Meta:Babel/Archives/2020-06

Request for comment

Hello. I am sorry for my poor English. A few months ago, I mentioned about the event what he/she was bullying me in front of everyone, in Korean Wikipedia 10 around 10 years ago to user Motoko C. K. (formerly 미네랄삽빠) About the event, he/she said, "I do not remember my actions at that time, because it was so old. If there was a personal misunderstanding about my actions, please do not misunderstand me.". #1 It was not an apology to me, and I really tired of his/her attitudes. So, a few weeks ago, I decided to leave all Wikimedia projects, and gave up admin right on Korean Wiktionary, too. #2 And finally, I wrote some Korean sentences about the event on my Meta user page. #3 But user -revi who a steward on Meta removed it without any reasons on Meta policies. When he/she wrote some comments about it at first time, really I was a lot of stress from him/her, so I had a headache, and I could not control myself well all that day. And now he/she told me on edit summary, if I revert it, I will blocked by him/her (without any reasons, too). #4 I feel he/she often try to threaten to block me like this from before ─of course, he/she do not remember─. So, now I really had a stress too much again, and I do not want him/her approaching me. But now I really do not know what to do. What should I do now? Thanks. --Garam _talk 09:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

False: I have outlined my rationale at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2020-03#Request to block User:Garam and delete his user page. — regards, Revi 09:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to leave you alone, provided you do not insert any comment that violates Meta policy. Attacking someone without mentioning the subject — it is still attack. — regards, Revi 09:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not ask to you about this. PLEASE do not approach me. --Garam _talk 09:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

They you should've avoided pinging me. But I get it —- sure. — regards, Revi 09:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I wrote your name with ":", because I never want to see your comments here. But what? --Garam _talk 09:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that it didn't work. # — regards, Revi 09:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Garam: This is not the forum to discuss your interactions at koWP, they solely belong at koWP. Also, don't start battles by putting controversial edits on your global user page.

If you don't wish to interact with an administrator on a wiki then undertake behaviour that does not cause them to look at your edits, eg. practice civility, and do good editing. Claims of "blocked me for no reason" are typically false, they will always have a reason, you may not like it or agree with the reason, however, there will be a reason. So, my suggestion is to go and do good editing, in line with community expectations, and you should have zero issues. And a piece of advice, don't put controversial comments about your battles at other wikis on your meta user page, as they will be deleted, which has been established as reasonable practice through community discussions about deletions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Already this is not about Ko.WP only. Of course, first point is Ko.WP, but now this is about Meta, too. --Garam _talk 16:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is very disappointed that Garam is constantly tying violates Meta policy and constantly adding harassment/ hate speech content in his/her user page while many admins warn about his/her edits, since it is not appropriate to criticize publicly in global user page for interpersonal events. --*Youngjin (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know wikt:ko:가재는 게 편. And "many admins"? Now I think you are high-flown in your speech, known as Korean style. --Garam _talk 16:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We have two Korean speakers, so it is quite likely you will operate in the same areas if here at metawiki. If either of you doesn't like it, then you are both welcome to edit elsewhere. The person of whom you speak is an admin, a steward and a holder of advanced rights, and you simply have to accept that this volunteer has these elevated rights from the community after earning the community's trust. If you follow the practices as I described earlier, then you should not be getting into disputes. Apart from that, it is not our job to teach you how to be an adult and operate in an adult world. So, practice civility, and do good editing, and we should not be having problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I also trusted these 2 Korean speakers before, because I worked on some Wikimedia projects and I saw them during 10 years. But now I am talking about my damages, not teach me how to be adult. You know, now your stance is really not good to this stuation. And I think, you do not know well about what happened 10 years ago and now their stance and attitude about this event. So, you can say easily. --Garam _talk 04:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is problem with the certain user within community, you should’ve raise the concen in the local community and not the meta-wiki. I am not speaking this only to you, I always commenting like this if some problem regarding the local community and discussion is going on outside of specific local community. —*Youngjin (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you think "block by a steward" is a problem on local, not about on Meta. Yes, this is not your problem, and now your answer is easiest way to leave the problem. I understand your thinking, so I will not say more to you. --Garam _talk 12:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: This conversation is going nowhere. There is no requirement for mediation. You have expressed your opinion, and you have responses.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Unable to view recent changes log

