Обсуждение пользователей: Могу ли я войти в систему

Приветствие может быть запоздалым, но печенье еще теплое!

Желаю вам запоздалого приветствия в Википедии , могу ли я войти в систему. Я вижу, что вы уже были здесь какое-то время и хотели бы поблагодарить вас за ваш вклад . Хотя вам, кажется, удалось найти свой путь, вам может быть полезно перейти по некоторым из приведенных ниже ссылок, которые помогут редакторам максимально эффективно использовать Википедию:

• Вступление
• Пять столпов Википедии
• Вклад в Википедию
• Как редактировать страницу
• Справочные страницы
• Как написать отличную статью
• Индекс редактора в Википедии

Кроме того, когда вы публикуете сообщения на страницах обсуждения, вы должны подписывать свое имя, используя четыре тильды (~~~~); это должно автоматически создавать ваше имя пользователя и дату после вашего сообщения.

Надеюсь, вам понравится редактировать здесь и быть Википедистом ! Если у вас есть какие-либо вопросы, не стесняйтесь оставить мне сообщение на моей странице обсуждения , заглянуть в Википедию: вопросы или разместить {{ help me }} на своей странице обсуждения и задать свой вопрос там.

И снова добро пожаловать! Пользователь: SSSB ( обсуждение ) 17:17, 6 июля 2019 г. (UTC) SSSB ( обсуждение ) 16:26, 6 июля 2019 г. (UTC)

Начиная с марта, когда вы действительно стали активными, и, просматривая только архивы ваших страниц обсуждения, я вижу образец разрушительного редактирования в широком диапазоне Википедии.

• Гонка за включение информации без источника
• Оставленные опытными пользователями предупреждающие сообщения (которые вы, похоже, делаете и сегодня
• Восстановлен вандализм
• Выдает пять разных выпусков со своей подписью:
  • Время 1
  • Время 2
  • Время 3
  • Время 4
  • Время 5
• Участвует в подрывных первоапрельских шутках: 1 , 2 , 3
• Излишне измененные шаблоны в RfD
• Если бы закрытие RfC перевернулось
• Клерк страницы PERM
• Использовал скрипт кросс-вики, который нельзя было использовать в кросс-вики, и использование которого могло нарушить работу английской Википедии.
• Неуместно пошутили над UAA
• Попытка отредактировать гаджет
• Сломал шаблон Twinkle
• Неправильная попытка G6, потому что "Я просто ненавижу, когда вижу, что люди не следуют RBI за троллями TikTok "

Тогда есть более серьезные проблемы, которые у вас были, включая обратное проектирование сценария для массового редактирования. Вы также поговорили с другими редакторами таким образом, что заслуживало официального уведомления Тони Баллиони, который ранее оставил вам предупреждение после того, как вы нарушили правила редактирования страниц с правилами / рекомендациями.

Ни один инцидент сам по себе не вызывает беспокойства. Но есть шаблоны проблем (включая подписи, техническое редактирование, которое вы делаете неправильно, и попытки погрузиться в задачи пространства проекта, которые вам не хватает фона и / или навыков для успешного выполнения), широкий спектр этих проблем и обсуждение стиль, который является конфронтационным и не соответствует духу сотрудничества в этом проекте. С другой стороны, после тяжелого старта вы, кажется, хорошо справляетесь с редактированием копий. Однако этого положительного момента недостаточно, чтобы перевесить все отрицательные моменты, или достаточно, чтобы показать, что у вас есть компетенция, необходимая для редактирования Википедии. Barkeep49 ( разговорное ) 21:38, 2 июля 2020 г. (UTC)

Barkeep49 Я хотел бы затронуть проблемы в произвольном порядке, особенно первые.

• Спешили включить информацию без источника - я этого больше не делал и строго придерживался выбора источников.
• Шаблонные завсегдатаи - я научился не заглядывать напрасно. Эта записка о защите должна была быть запиской.
• Восстановленный вандализм - я не знал о TW достаточно, чтобы понимать кнопку восстановления, хотя она означала восстановление. С тех пор я не делал этого случайно.
• Подпись - не такая большая проблема, как была раньше.

