使用者:Lemonaka/Get alert

'd like write something to alert the community, before I got banned here or I broke something.

• Wikipedia and Telegram

Telegram group, although previously considered as an off-wiki group by Arbcom, currently it works like Wikipediocracy for English Wikipedia, which may be consist of critic or may also leak privacy, though the latter one has been investigated more than once by enwp Arbcom. As a public, long-standing group on the wiki, most issues that arise there will cause trouble to this project. This is actually not only limited to Telegram/Discord/IRC groups, but also includes non-connected QQ groups, though the latter one has been silence for a while.

Since the case of WMF v. WMC, The security of these off-site groups has been questioned. The suspicion of canvassing for votes and manipulation off-site has never stopped. Sadly, the English Wikipedia has an effective arbitration committee system that regularly investigates what happens on Wikipediocracy, and from what I know, the last investigation into the situation off-site on our project seems to be Antigng v WMC.

• Checkuser problem & Checkuser information

Any checkusers have access to the checkuser Wikipedia, however, there's nothing to prevent these checkusers directly copy down the content on such a wiki, no matter through page-print, take a photo or just directly using view the source from browsers. Though checkuser information will only be last for six months, nothing prevent them taking a piece of note down to local, or just use a pen. This is just a bug of current Checkuser system.

However, such bug can become quite harmful when such pieces of notes can be shared, even with users who didn't sign NDA, without being noticed by Wikimedia Foundation and without any evidence to report, for example, what about just sharing them within a private group on Telegram, then deleting all of them?

In addition, previously, Poetlister signed NDA, though he had already been banned by Wikimedia Foundation, but WMF did not aware that, passed their NDA, gave their CU privileged until being found.

• Infallibility of the Arbcom

The Arbitration Committee is usually the highest legislative and executive body of a Wikipedia. The decisions it makes must be followed by all Wikipedia members, and the Arbitration Committee rarely overturns its previous conclusions. But the Arbitration Committee is elected by the Wikipedia community. Once the Arbitration Committee is controlled by people with ulterior motives, they do not even need to control all the seats but only need a majority. In fact, some people have already made a try to take control of a Wikipedia project. See Croatian issues.

In addition, without the multilingual culture of the English Wikipedia, it would be very scary if the arbitration committee accidentally got into some problems on some matters.I have opposed the introduction of Checkuser many times, but after the arbitration committee being introduced, I shortly had a hope of Checkuser reintroduction. However, considering that if the Chinese Wikipedia's arbitration committee eventually becomes a purely lagging bureaucratic system, it is better not to do so. For that someone abuses CU priviledge,your investigation will face great resistance and it will be difficult to maintain confidentiality, and you may even need WMF to help make some modifications.

Worse still, I have predicted that all editors will change. I have seen many mature editors hanged on ANM, including me, and I may be permanently banned soon. Can you guarantee that the arbitration committee members you choose will never make fatal mistakes, or will always be better and better?

• Correctness or Verifiability

Outlookxp discovered qqqyy（討論 | 貢獻）, and I discovered Boogi wu（討論 | 貢獻）. Both users introduced a large amount of fake content into Wikipedia. Unlike the infamous "Zhemao", they affect the accuracy of the content through tiny vandalism. Unfortunately, only Outlookxp（討論 | 貢獻） is still paying attention to the former, and only I, though I hope not, will regularly investigate the latter. In addition, the latter often makes changes in the English Wikipedia or the corresponding Wikipedia before tampering in the Chinese Wikipedia. Multi-Wikipedia comparison is no longer effective, and the corresponding reference must be checked.

For such malicious editors, the current method can only be to watch the corresponding pages one by one, but if they also affect some reference materials, it will be more difficult to find. This is the WP:CIRCLE way of the former one, QQQyy, which further proves that their own fabrication is correct by letting external materials incorrectly quote Wikipedia.However, Wikipedia is highly dependent on verifiability. When external references are tampered with, the accuracy of Wikipedia is very easy to be questioned. This cycle of tampering and vandalism is a heavy blow to the cornerstones of various projects.