When I tried to view the recent changes log, the page says "internal error" for me. The recent changes do work fine in the English Wikipedia, however it didn't here in the Meta-Wiki. 219.107.37.151 01:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Reported at phab:T255088 --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 00:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Time for guidance about meta (global) user pages

It seems that we are needing to give guidance to the broad community about what a global user page (the root page only) should reflect and could utilise to be a good page. It seems that we also need to state that it should not be hosting provocative/hostile/denigatory statements about people or projects (internal or external), though I would not be wishing to inhibit users to be able to have subpages that align with our scope and can explain civilly their experiences at other places and their learning for dealing with other people through the projects.

There have been numbers of discussions about pages for deletion, on user talk pages, and the like in a number of places, and it seems to me that it is time to codify some guidance. I am uncertain whether it exactly belongs, it could be Help:User page or Global user pages at first guess, or maybe if it is coming something closer to policy, then we need it at Meta:User pages. I am tending to think that we are needing to move to stricter instruction, rather than the general information.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Support the codified rules. — regards, Revi 03:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Amending our bot inactivity policy to define when the "periodic reviews" should happen

Hello. Last year we agreed to approve Meta:Bot inactivity policy. However I feel it'd benefit from improvements. The text mentions that "[r]emovals will be periodically reviewed" but we never defined when those periodic reviews should take place. In order to simplify, can we perhaps use one of either the April or the October Meta:Administrators/Removal windows to do this?

Also, it'd make sense to exempt bots flagged less than 14 months ago before the inactivity check. Policy currently remains silent on that.

Thoughts? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree, it need improvement, we can review in april or october such as admin removal policy. Its be fine if now to finish the silent policy. Syman51 19:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The new features include a toolbar. What do you think should be in the toolbar?

This issue of the Editing newsletter includes information the Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily.

• Reply tool: This is available as a Beta Feature at the four partner wikis (Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian Wikipedias). The Beta Feature is called "Discussion tools". The Beta Feature will get new features soon. The new features include writing comments in a new visual editing mode and pinging other users by typing @. You can test the new features on the Beta Cluster now. Some other wikis will have a chance to try the Beta Feature in the coming months.
• New requirements for user signatures: Soon, users will not be able to save invalid custom signatures in Special:Preferences. This will reduce signature spoofing, prevent page corruption, and make new talk page tools more reliable. Most editors will not be affected.
• New discussion tool: The Editing team is beginning work on a simpler process for starting new discussions. You can see the initial design on the project page.
• Research on the use of talk pages: The Editing team worked with the Wikimedia research team to study how talk pages help editors improve articles. We learned that new editors who use talk pages make more edits to the main namespace than new editors who don't use talk pages.

– Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

20:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Whatamidoing (WMF). Do you or the team managing the "reply tool" feature be willing to enable it on Meta at least as a Beta Feature at some point in the future? Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MarcoAurelio: I'll put it on the list. I need to talk to the team about getting it enabled in more wikis. In the meantime, if you stalk my global.js file, you may find a line at the top that would make you as happy as it's making me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) It works! Thanks so much. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MarcoAurelio, please remember that you will (I hope!) want to take that back out someday. Eventually, I hope that everyone will be able to use this, and you wouldn't want it loading twice on every page. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Sure. Once DiscussionTools get enabled here (I guess we need community consensus and the OK from the Editting Team) I'll make sure to deactivate the script. For what is worth, I only enabled it for Meta using my monobook.js user subpage, so there's no risk that it gets loaded twice in, say, mediawiki.org where I have the Beta Feature enabled. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)