See my user page.

You can ask me things here.

Update: I have contacted T&S. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

T&S has confirmed that they have received my request and will be looking into it. Processing may take up to 4 weeks. (possibly longer if the case is deemed complex) — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 14:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


DownloadfileEdit

c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Lock File:Downloadfile.png from creation

(for obvious reasons I'm following the noticeboards)

@Taivo and Josve05a: it's probably smarter to do the same thing that was done with c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 23#File protection: don't protect, just add the non-existent page to your watchlists as a honeypot. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 06:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought about that, but in my opinion simple semi-protection is more useful. Creating honeypots are useful, if we are dealing with long-term abusers, like I have commons:file:Johan Archiles.jpg in my watchlist, but when we deal with inexperienced users, then prohibiting some unhelpful things is better. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: fair argument. Maybe watchlist c:File:Downloadfile1.png and perhaps c:File:Downloadfile2.png, I predict at least some of the traffic may go there.   Alexis Jazz (ping me) 08:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Checking filesEdit

Hi Alexis!

You know a lot about images and copyright. So if you are looking for something to work on then I have my own little project helping smaller wikis clean up files.

I created m:User:MGA73 and sub pages like m:User:MGA73/Media per wiki to assist me keeping track of what I have checked and where there are work to do.

If you wanna help you are most welcome and if you are busy doing other stuff thats cool! MGA73 (overleg) 5 apr 2020 15:56 (CEST)

@MGA73: Thanks, let me know if you want more info imported. Alexis Jazz (overleg) 5 apr 2020 18:43 (CEST)
Thank you! That sounds great! Do you have any ideas?
I was thinking that I needed to do manual work to check if they have non-free files, if they delete unused non-free files, if they make sure all files have a valid license, if the free files are okay and could be transferred to Commons etc.
Also license template needs to be fixed so they are machine readable. Many wikis have not done that yet. MGA73 (overleg) 5 apr 2020 18:55 (CEST)
@MGA73: It is probably more useful to update the existing tables at m:Non-free content/taking stock and m:Non-free content. Some wikis (like minwiki) appear to have fair use files without having an EDP.
I guess you need to figure out for each wiki (that doesn't have an EDP listed) what kind of uploads they have and how they mark them. For example, I see that non-free logos on frwiki use w:fr:Modèle:Marque déposée. Idwiki has a template for non-free album covers that puts images in w:id:Kategori:Gambar sampul album. To some degree (if templates and categories are linked correctly) you should be able to figure stuff out through d:Q5878936#sitelinks-wikipedia and d:Q7464207#sitelinks-wikipedia. You could probably create stats for some specific subcategories of non-free media. Alexis Jazz (overleg) 5 apr 2020 19:18 (CEST)
@MGA73: copied discussion to meta. Meta is neutral. If you have issues with meta (well you don't but I know people who do), contact me at w:en:User talk:Alexis Jazz, wikt:en:User talk:Alexis Jazz, wikt:nl:Overleg gebruiker:Alexis Jazz or by mail. Less likely to get bothered there or here. Nlwiki is no longer neutral ground. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 17:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes I thought about using those lists. But I'm also interessted in free files so I gave up on those. I have linked a few non-free pages (EDP's) to wikidata and if wikidata is updated it can perhaps replace the lists on meta.
I hope that I can just tell local users how things work and then they will clean up. I tried that on id.wiki years ago but it did not work as planned. Some wikis hate it that I challenge their fair use. I had luck on other wikis and a few is now empty.
The smaller wikis will probably need help setting up templates and the page to make m:Extension:FileImporter possible.
So I guess all wikis need to be checked manually to see what they have. I thought of starting with the smaller ones. Enwiki and dewiki knows how it works and have users checking. MGA73 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: if you manage to take stock of all the non-free media, you'd also know how much free media there is. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 17:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
That is true! Atm. I work on wa.wikipedia. I think they have 500 free files, 500 non-free files and 1000 with no license. I would not be surprised if many other wikis also have a lot of files with no license. --MGA73 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: I know fywiki has very liberal fair use (they accept fair use material of living people and higher resolutions than enwiki) and they have no templates. I can speak fy, but only when I'm drunk. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 18:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't speak wa (or fy). Perhaps I should try to get drunk :-D --MGA73 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: I think it only works if you already speak Dutch.   (fy or Fries is kinda like phonetically written Dutch.. don't tell any Frisian I said that) — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 20:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pasting from nl.WikipediaEdit

