Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta!Edit

Hello, Leaderboard. 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 Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our Inspire campaign surveyEdit

Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!

Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.



Many thanks,

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk), on behalf of the IdeaLab team.

23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?Edit

Hi there,

I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns resultsEdit

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Open Call for Individual Engagement GrantsEdit

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

CommentEdit

I replied at SRGP for the public, but I also wanted to raise an issue with this comment here. That is nowhere near correct. en.wiki users are held to the same standards as others while applying for global permissions, and statements like the one you made is one of the reasons why some en.wiki users do not take meta seriously. As a user who is basically only active on en.wiki and meta, I have found nothing but a welcoming community of users here who with a few exceptions have never held against me the fact that the only content project I edit on is en.wiki.

Comments like you made are not helpful at all and only discourage users who could be resources to the global Wikimedia movement from getting involved and making cross-project connections with other users, which is significantly more important than xwikiness by edit count. I'd appreciate it if you didn't help perpetuate the idea that en users are not welcome here if they only contribute to en. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you for the comment. From my experience, I do feel that en.wiki users are set to a slightly higher level of scrutiny by the community, which is what I wanted to point out. Just slightly, and it in no way undermines the contribution of the user there. I am not trying to say that en users aren't welcome here, and I would evaluate an applicant's suitability without prejudice to this fact. Leaderboard (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
There is simply no policy basis for your statement on meta or in any global policy. It was out of place, just as my saying something similar about any other large project would be. If anything, sysop or above on any major project actually makes getting global permissions easier because it shows community trust. This user wasn’t a sysop, but like any other user who wasn’t qualified from any other project they were rejected. En.wiki has nothing to do with it. And yes, your statement does undermine that user’s contributions because it promotes the false idea that en users need not even attempt to get involved on meta if they don’t care about getting involved editing other projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I don't think so. The core focus of my reasoning was the lack of experience at SRUC and adminship, not the fact that they are an en.wiki-only user. The part about the "bar set slightly higher" was taken from some community concerns in the past that there were too many en.wiki users applying for the role in this past. Leaderboard (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
And those concerns have been rejected every other time they have been raised as having no merit whatsoever by the community. Repeating a view that is outside of consensus as somehow being the standard only legitimizes it, which is why I’m speaking out against it.

As an aside, having no experience at SRUC is a positive for me at least, as there’s nothing someone who isn’t a renamer or steward can do there that is helpful. I’ve actually opposed people on the grounds that they were too involved with clerking at en:WP:CHUS. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I wouldn't call them as 'no merit', just that they weren't backed up with sufficient consensus from other users. As for SRUC, I was looking for some evidence that (s)he had tried to do something before applying for the bit, and couldn't find any. I admit though that I am not a en.wiki user and do not know about the drawbacks of clerking/helping at SRUC. Leaderboard (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
If 80%+ of the community disagrees that it’s an issue, it means they have no merit. Clerking at renaming boards is makework that is more often than not disruptive in my view. I would have opposed them too, but “en user with no experience in global renames” is a bad reason to oppose, as no one has any relevant experience in the global rename policy until they have done global renames. The policy is very lightweight and it’s mainly convention more than anything else, which of course you don’t actually experience until you’re a renamer. Anyway, just please be more careful about promoting ideas that could be perceived as anti-en here. There are many users from en who actively avoid meta because it has a reputation for not wanting anything to do with en users (and en has its reputation issues as well.)

In my view that way of looking at meta is largely outdated, which is why I call out thins that reinforce that view when I see them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you for sharing your concern. I didn't realise that this could be taken as 'anti-en' and will try to take that into consideration in the future. Leaderboard (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Not a problem. Thank you for being willing to engage on this :) I do appreciate it a lot :) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please tell someone to stop this user: FURRYS TO THE GAS CHAMBEREdit

FURRYS TO THE GAS CHAMBER is growing vandalism and attack pages. Please take mass cleanup of obvious vandalism. Thanks! 109.102.200.224 11:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying my best, but I only have autopatroller here. Leaderboard (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for comment! But this user did vandalizing user talk pages, then growing LTA vandalism. 109.102.200.224 11:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I've tried pinging a steward on IRC, but there hasn't been any response. Leaderboard (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The user is now globally locked. Thanks for helping. Leaderboard (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Have I done digital media use and mental health wrong?Edit

Thanks for the nomination for deletion. I'm just trying to follow the translation guidelines to try and get volunteers for translation from meta. Is it wrong? I changed it from speedy to normal nominate for deletion, change it back if necessary. Thanks E.3 (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@E.3: Are you saying that you want to get this article translated? Because on the surface it looks as if that article is copy-pasted from Wikipedia... Leaderboard (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
yeah basically just asking for translation reading this policy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests#How_to_request_a_translation was trying to do step 1? E.3 (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for adminship/LeaderboardEdit

Fyi. Matiia (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matiia: Did not notice that, thank you! Leaderboard (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Since when did we ban emojis?Edit

I was unaware that emojis were starting to be disallowed at Meta. I possibly could see warning/disallowance in main ns., though talk places should be allowable. If you think that we need a conversation, then happy to see you bring it up at Meta:Rfh.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Billinghurst: I removed the namespace restriction because vandals were bypassing the filter by doing this at their userpage and talkpage. Leaderboard (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and since when have we started to block emojis without a community consensus. If you think that there is a case, then have the conversation, not undertake unilateral action for what is an isolated and usually non-problematic set of actions to 99.99% of our users.

