comScore data on WikimediaEdit

Hello Stu,
thank you for updating User:Stu/comScore data on Wikimedia! This will allow me to adjust my visitor estimations a little bit more :-) --- Nice regards, Melancholie 23:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's always good to see these updates -- are there other data sources you'd like to have access to but don't? -- sj | help translate |+ 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Good question. In general, we've been lucky inviting commercial data providers to donate data. With comScore, it took a nice email or two, a little paperwork, and we had great access to their info. As I understand more about Erik Z's work, we get a lot there. Right now since we don't have the processing and storage capabilities to track our own data as easily as I'd like, I think the next real frontier would be to install an open-source version of Google Analytics (e.g. the old phpMyVisits, now called Piwik, but I suspect there's real work to do on scaling before those could keep up with our traffic.


Hello Stu, please add a licence, source and the author to the files You upload, many thanks in advance, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thx for reminder.Stu 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Im really really sorry for bother you here, i know u must got a more important business, however i repeatly have been object of abuse of authority in es.wikipedia. They ban me now, saying that im a problematic user, a user i have never talk to. The last ban is because, i created a new article: . An user named Amadis, , deleted saying that i copyvio and totally copy a page from a forum: . However this is the story: I have been collaborating to an article "crisis economica del 2008 - 2009" however, i felt that current latinoamerica's situation didnt fit well in the article. So i passed all the referenced information I PUT ON THAT PAGE and create a new one: Latinoamerica en la crisis actual. I have to say that my article was created in march 2009, that the crisis started in 2008, but they say i copyvio an article created in 2005! That's not true, those forums copied my articles! And i told him, like I explain here: . Not only he didnt answer me, but it made that his friends ban me. I put an anouncement because i thought it must be an error, however they have ban me for being a problematic user. They will tell you a lot of things, because they didnt like me, but i have all the proof, and this is not the first time it happens, I went to en.wikipedia to look for help. This are all the answer for everthng i thought, and the apologies for the mistakes i made mostly because they never answer when i look for help: This are Griffinowales opinions:

This stress my a lot. Firstly i really contributes and i can proof it: This is my page: All the attacks i have proved it to be false, and the faults of ettiquette i have apologized and recognize i was stupid. Plz, for justice Jhonatan--Momoelf 02:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your untagged filesEdit

Sources and licenses, please?

--Jusjih 02:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I added info to all of them. Thanks.Stu 04:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

board manualEdit

Hi! You seem to have taken on maintaining Wikimedia_board_manual :) I made a few edits in honor of having a brand new board member; feel free to revert, of course. Does it need any work? Could it use more input? I'm not sure how brief you're trying to keep it, or what would be most helpful. -- phoebe 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes looks great, Phoebe. Keep them coming. There's usually a burst of energy on this page around elections so good to have some attention in the off cycle. I'd prefer to keep it relatively concise, just to ensure readability by prospective or new board members with lots of catching up to do, but it's good to be comprehensive so we can guide Bishakha and others to focus on this as a first stop for an overview.Stu 21:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia CATEdit

Hello Stu,

in order to unblock the situation of Wikimedia CAT chapter, we have clarified and simplified the proposal at Wikimedia CAT.

We would highly appreciate that you could take a look at it and kindly give us your opinion at Survey. If you consider so, you can also express your support.

Thanks in advance. --Gomà 10:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem with File:ComScore trend data on WMF Sites, as of Jan 10.pdfEdit

Thank you for uploading File:ComScore trend data on WMF Sites, as of Jan 10.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at this page. Thanks again for your cooperation. mickit 22:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thx for reminder.Stu 18:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WM-CAT, Amical ViquipèdiaEdit

let me introduce myself: I am a Catalan Wikipedian who, not only dedicated to write articles, also spends his time to promote the free knowledge and wiki tools where and how I can. For this reason I associate to Amical Viquipèdia amd I support the chapter WM-CAT. All this from the beech firmer conviction altruistically and voluntarily, spending my time and money.

As a Trustee of the foundation would ask me to answer these questions:
In relation to me:

  • What's wrong with me?
  • What's wrong with the group of people who make WM-CAT?

Regarding the promotion of knowledge Wikipedia and the free:

  • Why should I stop before a line indicated on the map as I can share with people the other side of this, that speak, think and feel like me?
  • Why can I not, along with those who speak, feel and think like me, be considered equal to others who feel and think like me?

In relation to the Foundation:

  • when the various Foundation's committees have become more important than community?
  • why people's interested in promoting the same that foundation aims to promote become a problem?
  • When the foundation vision and values have gone down in the background?
  • When the foundation has grown into something that can ignore Wikipedia principles?

Dear Stu, maybe my speech will seem harsh, but this is a discourse that comes from the heart and mind of one, as you, is convinced of the validity of the project but at the same time he sees That a right as basic as it should be made part of a group equal than others are denied.

Stu: When the Trustees left to be bold?


