I manage my talk page with the following guidelines:

  1. Please start new topics at the bottom of the page, even if it is related to a section above. Otherwise it is difficult to find the posting.
  2. I will reply to your posts on this page to keep threading unless requested or unless it is extremely urgent.
  3. I don't check Meta as much as I used to; for urgent matters, please contact me on the English Wikipedia.
Archive:


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)


About Georgian WikipediaEdit

Dear Rschen7754, I am asking you to help us the users of Georgian Wikipedia as much as possible. I respect stewards and rules and realize that interfering with a local project is not normal. But I do not believe that the injustice that is going on in KaWiki is not visible from the outside. Any user who resists is either blocked or threatened. Unwanted discussions are closed and users are not allowed to comment. According to the rule introduced by David1010 and MIKHEIL with procedural violations, both of them should not be administrators for a long time. Many users have requested unblocking me and Zangala on Georgian Wikipedia and are still requesting it, but the discussion is either closed or deleted altogether. I can not believe that all this is legitimized by the whole Wikimedia, while users from KaWiki on the neutral field repeatedly express their opinion against the abuse of the admin rights (here, here, here, here). If direct interference is ruled out, can anyone in any way remind the Georgian Wikipedia admins that users have the right to express their opinion and that admins should not make individual decisions against the wiki community? Providing a free discussion space in Georgian Wikipedia would be the best solution in this situation. Deu. 07:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As just a FYI, I'm no longer a steward so I cannot directly intervene. I am still thinking as to what can be done in this situation. --Rschen7754 07:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
And just a thought, please try and whenever you comment, keep it simple and short. It is hard enough to motivate stewards to do anything in this sort of situation, and walls of text don't help. --Rschen7754 07:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Deu: I have started an essay at User:Rschen7754/Help, my wiki went rogue! It is still under construction but I hope this helps. --Rschen7754 18:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Many Thanks! it's really helpful. The case history is also reassuring. Deu. 05:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of quotationEdit

At Requests for comment/Ombuds Commission inactivity, you wrote out the following: Recent months have seen no activity reports at all, as apparently that consumes too much time. As a supporting basis for your comment, you linked to a comment that I wrote, in which I said Summaries take quite a while to prepare, so we are waiting for a volunteer to become available. […] tackling [the case backlog] is taking up most of our time, alongside inducting the new members.

On any clear reading of my comment, I did not say that producing activity summaries would take up "too much time" in the normal course of events. However, readers will infer as much from your comment and its phrasing. Please strike and re-word your comment to make clear that summaries are only considered difficult to do right now because of the choice by past members to not participate, creating a backlog. --AGK ■ 07:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the problem, especially since this state of affairs has gone on for 2 years and has become the new normal. --Rschen7754 19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting re GSEdit

Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2021-05  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Some people need to go and edit and be community participants rather than organisers and directors. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Your opposesEdit

I want to be frustrated with you, but well I'm trying my best to be restrained. Advanced apologies if that does not go well.

