Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ | 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 | Qaraqalpaqsha | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | ລາວ | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | Norfuk / Pitkern | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | Taclḥit | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤ | 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)Reply[reply]

Please fill out our Inspire campaign survey edit

 

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)Reply[reply]

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results edit

 

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)Reply[reply]

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants edit

 

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)Reply[reply]

Comment edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

I'm trying my best, but I only have autopatroller here. Leaderboard (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I've tried pinging a steward on IRC, but there hasn't been any response. Leaderboard (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The user is now globally locked. Thanks for helping. Leaderboard (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Meta:Requests for adminship/Leaderboard edit

Fyi. Matiia (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Filter 161 edit

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)Reply[reply]

@-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)Reply[reply]

Disbaled AF 207 edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

SE Question edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Your bizarre “bizarre situations” question edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
Interesting. Thank's for the response. Vermont (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a bizzare question edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
Make sense, the bound E explanation. Thanks :) --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We sent you an e-mail edit

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)Reply[reply]

Bad edit matrix edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
Okay, I did not know this might be an issue. Thank you for the explanation. Regards, Squasher (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions in SE2021/Q edit

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)Reply[reply]

@-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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
We've {{Collapse}}d the extra questions in "For each candidates" section. Thanks. For the ElectCom, — regards, Revi 15:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Stewards voting general subpage edit

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)Reply[reply]

Hi Klein, I think you meant Stewards/Elections_2021/Statistics? Leaderboard (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


Re:SRUC edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

Wikivoyage edit

Hi Leaderboard. I'd like to ask you to show a bit more discretion when discussing other users' personal data on Wikivoyage. The anonymous user you linked to a named account (currently banned on English Wikipedia) had not chosen to share any information about his or her previous account with anyone on Wikivoyage, let alone with the wider community. It has since been pointed out to me by another WV admin I discussed with that the named account did identify their IP address on their original WP talk page. However, there is nothing on either of the IP's talk pages on WP or WV publicly linking them back to the named account, so we should assume they are exercising their right to be forgotten.

As a precaution, and because the user has explicitly opted to remain anonymous on WV, I have removed and revision-deleted your comment on the Traveller's Pub about their previous username. Please don't out anyone like that again unless that person gives you permission to do so, and especially not on such a public high-traffic forum.

I hope you understand my concerns. All the best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!: No. The user publicly linked their data on Wikipedia, so I am not sure what "right to be forgotten" they are saying. The Wikimedia ToS is clear on that respect, unless I am missing something. Also, where in the link is the "right to forgotten" claim exercised - I can't find one (Also, they disclosed their association on Meta - I know because I assisted on their unblock). The only case where my comment would have been inappropriate is if the user had accidentally edited through their IP (for instance if I were to edit logged out accidentally) - that's worthy of oversight. I'm not seeing any of that here. Notice that users that exercise their "right to vanish" through a rename still have a publicly available rename log. Leaderboard (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. Just to be clear: the user is not claiming anything. As far as I know, he or she is not even aware of your comment in the Pub. The discussion I linked demonstrates a reluctance on the part of the IP user to disclose their previous account to Wikivoyage users.
I accept your point about the user disclosing that info on Meta, but you'd have to know about the original account in order to see that. You can't find the association simply by looking at the IP address's user pages or edits. Furthermore, there's a clear difference between a user choosing to disclose an association on a specific page on Meta (in the context of discussing their account's block with sysops) and another user disclosing that same association on a very public page on a completely different wiki without the original user's knowledge or expressed permission.
I'm simply asking you, in an informal way, to be mindful of what information you share and with whom.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addendum: the IP address used on WV is not given on the Meta talk page you linked. What I do see is an attempt by another user to discuss the IP address without publicly disclosing it; "I seen you use the 82.XX IP as well".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: The problem is I think your action could set a bad precedent, because I've never seen this happen on any other wiki (that being said, it's rare to have a situation like this either), and to me does not look like worthy of revision deletion. With respect to the addendum, yes, it's linked. Camouflaged Mirage linked their IP in the unblock discussion. And later on quoting: "However, on SRG and my talkpage it's another matter altogether. These are made in part of your block appeal and they (the IP address linked) must stay...", clearly quoting the Foundation ToS. And in Camouflaged Mirage's talk page: "Hi, my IP address (82.3.185.12) was blocked by you." Leaderboard (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very rare indeed; I've never seen it on Wikivoyage before, and hope not to see it again. I remain convinced that we should always be ultra cautious with people's details, especially from one wiki to another, and that disclosure on one wiki does not entail disclosure on all. That may not be how the TOS sees it, but I'm approaching this more from a humanistic standpoint of respect for each other's privacy and wishes. Best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: Unfortunately, I cannot agree entirely with your thoughts. Especially when the user was claiming all the time that they didn't have an account, which we know now to be false. This type of "lies", so to say have often resulted in a harsh punishment (such as that OP getting globally banned), especially in the OP's case, who is struggling to get back into Wikipedia. Wikimedia is global after all, and hence "disclosure on one wiki does not entail disclosure on all" cannot be true either, especially when it is public information. What you're doing is potentially causing the OP to run into a dangerous situation where even a slight bit of (even accidental) abuse will lead to a CheckUser* that catches all their activities on IP (which actually happened last time they tried to unblock), and things don't end well. Wikipedia bans can be painful - I had one for 56 months.
* what they do on en.wikivoyage won't be caught on Wikipedia CU, but my general concern with that IP still stands. Leaderboard (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously, we don't have to agree "entirely" (or at all, haha), and evidently we don't agree on disclosure. But that's okay as we have different priorities and areas of interest within the WMF. I hope you're wrong about the user, but ultimately it's up to them to stay on the "straight and narrow" to avoid any further blocks; I'm pleased to say they're doing well on WV. Thanks for your time today, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SRGP edit

Hi there! Regarding your edit here, if a steward has decided on a request, it should stay like that unless a steward says otherwise. It was denied, so, unless a steward decides to reconsider it, it is denied, regardless of new replies. Some times we did see there is a new reply, but just don't want to entertain the user anymore (see Rule of diminishing replies). Please, don't change the status for a request again. Best, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 17:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tks4Fish: The problem is that the post could incorrectly be archived. Kind of tricky to separate the two cases ("just don't want to entertain the user anymore"). But OK, got you. Leaderboard (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate question edit

Hey, you asked a question here linking to [1]. If you look at that article today, you'll find an update from TechSpot where they confess that their piece was based on mine – except that they managed to get a lot of things wrong in re-writing it, which led to a WMF complaint and the need for corrections, as now mentioned at the bottom of their article. That has the potential to muddy the issue. Would you mind editing your question on this page:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/Community_Questions

so it links instead to the Daily Dot piece (which did not require any corrections)? Cheers, --Andreas JN466 17:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jayen466:   Done Leaderboard (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your IRC question edit

I think it's possible to share data from Toolforge to Cloud VPS, it really depends what exactly the data is. See the logs after you left. It is certainly much easier to go in the other way, to share data from Cloud VPS to Toolforge. Legoktm (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Legoktm:, I was indeed looking to access /data/project/(project_name) from my Cloud VPS instance. The page you linked says I need to file a Phabricator request for that, which I've now done. Leaderboard (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anything to add? edit

Hi @Leaderboard, I just noticed that you are a translation admin on MediaWiki. Do you think phab:T330594 has anything to do with translations? ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheAafi:
In the phab task linked, there are three things I can see if I understand correctly:
  • DiscussionsTools being in English rather than Urdu. As Esanders pointed out, that is due to the lack of Urdu translations for that tool.
  • MediaWiki's keyboard selector tool. This can be thought of as MediaWiki converting whatever you type in English to Urdu. That is why when you want to edit a page, you can directly type in Urdu without having to use Windows, as you've already told MediaWiki to convert whatever Windows sends it into Urdu. It appears that DiscussionsTools can't do that however, which brings me to the third point:
  • Windows' keyboard selector tool. Here, you are directly telling Windows to convert whatever you are typing into Urdu, which means that MediaWiki doesn't have to do any work, and this will work in any application. This is why when you change Windows' keyboard to Urdu, you can use that in DiscussionsTools, as (unlike the second case) MediaWiki receives Urdu text, not English.
Leaderboard (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I deal with this... edit