Hello.
Please, substitute “Gebruiker:” with “user:” and “Overleg gebruiker:” with “user_talk:” as red links are annoying. I can give you a script doing this in the edit form. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: I'm curious to see the script. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 14:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Incnis Mrsi/Gebruiker.js – the button pops below the edit summary field. It would be wise to show the widget only if the problematical patterns actually appear, but it requires intercepting a user-generated event (pasting into the edit form). That is beyond my JS skills. By the way, you screwed up one link to Nederlands Wiktionary trying to do replacement manually. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Thanks! I fixed that one link manually for now. I'll look at the script. Perhaps I could also add some more features, I see some options. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 18:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but don’t waste your efforts on toys – better push to establish yourself in nl.Wikipedia, nl.Wiktionary, or whatever project do you like. I will be glad to help you. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

RALEdit

Was there a time where you had to run the tool multiple times to get it to work? 1989 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@1989: I don't think so, other than for beta-cluster-specific performance issues. Which files were you trying to undelete? Did only some of them fail to undelete or all? Any other details? — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 14:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The ones shown here. The first time, three undeleted. I had to run it maybe three or four times to get the whole thing. 1989 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@1989: here's a bit for the documentation:

DebuggingEdit

If Restore-a-lot seems to malfunction, do the following to obtain useful information. These instructions are for Firefox, but Chrome has similar functionality.

If Restore-a-lot doesn't load at all/can't select any files/hangs, open the Web Developer tools, Console tab (Ctrl+Shift+K), refresh the page and try to undelete something. Copy-paste the output.

If Restore-a-lot would appear to work but doesn't actually undelete files reliably: open the Web Developer tools, network tab (Ctrl+Shift+E) and try to undelete something. You should now see a bunch of "api.php" requests representing the undeletion attempts. Select the api.php for a failed undelete action (this is a bit of trail and error) and go to the "response" tab to look for errors.


I'm thinking about a way to have RAL report errors more properly and user-friendly. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 15:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  Added 1989 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Tech NewsEdit

Hi! Thanks for the edits to Tech News. Since they were all to recurring texts, they have an impact on pieces of text that are the same every week and used by the translation memory (and the same thing would repeat next week). To not cause issues for translators who translate every week by mixing back and forth with the text, I'll do the normal text this week, and then start a conversation based on the diff of your edit on Monday and we can look at it and see if should do long-term fixes to the template we use, rather than the individual issue.

Sorry for the convoluted, non-wiki way of handling small fixes, it's just that I don't want to create extra work for people who translate every week and depend on texts changing as little as possible. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Not saying you're wrong and nothing should be changed, just wanting to do it with minimal extra work for translators. (: /Johan (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Johan (WMF): I understand, making one big change is more efficient than multiple small ones and others may also have suggestions for improvements. Please ping me when you start the conversation. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Johan (WMF): btw, in that conversation it may be wise to also get speakers of other languages involved to improve translatability. Take for example the sentence "Not all changes will affect you" in the header: it's already odd in English, but translates even more poorly into Dutch because Dutch has two forms of "you": jij (informal) and U. (polite, formal) The latter is truly cringeworthy on WikiMedia outside, I dunno, the ToU. The former is a bit too colloquial for a newsletter. So in this case in Dutch we'd be more likely to address the community as a whole (all users or similar), and that also seems to work better in English, but if I hadn't known Dutch I would have probably glanced over this. My point being, consider drawing the attention of the translators when the conversation is started. Even if they're are not native English speakers, their knowledge of another language may allow them to see how an English text can be improved and avoid constructs that are difficult to translate. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 22:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Will ping you.
(This might not happen to day, as planned. My apologies. More things on my plate to handle than I thought.) /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Now there's a feeling a know.  Alexis Jazz (ping me) 21:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm speechless.Edit