С этого момента все становится действительно жарко.

• реконструировать сценарий для массового редактирования - я никогда не должен был этого делать.
• Шаблон RfD - я полагаю, вы имели в виду этот . Я думал, что на самом деле должно было быть "жесткое" перенаправление. Тот, от которого я узнал.
• Если бы закрытие RfC перевернулось - хотя консенсус был правильным, недели / месяцы спустя я вижу, что закрытие было плохим.
• Записал страницу PERM - моя беда , никогда не надо было ее посещать .
• Неуместно шутил над UAA - я никогда не шутил над UAA. Эта ветка была посвящена моему резюме редактирования TW "Twinkle Twinkle Little Start" .
• Использовал скрипт кросс-вики, который нельзя было использовать в кросс-вики и который мог бы нарушить работу английской Википедии - этого никогда не было, так как у меня нет (автоматически) подтвержденного статуса вики, который мог бы его загрузить.
• Attempted to edit a gadget—the thread was about if it was editable by only administrators or interface admins.
• Broke a Twinkle template—fixed
• Incorrectly attempted a G6 because "I just hate it when I see people not follwing RBI for TikTok trolls"—I should've never done that in the first place

OK so I made my statement. I just wanted to address the issues, and now here we are. What is next to move forward?

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately you need to address the reason for the block. As I wrote the problem was not any individual incident, it was the total picture presented by all these different things when looked at together. So replying about each diff presented isn't actually responding to the concern.

In terms of the block being lifted you have a couple options. You can discuss with me what will be different if you were to be unblocked. If I can be assured that you will be able to edit competently I will lift the block. Or you can use the unblock template to get a different administrator to look at things. Choosing one of these options does not prevent you from doing the other one in the future. But the first step is to do as the blocking template instructs and read the guide to appealing blocks. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I'll summarize the block in 2 words. recklessly bold. While being bold is desired to article related content and its related talk page, not a good idea in the "behind the scenes". This means if I were to be unblocked, I would have to be extremely STRICT on what edits I make in project space unrelated to article content (WikiProjects, other article clean-up related task). I would define strict as anything in project space that are

• stuff I'm currently working on pre-block
• incidents or discussions I've been involved in or explicitly invited to make a comment
• anything that would TRULY be productive comments or replies that help in moving forward a discussion, legit questions
• and if necessary for some super strange and unusual IAR rationale, well IAR.

In short, don't be bold in project space. I can just sit back and see what's going on behind the scenes, but not intervene without the good strict reason.

Now in my opinion, this doesn't really cover the current user-interaction concerns. The main problem with this piece of the block is that some of my comments are be construed differently than I intended; this is definitely a major concern. This is probably another don't be bold thing and do what I said above.

An unblock with or without a mandated restriction is discretionary, but I will have to voluntarily abide by the above if I am going to be unblocked. I won't ask for another opinion on this right now; my words above I stand by.

Can I Log In (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, this is on the right track of how I can be assured that you will be able to edit competently. I am glad we're off to a productive start. Before I respond more substantively, I want to understand what you're proposing. What do you see as stuff I'm currently working on pre-block and can you give me a diff that would be an example of you offering anything that would TRULY be productive comments or replies that help in moving forward a discussion and a diff of an example of what you see as legit questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

For one, a content dispute over with Primfac on whether {{Edit partially-blocked}} should function like other protected edit request template such as {{edit semi-protected}} or just merge it with {{request edit}}, the COI edit request template. I'm not explaining that dispute in further detail, nor will I explain its background, but once it would be over, slowly "advertise", but not disruptively, the template (add links to related pages and templates) (this part of the unblocking may be blocked). Other than that, there isn't really much about stuff I'm currently working on pre-block, so that would go away quickly within estimate a month.

Productive comments—I've been watching this ArbCom clarification request regarding the ARBPIA General Sanctions. One of the arbitrators made a comment which I believe was not the intention, so I made my statement with what I found from the ARBPIA3 case.

