User talk:UninvitedCompany

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

please help[edit]

I need to contact you for your music... can you write me back? musica@roosfilm.com Thanks!

Ombudsman referral[edit]

See this checkuser case on English - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Specialservice . My IP has been published showing me to be the owner of user accounts specialservice and Lancastria, Specialservice is me but Lancastria is not. Lancastria provides a guide to a person's location as it is the older name for the county of Lancashire. I believe that I have been unjustifiably exposed and that an attempt has been made to reveal my location. I hope this is resolved quickly --77.98.177.54 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

please help[edit]

Privacy violation, hello I am being bothered by a crazy person and want to appearl under "Right to vanish" policy as I feel scared this guy is obsessed with me and knows where I live (he researched my ip) can you help me delete my account! so sick of it all!63.164.145.85 01:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CPOV.[edit]

Incidently, it is true that requesting people here to write only from a CPOV (defined by who ? why only one ?) and requesting from dissenters that they write only under their real name is a bit problematic and not exactly a fair process. (but does not mean there is a cabal... that is, there will be a cabal if this happens.) [--Anthere]

The main thing is to try to keep outlying opinions in context. It's probably healthy to summarizes some of the most plausible criticism from the trolls, but we needn't allow them to hold forth for five paragraphs on the persecution they think they've suffered at the hands of their tormentors. UninvitedCompany 20:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Meta sysop[edit]

Congratulations! You are now a Meta administrator. Please read the deletion policy before deleting anything, and make sure you understand how to edit pages such as the fundraising page before doing so. Angela 17:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


I started Talk:Draft privacy policy#Should we add a "Send a Private Message to this user" link in the interest of greater privacy?... -- BCorr|Брайен 14:45, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


Spam listing of petitiononline.com[edit]

Hi there, I note that you have added petitiononline.com to the spam list. This appears to be a legitimate site and adding this to the spam list also seems to contravene the guidlines on blocking only specific pages where possible rather than whole sites. Would appreciate this being removed from the spam list.

Cheers!

As I have pointed out elsewhere, nearly all of the over 100 links to petitiononline.com site from en were spam, and at the time the site was blacklisted, there was a robot engaging in an automated campaign to add the links to Elvis Presley-related articles. I don't believe there is a good reason to unlist it, and won't do so myself. You may wish to make a request on the "requests for removal" section of the blacklist talk page, though, and someone besides me might see matters differently. UninvitedCompany 19:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

OTRS[edit]

Thanks :-) Anthere

Email contact[edit]

As you are admin on meta, I would like to direct your attention to this. Thank you, M/ 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Election question[edit]

You write: "With regard to non-English projects, I believe that: Most such projects should ultimately become independent of the U.S.-based foundation (in 5-10 years)". What do you mean by this? --Elian 21:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that, when the project grows to the point where there are many langauges that have reached the degree of maturity that en.wp is now approaching, most of these projects should become completely self-governing. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that projects that have reached critical mass have (IMO) a moral right to be self-governing rather than have to coordinate a portion of their decisionmaking with an English-speaking office in Florida. Another is that I believe that an English-speaking office in Florida is poorly equipped to deal with a dust-up of the magnitude of Seigenthaler in, say, the Japanese Wikipedia. The language, culture, and legal environment are too different. My vision for the future is that the larger projects will be independent peers coordinating amongst each other as they see fit rather than being all formally part of one U.S.-based organization.
Obviously something like that must be done slowly and with great care, as there are technical, legal, financial, leadership, and community issues involved.
Projects in languages that have small numbers of speakers may never be fully self-sustanting and IMO should not be spun out in this fashion.
UninvitedCompany 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I just came to this talk page exactly to ask clarification on the point raised by Elian. Can you tell us more of how you see relationships between foundation and chapters ? Thanks Anthere

My understanding is that some people see the chapters as having purely a fundraising objective while others see them as self-governing groups dealing with local issues. Although it may vary from one chapter to the next I don't think there's ever been total agreement on the relationship. It seems to me that the chapters should ultimately become (again in the longer 5-10 year time horizon) the means of local independent decisionmaking. Whatever the relationship may be today, the chapters serve as a means to identify the leadership that we ultimately will need. UninvitedCompany 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, there has indeed not been total agreement on the relationship between chapters and Foundation, but the chapters committee is working on it. I just need a clarification on what you say above. When you talk about leadership and and local issues, can you be a little clearer as to what you put under those words. What leadership? In what context? Which issues? Thank you! notafish }<';> 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Election question: volunteers and the Foundation[edit]

You say in your statement that if elected, making more extensive and more organized use of volunteers to deal with the daily work of the Foundation is one of the first things you will put on your agenda. That is a nice goal. How do you think it should be achieved? // habj 21:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have two things in mind. The first is to get the board out of the daily business of the foundation by moving things like the special projects subcommittee to report to Brad rather than the board. For those unaware, the special projects subcommittee is responsible for reviewing proposals for new sister projects. The board is poorly equipped to staff and monitor such subcommittees, in my view, because it is a distraction from the board's proper role of fundraising, partnerships, recruiting and selection of officers, and oversight. That is a situation that will get worse as we make more of an effort to recruit and involve outside directors.
The second thing is the creation of more named volunteer positions with specific responsibilities. Project-by-project liaison is one example of this, and as I've said I think there should be a foundation contact for each project. I think there should be a Small Projects Coordinator to be sure that such projects are operating in accordance with the Foundation's goals and values. I think there should be a Content Reuse Coordinator to deal with routine requests from mirrors and repackagers. I think there should be an Appeals Coordinator to sift through (and escalate when appropriate) complaints from people who believe they've been unfairly treated by the administrators or Arbitration Committee of a particular project. And I think that there should be more well-defined contact points for things like MediaWiki development or OTRS operations, which already have large numbers of volunteers.
The overall goals are to have accessible people with clear roles, so that people with legitimate concerns don't have to try to compete for the attention of Brad or a board member. That scales better, and it provides an opportunity to recognize people who are interested in such work and willing to invest the time.
UninvitedCompany 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I discovered this[edit]

I discovered this. A user asked you three questions. Where are they? Do you often delete questions from your talk page instead of answering them? If not, then could you please answer them? Cverg 07:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Making sure...[edit]

That you don't forget my question which might have been drowned in the rest. See abvove, on the chapter issue. Thanx! notafish }<';> 10:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw your question and am not sure that a more detailed reply would be appropriate because the details should be worked out over time with everyone involved. UninvitedCompany 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Composition of the board[edit]

What is your opinion on how the board should be constituted ? Do you think it should exclusively be composed of editors of our projects ? If so, rather elected or appointed ? Do you think we should have some people external to our community ? In those listed in the past two months on Foundation -l, can you list those you think would be great board members and those who might reveal dangerous for our dream ? Do you have names to suggest for board expansion ?

I believe that the project would be best served by finding board members who are experienced editors in the constituent projects, and who also have the background to manage an organization the size that the Foundation is likely to become in the next few years. I think that I fit that description, which is why I've chosen to run. We are fortunate in that there are several other candidates who fit that as well. The problem inherent in recruiting such people is that most of them are at a point in their life where they have other jobs and commitments that prevent them from being involved full-time, and as a consequence the board's role must be limited as I have said before.
There may also be a role for outside directors, chiefly because of the connections with other organizations they might bring to the Foundation. However, I believe that the majority of board seats should be held by project participants because it is vital that the board understand how the projects really work.
I don't believe there are any easy answers on board selection methodology and can see that there are benefits from both election-based and appointment-based approaches. I retain an open mind.
I don't believe that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the suitability of any particular individuals for board seats.
UninvitedCompany 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Do you think the Foundation should be a publisher ? If not, do you think it should control what is publish, through the authorization (or not) of use of our brands ? Do you know of one project currently trying to be edited and in conflict with the Foundation on that matter ?

I do not have activist views in this area and defer to the judgement of counsel.
UninvitedCompany 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Money[edit]

What should be the business plan of the Foundation ? How would you suggest it earns money ?

I believe that the foundation is capable of being financed indefinitely through donations. I believe that advertising should be a last resort and that any partnerships should be evaluated critically to be sure that they meet our strategic goals.
UninvitedCompany 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Threat and forces[edit]

Can you cite 3 forces of the Foundation ? Can you cite the main 3 threats for our projects as of today?

