User talk:Juandev

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

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | 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 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello Juandev!, 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! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but I am here since 2005.--Juan de Vojníkov 17:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What is Wikiversity[edit]

Hi, as I see your userpage, it is important to note, thate Wikiversity is not just about tertiary education. So it it not University.--Juan de Vojnikov 13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you be more specific, where and what you saw? On the other hand, our IRL university neither just about tertiary education. So it it neither a University. Prohlep 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

This barnstar is given to you for your help with the 2011 fundraiser translation.

Hi! I just want to thank you and give you this barnstar for your help with the translation of the 2011 fundraiser! The fundraiser was the best we ever had, both in terms of the amount we collected and in terms of number of translations. We couldn't have done either one without the help we got from you and other translators. If you are interested, we made a report, which has some statistics about the translations.

And: I have one more request, and that is that you take this survey. You may have got an e-mail about it, and if you did, please ignore this. But if you didn't it would be great if you would take this survey too, so we can learn to improve the translation experience.

Again, thanks for your help with translations – you're awesome! Jon Harald Søby (WMF) 13:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thx.--Juandev 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

MoodBar research[edit]

Hi apologies for not reacting earlier, we're going to publish further research updates on MoodBar shortly, but if you have any question please feel free to contact me directly by mail at dario(at)wikimedia.org. --DarTar (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Groups[edit]

Hi Juandev

I just reviewed similar concepts in Mozilla and Ubuntu. The idea of wikigroups is that a group of people wiling to carry on activities off-line to promote and support the projects can have some level of recognition from Wikimedia Foundation to easy their job. I think some Wikiprojects if they require off-line work could be a good starting point to create a wikigroup. GLAM is a more complex and developed structure already working off-line they already have their level of recognition so I doubt they could be interested in becoming a Wiki Group. I think RC Patrol is an online activity.

The idea with this new models at the first stage is not actively promote them. Just have the models approved by the WMF Board and if some group appears requiring some recognition provide it to them.

Could you be interested in forming one?

--Gomà (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. I already formed one. Dont know if it follow the model, but we are starting some projects to support Wikimedia.--Juandev (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

Hi, as you can see the log goes on with:

(show/hide) 16:14, 15 November 2012 Vituzzu (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Vituzzu@cswikiversity from CheckUser to (none) (done, unrelated by cu)

by now (without checking logs) I cannot remember any other detail (I'm not even sure who had I to check) but I think the log above should be enough to answer. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What does it mean "unrelated by cu"?--Juandev (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Please give me a talkback in such these situations, otherwise I simply won't notice your reply ;)
Well, "unrelated by CU" does mean the accounts I was asked to check were unrelated by CU, so the result was "negative".--Vituzzu (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I bet you did mean "now" ;)
I gave that answer (which is a long-term standard) since CU can simply confirm if two or more accounts did share some technical details, putting it mildly it's not a magic! --Vituzzu (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Questions for candidates[edit]

I have a couple of questions regarding your candidate submission:

  1. How the previous board fullfiled tasks, you would like to do in the future?
    The previous Board learned to work together quite well: reaching consensus quickly, and finding alternatives to consensus when needed. We never worked in factions. The Board has also become good at delegating work to committees and to staff groups, without confusion. This required building trust within the whole Foundation, and within the {ED+Board} team, that each part was working as it should. We started to open up the Board process, inviting a Board Visitor to sit in on some of our sessions. And I personally learned a lot through our movement roles process: about how to develop guidelines for the Foundation through community efforts.
  2. How you would evaluate your work in the previous Board?
    I feel good about my work to shift the WMF's definition of movement groups : so that it now pays attention to how much support is given to individuals and small groups; so that chapter successes are learned from, and so that there is also a well-defined place for thematic organizations and individual projects in the Foundation planning and analysis. I tried to bring consensus to the Board even when we had thorny discussions about whose work defines our mission, and how to accept healthy risks. I worked smoothly with the ED in the past two years; who is an important part of any well-functioning board.
    I was not able to get long-term financial planning underway, which is important to me; this took longer than I had hoped. This year, after joining the Audit Committee, I learned how to be more effective in contributing to those plans. And I feel that, despite best efforts, we still spent more time reacting to recent events than planning for the future. These are both things that the next Board should address. It should significantly improve the WMF's long-term plans, and spend much less time on short-term drama.
  3. What do you think about funds redistribution to the Chapters? Why chapters always grunt about it? What should be done in this area? And it something, why it wasnt already done?
    I think a chapter in every country or region is, when developed properly, an effective way to organize partnerships, funds, and other resources. The WMF initially encouraged all regions to develop chapters, to hire staff and 'professionalize', and to acquire funds. Then starting three years ago, this advice changed; I think chapters complain in part because of that shift in expectations. In community-drive projects, there are many alternatives to 'professionalizing' and many ways to distribute resources without a lot of staff. In the past few years, the movement has seen amazing organizations without staff, and amazing projects without organizations (such as WLM). The WMF wants to support this sort of work without prejudice -- based on its value to the projects. And wants to redistribute funds to supports each part of the world, not only proportional to how much that country donated. This required changing how fundraising and allocation worked. This has led to the FDC and more reporting; which is not as convenient as the early fundraisers. That's another source of complaint. Finally, both chapters and the WMF think that the other group isn't always making good use of funds. This is a failure in communication and shared metrics.
    I think we need to improve peer review among the {WMF, Chapters, and Thematic Orgs}, so that each of those groups trusts the work and progress of the others, and all feel that they are united in working towards our mission. We need to unify our metrics, and discuss the different goals in the strategies of different chapters. We need to prioritize translation for this level of planning and communication. And we need to describe more fully the work that only Chapters and that only the WMF can do: so that each can delegate work to the other when needed. Some of this has been done, slowly. But sharing internal planning across organizations is hard; and much of this sharing requires better multilingual communication. For instance, the detailed strategy work that WM-SE and WM-FR and WM-IT and the WMF do is, in each case, in a single language; with only summaries translated into some of the others.
    Certainly. I've mainly tried to move as much communication and documentation as possible to Meta. Including Board resolutions, so they can be more easily commented on and translated, reports and Chapter Agreements, and useful internal WMF documents whenever I run across them. I have refused to join any new private wikis (other than the board-wiki) myself; we switched having a separate movement roles wiki to publishing all materials on Meta. And most of the Board-level work that I have been part of, including drafts of many resolutions proposed to the Board, have in the past 2 years been developed on Meta.
  4. How "one" can change all organisation?
    Some changes require many people. But a single person can serve as an example; and remind others to do things they already want to do, but may forget. In our case, much of the conflicts on our projects, including debates about what software to write, and Foundation-Chapter-Partner tension, is self-inflicted and self-fulfilling. A bit of mediation, and remaining calm in the face of a momentary crisis, can help avoid blow-ups and distractions.

Thank you very much for answers.

Thank you for your questions. SJ talk 

Regards,

--Juandev (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

IP case[edit]

The below commentary below is copied from [1], for purpose of detailed commentary here. Indented, italicized contributions are from the copy. My comments are interspersed and further indented, in plaintext, so that additional comments may be added and remain clearly distinct from the original, or this quickly can become quite confusing. I am signing each individual comment, allowing response in place, if you wish.

