→Relations between Commons and en-Wiki: Old history IS old history. Can we move on? |
2601:5c0:104:10ca:b931:d6c8:3b3e:d4d6 (talk) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
Finally, some more good news. The [[wp:navbox]] pages have been reformatting over 150x faster, for at least a month now, allowing an updated navbox to appear across 250 pages within a half-hour. Formerly (last year), a change to a navbox, used in perhaps only 50 pages, might take over 3 ''days'' to appear updated in all 50 pages. In fact, this week, a navbox used in over 700 pages had reformatted even faster, at over 100 pages-per-minute, or about {{formatnum:{{#expr:3*24*60/7 round 0}} }}x faster. I wanted to mention this rapid speed increase last month, but decided to wait another month to benchmark with several other active navboxes. For our [[wp:wikignomes]] who fix errors in templates, this means an error category, formerly obscured for days by hundreds of navbox pages, could be cleared within a half-hour, to focus on the other pages not related to the broken navbox. This speed can be a huge benefit to reducing frustration, when they fix template errors in hundreds of pages per week. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 14:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC) |
Finally, some more good news. The [[wp:navbox]] pages have been reformatting over 150x faster, for at least a month now, allowing an updated navbox to appear across 250 pages within a half-hour. Formerly (last year), a change to a navbox, used in perhaps only 50 pages, might take over 3 ''days'' to appear updated in all 50 pages. In fact, this week, a navbox used in over 700 pages had reformatted even faster, at over 100 pages-per-minute, or about {{formatnum:{{#expr:3*24*60/7 round 0}} }}x faster. I wanted to mention this rapid speed increase last month, but decided to wait another month to benchmark with several other active navboxes. For our [[wp:wikignomes]] who fix errors in templates, this means an error category, formerly obscured for days by hundreds of navbox pages, could be cleared within a half-hour, to focus on the other pages not related to the broken navbox. This speed can be a huge benefit to reducing frustration, when they fix template errors in hundreds of pages per week. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 14:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
:Congrats from a grateful gnome! {{Applause}} — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 14:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC) |
:Congrats from a grateful gnome! {{Applause}} — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 14:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
==Unban kumioko== |
|||
Don't let these things distract you from finding out that unbanning Kumioko could cause Wikipedia to be improved by thousands of edits per day. [[Special:Contributions/2601:5C0:104:10CA:B931:D6C8:3B3E:D4D6|2601:5C0:104:10CA:B931:D6C8:3B3E:D4D6]] ([[User talk:2601:5C0:104:10CA:B931:D6C8:3B3E:D4D6|talk]]) 21:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:51, 13 July 2018
Relations between Commons and en-Wiki
I don't post here very often, but I would like to point to a discussion at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#What appears to be an inappropriate indef block of User:Rowan Forest and following. That's because the discussion has brought to the fore some significant and troubling underlying tensions between Commons and en-Wiki, a sort of clash of cultures between the communities of two Wikimedia projects. Obviously, anyone who wants to can take a look, but I'm specifically drawing this to Jimbo's attention because, after all, you have a particular stake in how the various projects work together. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think this is appropriate. Firstly, the tension is the totally obvious one that members of one project had been invited to vote on the de-adminship on another project. This is never acceptable and has been pointed out, I don't think any en:wp mob going over to demote a German Wikipedia admin would be appreciated. So I don't think there is anything specific about Commons-WP relations to learn here. The specific problem with that discussion on de-admin was that Commons procedures were not followed, and there was no "discussion leading to consensus" but an immediate poll started by a user who had just been personally insulted. I'm sure Wikipedia has its messes too. AFAIK Jimbo does not waste any of his time thinking about Commons whatsoever, and the last discussion I saw here (quite some time ago) merely involved Jimbo saying something generally negative about Commons. If the project only gets mentioned when there's a spot of trouble, then negative views form. Why not instead enjoy Picture of the Year 2017 and appreciate some of the great images uploaded and promoted last year. Or be inspired by the latest Photo Challenge to go out and take a great photo yourself. -- Colin°Talk 18:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm trying to be helpful. If you don't like it, you know where to pursue dispute resolution. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, editors who look over there will see Colin referring to en-Wiki editors as "racist". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- WTF, Tryptofish, I appreciate you've held a grudge against me for some months now, but this is childish in the extreme. If you have a problem with what I said on Commons, then discuss that on Commons. Jimbo's Wikipedia talk page is not the place. -- Colin°Talk 19:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- If this thread was initially about the meta issue of inter-project relations, this sub-thread is unhelpful in moving back from the macro to the micro, dumping fuel on this particular fire that hasn't died down yet. Consider excising/hatting it (this comment included) if you want to have a discussion that isn't just about the most recent problems. $0.02. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- WTF, Tryptofish, I appreciate you've held a grudge against me for some months now, but this is childish in the extreme. If you have a problem with what I said on Commons, then discuss that on Commons. Jimbo's Wikipedia talk page is not the place. -- Colin°Talk 19:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I guarantee that Jimbo Has spent some time thinking about Commons. I'll leave it to him to characterize whether that time was spent wastefully.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Vacuous negativity. Not needed by any project. -- Colin°Talk 19:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Colin, I have no vested interest in this discussion (I have never used commons, have no intention of doing so, and don't much care about the administrative procedures there), but I have to say that your contributions here are probably counter-productive, in that they increase the likelihood of en.wiki users viewing the atmosphere at commons as aggressive and in need of changes. Just by 2 cents. --2601:142:3:F83A:392F:8D06:F31D:42C5 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Vacuous negativity. Not needed by any project. -- Colin°Talk 19:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
IMO this is a conversation worth having, but not now. Disputes between enwiki and Commons have happened before, but they're not all that common and rarely so active or heated as this one. There was a lot of nastiness, and it's only now calming down. This would be better to discuss when tempers aren't already running hot. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agree completely. Tryptofish could greatly improve en-WP/Commons relations by closing this discussion he started, and going off to edit an article. -- Colin°Talk 21:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Tryptofish's post is only showing concern for the relations between the projects. I have no idea why this has blown up into seeming anything more than that. I hope that a little time will help calm things down.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I've no problem if Jimmy or any other is willing to cooperate with Commons. I remember when I met him along with Patricio Lorente, María Sefidari and Katherine Maher in Asturias while Wikipedia received the Princess of Asturias Awards for International Cooperation. We even had a nice chat about Commons as me from Commons. Here in this case, we already addressed the initial issue that caused this lapse and collected information from the participants. There was a bug in the "Copyvio" template and is fixed now. The block of Rowan Forest was unfortunate but had overtuned within one hour by another admin-cum-checkuser. Today I noticed that it was a new account of BatteryIncluded which is not mentioned in Commons. So we can't fully blame Yann for treating it a sock. We noticed that language is a stopping block of smooth communications in Commons considering the diversity of the participants in that project. CaroleHenson already offered to help and already started working on it. As Colin mentioned above a notice in a high traffic page like this while a poll is going on has some negative impacts. As many commented already, that poll is alredy corrupted and so we can't consider it as a good sample now. I hope a crat will dismiss it soon. Other than that, I welcome everybody here to participate in any other part of the discussions. Jee 03:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agree completely with Jee. And the "dumping fuel on this particular fire" comment about Tryptofish's post. This whole discussion should be closed and we can discuss Commons and en-Wiki when users bearing-grudges are not trying to use Talk Jimbo to score points. -- Colin°Talk 06:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just one comment from me on the origin of this dispute. It all started when a Commons admin incorrectly blocked an editor after a single edit (mistaking them for a sock of someone else). That can happen, and it's usually easily rectified. But this admin also disabled talk page and email access, and deleted the editor's user and talk pages. That totally closed off all avenues of appeal, and the editor came over to en.wiki to seek help. It's that level of abuse of admin power that has angered so many at en.wiki who saw it, and it's raised questions of admin accountability and desysop policy at Commons. The level of personal attacks allowed in the subsequent discussion without any admin intervention has also aggravated the situation. For me it's most certainly not an "en.wiki vs Commons" thing. No, admin abuse and personal attacks are bad whatever project they're on, and any participant should be able to join in attempts to stop them, whatever project they're mostly active on. Tribal isolationism is a very bad thing, and is the very opposite of the Wikimedia accountability ideal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- PS: Someone above mentioned German Wikipedia. If we had a discussion on an admin abuse problem at en.wiki, especially if there was debate on how en.wiki processes might be inadequate, I'd welcome input from de.wiki participants with their different experiences of how to address such issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Without rehashing the whole discussion, this is not an accurate or fair description. For example sockpuppet accounts are routinely dealt with as above. See for example this sockpuppet of INC, or this sockpuppet of INC. So calling such action an "abuse of admin power" is unfair, unless you think every single admin on commons is routinely abusing their power when dealing with sockpuppets. If such accounts should be handled differently, then open a discussion on the matter. The block of Rowan lasted for precisely 1 hour and 28 minutes and nagualdesign for 5 hours 18 minutes. The blocking admin apologised for the misunderstanding when he next logged on, and thanked the other admins for unblocking. And there the matter should have been considered closed. The en-wiki people were not just "angry" but outraged, with "fucking lunatic" being a summary of the tone and language being used. Inviting such an infuriated mob to come over vote on a poll for de-adminship was a huge mistake and I sincerely hope never ever happens again. -- Colin°Talk 08:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You're mixing up several things. Yann blocked Rowan Forest mistakenly consider a s a sock of someone else as they come to Nagauldesign's talk page with their first edit. Yann may wondered how they find that discussion if a newbie. In fact, User:BatteryIncluded is not a new user in Commons; but those accounts not linked in Commons. Yann indef Rowan Forest, including talk page and email access. Then Yann deleted Nagauldesign's talk; not of Rowan Forest. Nobody knows why Yann deleted that talk; but it looks like pushing a wrong button before going to sleep. All these actions are mistakes and so over-tuned by others. Yann apologised when he come back next day. Yann didn't make any personal attacks. How he is responsible for other's comments. (I agree that one user having previous conflicts with Yann asked a question that Yann ignored. I've no wonder about it. It was they who started that de sysop proposal without waiting for Yann or any other admins.) Jee 08:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I misunderstood which user and talk pages were deleted, so you have my apologies for that - but it was just as wrong to delete Nagauldesign's talk page as any other. And I do think the immediate denial of talk page and email access of a suspected sock after just one edit constitutes abuse, especially as Commons has no equivalent of UTRS for a last-resort appeal. And if that's done regularly, then I think there is something seriously wrong with Commons processes - and Commons should not be afraid for such things to be exposed to public scrutiny. Everyone, suspected socks included, should have some means of appeal, at least in the first instance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes; I too not agree with blocking a user as suspected sock without checkuser evidence. Denial of talk page and email access is also not good. Only recently Commons added a provision to handle oversight bans. I had asked that time to add a provision to handle checkuser blocks too. Jee 11:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I misunderstood which user and talk pages were deleted, so you have my apologies for that - but it was just as wrong to delete Nagauldesign's talk page as any other. And I do think the immediate denial of talk page and email access of a suspected sock after just one edit constitutes abuse, especially as Commons has no equivalent of UTRS for a last-resort appeal. And if that's done regularly, then I think there is something seriously wrong with Commons processes - and Commons should not be afraid for such things to be exposed to public scrutiny. Everyone, suspected socks included, should have some means of appeal, at least in the first instance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Hello, the fact that editors from here or from elsewhere are mobilizing to help one of their unfairly blocked in Wikimedia Commons, is quite honourable and even potentially useful for repairing an error. The search for punishment, revenge or anything else done in a war spirit is counterproductive for all projects, and furthermore it's completely acting out of the realities of the admininship of Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons defends itself against this, rightly so, and hopefully will continue to do so. Note that this is just a comment, I don't expect any answer neither this page is in my watchlist. Best regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ugh. I've contributed to Commons, usually after finding books long off copyright in the Internet Archive with informative images. I've been around here for a while, enough to have some exposure to the issues regarding a certain user, & why they can't post here, but always emerge in Commons dramas. Maybe back-off & STFU, unless you have constructive edits, could be good advice all round? AnonNep (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Question about WikipediA logo
Hi Jimbo! I was told to ask this question to you directly since you might have the finer details: I've been searching for information about the typography/casing of Wikipedia's written logo (rather than the puzzle globe), particularly with respect to the design choice to capitalize the last letter, A. In other words, why "WIKIPEDIA" and not "Wikipedia"? Is this practice used elsewhere or does it have a history? Any info on the design philosophy as explained by the logo designer?
Thanks in advance for any info. Academc (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Academc: It might aid your searches to use wordmark rather than logo (the WP logo is the globe). My guess is that "WikipediA" simply looks more balanced, especially when placed under the logo. nagualdesign 12:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Academc: That is a good question. I used to think that "WikipediA" is a CamelCase way of writing "Wikipedia" and was meant to remind us of CamelCase times. Back way before I started editing, the software that powered Wikipedia, UseModWiki, required CamelCase for links (nowadays we use square brackets). It was replaced by MediaWiki in 2002, see History of Wikipedia for some information and further links. However, the original CamelCase page title is WikiPedia... What speaks for my theory is that the original discussion leading to the wordmark was in 2001, so in CamelCase times. Maybe @The Cunctator:, who originally designed this wordmark, can enlighten us? —Kusma (t·c) 19:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have very little idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's "WIKIPEDIA" and not "WikipediA" (the font makes a difference). So it doesn't look at all like CamelCase to the reader; it looks like all capitals with the "W" and the "A" bigger to fit round the globe. At least, that's the way I see it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have never noticed this before. Huh.....--Mark Miller (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Finally, some more good news. The wp:navbox pages have been reformatting over 150x faster, for at least a month now, allowing an updated navbox to appear across 250 pages within a half-hour. Formerly (last year), a change to a navbox, used in perhaps only 50 pages, might take over 3 days to appear updated in all 50 pages. In fact, this week, a navbox used in over 700 pages had reformatted even faster, at over 100 pages-per-minute, or about 617x faster. I wanted to mention this rapid speed increase last month, but decided to wait another month to benchmark with several other active navboxes. For our wp:wikignomes who fix errors in templates, this means an error category, formerly obscured for days by hundreds of navbox pages, could be cleared within a half-hour, to focus on the other pages not related to the broken navbox. This speed can be a huge benefit to reducing frustration, when they fix template errors in hundreds of pages per week. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Unban kumioko
Don't let these things distract you from finding out that unbanning Kumioko could cause Wikipedia to be improved by thousands of edits per day. 2601:5C0:104:10CA:B931:D6C8:3B3E:D4D6 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)