Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2021-03

ノートですら会話できない。

Shirakisanともうします。山口市関連でベテランのBSXにあらし扱いされ（wikiのガイドラインでは荒らしに該当しないはずです）、其れをきっかけにすったもんだがあり、いまやノートの編集さえできなくなってしまいました。永久追放という形に今はなっていますが、wikiのガイドラインに当てはめて考える限りそのようなことをした覚えはありません。少なくとも、私を陥れたBSXは自分の考えとは相容れない相手を排除するタイプの編集者です。わたしは彼の策略に旨くはまってしまいました。いまではノートの編集すらできません。したがって、wikiでのコミュニケーションはこういった場面を除けば全くないという状況です。わたしを排除した編集者は中立的視点にも欠け、独自の研究にがいとうするないようも平気で既述し、自分の都合の悪い既述や変種者を排除しています。 このままでは、当然のことながら何もできません。少なくともノートの編集ができるよう。できることならデフォルト状態。つまりまったくwikiに触れてない状態から再スタートしたいとおもっています。これまでいろいベテランの編集者や管理人にはめられてきました。お忙しいとは思いますが、是非ご尽力いただけますようよろしくお願いします。自分に都合の悪い記事を欠かせないようにするベテランの編集者を放置することはWikipediaにとっても大きな損失の筈です。--240B:253:53C1:A600:4D29:4E25:47CD:75D6 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Stewards and people at this wiki are unable to resolve your issues at jaWP (guessing). Your issues can only be resolved at that wiki with those administrators.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Not only stewards but also administrators can not be able to resolve this problem. What can I do ? Or Japanese wikipedia is worst world? (shoud be out of service)--240B:253:53C1:A600:21A4:662:913B:CC08 11:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The issues of a wiki can only be resolved in that wiki. They are autonomous community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Tank you for your advice. But in Japanese wikipedia they can not resolve this type of problem including autonomous community. I tried, but only to make my image worse and worse. This is the true Japanese wikipedia.--240B:253:53C1:A600:A8B9:BBA4:58A0:1F6F 12:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Add "editcontentmodel" for GS

Status:    Done

When users create pages in wrong namespaces, those pages have wrong content model. This should actually be changed via "Special:ChangeContentModel". Since currently only local sysops have this right, GS must repair this by deleting and recreating the pages. This right is unproblematic and makes it easier to repair such errors in projects without local sysops.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Support seems like a good tool to add to the GS toolkit for performing technical repairs on small wikis. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support, A sensible change. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --mirinano (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support. I have seen users get stuck at MediaWiki.org and other wikis when they want to replace Flow with wikitext, and I think GS should be able to help there, especially if the user themselves do not know what to do (the sequence to change it is a bit obscure). Leaderboard (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Okay.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support. Sgd. —Hasley 18:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --ZabeMath (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support makes sense. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support, uncontroversial request. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 05:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Fair suggestion. --Charitwo (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support sounds reasonable (though this discussion would probably be best suited to the GS talk page) – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  I have added a pointer from the GS talk page to this discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Support sounds logical to me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support. Seems like a needed and uncontroversial change. Meiræ 17:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support nod Operator873^talkconnect 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Minorax^talk 05:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Japanese crisis

Shirakisanともうします。山口市関連でベテランのBSXにあらし扱いされ（wikiのガイドラインでは荒らしに該当しないはずです）、其れをきっかけにすったもんだがあり、いまやノートの編集さえできなくなってしまいました。永久追放という形に今はなっていますが、wikiのガイドラインに当てはめて考える限りそのようなことをした覚えはありません。少なくとも、私を陥れたBSXは自分の考えとは相容れない相手を排除するタイプの編集者です。わたしは彼の策略に旨くはまってしまいました。いまではノートの編集すらできません。したがって、wikiでのコミュニケーションはこういった場面を除けば全くないという状況です。わたしを排除した編集者は中立的視点にも欠け、独自の研究にがいとうするないようも平気で既述し、自分の都合の悪い既述や変種者を排除しています。 このままでは、当然のことながら何もできません。少なくともノートの編集ができるよう。できることならデフォルト状態。つまりまったくwikiに触れてない状態から再スタートしたいとおもっています。これまでいろいベテランの編集者や管理人にはめられてきました。お忙しいとは思いますが、是非ご尽力いただけますようよろしくお願いします。自分に都合の悪い記事を欠かせないようにするベテランの編集者を放置することはWikipediaにとっても大きな損失の筈です。--Sirakisan (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)--240B:253:53C1:A600:4D29:4E25:47CD:75D6 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Stewards and people at this wiki are unable to resolve your issues at jaWP (guessing). Your issues can only be resolved at that wiki with those administrators. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Not only stewards but also administrators can not be able to resolve this problem. What can I do ? Or Japanese wikipedia is worst world? (shoud be out of service)--240B:253:53C1:A600:21A4:662:913B:CC08 11:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The issues of a wiki can only be resolved in that wiki. They are autonomous community. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Important.Japanese crisis.