Juandev, you are digging a hole for yourself. Stop it. Both Billinghurst and I have suggested how you can move forward with cs.wikiversity. Belaboring this, as you do here, will not help and could easily damage your cause. I comment below for your information and consideration. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your dissamination of statments regarding the IP block is damaging me as User:Lenka64 interprets that as a truth. If you think the same, you are not right. I never used the open proxy before December 3, 2013 block.
I do not know the technical details; however, it is likely that your IP has been used by an open proxy. It is standard practice to block such IP on sight, and the block message suggests remedies for registered editors to use. You had difficulty following the instructions, and you also did not completely explain the situation to the administrator willing to help you, he needed technical assistance. Your suggested solution of "reblock" was not optimal.
Billinghurst's action may not depend on your having used an open proxy.
There is another possible explanation that Billinghurst has not clarified. I think you did use an open proxy on that day, and Billinghurst knew that your IP was the source IP for those edits. (he called it the "master account," as I recall). So he blocked your IP, for use of open proxies, and he hard-blocked, forcing you to get local administrator permission to edit. That was a proper action, my opinion. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You blocked a proxy, which might be using thousands of users in this area. I know several wikimedians in this area. You also stated that, by blocking that IP you protected Wikiversity. But I dont think it is truth. If that proxy will use open proxy, the system will not reveal original proxy IP address, so blocked IP may follow editing.
Actually, if my speculation above is correct, he did not block the proxy. He blocked your IP, because of how you were using it. Your remedies were clear and, in fact, explained to you. Instead of asking for simple help, you complained about administrative actions. Bad idea. It almost never works, Juan. And now you are continuing to complain. Billinghurst is not against you. You are, possibly, irritating him without any necessity. (But he doesn't seem terribly irritated. He is still responding to you rationally.) Take his advice! --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
But I understand that the attackes towards Danny B. and his friends, looks like to be done by the opposition party. Thats a very easy equation. But have you considered, it may be not so easy? Have you considered, that you may use other accounts or proxies to push your point of view by hard? In some cases its quite its quit clear:
And now, Juandev, you present complex evidence. It is quite common that stewards will not review such. You have not understood the function of stewards. They are not judges of complex situations. They normally act within specified bounds, and will be carefully neutral. They can be influenced, sometimes, by off-wiki channels, but behind all their work, normally, is an assumption that any error they make can readily be fixed, by local administrators. I've been desysopped, more than once, by a steward, in violation of local wiki policy, and I did not complain, because it was easily fixable by a local 'crat, if any had been willing to act. Quite simply, faced with a request and an appearance of good faith in it, they act. They know that if there is a problem, it can easily be fixed.
Arguing or complaining to stewards over this is entirely counterproductive, I have never seen it work. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You forgot to whom you were writing. "You" there has to be Danny B., but you placed this on User talk:Billinghurst. If you copied this list from somewhere else, you did not make it clear. If you are going to present complex evidence to stewards, with any success, you would have to be far, far more careful and cogent than this. I don't recommend even trying, but if you are going to do it, get the help of someone else who is experienced. Doing this on your own is obviously not working. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The "other party" is you, Juandev. These edits were over a year ago. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
An IP edit, the only edit from 46.135.64.14 in cs.wv history, reverts you. You call this a "proxy." Any evidence for that? If sock puppetry is suspected, the time for checkuser investigation would have been immediately (by request at meta). Was that done? I could research this, but research in Czech is tedious for me. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Right. Kychot. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I.e, Milda reverts. Milda, we already know, was a low-contributions account apparently supporting Danny B. Nothing surprising here. However, the edit summary may indicate uncivil involvement: (Googletrans) Revert non-anonymous users (probably vandalism). --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Kychot reverts (Googletrans) (ZrušeNeuvedl reason you revert, buddy. And you still have not answered the question, what styles are the paints. Discussion: Milda # The paints are styles). --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, evidence that 46.135.89.7 is an open proxy? This is likely the same user as before, on dynamic IP. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, and your dislike leads you to revert as vandalism. Bad Idea. False, actually. (Googletrans) (revert vandal). --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