Regarding the Foundation itself, I believe the three major threats at this time are:
  1. The difficulty of maintaining transparent, accessible, effective decisionmaking
  2. The dominance of enwp in the Foundation's thinking
  3. The possibility of legal action that could jeopardize the Foundation's activities
UninvitedCompany 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vision[edit]

Can you cite the current three main projects/agreements/priorities of the board ?

If you had to decide which are the 5 most important tasks for the board to accomplish in the time of your term, which ones would they be ? (be practical)

I'd like to refer you to my candidate statement, where I have addressed this. UninvitedCompany 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anthere

wikizine[edit]

Hi,

You have indicated that you wish to accept my offer to post your statement in Wikizine. (Wikizine/election 2006). But until now I have not received you statement. Please post in on my talk page (max +/- 300 words please) or remove your name form that list or at least inform me. I need to know what your intentions are for the planing of the publication of those statements.

Greetings, Walter 21:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Hello!

The Wikipedia Signpost, a community-newspaper in the English Wikipedia, is covering the Board of Trustees elections and will be featuring each of the candidates in next week's issue. As such, we would appreciate it if you would take some time to answer a few interview questions. Each candidate will be asked the same questions; by no means, though, feel obligated to answer any (or even) all of them, though we would greatly appreciate it if you did.

Some of the questions may be a bit redundant to the candidate information you have filled out already. This is both for convenience and for giving you the opportunity to expand on some of them a bit. However, we ask that you keep all responses brief, limiting them to no more than one or two paragraphs each.

You may leave replies to my English Wikipedia talk page, my meta talk page, or email them to me. I would appreciate it if responses are in on or before this Saturday, August 26; please have them in at the latest on Sunday the 27th in order for them to be included in Monday's issue.

As always, the Signpost reserves the right to re-distribute the questions and replies, shorten any responses if necessary, and take any other editorial action deemed appropriate.

Thanks again for your time, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Your name:
    Steve Dunlop
  2. Your username most commonly used:
    UninvitedCompany
  3. Your current geographic location, along with your age:
    Minneapolis area, 40
  4. Projects with significant contributions (please both name the language and project, and link to your contributions)
    English Wikipedia [1], Meta [2], Commons [3]
  5. Do you have any rights (i.e. admin, bureaucrat) or positions (i.e. dispute resolution, CheckUser, etc.) on any of those projects? If so, which ones? When did you get elected or promoted for each one?
    On ENWP, I have admin (since April 2004), bureaucrat (since October 2004), checkuser, and oversight rights, and am a former member of the arbitration committee.
  6. Do you hold any universal rights (i.e. steward, etc.) for Wikimedia Projects? If so, since when?
    No
  7. When did you first start contributing to Wikimedia projects? Why and how did you initially join?
    In March 2003, I was introduced to Wikipedia by a coworker who used it as an example of how our internal corporate Wiki could work. I became intrigued and have remained involved both because of my interest in online communities in general and because of the value I see in the content we are producing.
  8. Briefly describe your career ("real-life"). How do you think this will help you be a successful Board member?
    I've worked as a software developer and in various related management and IT roles for approximately 20 years. One recent employer was a small startup firm made up of four individuals, where I was involved in organizational matters and fundraising in addition to writing software and building a larger technical team. The software work I have done gives me a good deal of insight into the technical side of the Foundation's projects. I believe that the management and organizational work I've done in my career gives me some insight into the funding, organizational, financial, and legal issues that the Foundation faces now and will face in the coming years.
  9. Of all the candidates right now, why do you stand out from the field? What makes you the best candidate?
    Like several other excellent candidates, I have long involvement with Wikipedia and the Foundation and also have the real-world expertise to make a strong contribution to the board.
  10. A knowledge of several languages has been cited as a key requirement for a Board member. Do you speak any other languages other than English? Why do you think language is or isn't critical to the Board?
    I do speak some Spanish, having grown up bilingual and travelled in Spanish-speaking countries, although I don't attempt to contribute in that language.
    No candidate for the Board is fluent in all the languages used by the Foundation's constituent projects, something that would be nearly impossible for anyone to achieve due to the fact that we have projects in substantially all of the world's languages. I believe that the Foundation has to be structured in a way that makes up for this, and I have suggested designation of two "Foundation contacts" for each project as one way to do this.
  11. What do you expect to do while serving on the Board? What are your expectations?
    I expect to participate in scheduled meetings, where I will come prepared. I believe that the board should be active in fundraising and selection of officers and would hope to spend a good deal of time in those areas. I hope to have the opportunity to provide informal advice to others involved in the Foundation's leadership. I am prepared to speak publicly about the Foundation's work if requested, and plan if elected to attend Wikimania as well as any meetups that coincide with my itenerary. I want to be accessible and involved and to that end plan on maintaining as much involvement on the Wikis as counsel will consider prudent.
  12. What can you bring to the Board? What can you contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation?
    I have addressed this in earlier questions.
  13. Describe the one issue that you think is most pressing and pertinent to the Foundation right now, and how you would approach the situation.
    I think that Foundation decisionmaking is widely peceived to be slow and unresponsive to the community. Part of this is due to the board being involved in too many areas that would be better delegated to other individuals or groups, and part of it is due to the board lacking effective communication with each project. I also think there's a lack of clarity as to the boundaries between Foundation matters and Project matters. I've mentioned above the need for "Foundation contacts" for each project to try to address some of this, and some of it is best addressed through structural changes which I'll address in the next question.
  14. What is your vision of the Board in the Foundation heirarchy?
    I think that the board should set up a decisionmaking structure rather than make individual decisions itself. The proper role of the board is to select officers and review financial, legal, and personnel matters on an ongoing basis. There is also a fundraising role and an advisory role. The board should respect the independence of each project and language, and refrain from major changes that could jeopardize the success we've achieved already.
    More specifically, I believe that the subcommittees on things like special projects should be moved out from the board and instead be responsible to the executive director. I think there should be greater use of specific positions in the Foundation that have well-defined responsibilities, that can be staffed on a paid or volunteer basis.
  15. How do you feel about the current leadership?
    I have worked with Anthere, Angela, and Jimbo for a long time and have a great deal of respect for each of them. I've exchanged emails with Brad Patrick and Danny Wool a few times and find them to be knowledgable and easy to work with.
  16. As a Board member, you will be serving as a representative of the communities. Do you think you can represent the community and understand its concerns? Why?
    I've been involved at ENWP for a long time, and have been involved in community issues here as long as I've been around. I don't think there's any serious question as to whether I can represent ENWP to the Foundation. The other communities differ and I know that, and I'm willing to listen to them and understand their concerns. And unlike some candidates, I've been involved in smaller projects outside the Foundation, like MeatBall, and I was at ENWP while it was still fairly small. Therefore, I understand the differences that have to do with scale.
  17. What do you think of the Wikimedia Foundation and its mission in general? If you could change one thing about the running of the Foundation, what would you change?
    I support the mission as it exists today. If it were completely up to me, I think that I might make a very slight change in emphasis away from creating new projects and toward caring for the core of successful, established projects.
  18. If elected, can and will you devote the appropriate time and other resources needed to serve on the Board?
    While I cannot allow the Foundation to become my full-time job, I have enough flexibility in my various other commitments to participate at an appropriate level.
  19. Have you ever attended Wikimania or any other meetup? What role do you think these meetups play?
    I've attended a meetup in the Minneapolis area. Such meetups are valuable in that they humanize the interaction in a way that text can not. On the other hand, they favor Wikipedians who have the ability to travel and who have the necessary spoken language skills. The Foundation's projects are really about web collaboration and there is a very real risk of alienating contributors if much decisionmaking occurs at meetups where there are practical barriers for many participants.
  20. Please list (and link) any other pages where you have gotten questions and comments pertaining to the Board elections; we are compiling all of the questions and would appreciate this.
    m:User talk:UninvitedCompany
  21. What would you say to a potential voter who is undecided right now?
    Vote for someone who you can work with, who understands how corporations work, and who is serious about the Foundation and its projects -- even if it's not me.
  22. Is there anything else you would like to mention?
    The Foundation isn't structured like its constituent projects and it's important to keep the differences in mind when considering candidates. The Foundation is a corporation that has nontrivial legal and financial obligations, and it is structured accordingly. There is paid staff, and a great deal of interaction with people outside of Wikipedia, who as a rule are unfamiliar with the "way we do things." The decisionmaking model is different, and the best candidates are the ones who can deal with that well.

