User talk:Donald Trung/Archive 70

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) in topic Wikidata weekly summary #478
Archive 65Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 75

17:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Unblock

@Alexis Jazz:, apparently, you were wrong.

Anyhow, I have been wanting to get you unblocked or at least partially unblocked on Wikimedia Commons by starting a discussion. But I don't want to (unintentionally) do more harm for you than good. While I often disagree with you, I find that most of the time you build your arguments really well and always build them up using logic and good examples and I think that it's a darn shame that you are not utilising your talents for the WC now. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No I wasn't.

Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The example of ptwiki is interesting, but probably doesn't matter. It should be noted that ptwiki banned IP-editing despite developers saying "ain't gonna happen", so WP:IAR is high on their agenda. Also, it doesn't matter what you call an administrator. Deleters on ptwiki can delete and restore content and if I understand correctly are vetted the same way administrators are. They may not be able to block users, use massmessage or modify the abuse filter but that's legally irrelevant. For all intents and purposes they might actually be administrators, legally speaking. The lawyers get nervous when you either allow users to access deleted pages without being able to delete anything or when you make the vetting process less strict. For the "general maintainer" proposal back in the day, I envisioned a very lax vetting process so I had to exclude undelete. Thanks btw for your consideration to try and help with an unblock. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, I count only 98 Deleters as of today. I will check the Portuguese-language Wikipedia's archives to see what was discussed when they were created. I also envision page-viewers to be vetted in a similar process as admins, like Maintainers, but as admins have more privileges I imagine that the elections would be easier to pass and that being a "general maintainer" would become a prerequisite for any future admin. Thankfully I can understand written Portuguese so I will read up on Deleters. --Donald Trung (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2021

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2021-28

Gravedancing

  • @Alexis Jazz:, pinging you here as I prefer not to make any enemies of the people that frequent your talk page, but I saw this move changing from "not necessarily" to a more definite "not" indicating that it's never gravedancing. But isn't blanking the user pages of blocked users simply and only because they are blocked literally gravedancing? I always found it a curious practice as it has never been established as policy and people just started doing it to unperson blocked people for whatever reason. I also find it odd that there is literally no opposition to this useless blanking of user pages. Often I see users that all they do is list their featured articles and DYK's and have their pages blanked for simply being blocked. This isn't done to all users, for example Koavf isn't blanked even though it is much more autobiographical than most, so what are the criteria for blanking? Because to my understanding it mostly happens to those that have made "enemies" that want to unperson them basically always making it gravedancing. --Donald Trung (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    I agree. Also, I undid that move. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz:, honestly, I am more somewhat curious as to why such a thing became widespread culture among most Wikimedia websites. I Noticed that this actually isn't a thing at the Dutch-language Wikipedia but is here, at the French-language Wikipedia they also blank talk pages.

Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:, odd but, why do you keep mentioning the ability to undelete? Page viewers wouldn't be able to undelete anything and only see deleted files after passing through a system identical to RFA, if passed. The Portuguese-language Wikipedia's "eliminators" already function like this. The previous proposal for OTRS members to view deleted content was rejected because of the fact that OTRS members are appointed and not elected. --Donald Trung (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Brigham mentioned both "view such deleted material could arguably increase WMF's liability" and "risk personal liability by undeleting content". Granted, the latter doesn't apply to your proposal. Brigham's statement is only slightly more recent than Godwin's statement though, so the simplest way would be to ask Legal if they would be okay with page viewers. Eliminators on ptwiki aren't the same, they can delete too making them admins in all relevant ways, even if they don't have the actual title. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #476

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 2

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 2, July 2021Read the full newsletter


Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.

  • Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. (continue reading)
  • Targets of Harassment Research - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
  • Functionaries’ Consultation - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable Discussions - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. (continue reading)
  • Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. (continue reading)
  • New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. (continue reading)
  • Wikimania - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)

Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2021-29

15:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #478