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, Nosebagbear. 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 (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Breitbart articleEdit

Hi, I saw your comment here. You may not be aware, but I am the author of the article and had plenty of experience editing Wikipedia. Could you explain to me what errors you felt were present in my piece?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: - hello. So my counting of the proposal to ban the WMF actually was very slightly in favour of the opposes (though functionally NC); I assumed that in several circumstances calling a ban when in fact it was a block was a reasonable change to avoid confusing non-editors before you cover it specifically later; I don't believe the request against Fram editing about Laura was "vague" (at least it's vagueness was mixed) - it's unclear about being a ban, but it wasn't vague about what he couldn't/shouldn't do;
More importantly, I also feel that the lack of mention of the internal support for the WMF's actions (whether against Fram or even generally) would be warranted (I don't agree with them in the non-Fram aspects, but it's certainly to be considered).
I also realise I specifically should have noted in my original post that I particularly liked the frequent links to particular bits of on-wiki discussion/evidence. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I count 32 opposes and 33 supports including Fastily, who proposed it yet did not vote directly. The warning did seem vague about what Fram could do or what exactly would happen if he did have some kind of interaction with her. Did mention administrators resigning out of frustration with the community, but limitations on length meant I trimmed some side-drama involving those supporting the ban. At the time I first wrote it ( over a week ago) there also wasn't as much support being expressed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I can accept the week ago (I'm not sure about it, but obviously I don't have an exact knowledge of what the support % was either way) - obviously like any reader I have to judge it at the point of publication Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


  • Hello! This message is a sincere request from the proposer of WikiDirect. Please, if you have any time, take a look at the project proposal and give your opinion (possibly show us your support). Thank you... Arep Ticous 15:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi. As promised, I have relayed to the UCoC team the question about ratification and process. For what it's worth, my expressed understanding of the boundaries of the consultation was based on my reading of this Board of Trustees statement. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Global Conversations registration reminderEdit

Hi Nosebagbear,

This is a reminder that if you have not yet registered for the Global Conversations on Nov. 21 and 22, please do so! Register here. Registration closes by Nov. 20. We will email you the login information for Zoom prior to the call. Thank you. Looking forward to welcoming you this weekend.

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021: InvitationEdit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021Edit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Templates translation wishEdit


During the discussion stage, you wrote an insightful comment at Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Translation/Templates translation.

I think that at its current state the wish is in a reasonable size. If you think it's OK, can you please vote for it, and also tell your friends about it? :)

Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Confirmations process – your comments were reverted by ElectComEdit

Hello, I'm Martin Urbanec, a member of the SE2021 ElectCom. I noticed that you commented on several confirmations. However, the confirmation process did not yet start (it will start tomorrow, February 05, 2021, at 14:00 UTC). No comments can be made before confirmations start. Unlike new candidates elections, there is no period for question asking. Please do not hesitate to contact the ElectCom if you have any question about SE2021/confirmations. Thanks, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your question: stewards have no specific mandate to deal with meta RfCs. Instead, most stewards don't consider their group to execute any such thing. Our policy demands from us not to override consensus. There is, for sure, a lack of any such body which can deal with intercultural conflicts and global-related RfCs as pointed out in a talk which I gave at Wikimania 2019. Meta RfCs can be processed by every metawiki contributor and outcomes implemented by stewards if need be. But as a Wikimedia body, stewards cannot be called as a group to find a solution because they are neither responsible nor necessarily skilled for that. For example, as an individual user of metawiki I don't know way too few about such intercultural conflicts that I could make a good summary. My main fields of work are elsewhere (technology-centric), not within global politics or conflict resolution. Best —DerHexer (Talk) 14:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@DerHexer I just happened to see this, apparently we pass a new global policy Requests_for_comment/Policy#Closure of RFCs last year which reads "Only Meta administrators and stewards can close RFCs. Only stewards can close any RFC requiring steward action or changing global policy.". Hence, the community does look up to us (speaking with meta admin hat) or you all (speaking to stewards) as the groups responsible to deal with RFCs. I personally agree with your point that RFC should be able to be processed by every metawiki user (I missed the RFC to set the policy), but for now these hard decisions had to be taken by stewards and to some degree meta sysops. The 2nd paragraph of this global policy also points to us having the mandate to review conflicts if it's credible, I will say with the global policy things had changed slightly, so Nosebagbear concerns are sort of valid but I will note the RFC that changed these mandate took place very late last year which isn't too fair to fault stewards on, and when the RFC was started in 2019 and most part of 2020 the situation is what DerHexer had mentioned above. I hope this helps, just my 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Requests_for_comment/Reforming the RFC process#Proposal_8:_Closing does not seem to have seen many feedbacks from stewards or meta administrators. In fact, only one steward added a vote out of the handful of people who commented at all. It does seem very weird to me, to put a duty on a group without asking the group whether or not they want to do it, be it meta administrators or stewards. At least I am not aware of any such conversation. Besides that, this topic has not been adopted to the Steward handbook or Steward policy which handle the duties of Stewards. Besides that, I'm convinced that less than a handful of stewards are aware of their new duties. All in all, I don't think that this is validly active, to be honest …
But irregardless of that, it is not my field of work (and that's what Nosebagbear wanted to know from me). —DerHexer (Talk) 17:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@DerHexer I will support removing the requirement if there is a new RFC being held to review that particular clause. I for once was unaware until after I think a RFH thread pointed me to the policy. Let me see if I had time to start some discussion to reconciliate this issue. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@DerHexer and Camouflaged Mirage: (firstly, thanks for the comments) - this actually does raise a collateral issue that while it's easy to find out which Stewards can speak which languages, finding which Stewards to ask to do which things is much trickier. Beyond that, there was (or, perhaps, will be, since I'll re-add them tomorrow, though not to DerHexer who has already gone ahead and responded) the secondary question of "if not within remit, suitable etc etc" Stewards should have communicated that. With regards to the newer RfC policy, I would note that were I non-involved, it would have been a staggering decision for me to close an RfC with such impact on a project even though I have RfC-closing experience - Stewards are the only ones who can make such a close and have it legitimately feel like its within their remit. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


In case you might be the one person in this whole movement that actually might want to protect children from abuse, the rest obviously only having self protection on their minds, I thought you deserved to know what my reply would have been, had we not been rudely interrupted....

The theory is simple. Wikipedia is currently the only biographer of this man. Your Wikipedia page, and those two tabloid reports, is the sum total of what a Google knows about this man. He could quite easily use it to further offend, simply by showing it to a child, while not showing them the tabloid reports. It would be a little more complex than that, but it is also as simple as that. Preventing that risk, matters more than Wikipedia editor's desire to see any and all tabloid reporting expunged from Wikipedia. That is their campaign. It is hateful. It uses pejorative terms like "Daily Fail" and "Kill It With Fire". It eschews facts and presents opinion instead. The single example of Amanda Knox, online for all of two minutes, is used by these local actors as their whole entire evidence base for believing one of these tabloids cannot be trusted not to fabricate quotes from judges. And they're proud of that logic, not ashamed. No action is taken. No Administrator discounts these arguments or their evident bias. It is generally accepted practice. It also has consequences like this, because the world of sourcing is not black and white, where sources are either reliable or unreliable. Context matters. Decisions must take account of circumstances and evidence (which is actual Wikipedia policy). One of which is that the likelihood of a false report goes down, as the predicted negative consequences for the publisher of a false report goes up. They don't get worse than here. Damages in the millions of pounds, would be due. Facts like that, do matter. The local reliable source dogma has failed here, because a scenario has been found where the typical reliable sources are staying silent, and Wikipedia editors simply blindly refuse to admit that the allegedly unreliable sources that are available, in context, would appear to be reliable, based on all available facts and context. Their only objection, is their prejudice. Deeply held and immovable. Not an aspersion, an evidence based observation. Dispute resolution doesn't work here, because people holding to dogma and prejudice, are by definition, not open to reason. Anyway, what do I know? I'm only a degree educated gainfully employed journalist. This is all probably far too complex for little old me. I can write about this man if you want, I am considered a reliable source when I put my mind to it, but it won't spare Wikipedia's blushes. I would rather be writing a piece about how Wikipedia was able to do the right thing in the end, once it had been shaken out if its stupor. Don't like tabloids? Fine. Deleting the article is literally a zero cost high reward solution. Seems obvious to me. What am I missing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctor Bod (talk)
Firstly, if you're going to communicate with people, please sign your messages with ~~~~ . There is indeed sourcing nuance, on en-wiki they fall into the "somewhat reliable" category, but to avoid having to discuss every, single, source use of whether a source is reliable, we have both generally reliable and not reliable categories. In regards to Deleting the article is literally a zero cost high reward solution the problem there is that there is literally no policy basis on en-wiki (which is what I assume you are talking about) for that - if the referencing was good enough to make that basis it would be included in the article. Since it's not, it wouldn't suffice for some arbitrary deletion. Beyond that, decisions like deletion and whether a source is reliable, are made by the Community. I think you have a significant misconception about what administrators do - we don't have any higher decision-making authority, we execute consensus decisions, and so differ from, say, Reddit mods. If you're a journalist in a reliable publication you could always cover the topic yourself and generate a source by that means, but as a final point, you keep commenting here but you haven't raised the discussion on the actual article talk page. That page is the one where editing disagreements and proposals for change happen. Why haven't you raised it there? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)