User talk:Russavia

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 | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello Russavia, and 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!

- Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nemo !vote[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Blog[edit]

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)

Interesting suggestion. I would like to see a blog post about improving transparency of the use of Check User rights, or at least defining best practice so that audit committees could take more action beyond quoting that the privacy policy has been met. After meeting with non-answers for my own request along these lines, I have suggested running an RFC on Commons with regard to how requests for transparency from users who believe they have been subject to check user analysis ought to be met, and a blog post in conjunction with this, sometime after Wikimania, would be something I would be happy to chip in with. -- (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Superprotect letter update[edit]

Hi Russavia,

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.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your inquiry at OTRS/V[edit]

Hi, I've removed your request to remove DF67 as an OTRS agent as the user has not been an agent since 2009. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@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)