JAn Dudík. (Googletrans) (Undo revision 31418 by Juandev - useless, nothing unreasonable colors, machine-readable headlines, unnecessary blank lines). --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You did not explain the context, Juandev. This page is a page that you had edited for years. You created the page 12. 3. 2008. The page was stable, apparently, until 10. 1. 2013, when Danny B. edited it (the first diff above, over which change revert warring broke out.
The protection for one month was by Danny B., with the result being to protect in his preferred version.[2] (Googletrans) (Protected "Work on Wikipedia": repeated revertační War ([edit = Allow only administrators] (expires 20th 3rd 2013, 20:51 (UTC)))
In my days as a Wikipedia editor, had I seen this, I might taken it to a noticeboard immediately, and if the administrator was intransigent, it might have gone further than that. This was clearly a use of admin tools while involved. As I have elsewhere written, action while involved is acceptable in an emergency, under certain conditions. One of them is low availability of administrators, and another would be a prompt reference to the community for review of the action. I'm guessing that was not done. But the matter can be referred to the community by anyone. Failure to do so is effectively acceptance of the action.
Was there review? If not, what you have done is to object later to the events, as part of your story of how abusive Danny B. is. However, any active administrator may accrue, over time, what can later be seen as errors. It really means nothing, in itself.
If Danny B. had been confronted over this, before the community, and by someone not personally involved (i.e., Bad Idea if you are the one to do it, though that can work, sometimes, if you have enough support), how he responded would then determine subsequent events. If he said, "Ah, sorry! Won't do that again!" it would go nowhere unless he blatantly did it again repeatedly. But someone asking him on his Talk page about an action, and he doesn't reply, means nothing.
He understands that, apparently. You don't. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
So this looks also clear.
To me, it is now clear, but for it to be clear, I had to do quite a bit of research myself. But what is "clear?" That Danny B. used admin tools while involved? Sure. So what?
Juan, you really need to understand this: if the local community accepts this behavior, so will stewards. While it is theoretically possible to make a case at meta that such behavior should not be accepted anywhere, I have never seen anyone succeed at that, for many years. To accomplish this will take much more than complaint, and especially complaint that is highly personalized, where you were personally involved. Your behavior in that affair wasn't spotless, far from it. You handled it poorly, and that's what Billinghurst is pointing to.
And all this over formatting of a page? What is really going on here is an ego contest. One or more parties are attached to being personally right. You created that page. You were horrified to see it messed with. Your horror disabled and disempowered you, and continues to do so.
The upshot of the revert warring, it's obvious: You supported your version, with Kyochot. The change was supported by Danny B., Milda, and JAn Dudík, plus the IP. Your preservation of your version did not have apparent consensus. In reality, it's very difficult for an outsider to tell. Milda can be deprecated for low contributions as of that date, likewise JAn Dudík. There is a rough balance. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
But what about this or that?
Juan, presenting evidence, even if Billinghurst were inclined to read this, a comment like that doesn't get read unless someone is highly interested. The visible text must establish what the link is evidence for, or else it's very likely to be ignored.
This is another instance of protecting into preferred version. The original edit by Danny B.[3] is totally a matter of style. The protection after revert warring is into his version.[4].
That is likewise. The original edit by Danny B.[5]. Again, formatting. Danny B. again protects it into his favored version.[6].
So all three sequences show Danny B., when revert warring broke out over a change he made, being willing to protect into the version he himself created.
Given that apparently he has not been coherently confronted over this by the community, he has been trained to do it, so such actions can be expected to continue. Who is responsible for this? My answer: the community is! You are part of the community, Juandev. You are blaming Danny B. for what is, more powerfully, your own responsibility (and that of every member of the community, what I'm pointing to is really a collective responsibility.)
If you don't know how to handle the situation, great! Admit that, drop the blame, roll up your sleeves, and start learning. This is, after all, Wikiversity. Learn-by-doing. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
And those are not just revert wars, those might be other things like blocked/banned users.--Juandev (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The import of the link is entirely unclear to me, I'd have to do a lot of research. I'm more inclined than the vast majority of users, and I'm still not inclined enough. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So Billinghurst responded:

I expressed my opinion as the blocking steward of my interpretation of the data. I take no other particular interest, or have no real opinion on other edits at csWV, as they are not pertinent to the role that I take, or should take, as a steward. How the community interprets and manages my opinion is up to them. My personal wish is that you all get along, that people leave their personal enmities aside and edit for the benefit of the project. Unfortunately I am not seeing it, I am just seeing more and more personal attacks. At some point, people need to stop their whining and behave like adults.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the remark of an experienced, neutral steward, Juandev. He's being frank with you, that's all, about the "whining and behave like adults." I could point to many examples, Juandev.
I have seen similar tendencies in Danny B., but elsewhere. In the cs.wv links you have shown, he is acting rather mildly. I'm pretty sure that I could come up with some better "dirt," if I were so inclined. You have, with the above description, established that Danny B. has violated what would be administrative standards on Wikipedia, and what you obviously expect to be standards, so much that it seems you think that providing a pile of evidence like this to the steward is going to generate so much horror that they will, of course, immediately yank his privileges.
You are dreaming, Juandev, you haven't been paying attention to how stewards actually work. They see complaints like yours all the time. Look at all the RfCs on meta that went nowhere. That's because meta is, at least so far, not the place to complain about administrative behavior, to get any kind of action. Very bad idea.
There is a basic principle here, and it cuts both ways: the local wikis are independent. That means that stewards will not, generally, tell them what to do. That's the good news! But the down side is that they will not intervene to resolve local conflicts, just as sane parents, if I may make the analogy, don't intervene to solve disputes between their children. (When they do, I can say from experience, the conflicts get worse, as the kids learn how to manipulate their parents, and kids learn faster than adults!) (Parents may offer help, but it better be perceived as equal help, or it will backfire. Basically, it needs to be help in learning how to resolve disputes, not being a "judge.") --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
So how your opinion is related to that RfC? And what personal attacks do you see? As I dont see many a this time.--Juandev (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll answer. You are insisting on perfection of language on the part of Billinghurst. He wrote "personal attack," when "personal criticism" might be more appropriate. Further, it's not necessary that there actually be personal attacks. Can you understand that Danny B. apparently does take your criticism of his actions as if they were personal attacks? I would say, as well, that you take his actions as personally directed toward you. The revert warring and self-interested protection you pointed to was not necessarily personal, but you have many times expressed that you feel "harassed."
I'm not saying you are not harassed. I'm saying that resolving the problem won't be discovered in complaining, but in effective action, and your personal feelings, in this situation at least, are disempowering you, causing you to be unable to see the situation from other points of view, including Danny B.'s point of view. That leads you to be unable to respond with power and effectiveness. It's like clockwork, really.
If you don't understand this, if you do not do what it takes to understand this -- it's not necessarily easy -- then I can predict the likely outcome. You will eventually be indef blocked on cs.wv. That might occur even if Danny B should retire. I don't want to see this as the outcome, so I'm declaring that you can and will respond, that you are capable of moving well beyond your previous limitations, and am taking this stand, reflecting that declaration. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It related to the commentary around the placing of blocks on the IP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. But also, Billinghurst gave you essentially the same advice as I, only with far, far fewer words. Take your pick. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, OK. Regarding personal attacks I can see some, because I understand the language, but I guess you dont. So I wonder what takes you to see more and more personal attacks. Maybe you see to the areas I dont see. Unfotunately some people understand commons procedures as personal attacks. It could be seen in this RFC, that some of them tend to comment it is a personal attack. Some may understand the censorship to be a personal attack. But I say, RFC is a valid procedure. Thats why it exists. Also censorship is a valid procedure within Czech community. It comes out from Czech Wikipedia and it developed to hide expressive and offensive coments on other users. This procedure as a mean to stop spreading lies starts to be used also on other Czech projects.--Juandev (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I read this as possibly conciliatory, but as so unclearly expressed that the message did not get through. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Juandev, the history to your dispute is not my business and sways me not an iota to how I undertake my role as a steward. All it indicates to me as an individual is that parties are behaving badly, putting their own egos in front of the projects. I am not sure why you are continuing this discussion, it isn't my business. Go and do good edits is my advice to you, forget the bickering. It is also the same advice that I give to other parties.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
He's telling you what I stated above. He doesn't want to know the "history." He's quite accurate on the "ego" part, and the evidence you provided confirmed that. You are lucky that Billinghurst is involved. You might not be doing so well with other stewards, though I'm not sure about this -- this is not an accusation against any particular steward, and Billinghurst's behavior is what I generally expect from Stewards. It's just that, on occasion, I've been wrong about that. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
If you dont want to be part of this, why you are still involved? Comenting here, and comenting there and again comenting there. --Juandev (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the first link is to the RfC, where he has already explained his comment. It was informational, but he also did express a neutral opinion, sanely and coherently. You are repeating yourself, tendentiously, Juandev. That is behavior typically found with those who have become personally attached and reactive. If you can simply say to yourself, "Yes, that's what I've been doing," that will start the process of moving beyond it.
(I've had to say this to myself many times!)
The second link was purely informational, again, not creating "involvement."
The third link explains what happened with the IP block in more detail. It confirms my speculation above. He states that he has an opinion about various issues, but he does not disclose it. He has more clearly expressed that opinion in the RfC. Basically, that comment was totally proper for a steward, disclosing more of his process, without violating confidentiality. From the beginning, as soon as you saw that IP block on your screen, Juandev, information was available to you to resolve the block.
You misinterpreted it, and so did others. Billinghurst told you, early on, exactly what needed to be done.
You are "barking up the wrong tree." Juandev, you have a problem at cs.wikiversity. Because you are part of the problem, you may be part of the solution. We have it backwards, too often. We think that if we are blameless, what must happen is for others to change. It's all their fault.
Life doesn't work that way. If we take responsibility for the pickle we find ourselves in, we then have power to change it. Otherwise, we become victims, in a situation that is intractable. So our instinct to defend ourselves, to figure out what is wrong with what others have done -- as you have been doing with Billinghurst -- blinds us to the actions we can take to transform the situation. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh, whats this? It looks like Abd's review of somethink. I will read it the other day.--Juandev (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a detailed, interspersed review of your comments on User talk:Billinghurst. It is designed so that you may respond to each comment, indented, if you like. (That is why each comment is signed separately.)
It confirms what you might have claimed, but did not actually claim. You seem to think that if you present a pile of diffs to someone, without clear explanation, they will follow them and then, of course, agree with you. Wikis flat out do not work that way. JWS did this all the time, though more visibly confused and confusing than you, by the way, but the same basic idea. It simply turned everyone off, until his friends walked away, too.
Yes, it's a lot. You presented a lot to Billinghurst -- totally the wrong place --, and reviewing it took hours. I write as I research. You have no obligation to read it, but you are not going to get this kind of careful review from anyone else, not here at meta, I'm fairly sure of that. --Abd (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics[edit]