So, you have successfully derailed two of my global rights applications, with the comment that I cannot communicate. The question I need to ask is: what do you want from me then? I still haven't understood why you're picking on that one error I made, and if that wasn't the case (as shown by "Certainly not..."), I don't know what it is. The only other thing that I see is a bunch of diffs regarding to my GS proposal, and a failed Meta adminship proposal that I've learned from. Not only have you not replied to my answer to your concerns there, you're saying that "... shows a disturbing pattern". Whether that "pattern" is with communication or the GS proposal, I don't know what I can do since you haven't provided anything meaningful for me to act on. TLDR; you've been opposing me for reasons that are weird to my end and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it so that I can apply appropriate bugfixes, emergency if needed. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It's simple and complex at the same time: you need to show that you are capable of working with people without all of these "incidents" and "controversies" happening. Sadly, there is no magic solution to learning how to work with other editors. It takes time and practice, both onwiki (maybe try working on content for a while?) and offwiki. As far as [1], I'm not really sure that you understand the "lesson" here: you were technically right in that the request was not very qualified, but if you were getting death threats against your family, would you want someone telling you If this is what you have to say, then I don't think you deserve any further tools.... In future, make sure to understand each person's ideas properly instead of insulting them? This is simply devoid of any emotional intelligence. Not to mention that you seem to do controversial actions with AbuseFilters and the like without asking or getting consensus first, which was what led to your first RFA downfall. As far as the GS stuff: you have to really be careful when dealing with other wikis - even stewards get in trouble when they are doing their roles because some wikis are very hostile. You can't argue a wiki into accepting global sysops. Yes, you can win the intellectual debate but you won't have won them over because people aren't just robots and logic; they are composed of emotion and personality too. And that is what sets us apart from the animals, so I would say that is a good thing. --Rschen7754 00:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response.
  • For Drmies' case, I appreciate that my use of the word "junk" was not correct and accept that I could have handled the first reply better. However, I don't think that my second response (which you have cited now) was inappropriate. Notice that he said that "I don't give a rat's ass for what else you have to say". Just as you penalised me for my inappropriate use of the word "junk", I noted that I would apply a penalty when scoring a future rights request from Drmies, because he appears to have a problem with handling tense situations. Understandably I was stronger than usual that time, but looking back, I don't know what mistake I made with that response.
  • As for "controversial actions with AbuseFilters and the like without asking or getting consensus", this was true in March 2019 (and was linked to the Meta RfA issue). I have learned from that and am much more careful working with filters, including dry runs and more. One of the mistakes I made then was not realising that while it was OK to unilaterally implement filter changes on en.wikibooks/mediawiki.org, this is not the case on Meta. This issue has been fixed to my knowledge, just that I haven't reapplied for full RfA on Meta since then (and if I do, I've have people like you oppose me again and a circular loop will occur).
  • And for GS, as I've repeatedly been trying to tell you, there is a fine balance that is tricky to handle. I do have to "argue" to some extent. The reason is that, from my experience, some wikis are simply unaware of what global sysops are and how they work. Case in point, I had an admin think that abuse filters can only be modified by bureaucrats. Another thought that global sysops cannot block users. Quite a few others lack the crosswiki/patrolling experience to see the challenges global sysops face in these situations. I think it's reasonable for me to "argue" to a reasonable level as a result. Upon to a point that is. I have made it clear several times that it's the community's decision and when I don't see the consensus required, I close the request myself as unsuccessful - after all, while I would prefer to have every wiki under GS, I am bound by community consensus in the end and I respect that. I still haven't understood why you don't like it (citing your Meta PR comment which I did not understand), considering that I'm already seeing positive impact from my GS proposal.
Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I noted that I would apply a penalty when scoring a future rights request from Drmies, because he appears to have a problem with handling tense situations This is incredibly tone deaf. The proper response would be to give grace to someone under that kind of pressure. Having faced death threats towards myself I can certainly understand the emotions that someone feels in that situation, and w:empathy is the appropriate response here. Not to mention - "scoring a future rights request"? "penalty"? Wikimedia is composed of people and not robots.
And I was a steward and a global sysop at different points of my wikicareer, so I certainly get that, but you went too far. See the thread above this one. --Rschen7754 18:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I do not use any kind of quantitative scoring system while supporting/opposing someone on Wikimedia (though it won't be hard if needed to curve requests to the standardised 0-20 scale). But yes, I did mean a penalty. It should not be hard to understand that what I meant was that I would negatively consider his answer while deciding whether Drmies should get my support for a future role. Even if someone is in pressure, I thought the right thing would be to just take a (short) break, not do what Drmies did, no matter the circumstances, and/or report the incident through the established channels. I am not sure what your Wikipedia link on empathy has to do, but I supposedly have none of it (having just taken an online test upon your comment). Not sure if that contributes to the difference in opinions we have here. If you meant scoring up (qualitatively) an application of Drmies solely because of his situation, that's illogical because Wikimedia is merit-driven, not "empathy"-driven (whatever that is) as you seem to imply. There are very few cases where this is justified (such as Green Giant's SE2021 confirmation). Could be missing your point completely though...
  • I know the Wikisource case, but I addressed that in my third point in the previous reply. Is there something in that I "went too far"? As I said, I did not do anything differently to Wikisource than the others, and exited when it was clear that it wasn't going to pass. If you could explain further I'd appreciate (all I understood at the proposal was I was apparently bullying, which makes no sense).
  • Perhaps ironically, the Drmies case is one reason why I started this GS proposal that you seem to hate - to make the lives of those fighting crosswiki vandalism easier, and that includes doxing. Leaderboard (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
that's illogical because Wikimedia is merit-driven, not "empathy"-driven (whatever that is) - well, that just about sums this whole conversation up. Skills are important but they can only go so far. --Rschen7754 01:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)