User talk:Anonymous Dissident

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. /archive 1
  2. /archive 2
  3. /archive 3
  4. /archive 4

Trang Chính[edit]

Please semi-protection this page, it is outdated and, it should be updated (please from User:Mxn) --minhhuy*= 15:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re voter eligibility[edit]

Thanks for contacting me about this - I think there are two issues here:

  • Firstly any vote that is checked now, may, according to the so-called 'sufferage checker', show enough edits when at the time of voting that was not the case. I have been pretty careful to carry out an additional check to ascertain the number of edits at the time.
  • The other issue that has really caused me a headache, though, was where users did have enough edits and sufficient time registered on a qualifying wiki, but had not unified their accounts or provided a suitable link from their Meta page. As we could not confirm their identity, it would have been reasonable to strike their votes. Quite independently of my efforts however someone had contacted all the No voters in that position (26 of them), asking them to unify their accounts or provide a link rather than striking them immediately (see Talk:Global_sysops/Vote#Just_count_the_votes). I felt the only reasonable and equitable solution was to do the same for the 45 Yes votes in the same position. I am uncomfortable about this arrangement, as it verifies their identity after the close. My intention was to strike out those who do not respond (but how long is it reasonable to wait?). The other option I can see would be to strike out all 61 71 of them now. I would value your opinion on this. --(RT) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The other point to consider here is that the requirement to have a unified account or provide a link was not in the original eligibility criteria (ie the multilingual header) only in the edit box instructions introduced after many had voted. --(RT) 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
To put it another way: The requirement to have an unified login or link cannot be regarded as part of the eligibility criteria, but it is still necessary to establish identity. --(RT) 16:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Question: Without an SUL login or link, is there an easy alternative way to establish whether a Meta user and one on another project are the same? I would still like to hear your thoughts before deciding how to proceed further. --(RT) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I say we should strike all 61 of them now, as well as anyone else who did not unify prior to February 1. It's the simplest solution, and it follows the rules most closely. The instructions were not hard to follow; we shouldn't have to make allowances. Fortunately, the SUL tool provides the information we need about when a given account was unified. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the instructions regarding accounts were not present when many of them voted (ie those voting before the edit box instructions appeared on January 13). --(RT) 12:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
And the other thing to remember is that it was never a requirement to have a unified login, even in the edit box instructions - a link on the user's local (Meta) page was an alternative (Editnotice). --(RT) 12:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, if any of the 61 have pursued the alternative, so be it. How many of the 61 voted before Jan. 13? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Will check, certainly some - remember around 1500 votes were cast before the edit box instruction appeared. --(RT) 12:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like 53 out of 71 (not 61) voted on or before January 13. --(RT) 12:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you thinking that we can accept post-vote unified accounts (or links) from those who voted before January 13, but not from those who voted afterwards? I can see the logic of this; but I have been arguing that any attempt to alter the rules during the vote was unacceptable (see for example my complaints about adding January 1 to the 3 months registration requirement [1]), and therefore anything only in the January 13 edit notice is invalid and unenforcable. --(RT) 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strike them all, I think. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I accept a case can be made for that, not on the basis of the edit notice being part of the eligibility criteria, but simply because we didn't know who the qualifying accounts belonged to at the end of the vote. However I still think its rather unfair on those who didn't know - and of course some have now identified themselves by unifying their accounts. Will consider, and I will publish my rationale for any difficult decisions on the Vote talk page - others can then take a view too. (But just to put the whole matter in some perspective: Whichever way it's decided the percentage of Yes and No will only change by circa 0.5% - so this is really about doing things right and being fair, not about the overall outcome). --(RT) 12:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I've looked over the way the instructions were laid out, and over the relevant dates, and I've changed my mind. Sorry to seem indecisive, but the unification requirement really was not made clear enough to justify the striking of 71 votes. I also take your point about it being a mode of connecting identities, rather than a true eligibility criterion. If you're in agreement, I think we can proceed in the manner you originally intended. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, agreed, and thanks very much for taking time to discuss it. I'll do a check within the next 24 hours to see if any more have responded and then start to wrap things up. I intend to present the figures to the Vote talk page with a short report about the whole process. --(RT) 15:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't keep you fully informed about why it was taking a bit longer to wrap up the vote checking process (explained on the Vote talk page), but rest assured every vote has been checked for some days (even if there is no comment next to it) and most have been checked at least twice. Because we're just waiting for a few respondents, I believe the deadline of this Sunday, February 21, 23:59 (UTC) can be final. Would you be happy to protect the Vote page at, or shortly after, that time? Let me know if you have any questions. --(RT) 02:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. In that case, well done and thanks. The deadline sounds good. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Global Sysops "decision"[edit]

A decision on the Global Sysops vote has just appeared. Does this look like a 'non-partisan review' to you? Does it look reasonable to say a modified version just passes without a new vote? It doesn't look right to me. --(RT) 18:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks awful. I'm not sure what we can do about it, though. I'll consider a course of action and get back to you about it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. If this stands I think it reflects really badly how Meta does things. --(RT) 23:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry[edit]

I'm sorry to see you go. Hope that everething is OK and hope too to see you back again soon. Best regards, — Dferg (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Hope you are back soon! Pmlineditor  12:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Nothing's wrong – it's just that I'm experiencing a lot of real-world pressure, and will be for quite some time. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hope to see you back soon. --WizardOfOz talk 12:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope you'll be back soon. Have a nice Wikibreak! :) --Church of emacs talk · contrib 16:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

page move[edit]

Please, can you move Pazina prinzipal to Pajina prinsipałe, in order to have the same name for "main page" in all Venetian projects? Thanks. Candalua 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Anon Diss has been active much lately (busy in real life), so I moved the page for you instead. Yes check.svg Done :-) Cbrown1023 talk 19:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just passing by...[edit]

Hope that everything is OK with you. All the best. Regards, --dferg ☎ talk 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the note, Dferg. I still check in here a couple of times a month, but still no time to edit. I hope everything is well with you too. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple Wikiquote closure[edit]

Discussion ended in December 2009 but Simple Wikiquote is still up. How long does it take to close? 19:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it allowed in Wikipedia?[edit]

To keep in the pages of wiki Administrator's personnel thesis? at ? Other problem is We call Computer as same in English, but admin forcibly used his word Ganpukar of Computer. I have proof that thousands of published books called it Computer not Ganpukar. If some one oppose him he started abusive language. That is the reason never got attraction to Sindhi community. Plz check record there. Other things are he locked CSS due to that on the same site there are lot of font styles appeared there. He is not able to set commonCSS or Monocss. We are in trouble to work in our local Sindhi language. I don't know where to say for this problem. Record history says all the situation there. I appeal plz warn him to follow rules, other wise he will continue use his personnel details and personnel promoted articles there. Dear I am sorry If u r not right person to say all about this, Plz suggest me where I can raise this issue. My ID is same. His thesis is not a violetion?ماحولياتي_انتظام_ڪاڻ_اُپُگِرَهِي_عَڪس_ضماءُ_۽_درجه_بنديءَ_جي_طريقن_جو_اَڀياس Alixafar 00:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)