"You gave me the idea that you were open to exchanging arguments. You gave some arguments against, I gave some in favor, and we could both consider our position. But I see only now that wasn't how you saw it. " [1]

don't know why you are surprised - in my experience abusive admins like to project their abuse on others; they are not interested is a good faith discussion, rather they are full of endless justification of existing abuse of power. it is all about the "right to comfort" with trust issues, and zero tolerance. [2] - Slowking4 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I just consider myself a hopeless optimistic. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 13:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
you know, i can collaborate with just about anyone; but certain bannable admins are not prepared to reconsider their bullying book-burning behavior. [3]; [4]; it is my great privilege to oppose them. Slowking4 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to the topic, but I'm quite speechless over this. What a very generous way to say thank you for defending you back at Commons. If I knew you were this shady, I would of never done what I did months ago. Good luck dealing with the Ombudsman commission. After what you pulled, you're gonna need it. 1989 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@1989: I thank you (and everyone else who did of course) for standing up. Had the roles been reversed (Natuur12 or anyone else editing a comment of yours), I would have given you the same information. I just happen to know a few things about how the copyright system on YouTube works.
That's just information. It's not partisan. Just now I thought "what if I tried to argue in favor of your view?", only to realize that I hadn't properly formed an opinion yet. So here goes:
A few things to unpack here. I wouldn't consider that YouTube video a copyright violation because of Content ID. Since nobody else seems to have been aware of that, it's understandable that the link was removed and it was thought that Natuur12 accidentally shared a copyright violation. The current policy doesn't forbid linking non-free content. But.. maybe it should? Now it should be obvious that we can't forbid linking any non-free content. We need to link to stock photography sites to prove copyvios, link copyright laws, link websites that provide tools that further the project (say, Google translate) and so on. But where a link isn't strictly required to further the project, perhaps we should require it to be free? I'm not quite sure, but perhaps that would stimulate free alternatives for memes and jokes and the like.
Guess I still haven't properly formed an opinion. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 18:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You thought I meant the whole thing? Of course not. I meant the last sentence, in which you didn't address. 1989 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@1989: Now I'm just confused. What did you mean? What do you want to know? — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 18:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
he said it again! he said it again! revert, aaah! 1989 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@1989: Okay.. I'm not going to risk trying to guess what you are trying to say even if I have a suspicion. Alternatively if you're just joking, I'm sadly not getting it. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 18:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You really didn't realize I was quoting you? 1989 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@1989: I realized that, I just don't know what you mean by it. You want me to explain that comment? You're making a joke? You're commenting on something I said? — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 18:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, an explanation would be great. 1989 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@1989: Whenever I'm linking Monty Python you shouldn't take it too seriously. I also wasn't addressing you, though talk pages are public of course. And while your first removal of the URL could be defended as trying to be helpful and correct an honest mistake, the second removal I find far more difficult to defend. I would have recommended to go to Natuur12's talk page and try to convince Natuur12 there to remove the URL themselves. So, was I mocking your action? Perhaps a bit, but that's just how I try to lighten the mood. Don't read too much into it. It's Monty Python, after all. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 20:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I see. Apologies for snapping at you, and like previously stated, good luck. 1989 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Right of control etcEdit