Hi @Leaderboard, Although I am sort of an assistant admin on Urdu Wikipedia where I can block and unblock users, is there a way to stop LTA's from creating new accounts/ or adding spam using IPs. Asking so because WASI AHMAD QADRI has been so doing so much disruption: on Urdu Wikipedia, on Hindi wiki, at VRT, using IPs, creating new accounts and so on. There is not a good connection of admins on Urdu Wikipedia (I mean active ones, who can offer help on this). I had asked for help while requesting a global block for their last created account on Stewards/Global but wasn't directed to a better direction. Now this guy has created جمیلہ قادری رحمۃ اللہ علیہ. Is an abuse filter the right way? ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheAafi:, can you clarify on what exactly that account is doing? Do you have examples (which may come from abuse filter) that clearly show that? Leaderboard (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leaderboard: some of the weird things this account does: [2] and [3] (if this makes any sense). They keep on posting this type of weird stuff (cross-wiki), and have even sent this to VRT several times. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using IP's: [4], [5], and so much. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi:, some of these edits are actually being caught by the abuse filter (filter 31 for example, which for some reason is publicly accessible). Indeed, I would recommend using abuse filters - but you need to be an admin for that. Leaderboard (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leaderboard: who needs to be an admin, me? Forgive my ignorance. The current advanced right grants me these privileges on Urdu Wikipedia. Afaics, admins have access to "abusefilter-modify", is that the thing? ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi:, indeed. I don't see eliminator (or another right that you have) with "abusefilter-modify" in it - correct me if I'm wrong. You either need to be an admin or ask an admin to give you abuse filter editor on Urdu Wikipedia. Leaderboard (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding statistics for new wikis edit

Hi, thank you for your work with Leaderbot. Could you add the new wikis as well? cf. incubator:Incubator:Site_creation_log. I have noticed bjnwiktionary and gorwiktionary's statistics are not available yet. So I assume new wikis since mid July 2022 has not been added to Leaderbot. Bennylin 08:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bennylin: Indeed, since April 2023. I've added the new wikis - the bot should hopefully pick them up in its next run. Leaderboard (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! 🙏 Bennylin 10:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steward Elections 2024 edit

Hello @Leaderboard,

I am writing to let you know the ElectCom decided to strike a couple of questions you asked at SE2024/Q, as they violate the 2-questions limit. In the future, please kindly make sure your questions do not go over this limit. As a reminder, the total number of questions asked (per each candidate) is counted (see also the discussion at #Questions in SE2021/Q). Follow-up questions (questions prompted by a different question, whether asked by you or someone else) generally count towards the limit as well. Reasonable requests for clarification are of course expected and not an issue, they always need to stay in-scope of the original question.

Thank you for your understanding. For the ElectCom, Martin Urbanec (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Martin Urbanec:, "Follow-up questions (questions prompted by a different question, whether asked by you or someone else) generally count towards the limit as well" - didn't know that - can you update the rules accordingly? Also: I do ask why I'm being caught out like that, when a different user was only informed when they made a similar unintentional mistake last year. Leaderboard (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And why was Leaderboard's second question under ~aanzx's questions section collapsed? That was the second question and falls within the 2-question limit. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC) SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000 As far as I can see, Leaderboard asked three questions to ~aanzx: the question on Uniqueness (which was asked for all candidates, including ~aanzx), the SRGP question and the monolingual renamer question. The EC deemed this adds a new scenario, and collapsed the question as a result. Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not what was resolved at Talk:Stewards/Elections 2023#How many questions can we ask?. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The interpretation remains the same in both cases (that the limit reflects number of total questions, and is not per-section). The question of follow-ups was not discussed at the link you provided at all.
The "2 questions total" interpretation is also consistently used by ElectCom, even before SE2023. For instance, in 2021, ElectCom sent a similar message to Leaderboard, noting the very same issue, see User_talk:Leaderboard#c--revi-2021-02-03T13:31:00.000Z-Questions_in_SE2021/Q. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to comment further, but Ferien brought it up below. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 03:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leaderboard I'm unsure what is unclear in the rules. Currently, SE2024/Q clearly defines the limit as "2 questions per candidate". In my opinion, specific way how a question is asked is irrelevant – as soon as the asker brings in a new topic (to learn the candidate's opinion on something else), they're effectively asking a new question, as opposed to asking something like "What do you mean by saying XYZ" (to better understand what the candidate has already said). I honestly do not understand how the rule can be clarified further, but if you have any idea, we (ElectCom) would be happy to consider them. Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martin Urbanec:, if you have to prefix your response with "In my opinion", I think that is a sign the rules are ambiguous, especially if (as @Ferien: pointed out) other users interpreted the rules the same way as I did. Usually things like these tend to be unambiguous from my experience, as (given that this is a diverse community) you can expect people to look at the same thing in different ways. I think you know this being a steward with considerable cross-wiki experience - how many times have you seen people misinterpret the rules with no bad intention?
"I honestly do not understand how the rule can be clarified further" - I think you do have to lay out the different scenarios, for instance explicitly mentioning the 2 (local + global) rule, and mentioning that follow-ups count towards the limit. It may be obvious for you, but it isn't for me, who spend time designing the questions in a way that allows me to get what I want while respecting the rules. In fact, former steward Operator873 explicitly said "ElectCom should consider rephrasing and clarifying that guideline, no matter what" back then.
I would appreciate an answer to my second question though. You know well that I had no malice with this unintentional mistake, so why are you treating me as some sort of serial offender? I think you should have done what was done last year with 1234qwer - give the person a reasonable opportunity to answer before taking action if any. Leaderboard (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leaderboard Misinterpreting rules and policies is certainly fairly frequent, and whenever that happens, I take necessary actions (as I did here) and send an appropriate explanatory message (as I did here). In this case, the message reflects the fact that you've misinterpreted the rule several times already, and the EC did raise pretty much the same issue with you before (see #Questions in SE2021/Q). While I understand it's been some time, I still think it is reasonable to expect people to not make the same mistake once they become aware of it. As Steven Denn once put this, "You can never make the same mistake twice because the second time you make it, it’s not a mistake, it’s a choice."
I don't think it's reasonable for SE2024/Q header to list all possible scenarios. That would make it very long (possibly longer than the questions), and very difficult to read and comprehend. That being said, I clarified the intention (just to make it clear: this is not a change of rules, but merely a clarification; this interpretation has been upheld by multiple ECs over the past years).
Hope this make sense. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martin Urbanec: That's a very different response to the one given at Talk:Stewards/Elections 2023#How many questions can we ask?. Why is ElectCom applying different rules to different users? --Ferien (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien I respectfully disagree. The same interpretation is presented there, and the only difference is that in that discussion, it was agreed that the rule is somewhat ambiguous. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martin Urbanec: indeed, the interpretation of the rule has been the same but the enforcement of it has differed over the years. None of 1234qwer's 2023 questions were adjusted despite them breaking the rule, as they weren't inappropriate, and that was what ElectCom did at the time. In my view, the only issue of the rule is that follow-up questions count towards it. I do get this mistake was made by Leaderboard before as well, so I get the less lenient attitude from ElectCom here this year, but it's annoying to see different responses to the exact same issue in 2021 and 2023. It'd be better for more consistency with how the 2 question rule is enforced, in my opinion. --Ferien (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion to add categories to Global statistics and their subpages edit

