User talk:Yunshui

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

FAC

Would you have time to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive1? Threatened to be archived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Yunshui. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 5#Non-free road signs used in list article

Hi Yunshui. The FFD about these images has been relisted yet again. If the OTRS ticket issue has been resolved, then could you comment on the outcome in the current FFD. If not, then perhaps some mention about the ticket issue could be added so that others are aware that an attempt is being made to sort this out. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There's been minimal response on the email list. Two OTRS agents (Mdann52 and Jeff G.) believe the permission is sufficient for a pd-gov tag, one agent (me) thinks it isn't. No-one else has offered any opinion, and the ticket is still floating around on OTRS, so make of that what you will... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui for the update and continuing to try and get this resolved. Whatever the consensus on the ticket turns out to be is fine, but the FFD discussion probably cannot be properly resolved without the ticket issue being resolved one way or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This discussion concerns User talk:Yunshui/Archive 56#OTRS verification request and multiply relisted Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 5#Non-free road signs used in list article.

• 15:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC) @Jcb wrote about Ticket:2011011410009399 "this 7 years old ticket does not satisfy our current standards" in this edit on page c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png.
• 04:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC) @Yann closed c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png as Kept.
• Wed, 31 Jan 2018 07:27:04 +0000 Given that this FFD was still open, I took Jcb's writing above to heart and asked for a better permission statement via email.

We have still had no useful response. I stand by my Keep of 07:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC) in these edits. File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is a diagram which is derivative of a sign design for which British Columbia disclaims copyright, @Fhsig13 put work into it and can claim cc-by-sa-4.0 for that work but should indicate the underlying PD work. Let's look at the potential PD templates. The subject works should qualify for {{PD-Canada}} or {{PD-Canada-Crown}} due to age, but without sources for the designs, we don't know who created them, when they were created, whether or not the creations were subject to copyright by the Crown, and consequently why they are PD. None of that information is revealed in the ticket. Sorry for the delay.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not an OTRS volunteer so I cannot see or evaluate the specifics of the ticket. The FFD discussion was based upon the files being licensed as non-free; therfore, if they are converted to PD there is no longer any NFCC issues and the FFD discussion can be closed. However, the files cannot remain licensed as non-free content because doing so would not satisfy WP:NFCC#1. So, the files have to either be relicensed or deleted.

I am aware of the previous Wikipedia/Commons discussions on this image since I was part of them. What I am not fully aware of are the details of the discussions going on between OTRS volunteers taking place off-Wikipedia except what Yunshui has posted above. The validity of the ticket is something which cannot be assessed in the FFD since not everyone is privy to same information as you OTRS volunteers are. Please note that another OTRS volunteer JJMC89 has posted in the FFD that the ticket is not OK, so that's at least two OTRS volunteers (Yunshui is the other one) who clearly disagree with your assessment plus possibly one more in Jcb who thinks the ticket is questionable; so, if you guys are unable to reach an agreement among yourselves, then maybe the files should remain non-free until you can. I'm not sure if all admins can see the same things you OTRS volunteers can see, so it would make it much easier for one of the admins who typically closes FFD discussions to know for sure that the OTRS consensus is that the ticket is OK. Does this make sense? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, it makes sense.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If they are PD due to age, that is one thing. There is no evidence that BC (or SK) disclaims copyright in the OTRS ticket. The email relates to SK, not BC. Even if it were for SK, the representative saying we don't need permission is not the same as disclaiming copyright. The ticket doesn't provide any statement of permission that Wikimedia can use, so the ticket is useless. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui: Which email list?   — Jeff G. ツ 12:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: It was sent to the otrs-en list on May 25th, the subject line is "Permission discussion". Yunshui ^雲_水 13:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui: I found it, thanks. You were not mischaracterising.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Good to know; didn't want to think I was putting words in your mouth! Yunshui ^雲_水 15:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Concord

Hi Yunshui. Was wondering if you'd mind watching Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Concord for a bit? There's an IP editor who keeps trying to inappropriately add a non-free logo to the infobox. I've tried explaining about WP:NFCCP in edit sums and in more detail on the IP's user talk page, but that just led to a new IP showing up to try and add the logo. This last edit sum kind of indicates that the IP misunderstands how non-free content can be used and perhaps WP:COPY as well. Anyway, I've made a WP:RPP request, but perhaps a word or two from an administrator might also help slow the IP/IPs down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks as though Fish and karate, today's official king of RFPP, has already slapped a padlock on it, so that ought to prevent further shenanigans. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps things will slow down a bit now that tha page is protected. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

OTRS ticket question

I seem have been keeping you busy yesterday and today, so I figure I'd ask you about Talk:Fiona Graham#Wanaka Gym court case.

Apparently an OTRS ticket was received requesting that the content be removed. A "OTRS talk" was added to the article's talk page in March 2017, but the content wasn't removed from the article by the OTRS volunteer who processed the ticket. The content was removed the other day by what appears to be an SPA editor for a WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of reason, but I re-added it because it seem relevant and reliably sourced. I didn't consider the possibility of a copyvio, so the content was removed once again for that reason, which is fine.

My question now has to do with the OTRS ticket/complaint and what that means with respect to BLP. Can the content be re-added without the copyvios and excessive detail, etc. or is it basically a no go BLP-wise because someone (assuming wither the subject of the article or someone representing her) complained about the content to OTRS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

People complain about the content of the articles about them all the time, but ultimately, we're here to report what others have said about them, not what they want to say about themselves. This applies to OTRS tickets just as much as if they complained on-wiki, so there's no prohibition on re-adding the section if it meets all the usual requirements. That said, it seems like a fairly minor event and doesn't have much to do with the reason she is notable - there's no compelling reason to have it in the article. A sentence or two is all that would probably be needed, if that. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The more I look at the matter, the more I tend to agree that it might not be worth mentioning. The case did, however, reach the NZ Supreme Court so that might be worth mentioning in brief. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Frank Rouas

Trying to find out why you took the liberaty to delete a page I created when there was still on on-going debate that was equally sided????? I'm putting it back up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Rouas had run for seven days and there was a clear consensus to delete the article. If you wish to have the close reviewed, you can do so at Deletion review. I would advise against recreating the article without first having the deletion reviewed; such a recreation would be immediately eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4, and could be regarded as disruptive editing. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No there was just as many arguments to keep it so I would not say that concludes a clear consensus. There were just about equal amounts of people who said keep compared to those who said delete. On both articles. Don't just delete my article.