我想寫點東西提醒社區，以免我在這裡被封號或者破壞了什麼東西。

• 維基百科和 Telegram

Telegram 群組，雖然之前被 Arbcom 視為一個站外群組，但目前它就像英文維基百科的 Wikipediocracy，可能包含批評者，也可能泄露隱私，儘管後者已經被 enwp Arbcom 調查過不止一次。作為維基上一個公開的、長期存在的群組，那裡出現的大多數問題都會給這個項目帶來麻煩。這實際上不僅限於 Telegram/Discord/IRC 群組，還包括非連接的 QQ 群組，儘管後者已經沉寂了一段時間。

自從 WMF v. WMC 案以來，這些站外群組的安全性就一直受到質疑。拉票和站外操縱的嫌疑從未停止過。遺憾的是，英文維基百科有一個有效的仲裁委員會系統，定期調查 Wikipediocracy 上發生的事情，據我所知，我們項目上一次場外調查似乎是 Antigng v WMC。

• 用戶查核員問題和用戶查核信息

任何用戶查核員都可以訪問用戶查核維基百科，但是，沒有什麼可以阻止這些用戶查核員直接複製此類 wiki 上的內容，無論是通過頁面打印、拍照還是直接使用瀏覽器查看源代碼。雖然用戶查核信息只能保存六個月，但沒有什麼可以阻止他們將筆記記在本地，或者直接用筆記。這只是對當前用戶查核員系統的蟲子。

但是，當這些筆記可以共享時，這種蟲子可能會變得非常有害，即使是與未簽署保密協議的用戶共享，也不會引起維基媒體基金會的注意，也沒有任何證據可以報告，例如，如何在 Telegram 上的私人群組內共享它們，然後刪除它們？這正是現在烏茲別克語維基百科正在發生的事情，一些人的隱私在telegram上泄露，而泄露的人很顯然也有用戶查核權限。

此外，此前，Poetlister簽署了保密協議，儘管他已經被維基媒體基金會全域禁止，但 WMF 並不知情，通過了保密協議，給予其 CU 特權，直到被發現。

• 仲裁委員會的絕對正確性

仲裁委員會通常是維基百科的最高立法和執行機構。它做出的決定必須得到所有維基百科成員的遵守，仲裁委員會很少推翻其先前的結論。但仲裁委員會是由維基百科社區選舉產生的。一旦仲裁委員會被別有用心的人控制，他們甚至不需要控制所有席位，而只需要多數票。事實上，有些人已經試圖通過此控制維基百科項目。參見克羅地亞問題。

另外，如果沒有英文維基百科的多語言文化，仲裁委員會如果在某些事情上不小心出問題，那也是很可怕的。我曾多次反對引入Checkuser，但在引入仲裁委員會後，我曾短暫地抱有Checkuser重新引入的希望。但考慮到中文維基百科的仲裁委員會最終如果變成一個純粹的落後的官僚體系，還是不要這麼做為好。因為如果有人濫用CU特權，你的調查將面臨巨大的阻力，很難保密，甚至可能需要WMF幫忙做一些修改。

更糟糕的是，我已經預測到所有的編輯都會改變。我看到很多成熟的編輯在ANM上掛了，包括我在內，我可能很快就會被永久封禁。你能保證你選擇的仲裁委員會成員永遠不會犯致命的錯誤，或者永遠越來越好嗎？

• 正確性或可驗證性

Outlookxp發現了qqqyy（討論 | 貢獻），我發現了Boogi wu（討論 | 貢獻）。這兩個用戶都在維基百科中引入了大量虛假內容。與臭名昭著的「Zhemao」不同，他們通過微小的破壞行為影響內容的準確性。不幸的是，只有Outlookxp（討論 | 貢獻）仍在關注前者，只有我（儘管我希望不會）會定期調查後者。此外，後者經常在篡改中文維基百科之前先在英文維基百科或相應的維基百科中進行更改。多維基百科比較不再有效，必須檢查相應的參考資料。

對於此類惡意編輯者，目前的方法只能是逐一監視相應的頁面，但如果它們還影響了一些參考資料，則更難發現。這就是前者QQQyy的WP:CIRCLE方式，通過讓外部材料錯誤地引用維基百科，進一步證明了他們自己的捏造是正確的。但維基百科高度依賴可驗證性，當外界引用被篡改時，維基百科的準確性很容易受到質疑，這種篡改、破壞的循環，對各項項目的基石都是沉重的打擊。