Hello, thank you for making the statistics pages via Leaderbot. I didn't know about these pages before, and I think they would be useful references. On the other hand, I also noticed that these pages don't belong to any Meta-Wiki categories. In my opinion, the global statistics pages should belong to Category:Statistics or any other related sub-category, and each rank data page can also belong to categories for their respective projects. Recently, I made categories for several WMF Wikis, and I think I can add them to some of the rank data subpages. If there is any technical reason that categories cannot be added to the Global statistics subpages, please let me know and I will withdraw this suggestion. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you for the maintenance of the global statistics. MathXplore (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MathXplore:, the only problem is that the script will overwrite the contents of each subpage when it runs each day, so some changes to the code will be required. What categories are you planning to add? I can modify the script to add these categories when overwriting each subpage. Leaderboard (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I was thinking about adding Category:Statistics or a sub-category like Category:Global statistics to each subpage, and then adding project-specific categories to each rank data subpage. For example, I want to add Category:English Wikipedia to Global statistics/Rank data/enwiki, and Category:English Wikiversity to Global statistics/Rank data/enwikiversity. Does this make sense to you? MathXplore (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MathXplore:, it does, but if I were to script this, we would be dealing with categories that don't already exist (such as that for a new wiki) - how do you plan to handle this? Leaderboard (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a way to ignore non-existent categories then I think that can be the answer. If not, I have another idea but I'm not sure if this can be implemented. Please let me know if there is anything wrong.
  1. Modify the code to add Category:Global statistics to all subpages as default
  2. In addition, modify the code to overwrite things outside noinclude tags
  3. Then manually add existent categories between noinclude tags, like <noinclude>[[Category:Wikipedia]]</noinclude>
I hope this works. What would you say about this? MathXplore (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MathXplore: "If there is a way to ignore non-existent categories then I think that can be the answer" should be possible - let me spend some time on this and get back to you. Leaderboard (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MathXplore:, I've done what you are looking for. The problem however is that it isn't easy to check if a category doesn't exist or not, so while there is some checking for this, it's likely that it will link to categories that do not exist. You should see this when the bot runs tomorrow (barring any bugs). Leaderboard (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Thank you very much for taking your time for my suggestions. I just want you to know that Global statistics/Rank data/simplewiktionary is being categorized as Category:English Wiktionary, but this must be Category:Simple English Wiktionary. I hope this can be fixed. MathXplore (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MathXplore:, this was done, but it appears that there is a bug preventing them from working as expected. Hopefully this gets fixed for the bot's next run tomorrow (or soon after). Leaderboard (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]