Non-productive comemnts—ANI or ArbCom, both are heated when there is an indepth discussion. So I found Why is this ok?, and uh, for one, that should be at village pump since there is no long-term or urgent user-conduct issues, and two, the productivity of that I find to be borderline. WIth my intention of don't be bold, if you're not certain, just don't.

Another example—ANI again. This is a genuine and legit question from what appears to be a new editor.

I'll stop providing example here. If you need more... OK I will. Those are some examples I found.

Can I Log In (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, do you have an example of a legit question that you have asked? I think that presents clearer sense of what is being talkeda about than another editor's question. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is the publisher?, one time I had a question about The London Gazette. And a genuine but not very useful, but legit. A question regarding my first RfPP request which was declined. A technical problem with preferences.

And since April, really no questions asked. If I do have to ask a question, well think about how I asked these.

Can I Log In (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You stop all activities that are not related to content creation. Exceptions to this will be narrowly construed and need to directly involve your content work.

You may, following the lifting of the block, make one change to your user signature and you may make subsequent corrective changes if suggested by other users. Otherwise leave your signature alone for the length of these restrictions.

To give some parameters as to what content creation means, copy editing is a form of content creation so that can continue (I'll discuss the GOCE more in a moment). Recent change patrolling and other counter vandalism patrolling are important pieces of work but are not content creation so that stops. Responding to people on your user talk is obviously fine. Asking legitimate questions, like what you linked above, is fine and even encouraged. Templating, warning, or correcting editors is not necessary to content creation so I would expect your use of other's talk pages to be limited things like pointing them towards talk page discussions or asking legitimate questions. Speaking of which, using article talk pages is a core part of the content creation process and so using them is fine. You can use noticeboards as needed to report on users you came into contact with while doing content creation or to respond if you are brought to one. If for some reason you need help not permitted by this restriction (i.e. an article you've done content work on has been vandalized and nothing has happened after a reasonable amount of time and after you've posted on the article talk page) you may use the {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} templates.
The conversation you linked at {{PBER}} is an excellent example of a principle I don't think you've yet absorbed but are going to need to to continue here: there are other editors who understand Wikipedia and it systems better than you. You need to be asking more questions and making fewer changes and fewer statements about how things are or should be. Primefac is among our most respected editors; that respect led him to be chosen first as a sysop and then a bureaucrat. For him to stop a conversation because you're not listening to what he's writing says something and it's not about Primefac. Instead of getting into a disagreement that could have and should have been an opportunity to learn. That conversation plays out differently if you'd started with a question and then really thought and considered the answer and then maybe asked another question. If you do this, you are eventually going to learn enough to be able to starting really answering questions and having opinions and ideas that are not disruptive but which improve the encyclopedia. If you need a second example of what needs to stop, it would be telling me how unblock edit restrictions work. I have been trusted with the sysop toolset for a reason and part of the basis of that trust is because I know when I need to ask questions about something.
Without your GOCE work this would be a different story. That work has been the best, and perhaps only, evidence that you can be a positive productive Wikipedian. Without it I do not invest the significant time I have just done typing this all out in hopes of guiding you in a better direction; instead I tell you to file an appeal, knowing it probably gets declined, and you have to wait six months to ask for the standard offer. As it seems like you're doing good work there, and because you are seen as a positive, if you would like to participate in that project during this time of editing restriction that's fine. The idea will be to give you a space where you can demonstrate the new better you. A word of warning though: because things would be looking very different without the GOCE, were that project, or leaders of that project, to feel differently than they do today about your participation we'd have to re-examine whether or not you were a net positive.
Because I am a reasonable person, I will listen to suggestions you have about this, assuming you are agreeable to the overall principle and framework. I will gladly answer questions you have about it. But tread carefully with this - it is the first chance for you to demonstrate you're absorbing the larger message of this block. Assuming you are agreeable and get unblocked, I would see violations of this restriction, of which I'd hope there would be none, generally being met with a series of escalating blocks (if I'm the one doing it, I'll likely start at 3 days). As noted if problems are reported from the GOCE, however, that could be a very different situation. In terms of appeal, I would see us being able to revisit elements of this in as few as 3 months assuming there aren't problems (i.e. maybe you can start using your pending changes reviewer permission again which is a nice segue between counter vandalism and content work). If this gradual easing of restrictions works, I think in as little as six months (meaning maybe longer) all editing restrictions could be removed. What do you think? Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is a restriction to content creation and other maintanence work related to it.