Idea Lab
Idea Lab

Hello, Juandev! We've added Events to IdeaLab, and you're invited :)

Upcoming events focus on turning ideas into Individual Engagement Grant proposals before the March 31 deadline. Need help or have questions about IEG? Join us at a Hangout:

  • Thursday, 13 March 2014, 1600 UTC
  • Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1700 UTC
  • Saturday, 29 March 2014, 1700 UTC

Hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically to IEG and IdeaLab participants. To unsubscribe from any future IEG reminders, remove your name from this list

Can of worms[edit]

All but maybe one of the recent ban actions involved what are euphemistically called "child protection policy enforcement." The exceptions would be Poetlister and Russavia. Poetlister was not a danger to anyone, but that's a dead horse. He was globally banned before the global ban policy was written, after a request by a WMF board member for a discussion, that did not follow the policy later written, so it could have been argued that the ban was not legitimate. I participated in that discussion, and it was a riot, mob rule, with false evidence presented, real evidence shoved aside and ignored, etc. But the ban was popular enough that challenging it would be impossible. I was actually desysopped on Wikiversity over standing for prior Wikiversity policy and procedure in that case. Poetlister was, then, the only user actually banned by community discussion.

My comment here is not definitive on some of the users banned. I'm depending to some degree on an analysis on Wikipediocracy of the banned users. Russavia, however, would not have been covered either by prior ban policy or by the policy as it reads now, unless the real policy is "We can do whatever we like and no questions are allowed, we won't answer, and there is no policy we are bound to follow." It is entirely possible that Russavia did something that was so much of a problem that banning him was proper, but it's difficult to imagine what it could be that would be such that a reason could not be given. Suppose he was threatening to sue the WMF. Banning him without cause would give him more reason to sue, not less. But banning him pending any legal action could be completely proper, and could be openly stated. The charges listed against him on Wikipediocracy would not be grounds for a global ban. Racism was alleged, for example. Russavia posted, as IP, a link on his Commons talk page to the email he received from the WMF. That has been revision deleted, but it mentioned sock puppetry. Ordinary sock puppetry, even many socks created, has never been a a reason for a global ban unless there is global socking. (In which case it is routinely handled by stewards without an actual ban, it's simply locking the account.)