--Mafoso 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I leave the missage in my matern language in order to avoid translation errors (my english is basic):

permet que em presenti : sóc un viquipedista català que no sols es dedica a escriure articles sino que també inverteix part del seu temps en
promoure les eines wikipèdia i el coneixement lliure allà on pot i com pot , per aquest motiu em vaig associar a Amical Viquipedia i dono
suport al capítol WM-CAT. Tot això ho faig desde la més ferma convicció, altruistament i voluntàriament , gastant el meu temps i diners.
Com a Trustee de la fundació li demano em respongui aquestes preguntes:
En relació a mi:
Que hi ha de dolent en mi? 
Que hi ha de dolent amb el grup de gent que formem WM-CAT?
En relació a la promoció de la Viquipèdia i el Coneixement lliure:
per què m'haig d'aturar davant d'una línia senyalada en un mapa quant el que faig ho puc compartir amb gent de l'altre costat d'aquesta
que parlen, pensen i senten com jo?
Per què no puc, junt amb aquests que parlen, senten i pensen com jo, ser considerat en igualtat de condicions que altres que senten i 
pensen com jo ?
En relació a la Fundació:
quan els diferents comitès d'aquesta han esdevingut més importants que les comunitats?
per què l'interes d'unes persones en promocionar el mateix que vol promocionar la fundació esdevè un problema?
Quan la visió i valors de la fundació han passat a segon terme?
Quan s'ha convertit la fundació en quelcom que és per sobre dels principis Viquipèdia?
Apreciat Stu , potser el meu discurs li sembla dur, però aquest es un discurs que surt del cor i la ment d'un que com vostè es convençut
de la validesa del projecte però que veu al mateix temps que un dret tant bàsic com hauria de ser el fet de formar part d'un grup en 
igualtat de condicions que altres es negat.
Stu: Quan deixaren els trustees de ser valents?

New dataEdit

Hi, are data more up to date than these available anywhere? Thank you. --Elitre 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The data is out there at comScore, but I haven't had a chance to do analysis of it yet. The high-level is at 06:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflictEdit

Hi Stuform - I was shocked to get in an edit conflict ... and plz spell my nick correctly. Dedalus 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

all this energy following the Chapters Conference.... everyone wants better reporting!! I was working on the revised table for about 2 hours offline; sorry about the edit conflict.Stu 20:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fundraising discussionEdit

For anyone interested in the topic of fundraising and chapters, I did a post on my personal blog that has a very interesting thread of responses and comments. See Stu 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal AttacksEdit

Hi Stu, in response to your post here, I would like to think that I've been relatively even handed in this matter, criticising where I need to criticise and praising where I need to praise. I don't think that disagreeing with Sue, or even saying that I think she's very wrong in some parts, is necessarily a case of "Do not personally attack Sue and her staff." If I have truly offended anyone it was inadvertent and they only need let me know to get a sincere apology, but I don't think that it's a great idea to imply that those who oppose elements of what the Foundation and are publicly stating so are by definition questioning your staff's professionalism. Craig Franklin 11:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

thats fair, Craig, and i may have overstepped. It's just that so many arguments focus on sue/staff, and make them out individuals not aligned with our mission and values. Not only is that totally incorrect, but it completely misses the point that these are board policies and board decisons. So, if someone doesn't like a policy, i want them to argue the merits of the policy. And if someone has to get personal, at least focus it in the right direction: me and the Board that made the policy. Btw, thanks for being to involved and committed to this process.Stu 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why Did You Support Granting Private Information of Editors to Anonymous Administrators?Edit

Dear Mr. West,

I am dismayed that you and the rest of the board of trustees approved an "Access to No-Public Information" policy that allows totally anonymous administrators on the English and all the other Wikipedias to see the IPs and other potentially personally-identifying information (browser version, settings) of volunteer editors. Even though not usually immediately identifying in itself, this information can obviously be used as a stepladder to identifying through tools like Geolocate and TraceIP, as well as supporting indicators in websearching other clues from the editor's edit history.

Would you please inform me the factors that led to your support of the non-identification revision to the policy? Why would you have done this?

For your reference ( "[t]his policy has been replaced by a new Access to non public information policy, which was approved by the Board of Trustees on 25 April 2014."

I don't deny that Wikipedia's administrative participants in some cases do constructive work, in policing clear vandalism for example, or reporting to the WMF the rare cases of threats of violence. But access to personally-identifying information is not needed for that. If there are cases where volunteer administrative participants do somehow need that information, it should be entrusted to identified individuals, not anonymous usernames like "Wizardman" and "Beeblebrox" and "Dord" and so forth. Authorizing checkuser and the other tools to anonymous participants is going to attract, and has attracted, exactly the wrong kind of individuals. It's emboldening, frankly, creepers and cyberbullies. And those who participate in Wikipedia as if it were an online computer roleplaying game, without regard to the fact that those they choose to sniff and snoop (and pursue) are actually people as opposed to a computer game's NPCs (non-player characters).

Have you ever been snooped and sniffed, cyberbullied, websearched, by some creep online? I have, and it's not nice. I think if you'd been treated that way, and really understood the reality of the cyberbully culture, that you'd stand up now and reverse your support of the WMF's granting of these invasive privacy-violating tools to wholly anonymous and thus unaccountable administrative participants. Is that what it's going to take for you to change your mind? Somebody has to do it to you?

Please respond as to why you supported granting access to IP-invasive and potentially personally-identifying tools like checkuser to anonymous administrative participants.

Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WMF board resolution on user rights processEdit

Please urgently get this topic/resolution scheduled for a meeting, discussed and voted; and express your opinions on the noticeboard. Thanks for your work, Nemo 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)