UninvitedCompany 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks again.

Questions to candidate[edit]

Ethics

In a recent wikiEN-I en posting (8/19/2006), Jimmy Wales wrote:

"Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something good, not automatons puking out soulless "content" [...] we are good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in

the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way."

  1. Are you in agreement with that statement?
  2. If you do, what would you do as a board member to bring that understanding to life in our project?

≈ jossi ≈ 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that producing a neutral, accurate, comprehensive, and free reference work is an objective good, and that is why I have remained passionate about Wikipedia. Ethics is important to me and it touches us in the way we approach controversial content, privacy, attribution, and many other matters. The post you refer to is one in a long discussion about the limits of what we can publish, which is a tough area. There is a lack of consensus about where we draw the line, particularly with regard to verifiably accurate information that we may not wish to publish due to ethics concerns. Our core beliefs are in conflict because many of us (including me) believe that free flow of information is a good thing. But there are many specific cases where this isn't true. I advocated for the deletion of a procedure for synthesis of w:acetone peroxide from WikiBooks, for example, because I believe that making that information readily available poses a safety risk. And some of the toughest OTRS email's I've handled have involved requests from people to remove accurate, verifiable information that negatively affects them. Most of these I've left to others because of the conflict between openness and doing good.
I think the important thing to bear in mind in the context of the election is that while the Foundation may suggest and may lead by example in these areas, it generally isn't the Foundation's role to prescribe editorial policy. It's an important distinction and one that I think should be more loudly and clearly articulated. As important as things related to w:WP:LIVING are to me, I don't think the Foundation should be creating policy by fiat. Instead, editors should be educated and given the opportunity to see for themselves the sort of trouble we end up creating for ourselves and others when we turn a blind eye to the real-world effects of our content. UninvitedCompany 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, that is a befitting one for a person that may one day be on the board of trustees. Good luck with your candidancy. You have my support. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Trusted leadership"?--Hannes2 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

People who enjoy widespread respect among their community, who wholeheartedly agree with our core values, who have natural talent and real-world experience as leaders, who have consistently good judgement, who put the long-term goals of the Foundation above their personal political aspirations, and who have a track record that demonstrates a commitment to the Foundation's projects that is great enough that they won't lose faith when setbacks occur. UninvitedCompany 17:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Board meeting[edit]

Hi! The new Board member is expected to attend a Board meeting in Frankfurt 20-23 October, so you are highly expected to aim to keep these dates free or book time off work in case you are successful in your bid to be on the Board. Jon Harald Søby 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will keep the dates clear. UninvitedCompany 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Dijxtra[edit]

Hello, these are generic questions I decided to submit to every candidate. If you already answered the question in your application, skip it. If you consider any question to be to private for you to answer, feel free to state that and accept my apology for being to intrusive. I also ask you to pardon my English since spellcheckers don't check grammar :-) Here are the questions:

1. Privacy policy of Wikimedia Foundation projects states that: "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations: 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement" If such subpoena occurs, would you agree that Wikimedia Foundation complies ASAP or would you request Foundation to dispute that subpoena in court, like Google did in January this year? Let me remind you that the second option requires money to be spent.

I originally wrote item 1. of the privacy policy that you quote above and chose the wording to be as narrow as possible while still in compliance with the law. If it were up to me, the degree to which I would encourage the Foundation to fight a subpoena would depend on the nature of the request and the investigation associated with it as well as the opinion of counsel. I would encourage the Foundation to contest any wide-ranging subpoena or one that appears to attempt to stifle debate or public discourse. On the other hand, I would encourage the Foundation to comply (within the limits of the privacy policy) with any reasonable request for data related to a criminal investigation involving use of our service for harrasment.

