User talk:Ruthven

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

Afrikaans | العربية | 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 | 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 | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | 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, Ruthven. 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 if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

Gce (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Global name[edit]

I request usurp Ruthven@global for complete SUL, thanks for the attention. --Ruthven (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

IRC cloak request[edit]

Hello, I request to activate the wikimedia/Ruthven cloak, please. --Ruthven (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Messaggio[edit]

Se l'ho mandata da meta è stato casuale, forse l'avevo aperta sul momento. Però non posso rimandarla, non ho cliccato il salvataggio in copia :D Forse la trovi nella mail spostata nel cestino in automatico, comunque non era essenziale, riguardava il sistema OTRS.

non sto a rimandartela. Se mi ricapita te ne mando una uguale.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

ma sicuro, l'OTRS ha una lunga strada di aggiustamenti davanti a sè. Francamente prevedo tempi così geologici che parlarne ora o fra due mesi o fra sei mesi o io o un altro cambi in sostanza assai poco.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Angelucci[edit]

grazie di esserti "assunto la responsabilità". Sembra una sciocchezza ma già in mailing list di WMI implorai un minimo di finalizzazione un anno fa. Quando si tratta di gioire e lodarsi come comunità c'è la fila, ma poi quando si tratta di metterci la faccia... in particolare mi stupisce che al netto di tante affermazioni assertive che sento in giro off-wiki nulla è chiaro e nessuno ha mai messo (almeno l'ultima volta che ho controllato) due righe in linea guida che stabiliscano quando una pagina bloccata per ragioni giudiziarie può essere sbloccata.

Rimango del mio avviso comunque che certe cose dovrebbe essere discusse in pubblico. Si tratta di un precedente non da poco, bisogna parlarne. Capisco che tutti abbiano timore di far passi falsi in pubblico ma saranno sempre sul lungo periodo meno gravi di non parlarne apertamente. Non dico questo in generale, sia chiaro, ma nel nostro caso. Siamo una comunità non una multinazionale e certe cose devono avere un passaggio pubblico dove sono metabolizzate a livello collettivo.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Re:Translate[edit]

Ho fatto io grazie per la segnalazione intanto guardo in che altre pagine è incluso per sistemarlo. Per sistemarlo andrebbe sostituito al tl nome tl in questo modo la pagina appare nella lingua dell'utente (se ne esiste una traduzione di quel tl) se invece viene inclusa semplicemente con {{}} appaiono i tag translate e la lingua è quella della pagina non quella tradotta. --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 12:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

05:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for ...[edit]

The link to the Italian policy (or guideline) on paid editing. I can only read it in Google translation, so I should review it several times before commenting, but some questions for now.

  • Is it an alternative policy as envisioned by the Terms of Use or is it simply an interpretation and/or strengthening of the ToU?
  • Was it presented to and approved by the community as an alternative policy?
  • Is @Nemo bis: listing it as an alternative policy at the behest of the community?

These questions are important because an alternative policy essentially revokes the "paid part" of the ToU and replaces it with the new policy. Rather it looks to me at first glance, that the policy you linked to is simply an affirmation of the ToU, with perhaps a bit more to strengthen to policy (which is perfectly allowable under the ToU).

