User talk:IBobi

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Afrikaans | العربية | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | 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 | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | مازِرونی | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | Runa Simi | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | tzm  | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello, IBobi. 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) 17:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Most of the others have indicated their background within their support / oppose position. Your background is of course importance to your comment and these sort of notes within the WM movement are common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wondering if you where interested in discussing a possible collaboration. I see you have your email turned off here. Anyway drop me a note if IB considers this to be an option.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Changing others comments[edit]

Hey IBob. We do not typically do this here [1]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it sure is done. On this very page. It's just a bit of formatting.--IBobi talk email 01:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

Your efforts to move the positioning of your "oppose" votes may be viewed as disruptive by some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your effort to move the rationale for my vote is being viewed as disruptive by me. Please refrain from moving it back. I have posted it where it is appropriate, based on other voting rationales posted by other participants in the RFC; my post is longer, but its content is in just the same vein. I suggest we leave it where I posted it originally, and see if there is a consensus about moving it, rather than you doing so unilaterally. Agreed?--IBobi talk email 23:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably best to wait for consensus on this point. Your re positioning your "oppose" votes in an effort to make them more prominent is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly; before you made a change to my vote, you ought to have waited for consensus. This is a major addition to the Opposition arguments and deserves a prominent place. All other elements of my original (and incomplete) vote have been preserved. Meanwhile you're probably bringing more attention to my vote than it would originally have, so it may be counterproductive to your purposes.--IBobi talk email 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually you misunderstand Wikipedia culture. One needs consensus before a controversial edit not after. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Who decides which is the controversial edit?--IBobi talk email 23:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The rule of thumb is that new comments go below older ones. Moving your own comments to the top in order to artificially increase their prominence is inappropriate. Jmajeremy (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jeremy. Please read my further rationale for the move as a response to Doc James' new topic. I feel good about it.--IBobi talk email 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello, sorry if I'm not discreet but I have a silly question: do you really work at IB only for WikiTravel? Since when and for how long (in theory)? Is it a full time job? What do you have to take care of, only community management or also other tasks? I'm asking because no Wikimedia sister project has ever had dedicated stuff and I'm not sure I believe WT does, I wish the WMF had so much care for us! --Nemo 10:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes and only the occasional threat of lawsuits from the company hosting the content you work on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nemo! I've been at IB for about a year and a half, and it sure is a fulltime job (and a half!). It's been amazing to work with the WT community and I look forward to what the future brings. In answer to your specific question about duties, community includes being the technical liaison between reported bugs and feature requests and our in-house team of developers and webmasters. Let me know if I can answer anything else for you,--IBobi talk email 21:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing my comments[edit]

Your are not to change my comments as you did in this edit [2]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have to. Your allegations were demonstrably incorrect, and still are (only 1 is a former admin). But you can continue to post whatever you wish, and revert as you wish, to try to make the facts fit your argument. As I've stated, it's very hard to keep up with your changes to the RFC. I only wish I had so much time on my hands.--IBobi talk email 21:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Editing comments like that is something you absolutely must avoid. I'm sorry I have to say this as an admin here (I came only to read a reply above). Thanks, Nemo 18:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Would not have done it if the practice of changing numbers to remain factual and current had not been firmly established on the RFC already. See numerous edits to other users' posts on the number of admins supporting the fork, for example. Just following suit. Let me know if this is somehow an exception?--IBobi talk email 18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
With my admin hat on, I'm also in agreement with Nemo here, you (and any other user) should not change others' comments. You mentioned that there were numerous edits to other users' posts. By whom? Please can you provide me with diff links of such edits so that I can look into it? Thanks. The Helpful One 11:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open[edit]

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Vested <-> Conflict of interest[edit]

Gday IBobi. Can I advise you to watch some of the discussions where you have a vested interest. If you want to discuss something where a vested interest exists, then maybe take it to a user talk page. Pushing harder on a neutral page starts to approach the CoI space. Thanks for your consideration of my opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and advice, it is appreciated. The issue this raises is that discussing a discussion on someone's Talk page serves no real purpose, other that trying to convince an individual. Discussing it on the "neutral" discussion page is the only reason for discussing it at all. On a Talk page, there's 1 person who will see it. The discussion page is there so many people can read and talk about the issue at hand. Decisions are made based on "neutral" discussion pages, and it is those decisions that I'm concerned with. If I'm wrong about this, please enlighten me further? Thank you,--IBobi talk email 18:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes user talks are more public spaces than open discussion venues. --Nemo 16:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that IB steer clear of Wikivoyage[edit]

I understand that there is circumstantial evidence that you or your colleagues are editing against the principles and guidance of WMF at Wikivoyage. I would recommend that a discussion among your colleagues be held, and a termination of the poor behaviour ceases. I would think that mature adults would know when the game is over and move on. I wish you luck at your site and hope that you are able to stay there. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your email response, and refutation of the allegation, with the statement that 'as far as you are aware no representative has been near Wikivoyage since ...' (an incident in November). Hope that is the reality beyond awareness. To your statements about individuals, that is what we volunteers are at WMF, individuals in that we represent ourselves, not the Foundation; it is indeed a different model, and it will be interesting to see how it progresses. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)