There are 2 types of templates. Thoses used in articles, and those not used in articles. I once came a across {{CHE}} during a copyedit which had an annoying double space which I hated. I even tried to trace down the problem and then just plain abandonded it.

1. If I were ever to revisit this issue and found a solution, would I be permitted to file a TPER?
2. Any touching of templates for use in content is allowed right?

There is a regular backlog of semi-protected edit request and COI edit request, all relating to article content for which they are unable to edit, and that makes up most of my talk space edits. Would reviewing of these edit request still be permitted.

In terms of other article maintanence I do, sourcing, merging, bare URLs as refernces, just plain cleanup I find neccessary, and uh all the sudden if I find a copyvio.

I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page.

As with the pending changes reviewer, it's commonly known as another basic counter-vandalism user right, I just use it as another reviewing edit request. If the edit request part above is not permitted, you might as well revoke PCR from me.

As with IAR and exceptions to this, I hope I never have to use it, if it's very obvious and no one has done a crap about it after 10–15 minutes, I might have to break the restrictions with a possible post-action discussion. Not very obvious, like you said, the helpme templates.

Can I Log In (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not block you or support a block of you if you IAR and removed content which later had to be revision deleted under revdel reasons 2-4. However, it makes me nervous to put that in writing because I can imagine a scenario where you good faith remove something thinking it will be revdel'ed and then it turns out not to qualify. So let me be clear again on an essential point. I in no way doubt your good faith or sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. However, your good faith efforts have, nonetheless, resulted in repeated disruptive editing. Good faith alone will not be a defense. So sure IAR in certain instances of extreme vandalism. But you better be right. If you're nervous you might not be right use the help-me templates; in most situations 15 minutes is not make or break. Even several hours is not make or break.

The spirit of this restriction is to let you lean into what you've done well and go from there. Obviously you can use templates when doing your editing but creating/changing templates is not in the spirit of content creation under what I am suggesting. So no to TPER for now. If you encounter something like what is being discussed at AN right now about a broken ref template causing problems, ping me or use a help-me so the issue can be reported rather than trying to fix the template yourself.

Pending changes and edit requests are part content creation, part administrative action. So let's go back to the spirit of the restriction as I am proposing it. In that context, it is not building off your strengths and takes us back into territory, administrative type actions, for which there is evidence of problems. My idea of talking about a loosening of the restriction in as soon as three months, rather than a more typical six months is because this kind of work could serve as a nice bridge between where we're starting and resuming full editing. So far now leave them alone. If it helps I'm happy to revoke PCR until such a time as you could use it again.

Cleaning up BARE URLs and handling COPYVIO is a standard part of copy editing so both make sense. But exercise caution. For instance, I would look askance on something like you joining/doing CopyPatrol.

I don't understand what I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page. means.

I think that's everything from your response. Let me know if I missed something or you have further questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page. Simpily, questions and clarification regarding the MOS.

Please revoke PCR before I "accidentally" use it.

I've seen the revision deleteable edits. I've gone on an edit war with a vandal, I've seen this. They were RD2ed, I called oversight. I just found them in the AbuseLog.

Can I Log In (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Asking questions about the MOS is absolutely in-line with the spirit of this restriction. Proposing changes to the MOS is not. Does that help clarify. If you tell me that you agree to the restrictions as we've laid them out here, I will remove the block and revoke PCR. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Y and you are not going to see "a second wave". COVID-19 does not have a brain, I do. COVID-19 changes randomly, I can actualy change. Can I Log In (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, you have been unblocked and I have removed PCR. I have formally logged the restriction. It refers back to this conversation as to the intent and meaning of the restrictions. Please do not hesitate to ping me with questions. I wish you good luck with your future editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)