Could you change your !vote at Meta:Requests for adminship/Nemo_bis (removal) to something other than "support"? It makes it look at first glance like you're supporting the bit removal, which clearly isn't the case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
"Request for help" discussion
Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Russavia – I'm just letting you know that another user requested for your account to be blocked on Meta. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand a thing... you clearly invest a certain effort in your mailing list posts, but – perhaps for this reason – they tend to exceed in personalism. Why don't you set up a blog, instead? It would obviously fit the Planet Wikimedia inclusion criteria and all the smart people use feeds anyway, while the messy people tend to be messed up by emails they don't like. --Nemo 14:06, 3 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.
- @Rjd0060: Very interesting. I didn't even check to see if he was an agent; it was assumed he was purely because it wasn't so long ago on #wikimedia-commons (or perhaps #wikipedia-en) that he was quoting directly from a specific ticket. I will be going back through logs to get the pertinent information so that it is can be investigated who exactly is sharing information with an unauthorised invidivual that is otherwise supposed to be kept confidential, only to have that individual public release it. So yes, whilst it's good that he isn't an agent, there's obviously all sorts of leaks on OTRS that shouldn't be happening that needs to be dealt with :( Russavia (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)