User talk:AFBorchert/Archive 1

Welcome to Meta!

Hello AFBorchert, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Meta:Metapub (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

--Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Global bans policy discussion

At Requests for comment/Global bans, where you have commented in support of Option 2, a third option has recently been implemented. The first two options did not prove a way for respondents to indicate that they oppose global bans entirely, i.e., that it is not possible to write a meaningful global bans policy that would attract their support. Option 3 is intended to provide that opportunity, and to aid in distinguishing between people who oppose the proposed policy because it requires improvements and those who oppose the proposed policy because no policy permitting global bans should be adopted.

Because the third section was added late by a respondent, it is possible that some people who responded early in the RFC have commented at option 2, but would really prefer to support option 3, or support both. If so, you may voluntarily choose to move your original comment or to or strikethrough your original comment and add new comments. This is a courtesy notice of the change, and there is no requirement that you take any action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks but I noticed already option 3 as I have that page on my watchlist. I do not intend to move from option 2 to option 3 as I am not rejecting entirely the idea of global bans but requiring higher standards for blocks or bans on local projects first. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Building a better Global Bans RfC

I'm impressed by what you wrote. I feel that you're someone who can think of concerns, question, and solutions that others can't think of. I found the first RfC disappointing, so I'm crafting a second one:

• Talk:Requests_for_comment/Global_bans#Preparing_a_better_RfC
• User:Michaeldsuarez/Global_bans_RfC_2

Do you have any ideas? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics

Idea Lab

Idea Lab

Hello, AFBorchert! We've added Events to IdeaLab, and you're invited :)

Upcoming events focus on turning ideas into Individual Engagement Grant proposals before the March 31 deadline. Need help or have questions about IEG? Join us at a Hangout:

• Thursday, 13 March 2014, 1600 UTC
• Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1700 UTC
• Saturday, 29 March 2014, 1700 UTC

Hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically to IEG and IdeaLab participants. To unsubscribe from any future IEG reminders, remove your name from this list

Superprotect letter update

Hi AFBorchert,

Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.

Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.

I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.

Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.

Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

For the record, I note here that I have just signed this. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Leopold Birstinger

Zwar hat der Wiener Maler mit Irland nix zu tun, aber ich glaube, Du bist trotzdem kompetent, meine Fragen zu beantworten, die ich in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Urheberrechtsfragen#Leopold_Birstinger.2C_Maler.2C_Lizenzfragen gestellt habe. Könntest Du netterweise mal einen Blick darauf werfen? Danke schon einmal! --Cantakukuruz (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Translation

Hi, thanks for adding the German translation on 2015 Community Wishlist Survey. I really appreciate your help! DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to help out :) Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Verifizierung der Nutzungsrechte »Post Office Engineers«

Hallo,

für eines unserer Projekte würden wir gerne das Bild »Post Office Engineers« verwenden.

Auf der Wikimedia-Seite steht, dass das Bild unter der Creative Commons Lizenz »Namensnennung 3.0 nicht portiert« verwendbar ist, das man dies aber durch einen ORTS-Mitarbeiter verfizieren lassen kann. Link zum Ticket: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1608324

Da es sich bei dem Projekt, um ein Buch mit einer Auflage von 3500 Stück handelt, wollten wir sichergehen, dass wir das Bild auch benutzen dürfen. Können Sie uns weiterhelfen & die für die Veröffentlichung benötigten Nutzungsrechte bestätigen bzw. uns die Passage aus der Konversation schicken, die die Rechte belegt?

Vielen, vielen Dank im Voraus.

Hallo, die Korrespondenz wurde mit einem Mitarbeiter des Cardiff Council geführt. Innerhalb des Tickets wird (leider!) nicht geklärt, wer die Urheberrechte innehatte oder innehat. Wenn es gemeinfrei wäre, dann wäre die CC-BY-SA-3.0-Lizenz nicht sinnvoll. Wenn jemand noch die Urheberrechte daran hat, sollte das geklärt werden, was leider nicht geschah. Die Korrespondenz stellt nur eingeschränkt sicher, dass das Cardiff Council, das offenbar die Fotografie aus ihrem Archiv digitalisiert hat, damit einverstanden ist. Urheberrechtlich hat das aber nichts zu bedeuten. Zuschicken kann ich Ihnen die Konversation nicht, die ist vertraulich. Aber es steht Ihnen natürlich frei, den Cardiff Council zu kontaktieren. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die ausführliche und super schnelle Antwort. Wir werden die Ansprechpartner vom Cardiff Flat Holm Project nochmal direkt anschreiben.