The LTAs will continually just change their trollish behaviour to the next (variation of) technique, not stop their trollish behaviour. So tell me the benefit of chasing from user talk space to user space to main ns? What have you stopped? What you are doing is playing their game, not making it hard for them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Filter 161Edit

Where is the consensus to reduce the filter to autoconfirmed? I see a consensus to autopatrol, but not for autoconfirmed. Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2018-06#Notice_to_administrators_—_consideration_of_application_of_autopatrol_right — regards, Revi 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: There isn't. I've rollbacked that change and will seek consensus on that filter soon as well. Leaderboard (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Disbaled AF 207Edit

Hi. 207 was having too many false positives, so I have turned it off. You may need to look at some exclusions (p+ve use cases) for legitimate edits, and try a longer test period before re-implementing. To note that with AF that we are better to be softer rather than harsher, as it is easier to manage those that sneak through and they have less negative consequences. It would also be useful to look at overlap, as it seems that there has been some of that, and running parallel similar filters is less than ideal, when the outcome is not significantly different.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What are you doing with these pages?Edit

Redirects of pages like MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext/en-CA don't work. Did you test this somewhere before doing that? For example look at this link while not logged in. I've deleted these pages. — xaosflux Talk 22:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I do remember testing them before on Wikibooks/MediaWiki, but will take a look again at that. Thanks for letting me know. Leaderboard (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There are better options for minor language variant fall back, but most of them have been stalled at phab for a while. Generally, we just discourage the use of these types of languages (in general we discourage most interface message customizations on meta-wiki since users can have any language here and we have no idea what they may be). In cases where something like matching a /en-CA message to the /en one is absolutely needed, transcluding is generally the way to do it (again it is normally just not done at all). — xaosflux Talk 22:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

SE QuestionEdit

It seems that your SE question is mostly unanswerable. The number of active users (what I assume you mean by members) does not factor into stewards' review of a request for adminship on RFP. What does matter is the number of people who supported the candidate in their local RfA (to decide term limits) and whether there's local bureaucrats (if yes, its not for stewards). Stuffing in two exponential growth equations shouldn't affect any response. However, regardless of how you worded the question, their response is incorrect. I'm not sure if your question was intentionally worded this way, but it did bring out a useful answer. Vermont (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: Thanks for asking. Yes, I was hoping that they'd use the "reasonable assumption in your answer" part in my question to note the bureaucrats and the number of votes part. Was anticipating them to roughly deduce the number of votes from the number of members in that way. Leaderboard (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Your bizarre “bizarre situations” questionEdit

Is it not intentionally confusing and vague? It's not exactly thought-provoking, either. Probably the best answer is just to ignore the hypothetical logically impaired user, but considering past responses we're likely to see AGF pop up and/or a generic "I'd talk with all parties". My question for you is: how could answers to this question influence your judgement of a candidate? I've been following this election relatively closely and don't see how this question adds to it. I'm happy to hear your thoughts. Also, for my own curiousity, why have you decided to go with mostly mathematics themes questions? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: I had recycled this question from last year (where I posed this question to only one candidate, who gave a very good answer to it), so no, I did not intend this question to be intentionally confusing and vague, though it could end up being so and I appreciate your feedback on it. As for your second question, well it's just that I like maths and wanted to apply it in a miniscule scale here (though one of the questions I gave was quite badly written and actually inappropriate considering the candidate's background that I'm thrown it out). Leaderboard (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank's for the response. Vermont (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a bizzare questionEdit

Since 0.999999(recurring)=1, if a SE candidate obtain 79.9999(recurring), should he/she be promoted? Just wondering as this may be the possiblity. I can't find any other people to discuss with, hence it's here. Thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: Sorry for the late response, my email wasn't working properly. The answer is no in the case of meta, as they explicitly require a 80% and 80 - x will always be less than a bound E, as we don't round up. Leaderboard (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Make sense, the bound E explanation. Thanks :) --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mailEdit

Hello Leaderboard,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Bad edit matrixEdit

Hi, what do you mean by "bad edit matrix"? I'm not familiar with this term and I want to understand the issue. Thanks and regards, Squasher (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Squasher: Hi, I just meant that you do not have a history of editing in many wikis (as you mainly focus on German Wikipedia), and many global renamers usually focus on multiple wikis. Don't worry too much about it, since you have a valid reason for requesting the right. Leaderboard (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I did not know this might be an issue. Thank you for the explanation. Regards, Squasher (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions in SE2021/QEdit

Hello,

We received a complaint that you are asking more than 2 questions in SE. (Two questions for all candidates, and questions for individual voters). After deliberation, we decided that you are allowed to ask 2 questions, "all candidates" and "individual candidate" section combined, therefore you are currently in violation of 2 Questions rule. Please trim your question. Thanks!

