Talk:Requests for comment/Public or non-public personal information

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

Off topic on file[edit]

Moved from page. 07:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

6) This is completely off-topic, but could the user please explain the rationale for naming this file, Castelo do Queijo, Porto? I have read the description. Is this a sample of the reliable, verifiable, and sourced material that the user is feeding Commons with? Does the user have an idea of the sort of commentary people from Oporto and the Oporto region would made upon seeing that page?


Virgilio A. P. Machado


If you actually intend for the user who named the image to answer your question in a reasonable location (that is, pertinent to the file indicated), you should consider the person who originally named the file, Feliciano Guimarães from Guimarães, Portugal. The original file was uploaded to Flickr, where we don't have a whole lot of say in how they name things. You might even want to add a discussion on the discussion page on that image, so you'd be addressing the crowd that can take some possible corrective action. Here, though? We really have nothing to do with Commons images and naming them, other than on occasion using them upon pertinent pages. Hope that's some useful information for you. :) Kylu 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Thogo's comment[edit]

Moved from Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.[1] 08:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User Thogo wrote a comment diff unbecoming to a person in full control of his actions, a steward of the Wikimedia Foundation, a sysop on Meta, on de.wiktionary and on de.wp.

He accused me of "stalking", which, in his own words, "is prohibited by law in some countries", proof that he is aware of how serious that accusation is. As can be seen by the definitions below, I did no such thing. His comment is defamatory, against my honor and good name. He also accused me of "provoking," "trolling," "not serving the goals of the project," doing things that are "not desirable," and threatening that he "would actually block [me if I] did that on a wiki where [he is] sysop.

On his user page, he claims to be a "sysop here."

I find this behavior totally unacceptable for a person in such positions or that claims to be something that he is not. I expect that this community takes appropriate measures against the offending user, and remove whatever rights he has, which have been bestowed on such a user.

"Stalking is a repetitive pattern of unwanted, harassing or threatening behavior committed by one person against another. Acts include: telephone harassment, being followed, receiving unwanted gifts, and other similar forms of intrusive behavior. All states and the Federal Government have passed anti-stalking legislation. Definitions of stalking found in state anti-stalking statutes vary in their language, although most define stalking as "the willful, malicious, and repeated following and harassing of another person that threatens his or her safety" [2]

"What is stalking? Behavior wherein an individual willfully and repeatedly engages in a knowing course of harassing conduct directed at another person which reasonably and seriously alarms, torments, or terrorizes that person." [3]

Types of stalkers: Rejected stalkers, Resentful stalkers, Intimacy seekers, Incompetent suitors, Predatory stalkers.


Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this needs admin or 'crat attention. Thogo has posted a comment with his personal opinion. I just took a look at the RfC and fail seeing the point of it. Threads such as this one are rather unhelpful. At least from my point of view, there's nothing that needs to be done here. -Barras 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikis, "sysop" and "Administrator" are considered synonymous, so he's quite correct that he is, in fact, a sysop on Meta. For clarification purposes only. Kylu 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so much. I now understand that what the user wrote implies that if I had published here on Meta such a page with the same information about Meta administrators he would block me here, but since the information is about administrators of another wiki he did not block me here. I'm therefore crossing out the portions of my text that don't apply and adding here links to the following tables for your attention, since they are a bit hard to find:


Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally (and by no means a requirement, just a trend) by the time a user "graduates" from one of the content projects such as Wiktionary or Wikipedia to Meta involvement, they're familiar with the workings of the automated lists. While the list of administrators and stewards that you link to is accurate as of policy (usually), a more accurate measurement of who has what permissions at any given time is special:listusers. A special shortcut to it, special:listadmins shows sysops without having to select the local name for the "sysop" right (which can be changed quite easily), and special:listusers/steward shows the stewards. Please note that this is case-sensitive, and special:listusers/Steward lists users with names beginning with Steward instead of listing the actual stewards.
Further helpfully mucking up the situation is the Meta-Steward Relationship policy here. While technically being a steward isn't a role that's specific to Meta, as steward is a global position, there are some configuration changes that affect every WMF project that are done by admins on this project, so as part of the steward role, they're given access to sysop and bureaucrat tools here on Meta. Many stewards, as you see on the "List of administrators" page you linked to above, are already admins or bureaucrats on Meta, so they can perform local administrative tasks without those tasks being limited by the steward policy.
If a user were to pass an adminship request, for instance, Thogo could promote the user despite there being other local bureaucrats, because his bureaucrat permission was gained locally, so his position as steward is overridden for this purpose. Similarly, if a user were vandalizing pages in a non-obvious fashion, trolling users, or ignoring local standards of civility, I could locally block them and the steward mantra of "don't decide" would not apply, as I were doing it in my role of a local admin rather than steward.
I do hope this clarifies any questions you may have on these matters. :) Kylu 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with in this: user like Vapmachado would be banned on my home wiki as well, since he came to Meta to publish some pages not really related to Meta, pages that are not welcome at his home wiki. -AlexSm 04:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, What you wrote is a bunch of rubbish, but that is just a user's "personal opinion". Vapmachado 23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, It is a shame that I can't read or write Russian. I would love to. Nothing would delight me more than to edit on the Russian Wikipedia, and prove you wrong. Since I can't, you're just making an hollow thread that you'll never have a chance to carry out. On the other hand, you say that you can read and write English fluently. So you must be fully aware of the meaning and implications of what you wrote. I'm amazed that you took the time to post here only hollow threats and lies.
I didn't come "to Meta to publish some pages not really related to Meta". If you can prove that is not a lie, go ahead, be my guest.
Another totally false statement is saying that I come to Meta to publish "pages that are not welcome at" my what? "Home wiki"? You probably meant Portuguese language Wikipedia. I never have, don't have and never will have a "home wiki." There are a few wikis that I created, but even those are not my home. Please always keep in mind that I don't live in any wiki. No wiki owns me and I don't own any wiki, although I administer all that I have created, except two. The pages I came here to publish were never published before anywhere, by anybody, and I already had the opportunity to make my case as far as that is concerned and it has been settled here on Meta. So what we have here is another dirty lie. Please use your best arguments to prove the contrary.
Not even two lines, and one empty threat and two lies. That's a very high level of lying efficiency. You must have had some superb upbringing, education, and training.
Virgilio A. P. Machado
Vapmachado 06:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Home Wiki" is perhaps a misnomer: It's a technical term here, meaning the project where you first registered your account. In this case, he's perfectly correct that you're currently blocked from your home wiki (as defined by the software). Preferably, also, please discontinue personal attacks, even if you think someone is attacking you first. Kylu 11:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary to date
  1. This was a request for action from this community for appropriate measures against a user who made a certain type of statements.
  2. No action has been taken and those statements stand as that user's personal opinion.
  3. This request was answered with comments about a RfC, and they are a distraction from the matter at hand to which they make no contribution, if not a negative one.
  4. I suggest that those comments be moved to where they belong, the RfC.
  5. When this user gives his "personal opinion" about another's behavior he is making "personal attacks".
  6. "What you are doing is called stalking and is prohibited by law in some countries. At least it is provoking and trolling, and it does not serve the goals of the project (and is therefore not desirable)". "If you did that on a wiki where I'm sysop" your actions and statements would never see the light of day. That, of course, is just a user's "personal opinion."
  7. You're all very much welcome to write after this summary whatever you want, but "at least from my point of view, there's nothing" further for me to do here.


Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 23:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I noticed this and it raised a smile my end :-) - presumably how decisions like that get made is the thing that you're up for trying to work out? - A 'learning project' on wikiversity is really just a wiki space for people to try and learn / explore things together. In short - if you're more interested in the resolution of a specific matter (as you indicate) then here is probably the best spot (although, as we've seen, the motivation to assist or progress your concerns may be somewhat lacking!) - if you're interested in the concepts and principles in general, then wikiversity's not a bad bet - good luck anywhoo :-) (and sorry for not responding more substantially - I remain interested in the topic myself, so will try and actually engage with your questions etc. at a later date :-) cheers, Privatemusings 00:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic on alleged distractions[edit]

Moved from page. 07:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Any actions or statements that don't address this RfC are just distractions, obfuscation.

For example, a great deal of effort has been made to remove a window that was at the beginning of the hidden user page. No big deal. The content of that window is:

In Portuguese:

In English:

So, I guess it is OK now to put them back? Thank you so very much.

It's kind of fortunate that those removals happened because, besides calling everybody else's attention to what was there, they called attention to the fact that the story of that ill-fated userpage was left unfinished. It was explained that "as the search progressed" the results were posted on a user subpage. What about when the search was finished? Of course, until now, nobody knows. Your guess is as good as anyone else, as long as the content stayed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License, taking into consideration the Terms of Use

Which brings up another interesting point: where do you think some debates and information should be carried out and be kept: inside the Wikimedia projects or "out there"? "Out there" is a more comfortable zone, right? "What your eyes don't see, your heart doesn't feel". Recognize who is on the picture at the right? No. It's not who you think. It's a willet. That is a fact (if you can believe what is on Commons, see 6) above), something quite different from a user's "personal opinion."


Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 01:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I thought willets only buried their head in the sand in order to find (and eat) various bugs. If they do so in an ostrich-like attempt at self-preservation, that's a new fact to me. You're not suggesting we eat bugs, are you? I mean, there's some tasty bugs out there, but they're few and far between. I'm quite enjoying my breakfast, which is pretty close to 99% bug free, at the moment. Take care! :) Kylu 11:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breakfast is like software: it's never 100% bug free. Jafeluv 11:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, quite true, but similarly, if you never actually see the bug, it doesn't really bother you. Quite different from singing to the lightning bugs and one of them flies the wrong direction at the wrong time... Kylu 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]