OTRS-Anfrage

(da du für mich der alphabetisch erste in der OTRS-Liste bist) eine Frage zu c:File:Cover Gold Bankers.jpg. Das auf dem Umschlag gezeigte Bild ist von Wolfgang Tritt (1913-1983). Wieso steht der Buchumschlag dann hier als CC-BY-3.0 (=abgewandelt und bearbeitet werden) ? gruß --Goesseln (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Goesseln, bei dem Bild bzw. bei dem zugehörigen Ticket gibt es in der Tat ein Problem, da daraus nicht hervorgeht, dass Tritt bzw. seine Erben ihre Zustimmung zu dieser Freigabe gegeben haben. Ich kümmere mich darum. Vielen Dank für den Hinweis und Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Next steps for the wish “confirmation prompt for the rollback link”

Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

JSTOR account redistribution (The Wikipedia Library)

Hi - according to our records you received a free account for JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library. Because we’ve used up all of our allocated accounts, and it’s been some time since they were distributed, we want to redistribute any accounts that aren’t being used to users on our waitlist.

If you’re still using, or plan to use, your JSTOR access, no problem! Simply head over to the Library Card platform, log in, and request a renewal of your account. You should be able to do this from your user page, or the JSTOR signup page. If you can’t find the renewal button, or have any other issues or questions about this, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. We’ll begin redistributing inactive accounts in September; if you request renewal after then we will only be able to reactivate your account if we have spots remaining. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OTRS

In einer Liste von OTRS-Mitarbeitern stehst du relativ weit oben, also landet "meine" Frage bei dir. Auf

c:File:Batterieturm Schloss Burg (Innenraum).JPG

wird eine Skulptur des Bildhauers de:Kurt Schwerdtfeger, gestorben 1966, gezeigt. Frage: was steht in dem Ticket zu dem Urheberrecht des Bildhauers?
gruß --Goesseln (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Goesseln, bei der zugehörigen Korrespondenz sehe ich keinen Hinweis auf eine Freigabe bezüglich der Urheberrechte des Künstlers bzw. seiner Erben. Ich habe den Bearbeiter des Tickets diesbezüglich angesprochen. Vielen Dank für den Hinweis und Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Freigabe

Hallo, kannst du mal das ticket:2018092510007807 bearbeiten? Einer deiner Kollegen schafft das gerade zeitlich nicht und da möchte ich ihn nicht noch unnötig damit nerven. Das Ticket ist schon seit Wochen unbeantwortet. Es beinhaltet 2 Bilder. Die wurden in 1 Ticket zusammengefasst und ich möchte nicht, dass die wegen einer Nicht-Bearbeitung versehentlich gelöscht werden. Gruß. --RS34 (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

About German Wikipedia

Hello!

We would highly appreciate your comment on 2 of the German Wikipedia's processes (de:WP:Administratoren/Probleme, and de:WP:Adminwiederwahl/Intro) at Community_Health/Recommendations, and also any of your fellow wikipedians, if you would invite a few.

Thank you! — Aron M (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aron Manning, I've added a comment as requested, Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It's the most detailed and insightful description so far. Much respect to you. — Aron M (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI

I haven't had contact with any of the members of the CU-team off-wiki. This also means none of the members of the CU-team ever reached out to me off-wiki. Other than that, please see the top of my user page here. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 01:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: I see you had a related question, so ping. There hasn't been any communication off-wiki and as far as I'm aware nothing has been (revision) deleted. Besides c:User:Alexis Jazz obviously, but that hadn't been edited since.. two weeks ago I think when I added a pink babel. So whatever anyone is talking about, they should be able to give you a diff. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 01:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, I found the recent comment by Krd quite concerning: Commons checkusers were forced to make thoughts about their physical safety during this case after personal threats. I do not have the full background of this but I am aware of this notice where you asked the CU team to go quietly or go in a firestorm in conjunction with a couple of threatening messages at Meta: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. All this in the context of a provocative comment by your sock where you knew that it was interpreted as a death threat by the CU team. I am aware of the removal of your notice addressed to the CU team and your recent statement where you stated: I have changed my mind about a bunch of things. Interesting to hear but this doesn't make a real difference now for your status at Commons. You worked hard on going down in flames and succeeded. Farewell, AFBorchert (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I added another bit to my user page. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 19:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, you are stating on your user page that you were blind with rage and incapable of self-reflection. This is indeed correct but you are still assigning fault to the CU team by complaining that an indefblock was dropped without prior notice, without even trying to hear my side of story. As I told you before on your user page ([6], [7]), this is standard practice in case of CU results that uncover an abusive sockpuppet. Anyway, I do not see how I can be of help here. Jameslwoodward stated that confidential information was relevant to the decision of the CU team: As Checkusers we are not allowed to reveal a wide variety of confidential information that we come upon in our work. That is a factor in the present case. My attempt to resolve this case was based on the assumption that all relevant informations (with the exception of the details of the CU result) are public. This assumption was based on the initial comments by two CU members ([8], [9]). But this assumption appears to be wrong. Another factor is that when I made my proposal, I wasn't even aware of all relevant public aspects of your rage. I noticed your statement at Meta only after I made my proposal. I refered to it in my first response on your talk page but you chose not to take it down at that time. Instead you labeled the CU team as corrupt. Only later, when I went through all your edits since the block, I found that you had already speculated about the CU team taking bribes in the DMCA case. All this in combination is really bad – even without considering any private information of the CU team that I do not know about. You are already in the territory that could warrant a global WMF ban. In summary, I do not see how a return to Commons is possible. And if you ever intend to try this direction, you have no choice but to come to an agreement with the Commons CU team. I cannot play a role here no matter what you are going to add to your Meta user page. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

?

Ich bitte um Entschuldigung für meine Unkenntnis der deutschen Sprache, die zwingt, einen Übersetzer zu verwenden. Können Sie mir sagen, wo Sie von dieser Abstimmung erfahren haben? --Xedin (?!) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Xedin, I assume that you understand English given that you've created a user page at en:wp. Please allow me to respond in English. Rschen7754 asked Mrakia to notify the wikis where 1Goldberg2 has edited. Mrakia did this at the administrative board at de:wp which is on my watch list. I am also regularly active at Meta and I have commented in multiple RfCs at Meta where a global ban was requested ([10], [11], [12], [13]). I wasn't aware of 1Goldberg2 before and I do not think that I ever crossed a path with 1Goldberg2 before, hence I am commenting as an uninvolved Wikimedian. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Harassment from German Wikipedia

Hi, I am an editor of Wikipedia. Recently I edited an article (here) in German wikipedia. I changed its photo because the photo was unclear. I used translator to write german to the summary. But from an unknown address (2A0A:A546:11F8:0:BA:7412:B7D2:2015) reverted my edit two times. They abused me and wrote in the summary that "Änderung 223992512 von Mehediabedin rückgängig gemacht; fokirer bachcha german bhasha age shikhe ash! Pillar bhore dibo!" The second sentence is in Banglish (Bengali+English) and its translation is "You child of begger! learn German editing. I will fill the pillar inside you." I don't deserve this behaviour. I hope that you will do something about this. Mehediabedin (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the revert here. Mehediabedin (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: Stefan64 took the necessary step about the incident. Sorry for disturbing you. Mehediabedin (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mehediabedin, I am glad that this has been handled. I've some recommendations:

• Please do not use the output of Google translate in a summary or anywhere else at de:wp. You are fluent in English, so keep your comment in English. Not all but many will understand this and then there are less misunderstandings because the results of Google translate are not reliable.
• Next, you should not raise your complaints at the talk page of some de:wp admin on a meta talk page (like here). If there is an incident like this one, go straight to WP:VM and report the incident in English including the necessary diff links. Then someone will take care of it.
• Edit summaries should tell what the edit is about, they should not be used for complaints as here and here.
• If your edit is reverted, please do not simply revert the revert as you did here. We do not like this and de:wp is here far more strict than en:wp. Instead, head to the corresponding talk page and open a discussion. See en:WP:BRD for this process of engagement. Again, if you are not familiar with German, just write in English. But at the end you have to accept that your options for an ongoing discussion are limited if you do not understand the language of the project.

Sorry for the trouble at de:wp, happy editing and kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)