For the ElectCom, — regards, Revi 13:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@-revi: Thanks for the message. Unfortunately, it was not specified anywhere that "2 questions" implied "all candidates and individual candidate section combined" , and I think it could be unfair for some candidates if I were to trim the questions this late, when other candidates have already answered. That is, some candidates would be disadvantaged due to no fault of theirs (as I would have fewer information to evaluate relative to others). I had interpreted the 2 questions condition as separate (rather than combined) purely on good faith (and also because that is what I did in previous election years). In the interest of fairness, I would kindly request a reconsideration of this decision. Many thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Hello Leaderboard, another member of the ElectCom speaking. We don't see a reason to grant you an exemption from the two question limit. We don't think striking questions over the 2 question limit will create any level of unfairness – after all, nothing prevents candidates from answering questions that were striked, if they want so. Granting you an exemption would make you a different category of questioners, since everyone else would be allowed just two questions, while you four. For the ElectCom, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: I will still have to disagree unfortunately, with due respect to the ElectCom. It's not that I am seeking any exemption, indeed if this was made clear before the election started (or soon after I violated the rule), there would be no problem as I would have quickly been able to recalibrate to adjust to the new rules.
The issue I have is that I carefully keep track of the constraints I have when asking questions, because indeed they play a significant role on which candidates to support. Considering that several candidates had already answered all 4 problems (by your definition), I am not even sure how I can fulfil your request. All this causes is deny candidates who haven't gotten the chance to answer, which in my personal opinion is not fair to them. I understand that you say that "nothing prevents candidates from answering questions that were striked, if they want so", but I would still argue that is not in the interest of fairness (at least I would probably not answer a striked question, especially when that's enforced by the ElecCom).
Hence, again with due respect to you, I am concerned that the application of this rule at this late a stage is not in the interest of fairness, especially when it was due to ambiguity. That being said, I am only a random voter, so if you still insist that I comply, I would appreciate if you could tell me how (i.e, removing questions, striking them especially when it has already been answered etc). Leaderboard (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
We've {{Collapse}}d the extra questions in "For each candidates" section. Thanks. For the ElectCom, — regards, Revi 15:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Kind of disappointed overall with the actions of the ElectCom (I was willing to do it myself pending a honest clarification, and hence felt this forced action rude, considering that I was not disruptive in any way).
Nevertheless, I don't want to drag this case further, but would kindly request that you make this provision clear in the future so that users like me are not unfairly affected by an ambiguous interpretation of a policy. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Stewards voting general subpageEdit

Hello! Given your interest on Stewards' elections' processes (I was randomly checking your StewardMark some other days ago), I wanted to ask a question: Shouldn't there be a page that condenses/summarizes all the voting processes for all the candidates, similar to what we have for questions? In other words, shouldn't this page exist? It would be good to have all the voting pages listed somewhere so we could jump quickly from one candidate to another. Or even have some real time vote numbers on each? (Even though it's clear that this is not a ballot.) Just brainstorming here. Or am I missing something? I found it odd that I couldn't find a linking page between each candidate's voting subpage. - Klein Muçi (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Klein, I think you meant Stewards/Elections_2021/Statistics? Leaderboard (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Thank you! I was 80% sure it should have existed somewhere. But isn't it all put in a weird manner? I mean we have voting subpages which are subpages of non-existent subpages and then we have this page which is only briefly mentioned on the main subpage in the end of it. The infrastructure seems a bit nonintuitive. Is there any reason why is it the way it is? What has been the logic behind it? - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: As a member of the ElectCom, you might know better, because I'm not quite sure actually. Leaderboard (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
For helping me remember the name of the 2021 steward elections and helping me getting unblocked. Sorry for all the trouble I caused. Dreamboat1234 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


Re:SRUCEdit

Hi, sorry if I answer you here, but imho your question is not related to that request and I think it's right not to clog it with comments. Please consider also that this is only my personal vision. I appreciate every comment, every additional opinion can be important to evaluate a request, but in the end a rename it's a question of checking if the target has significant contributions or a high number of edits and if the user who wants the rename has the requirements to be renamed. In case of doubt, we can contact a renamer active on the local project of the user concerned (or the project itself). Personally, I would not evaluate the "clerk experience" during a request for the GRN flag, for which I just need to know that the user is trustworthy (has no blocking or behavior problems etc.), has experience with inappropriate usernames (I consider an admin of medium-large projects definitely an expert) and actually needs the flag (for example there are many renaming requests and few renamers coming from their project or speaking their language). When active renamers are few, however, outside help from a clerk can be very important! Currently I would say that there are several active renamers. Anyone who wants to help out, however, is always welcome, even if in the end the decision on the renaming is up to the stewards and renamers (and sometimes we consult with each other to decide), regards :) --Superpes15 (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Superpes15: Hi and thanks for your answer, it's fine to answer it in my talkpage. Leaderboard (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)