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'll talk only about Paid contributions without disclosure, not compare the whole ToU - otherwise we will never end ;)
Comparing WMF ToU and itwiki policies on paid contributions, we can say that they are almost the same (as you noticed yourself), with the difference that on itwiki it is explicitly said that missing to fullfill the requirements on CoI can trigger a ban, i.e. failing to disclose the CoI. Moreover, being a sysop there, I can tell you that the habit now is to ask to the user to write a statement on its user page, disregarding the two other possible practices (there are good reasons for that). The main difference -imho- resides in the username policy, that enforces WMF one.
Above, in the Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud section, to avoid that a user creates an "official" account for a paid contribution, and uses it to enforce its edits above the ones of other users, or simply impersonates another individual or a company, such usernames are blocked immediatly. This is done also because we don't have ways to certify that the user behind the name is really what he/she pretends to be, so it's a way to protect the person/company as well; cf Nome utente and related pages. Lastly, there is obviouly a related policy that forbids spam and contents that promote products/people/campaigns/...
Of course, all these policies have been approved by the cummunity. I hope that it clarifies the matter. --Ruthven (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for the quick response. It looks like I pretty much understand the Italian paid disclosure policy - it makes the WMF Terms of Use slightly stronger. To keep this as simple as possible, I'll suggest that we ignore the Spam and Username policies as not being part of an alternative policy but just supplementing the disclosure policy in the usual way that all policies usually supplement some other policy. In any case those 2 policies aren't crucial to anything I have to say.
I've got 2 concerns here.
  • That a policy meant to strengthen the disclosure requirement might, when listed as an alternative policy, actually weaken the disclosure requirement, and
  • The formalities of listing an alternative policy haven't quite been followed, and I wouldn't want those formalities weakened for other groups following your example.
In any case I don't have any problem accepting the Italian policy or your right to make an alternative policy. I'm just wondering whether this one was intended as and should be listed as an alternative policy. Fine points, I know, but I think they are important.
First consider why you might want to have an officially designated alternative paid disclosure policy. Adopting an alternative policy revokes the "paid part" of the Terms of Use (ToU) and substitutes the new policy for it. That policy can be stronger or weaker than the ToU, and then it can be changed by the regular methods that are used to change any policy. Thus a policy that starts out stronger than the ToU may over time become weaker than the ToU.
The other route to changing the disclosure policy is to have a policy (old or new) that strengthens to ToU but does not officially declare that it is an alternative disclosure policy. This is envisioned in the ToU FAQs here. Simply adding additional requirements, or just stating and interpreting the ToU, without declaring it an alternative policy (and thus revoking the paid part of ToU) means that the ToU still applies and the new requirements apply and if there is any question of the 2 contradicting each other then the stronger one applies.
I contend that if a community wants to confirm or strengthen the ToU disclosure requirement - as appears to be the case with the Italian community - that they would never submit an alternative policy, just strengthen the policy with additional requirements or just interpret the ToU as it applies to their community.
So hopefully you understand that this fine point has some real effect on the meaning of the Italian policy.
The formalities for adopting an alternative policy are here
What you need to do is clearly state at the beginning that you intend to adopt an alternative policy which will revoke the paid disclosure part of the ToU and put the new policy in its place. I did not see that on the discussion page you linked to. If it has been done already, please just point me to that part. If it was sort of intended but didn't state it clearly, I feel you should go back to the page and ask the community again to confirm that that is what they intended.
On the other hand, if the community intended to just slightly strengthen or interpret the ToU all you need to do is remove the Italian entry on the Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies page. You might want to put it on the List of policies related to paid editing page, but there is no requirement for that.
If I've made this too complicated please just ping me. I appreciate your taking a look at this.
Smallbones (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)[edit]

19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Steward[edit]

il prossimo anno steward. Non stare troppo a tirartela, dicutine in pubblico apertamente.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Non è che non ne ho parlato; anzi, ho chiesto pure in giro e -ti confesso- che non sei il solo ad avermi spinto verso la "carica". Il fatto è che ho l'impressione che sia una gran rottura di p. Un vero lavoro da netturbino interwiki :-) --Ruthven (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Quando ti candidano ricorda tutti quelli che te l'hanno proposta in pubblico. E se hanno proposto una cosa delicata come la carica di steward in privato, questo è un metodo tipico di certa gente che si stima molto. Del resto meglio che passino il tempo a fare queste cialtronate su wiki, se lo facessero di più nella vita reale farebbero solo disastri.
Per il resto, se fai sysop su due piattaforme, OTRS e CU non ha senso lamentarsi delle rogne a questo punto. Altrimenti si darebbe l'idea che le rotture di p non sono derivate dai compiti in sè ma da quanto la suddetta piattaforma tenda a "rimuoverle" senza affrontarle. Per esempio se ti chiedessi di fare come su enwiki e rendere pubblici i dati disaggregati di utilizzo dei CU quello sarebbe su itwiki una gran rottura di p. da ottenere perché itwiki rimuoverebbe "elegantemente" queste "rotture". Questo è un esempio che cito dalla curiosa sovrapposizione della discussione in meta sui CU e la parallela discussione in ML sysop su itwiki... a agosto tutti avevano voglia di parlare di CU. Sicuramente in ambito meta così è più difficile "risolvere" le "rotture", ma per questo meta è per chi è bravo. Non per chi si fa dire che è bravo da un gruppo autoreferenziale, ma per chi è bravo davvero.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Please take a look & reply. Thanks. :) Trijnsteltalk 20:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: Yes check.svg Done Thank you! --Ruthven (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)