Global rollback rights
- Congratulations! JianhuiMobile (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Subscribed to the mail list :) JurgenNL (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain your reverts?
After this edit of yours, which I reverted, on Portuguese Wikipedia, I decided to look at your most recent reverts, and see how you were using the tools that were trusted to you.
It's normal to make some mistakes, for example here you did revert yourself, and here a local admin reverted you. I don't really have the time, nor the patience, to go over all the wikis in which you've edited (over 200), but I would like to ask you about your reversions in particular of the IP "92..." (I think you know who I mean, and I believe the IP is always the same). By my counting, you have recently reverted over 40 edits by this user, always without any explanation.
I could post all the diffs here, but I don't want to flood your talk page, though I will say that you should obviously not use the revert tool to undo simple additions of wikilinks (e.g. ). What I guess happened, was that you saw him vandalizing one or two articles, and then decided this was a good opportunity to revert all his edits on all wikis. (But I should ask you.)
So, why are you reverting edits such as this? Why the revert tool? And why this? His edit appears to be perfectly correct (the dates are easy to confirm). I noticed this goes on cross-wiki, but unfortunately I lost the diffs, erased when I was typing this message and accidentally hit the preview button; there was one diff, where you completely screwed up the format by reverting this IP, needlessly, but I won't bother looking for it again.
In any case, this cannot be just ignorance of languages, because you also reverted his edits on Wikipedia, in English, e.g. when he added perfectly accurate categories, here and here (your reversions were then often reverted back to the IP's correct version).
What's up with these reverts??? As a global sysop, you have the responsibility to only use the rollback tool when appropriate, which is solely in cases of clear vandalism, and not use it in cross-wiki persecution of IPs. I hope you can give a convincing explanation to clarify this issue. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I have seen the work you have done and I would say thank you. so.wiki is a small wiki and we have some problame like admin active that is why you deleted so:Category:Delete.
So i would like request Stewards to giving me admin active in so.wiki. So the helping you were talking is that?
- Hi Abshirdheere, this can be requested at SRP. Because there are multiple community members, I would recommend you to start a vote in your local village pump (so:Wikipedia:Goob if I'm right). If there is after e.g. 1 week a majority for you to be a sysop, you can add a request at SRP with a link to the vote on sowiki. JurgenNL (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hoi Jurgen, voel je er vooralsnog niets voor om wat op wiktionary te komen doen, wat vandalismebestrijding of zo? Het zal ook wat afleiden van vervelende zaken elders en zo. Ik vind het oprecht jammer dat je daar eerder zo bent afgeschrikt terwijl je duidelijk alleen goede bedoelingen had. Groet, De Wikischim (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Zolang deze RfC loopt, lijkt me dat geen goed idee. Er is namelijk een gerede kans dat hij een of meerdere knoppen kwijtraakt. Trijnsteltalk 10:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, volgens mij kun je toch ook gewoon vandalisme bestrijden zonder dat je modknopjes hebt? Met modknopjes gaat het hooguit wat sneller. De Wikischim (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Dag Wikischim, af en toe check ik alle Nederlandstalige projecten even snel om te kijken of er nog vandalisme terug te draaien of te nomineren/verwijderen is. Dat doe ik ook gewoon nog op Wiktionary. Het dan wel niet verliezen van m'n GS-bitje heeft op dit project echter geen effect aangezien het een GS-wiki is. JurgenNL (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed massmessage right
I have removed the massmessage right due to the message that was sent out crosswiki about a petition against a decision of WMF. Rights granted are expected to be used within the scope of the application. If you wish to reapply, please state the scope of your mass messages, and how you will maintain yourself to the applied scope. At a later time, I will address some of my opinion about your message, at this stage this is about the use outside the scope of your application. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: This is political reprisal, nothing more. odder (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Odder: How can it be political reprisal? I am not involved in the politics. I refute your language and intonation. The use of massmessage was outside the scope mentioned in the application, and JurgenNL is able to reapply and state the scope of use. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Superprotect letter update
Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.
Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.
I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.
Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.
Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.
Request for Comment
Ik volg nu al een paar dagen de voortgang van het incident rond MoiraMoira, maar zie hierop geen vooruitgang. Recente commentaren op IRC doen mij vermoeden dat je nog steeds niet hebt begrepen wat er precies mis was met jullie acties. Ik heb nu een Request for Comment aangemaakt, met het doel dit conflict te beëeindigen, en het inzicht van de rest van de gemeenschap te kunnen ontvangen. Ik wil ook benadrukken dat dit niet een aanval is tegen jou is, en vraag je te begrijpen dat dit voor MoiraMoria ook niet prettig is. Savhñ 16:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)