Global bans policy discussion
At Requests for comment/Global bans, where you have commented in support of Option 2, a third option has recently been implemented. The first two options did not prove a way for respondents to indicate that they oppose global bans entirely, i.e., that it is not possible to write a meaningful global bans policy that would attract their support. Option 3 is intended to provide that opportunity, and to aid in distinguishing between people who oppose the proposed policy because it requires improvements and those who oppose the proposed policy because no policy permitting global bans should be adopted.
Because the third section was added late by a respondent, it is possible that some people who responded early in the RFC have commented at option 2, but would really prefer to support option 3, or support both. If so, you may voluntarily choose to move your original comment or to or strikethrough your original comment and add new comments. This is a courtesy notice of the change, and there is no requirement that you take any action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open
You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.
The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.
Why should I contribute "usefully" to Commons when it is clear that those like Russavia and Mattbuck violate many policies and use IRC as a platform to attack others? The consensus was really clear that Russavia's behavior could not be tolerated, and there is a lot of proof that Mattbuck was violating his admin privileges on closing things, that his friends and associates were also abusing adminship, and the rest? Many people said that Russavia and others brought the project into disrepute. How can anyone be willing to contribute while that happens? Look how many admin left out of protest. You know the names and many of them were extremely active. Instead, we are left with a few abusers who use automated edits to amass a lot of pointless edits to use it as a new tool to attack others. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's no reason you should contribute to Commons if you don't want to. There is a difference between choosing not to contribute and being disruptive, though. I do regret how things have turned out for you there.
- I'd agree that there are some things on Commons that could use a bit of creative disruption, although I don't think charging at them like a bull at a gate is usually the most effective approach. I'm probably not cut out to be an activist, though, so maybe I'm indulging in rationalisation by thinking that improvements are possible without open war. --Avenue (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I contribute to Commons by defending our policies. I do not add pictures because Commons is a laughing stock. I, and dozens of others, stood up against Russavia to make it a safe place to contribute to in terms of images. Look at how overwhelming the response was to his abuse. Mattbuck clearly canvassed and abused his adminship. There is a lot of abuse going on. Why would you ever side with clear and blatant abuse that the community is clearly starting to put an end to? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Look at it this way - I put my own researched, hand scanned documents into book formats onto Commons. Each one took many, many, many hours to put together. They were vital documents regarding architecture and structural development of one of the most important US military bases leading up to WW2, and the plans were copied by many countries. These documents were not digitized before, and the originals were lost in a Fort Benning fire. I put it up for free. I still have thousands of more pages I could upload. I will not as long as Russavia and others use Commons to attack other users. Our policies make it clear that they should not act in the way they do. I am not the only one who called them out for their abuse, and I have done it in a very civil way - I do not cuss or call names. I point out problematic actions, which is perfectly fine. They have canvassed, attacked viciously, and done whatever they could to silence people for what reason? And do they even legitimately contribute? They take items from flickr or use bots on their accounts to perform automated edits. Is that really what Commons needs? And is using a script a justification for abusing their admin privileges? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
More about collective membership marks
Hi. You mentioned that you would like to see more information about collective membership marks and the WMF's thoughts about their application in your comment at Community Logo/Request for consultation. I just wanted to let you know that Yana has responded with more information at Talk:Community Logo/Request for consultation#More information about the collective membership mark. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics
Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions
The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.
If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.