Tank you for your advice. But in Japanese wikipedia they can not resolve this type of problem including autonomous community. I tried, but only to make my image worse and worse. This is the true Japanese wikipedia.----Sirakisan (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

日本語のwikipediaにおける善意にとるという言葉の意味は、『常連者にとって都合の悪いことを知らないこと、無かったことにする。無視する。都合の悪いことを指摘した者を非難する。』という事であることが普通で、一般的な善意とは大きく異なる。また、常連者はガイドラインを知っているはずだが、実態はガイドラインを無視したり、自分他たちの都合の良いように利用することも普通に見られる。日本のWikipediaの現状はガイドラインはあってないようなもので、半ば無法地帯と化している。スチュワートはじめ世界wikipedianの方々など多くの人にその現実を知って欲しい。--Sirakisan (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 1

@Sirakisan: There is nothing that stewards or global sysops, or local sysops, or any member of any community outside of Japanese Wikipedia can do about matters at Japanese Wikipedia; there is no authority to act. Any issue at Japanese Wikipedia is only able to be resolved by the participants of Japanese Wikipedia at Japanese Wikipedia. There is no external resolution body.

Telling stewards has zero impact.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You saying steward has no responsibility about wikipedia? Is it true that steward thought wikipedia make better and better ?,or worse and worse?--Sirakisan (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sirakisan The stewards are not an appeals body for local disputes. Your account has been blocked for a reason by a trusted member of the community. You should address your concerns on your talkpage at Japanese Wikipedia or through IRC as outlined on your talkpage. User:Billinghurst was a steward previously and is stating the correct policy. As a current steward I confirm what they have stated above. -Green Giant (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: resolve within Japanese Wikipedia  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

you said that this problem have resolved. but you never said the reason.--Sirakisan (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Ombuds Commission inactivity

I have started a RFC about the persistent inactivity of several members of the OC. --Rschen7754 02:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Local inactivity policy of wuu.wikipedia

Hi, I just added the local admin inactivity policy on wuuwiki to Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies. The policy reads 如果一年朆活动，一切特殊权限（包括管理员搭行政员）应该拿脱。因此而除权者，来六个号头以内只要简单要求就好恢复权限；六个号头以后就要重新申请哉。 which means "All advanced rights (including adminship and bureaucratship) shall be removed after 1 year of inactivity. Anyone with rights removed due to inactivity may simply request restoration of those rights within 6 months of removal; after 6 months, they have to re-apply via the normal process." The latter sentence is rather irrelevant (wuuwiki has a local 'crat) so it was not added. I did not find local discussions about this, but the policy was referred to at least 3 times in 9 years in SRP: 2011, 2015 and 2020. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop giving my CU results to User:Cmsth11126a02

Dear all, User:Cmsth11126a02 is now hounding me on the Chinese Wikipedia[1][2][3]. Please stop giving my CU results to him or answer his CU questions about me or disclose my ip subnet like this again. Thank you.--温大善人 (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This is all that the user knows. The specific IP ranges that the user claims are the user's guess. No steward can give checkuser data to the user. So, if the user is bothering you, ask local to act. At least no other information is provided that violates the policy. --Sotiale (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Global IP block messages could do with review

We are getting numerous requests by globally blocked IP addresses locally asking for an unblock. Would stewards please consider getting updated blocking text that points users to a page that offers blocked users better direction on how to understand global IP block exemption and SRGP and/or contacting stewards. You may have a better idea, and happy with something that discourages users from trying for an {{unblock}}.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd definitely be willing to switch things over. Do we know where the text is coming from? ie what system message? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Globalblocking-block-reason-dropdown? -- CptViraj (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The notice those affected users would see is localized version (depend on each wiki) of MediaWiki:Globalblocking-ipblocked-range or MediaWiki:Globalblocking-ipblocked. This would likely lead them to here to appeal. When they find they are also blocked on meta (usually the case when using proxies) they will see MediaWiki:Blockedtext, which instructs them to appeal on talk page. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No, those ain't the messages. We use a Wikimedia-customized version of them:

• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-ipblocked
• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-ipblocked-range
• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-ipblocked-xff

They all link/point to SRG to make the appeals. Amendments to these messages must be done by submitting patches to the WikimediaMessages extension in Gerrit.

Now, if the global block is also applied to Meta (most of the times nowadays) indeed when the blocked visits Meta, the user will see our local "you're blocked" messages (GlobalBlocks do not apply to Meta, we have to mirror them via local blocks) which indeed tell the user to use the {{unblock}} template. I agree it's confusing for the average user. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Workflow-wise, as a local admin I don't see any value in prompting users to put unblock templates on their talk pages if they have global blocks, mostly because I've not seen the stewards promptly patrolling these - even when pinged. Any design improvements should be along the lines of answering the question: how do stewards want to handle appeals from users impacted by their global blocks? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)