Re. your very informative Wikimedia Forum posts, did you get anywhere re. your complaint to the OC? In terms of practical examples, my case seems similar in some aspects, namely a refusal of local CheckUsers to admit basic facts (or offer any transparency at all) that would ultimately clear me of alleged block-evasion and by extension alleged harassment (and are possibly hiding behind non-disclosure to do so), necessitating either pursuing the case over email (perverse when the original sin is them misusing what personal info I had already submitted by registering) or to the OC (sledgehammer to crack a nut imho). In my case at least though, there should have been plenty of local CheckUsers to act as independent reviewers of their colleague's acts/claims. Only one non-CU Admin was even involved in my case when it was still a local matter, and they apparently felt the fact I had been CheckUsered (regardless of whether it was illegitimate or not) meant they were powerless to act. All very daft, really, but very effective if your aim is to subvert/misuse/ignore local rules and engage in a massive game of chicken, if not send the victim quite mad. I feel like they're basically daring me to take extreme measures just to prove the sky is blue, like reporting to the OC. Unluckily for them, I am more than willing to do so, I am not remotely intimidated by them. Indeed, I rather laughed at the sight of a Commons Administrator apparently believing themselves to have powers equivalent to Katherine Maher herself, unilaterally declaring I am "blocked forever", and locking my talk page to make it so. If you hear anything from OC regarding relevant principles or even just timelines, let me know. I hope you are feeling better anyway, there is a very apt Latin phrase for all this, I believe. BarryBoggside (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@BarryBoggside: thanks for your support. The Ombudsmen are still working on my case. Regarding your case, I'm not sure. Even if evidence is obtained without proper regard for procedures (which frankly is difficult to judge for me), that doesn't automatically mean the evidence must be thrown out. It should, however, have consequences for the person who didn't follow procedure. If you believe procedures were not followed in your investigation (and at first glance, there may be some merit to that claim), I support you reporting that to the Ombudsmen. However, if you indeed created this account to evade a block, that won't pardon you. It's also possible that the admin who blocked you didn't run a CheckUser on you, and it's possible they violated the blocking policy. The Ombudsmen can't help in this case (I think), it would be a matter for ArbCom maybe. Not sure.
But if you didn't create this account to evade a block and are really unrelated to Crash Dennis, you are kind of screwed. A CheckUser has claimed that you are related, and statements by CheckUsers are magic truth that can't be confirmed or debunked by others. It's unclear if even the Ombudsmen can do much about that. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Well unfortunately I've been explicitly threatened by Revi with a block here if I even thought about responding to you on the matters in question, so I guess I won't. Suffice to say, there should be answers to all your questions in everything I have said thus far across en.wiki, Commons and here, and it is my understanding that the OC absolutely has jurisdiction over what I suspect has occurred. I await their response, and now they are on record as being in receipt of the details, I think more than a few advanced rights holding users across multiple projects are now seriously regretting playing chicken with me. BarryBoggside (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@BarryBoggside: I have e-mail if there's anything more you wish to say. I doubt I can be of any major help, I can't fully understand the situation as I haven't followed it from the start. Many of your replies are a bit long-winded, I just don't have time to read everything. (I read quite a few of them, but not all) I'm guilty of that myself as well at times. I will sometimes rewrite a message three or four times to reduce its length while preserving the core message. It's hard, but give it a try. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 20:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's all there in the public record, no email required (if only to prove the point that the sort of threats issued by Revi and co. are not aimed at assisting those who need it, they can only ever be about preventing those who might need help the most, from receiving it). But my aim was really to assist you, not the other way around, other than to get some idea how long it might be, now that the OC is apparently trying to progress cases in a timely fashion and with a renewed eye to the seriousness of their task as it relates to the reputation of Wikimedia as a responsible handler of people's private data. BarryBoggside (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@BarryBoggside: When the Ombudsmen investigate a case, you should count on it taking weeks rather than days. I just don't have time to read every single response, if there's anything you want me to read in particular you can give me a link, either here or by mail. I'm not sure how you could assist me, but I appreciate the effort. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 22:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it was a result of seeing you have difficulty in finding a practical example of the policy working against those it nominally exists to protect, but of course, it escapes me now I am looking for it. Weeks is good, I had months in mind. BarryBoggside (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@BarryBoggside: Could also be months, I can't say for sure. For my case it was said that it would likely take "a couple of weeks or more". No guarantees, but weeks would seem more likely than months. It's hard to find examples because most of them are likely unresolved and undocumented. A user gets erroneously blocked: they either never come back or create a new account and nobody bats an eyelid. They will rarely raise their voice, and even if they do, their case is highly unlikely to be resolved. And unresolved cases can't be cited. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 01:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
There is reason to believe the OC are already asking difficult questions of en.wiki CheckUsers in my case, so it must have properly alarmed someone with global responsibilities, or even a key to an executive washroom. The people who screwed me over seem to be taking the view that if they can successfully show the fruits of their illegitimate inspection were even more bountiful than first claimed, the issue of the legitimacy of their check will somehow be overlooked. I think they are dreaming myself - the OC cannot afford to be seen operating under such principles, much less the Foundation - and are also probably still not being adequately mindful of the fact they were always meant to do more than merely show a technical match, to substantiate a charge of abusive sock-puppetry for the purposes of block evasion, according to their own local rules. We shall see. I certainly smell wiki case law in the offing. Can't say anymore about it here, because of the locally applied D-notice. BarryBoggside (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
For the record, that D-notice has now been applied here also. ——SerialNumber54129 07:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
BarryBoggside, I wish I could understand the actual origin of this conflict. But the neverending stream of words causes me to think I'll never know, and to tell the truth, I'm not sure you know what it is. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 08:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)