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)
- Thanks for your response.
Global bot approval request for InternetArchiveBotEdit
Hello!
I apologize for sending the message in English. Please help translate to your language.
In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.
The discussion is available at m:Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for InternetArchiveBot on Meta.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
--Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 2Edit
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 2, July 2021Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
- Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. (continue reading)
- Targets of Harassment Research - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
- Functionaries’ Consultation - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. (continue reading)
- Roundtable Discussions - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. (continue reading)
- Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. (continue reading)
- New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. (continue reading)
- Wikimania - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. (continue reading)
- Diff blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)
Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
#WPWPCampaign2021: Learning and evaluationEdit
Hello Rschen7754,
Many thanks for participating in the WPWP campaign.
We are glad about the level of participation, this year and we are excited to inform you that over 900 volunteers around the world added photos to more than 250,000 articles in 298 languages Wikipedia. This year, we surpassed the 2020 edition's milestone by over 170%.
We are in the process of evaluating the WPWP campaign this year and we need your help. We'd love to get your feedback. Your feedback will allow us to better meet your expectations for the campaign in the next editions.
Please complete a brief survey so that we may learn about your participation in the campaign, strengths, challenges and your expectations. This information will enable us to improve the next editions of the Campaign.
Follow this link to the Survey:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeL9BORQ94GtN6mjS4-U77N7-BIuxDGl1cmhwKzKSijc9lrcA/viewform
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeL9BORQ94GtN6mjS4-U77N7-BIuxDGl1cmhwKzKSijc9lrcA/viewform
Thank you in advance for taking this survey. 
Kind regards,
Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ]
Communication Manager, WPWP Campaign
-- Message sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 4Edit
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 4, October 2021Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the fourth issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
- Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review Wrap-up - The Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review will come to a close on 17 October 2021, after more than two months of extensive consultations. (continue reading)
- Roundtable Discussions and Conversation Hours - Another successful roundtable session happened on September 18, 2021 to discuss the EDGR. One last conversation hour will be happening on October 15th, 2021. (continue reading)
- Movement Charter Drafting Committee Elections - The Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection process has kicked off and will be open until October 25, 2021. Contributors to Wikimedia projects can elect their favorite candidates on to the committee. (continue reading)
- New Direction for the Newsletter - As we round-up the consultation processes for the Universal Code of Conduct, the facilitation team is currently envisioning new directions for the newsletter. (continue reading)
- Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)
MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)