay, but the reader should be warned that this is an autobiography (besides, English Wikipedia, and not only English, have this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Connected_contributor template] to do something similar), and I labeled the article as such. Then, User:X, now User:Y (because he changed his username, but in reality, it is the same person), started to remove the label. I put it back, he removed it again which developed in a very nasty dispute (in which I was blocked for 24 hours for warring, and he wasn't blocked because he was helped by another user, therefore they didn't break 3RR and I was alone and lost count so I did) in which I was asked by other users to prove that User:X is Person X. I gave all the proofs (divs and explanations), and I dared the User:Y to deny he is a Person X, and said if he denied it, I would apologise and remove the label and stop any further discussion. He then admitted he was Person X and that he really wrote the article on himself, but then started to ask from me to stop mentioning his real name in relation to his new account (which is NOT a new account, but only RENAMED) because he had right to ANONIMITY and protection of his personal data! I refused to fulfil his wish, because I really cannot understand how someone can have an article on himself on Wikipedia, written by himself, and ask for protection of personal data! The result is my block for 3 months.
−
−
The blocking administrator told me that "This is too short", and that in English Wikipedia, I would have been blocked for at least 6 months, which I honestly, don't believe, because first I know that he is not enough present on en wiki to know this for sure, and I know the rules very well, because I myself translated tons of them, from English to Serbian, for our Wikipedia, and I insisted to vote them and to apply them. I even started a [https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%98%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%92%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%9A%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0 Project for Translation and Writing] of the rules, and this is what I was working on lately.
−
−
Nevertheless, I was cited [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information this rule], but although I really tried to find connection between this rule and this issue, I really cannot. I see that this rule applies to normal users, i.e. to users who put some personal info on their userpages or open an account with their real name, then change their minds and change the username and remove their personal info from thir userpages, '''NOT to editors who wrote the article on themselves''' (which is, BTW, strongly discouraged, as far as I remember).
−
−
Opinions of other admins at sr wikipedia are different. Some think that I deserved block, some don't. But all agree that the block is too long. I don't want my block to be reduced, nor I expect or ask any further action or intervention from Meta to sr wiki (besides, I know this is not possible) because I already decided not to continue on sr wikipedia nor in sr Wikimedia (I resigned today), so as far as I am concerned, they can block me forever if they want. The only thing I REALLY need to know (and this is why I write here, according to the advice of one ex&retired admin from en wiki) and UNDERSTAND is why I was blocked, to know if it was really true that in all Wikipedias the process is the same: a person writes their completely unnotable autobiography, then changes their username in order to avoid his user account to be connected with the article he had written, and then when he is discovered and caught, demands protection of personal data (and have real right to it), even though the autobiographic article with much more personal data, remains on Wikipedia.
−
−
I would appreciate very much the comments from colleagues from all Wikipedias but Serbian, because I already know (obviously) their opinion and practice. All comments are welcome, but especially comments from editors of English Wikipedia and other big Wikipedias, because it is more likely that they already had such cases, and therefore, experience in resolving them. So, please, advice me, tell me your experiences, help me to understand, and colleagues from sr wiki, restrain from posting here. Thank you. [[User:Maduixa|Maduixa]] ([[User talk:Maduixa|talk]]) 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
−
−
:sr.wikipedia can create any rules they want about this situation. If the sr.wp community says that User:X may write an autobiography and then change his username to hide his involvement, then those are the rules on sr.wp and you must live with them. sr.wp is not required to follow the same rules as the English Wikipedia. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
−
::If such rules existed, I would obey them. But they do not exist. Almost all rules are translated from English. So, almost all rules that govern English Wikipedia, govern sr wikipedia. I thought this was clear from my text. --[[User:Maduixa|Maduixa]] ([[User talk:Maduixa|talk]]) 04:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
−
−
OK. Thanks to everyone. I thought that this was a serious project, but now I see it is just another internet joke. Have a nice day. --[[User:Maduixa|Maduixa]] ([[User talk:Maduixa|talk]]) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
−
−
