Thanks for your input, I've fixed the double redirect on Foundation wiki. --M/ 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Ottava is requesting "immediate action" against you. You're safe. They won't take action, but I figured you should know that Ottava wants you banned. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I kind of suspected they might do something like this - it's always a risk when asking for NPOV in this topic area. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 17:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's not "they," it's Ottava Rima. "He," though I suppose you can use the gender-neutral "they." The area is very hot, to be sure, but Ottava has long been obsessed by it. --Abd (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Abd Indeed in my comment I'm using the word "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun (as I don't know Ottava's gender). As for your comment on Sj's talk page, I have requested Ottava's comments be oversighted (I stand by my description of accusing someone of having paedophilic secrets as libellous) but as yet the oversight team have not responded to me. If this were en.wp I would indeed expect a user making such accusations to be banned (but of course Ottava is already banned from there for similar behaviour). Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 14:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. There is precedent. There was a flap on en.wikiversity. A user wanted to discuss "child protection" issues, on my user talk page. I shut that down immediately -- the user is cooperative -- but, long story short, a probationary custodian blocked the user anyway, and when another custodian handled that (routinely, making sure that all legitimate concerns were addressed before unblocking), he came to meta and made accusations. The filing was a repeat of what was on Wikiversity, doomed from the start. His later comments were oversighted.. I'll mention that the oversighting followed from my emailed complaint to stewards-l, as I recall. It can take some time.
- Upshot: he was desysopped. He had zero support, beyond an IP comment. Notice he mentions OR. Mostly OR has stayed out of trouble, but he did comment in this affair..
- OR was also blocked on Commons for similar highly tendentious behavior. (I'd say he's really banned, but they did not make it formal, though he had clearly "exhausted the patience of the community.") --Abd (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Suppression of personal attack
As per your request, the off-topic comment aimed at you has been suppressed. Apologies for a tardy response, another oversighter had asked for comment about your request and I was presuming that they were taking action, however, apparently not. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I hope that is now the end of that matter. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 22:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
23:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)