However, this gets even crazier. Currently, Recent Changes on Commons, where Russavia was a reasonably popular administrator, has been shut down. It currently only shows one minute of edits. I saw this start to happen today, and it began when that IP edit was placed. To shut down Recent Changes logging takes Developer access. I've seen it be used by an unskillful wiki owner to prevent the community from noticing what's going on (he had blocked several users and did not want it to be noticed). It seems that this is now being used to suppress notice of discussion of the Russavia ban. I have never seen anything remotely like this in the entire history of the WMF. This is far more dangerous than the MediaViewer issue and page protection issue that came up last year. --Abd (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please fill out our Inspire campaign survey[edit]

Inspire astrocat aqua.png

Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!

Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.



Many thanks,

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk), on behalf of the IdeaLab team.

23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This message was delivered automatically to Inspire campaign participants. To unsubscribe from any future IdeaLab reminders, remove your name from this list

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?[edit]

Hi! The Wikimedia Foundation would like your input on how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project.

After reading the Reimagining WMF grants idea, we ask you to complete this survey to help us improve the idea and learn more about your experience. When you complete the survey, you can enter to win one of five Wikimedia globe sweatshirts!

In addition to taking the the survey, you are welcome to participate in these ways:

This survey is in English, but feedback on the discussion page is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Last call for WMF grants feedback![edit]

Hi, this is a reminder that the consultation about Reimagining WMF grants is closing on 8 September (0:00 UTC). We encourage you to complete the survey now, if you haven't yet done so, so that we can include your ideas.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?[edit]

IdeaLab logo dark orange.png

Hi there,

I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results[edit]

IdeaLab badge 1.png

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Harassment workshop[edit]

Greetings! You are receiving this message because, at some point in the past, you have participated in a discussion around the topic of harassment. The Support and Safety team is holding a series of consultations gathering feedback on the best potential solutions to the problem. The next stage is a workshop where we hope to narrow the focus to individual actionable ideas and explore how to bring some of these ideas to life.

Best regards, the Support and Safety team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign on content curation & review[edit]

WPCube.png

I've recently launched an Inspire Campaign to encourage new ideas focusing on content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia volunteers collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge, and we’re looking for your ideas about how to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible. We invite you to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is welcome - your skills and experience can help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign to improve review and curation tasks so that we can make our content more meaningful and accessible! I JethroBT (WMF) 05:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery.

Should FuzzyBot remove all potentially outdated translations?[edit]

Hello, thanks for adding multiple new translations in your language here at Meta-Wiki in recent years. Please join the discussion with your opinion: Should FuzzyBot automatically remove all potentially outdated translations?. Nemo (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Participate in the Inspire Campaign and help address harassment![edit]

NounProject Leaves.png

Through June, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas focusing on addressing harassment toward Wikimedia contributors. The 2015 Harassment Survey has shown evidence that harassment in various forms - name calling, threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation, among others - is pervasive. Available methods and systems to deal with harassment are also considered to be ineffective. These behaviors are clearly harmful, and in addition, many individuals who experience or witness harassment participate less in Wikimedia projects or stop contributing entirely.

Proposals in any language are welcome during the campaign - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign so that we can work together to develop ideas around this important and difficult issue. With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Opt-out instructions)

follow-up to question on SRGP[edit]

Hi Juandev, en:canvassing means "systematicly summoning people up to vote." Regards, --MBq (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, thx.--Juandev (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Your Wishlist proposals[edit]

I'm afraid you have made one too many proposals! Per the rules, you can only make up to three proposals. Please decide which ones are most important to you, and the remaining ones can be archived, where they will continue to be visible and can be picked up by others. Apologies for the inconvenience, and thanks for participating in the survey! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? And how many proposals do I have?--Juandev (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like you have four: 1, 2, 3, 4. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I see, lets archive 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Editing/New tag for notes.--Juandev (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, it's now archived at 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Archive/New tag for notes. Thanks again for participating! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)