Maduixa, if there are no rules against it (and there is no reason why there should be), then you have no argument. There are no restrictions, and a user can write an article about themselves. The article should be treated as any other article, and the user as any other user. What is NOT allowed, regardless of the existence of local rules, is to reveal the identity of another user, because that is an invasion of privacy. So, you are wrong (SERIOUSLY wrong) and they are right. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
−
:I am not sure if you are pulling my leg or what??? Ther IS a rule that you cannot write an article about yourself, which says that if you do, you don't have any right to privacy. It is a general rule of Wikipedija itself, no matter of the language project! And his identity was NOT revealed by ME, but by himself, when he wrote that article. I just repeated what he already did. BTW, not long time ago, another user revealed not only mu NAME, but my address and my telephone number without my consent. And what did they do? They blocked him for lousy 7 days! And I get a block of 3 months for saying the name of the user who already said it by himself writing the article on himself, and breaking evry possible rule that exists not only in local project, but in general! Maybe you should see [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_comment/Conflict_of_interest_and_partiality_of_administrators_on_Serbian_Wikipedia this]. Maybe I don't manage to explain myself, and maybe I really do not umderstand how on Earth I can reveal something that is already revealed. It was not ME who wrote that article putting his name to public knowledge. I must admit, the more time passess, the more I realize that Wikipedia is a some kind of Twilight Zone. Or Hunger Games, maybe. 1984. All users are equal. But some users are more equal than the others. Well, I think I'll pass this. I have better things to do. Good luck, because you'll need it. I am just sorry these five years I literally wasted on this joke. [[User:Maduixa|Maduixa]] ([[User talk:Maduixa|talk]]) 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
−
−
::If you were refering to him by his real name, I'd agree that you should not and -after perhaps some warnings- a block could be appropiate. But if as stated here, it was just in the page discussion, I see that as relevant for the deletion request, and I don't think his claim is appropiate (given that he doesn't like you show his connection, that seems like a random claim to hide that). Was the rename log hidden? Had he took the extra steps to oversight it, perhaps it could be taken into account. It is relevant the discussion at [[Stewards/Confirm/2012/Magister_Mathematicae]] where it was mentioned that Magister Mathematicae had revealed the real name of an user (the one she had before being renamed). There was disagreement between the parties, but consensus in meta seems to have been that given that it wasn't an oversighted log, it wasn't a "privacy violation". The cases are obviously different, and you can't take a previous experience as a hard rule, but I find really hard to get convinced that mentioning a complete match between the old username of the main editor and the page title in a deletion request deserves a 3 months block. [[User:Platonides|Platonides]] ([[User talk:Platonides|talk]]) 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
−
−
== Wikidata logo voting ==
−
−
[[Wikidata]], the new Wikimedia project currently being developed by Wikimedia Germany, needs a logo and the vote is currently happening here on meta. You can find out all the details in [http://blog.wikimedia.de/2012/07/03/wikidata-logo-its-time-to-pick-a-winner/ this blog entry]. You can vote until Thursday July 12th 23:59 UTC. It'd be great if many of you would take part and decide on a nice logo for Wikidata.
−
−
== Allow autoconfirmed users to move files on Wikimedia wikis by default ==
−
−
Hi. I've proposed allowing autoconfirmed users to move files on Wikimedia wikis by default at [[bugzilla:38186]]. The [[bugzilla:38186#c0|bug's description]] explains the background. If anyone knows of a good reason to continue restricting autoconfirmed users from moving files (i.e., a good reason to ''not'' resolve this bug), please let me know below! --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
−
:There are lots of rejected requests at [[Commons:COM:RFR#Filemover]] and at [[:en:WP:RFP/F]]. Given that so many users have this right declined, I'd say that people think that it is better to restrict this permission. Also, if anyone is able to move files, then there is a risk that [[Commons:FR#Which files should not be renamed?]] and [[:en:WP:FMV#What files should not be renamed?]] might end up being largely ignored. On Commons, the idea is that people should avoid moving files unless absolutely necessary to avoid causing trouble to reusers.
−
:I suggest that you also mention this discussion at various Commons village pumps and at [[:en:WP:FNN]]. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 08:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
−
:: This change would not affect those wikis, as they've essentially already opted out of giving the "movefile" right to autoconfirmed users. This about the default scenario (where there is no "filemover" group). --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 08:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
== Banned user asks for mercy, after 21-month wikibreak ==
== Banned user asks for mercy, after 21-month wikibreak ==