2. What is your opinion of WP:OFFICE? Do you think that:

  • It is very good solution to bureaucratisation of Wikipedia, allowing a swift action in cases which need such action. We should widen the circle of people who have the power to use WP:OFFICE.
  • It is very good solution to bureaucratisation of Wikipedia, allowing a swift action in cases which need such action. (And only Danny should use WP:OFFICE privilege)
  • I don't like the thing, but we need it so we don't get sued.
  • Community is above any user and we should think of WP:OFFICE as temporary measure until we find a way for the whole community to act swiftly in cases of libel accusations.
  • We should move our servers to jurisdiction which makes it hard for people to sue us for libel.
I believe that, as presently structured, WP:OFFICE creates more problems than it solves. I think that the controversy surrounding the policy and its use is due in large measure to a lack of open, effective communication between the Foundation and project participants. There is a need for people who understand both sides and enjoy the trust of both sides to help build bridges. In the end that means that the policy needs to evolve and that there should be greater respect for the difficulties OTRS volunteers, Danny, Jimbo, and Brad face in dealing with potential lawsuits.

3. Have you ever been on a paylist of anybody/any organization/any firm connected to any current member of the board? Please understand this question in the broadest sense possible.

Well, I've worked for a number of largish corporations in which some board members are likely to have owned a few shares of stock. Other than that extremely tenuous connection, the answer is no. In particular, I have no involvement with Wikia other than the odd edit on some of the wikis hosted there, and have never had anything to do with Bomis.

Thank you for your time, Dijxtra 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate statement[edit]

Hi UninvitedCompany. Thank you by correct the errors in my candidate statement, I make some copyedit in yours. Good luck! --Zuirdj 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Volunteering for OTRS.[edit]

  • I'd like to join info-en, what should I do?Voice-of-All 01:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to volunteer. Voice of All recommended that I leave you a message. Naconkantari 06:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Me-too"ism. And my Meta page is prettier than theirs. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
See OTRS/IRC_channel.

Please check out en:User:Martinp23 who volunteered. I gave him an intro at #wikimedia-otrs last night, and I think he'll be a big help. If you give him access I'll keep an eye on his tickets for a while with suggestions if needed. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19t18:14z

AYUDA[edit]

Pienso que como muchas personas yo ingrese a participar en Wikipedia muy animadamente, sin embargo me tope con una gran traba, los wikipedistas que se creen dueños del saber y esta web, yo soy un novato en wikipedia y las veces que he entrado me dedico mas a procurar ver como arreglo la web de una artista joven latina, que viene sobresaliendo en el mundo del espectaculo.

Me parecio lindo poder colocar una biografia de ella, pero mi colaboracion primero llevo el irrelevante, no si el arte sea irrelevante o es irrelevante porque es una propuesta de un extraño... bueno en fin , luego de irrelevante paso a copy nose que? pero de alli le quitaron ese calñificativo y paso a votacion para borrado ???? whath??? y mas contrariado cuando dicen que pse puede editar bien para que no sea eliminado, porque no usan el tiempo en corregior los trabajos malos en vez de usarlo para crear foros y otros? porque no le dicen a uno como corregir los trabajos????

Luego veo quienes solicitan el borrado, al parecer gente que les gusta les llamen duquesa, excelencia, divinidad??? queeeee, esta es una pagina que pretende revolucionar la educacion??? hacer que persista el por siempre las cosas que deben de serlo??? no me parece que sea el criterio usado el mejor ç, usted como uno de los lideres por favor ayude para que existan estos cambios en la conducta de los administradores, bibliotecarios y en fin

Bueno sino nuevamente perdi el tiempo aca en este reino de brujas, condes, duquesas y reyes del saber :(

Ahhhhh mi contribucion fue sobre Mia Rauz

indignodewiki 20:21, 05 Septiembre 2006

9/11 Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, Steve. In light of the four discussions listed below, what course of action would you take with regard to the 9/11 Wikipedia if you were elected to the board?

Looking forward to your response. Thanks. Andreyi 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is a trivially minor matter compared to the much more significant decisions facing the board and would oppose board involvement in the decision. UninvitedCompany 20:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OTRS sk[edit]

Hallo. I am an admin on sk:Wikipedia, sk:Wikibooks and sk:Wikisource. We would like to start the OTRS queues info-sk and permissions-sk, I hope you could assist us with this? Thank you! --AtonX 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Foundation issues[edit]

Not knowing who to turn to, I see that you created the first version of Foundation issues and that is is not much changed since then - so here we go. (Gotta ask someone, you can always point me somewhere else.)

I have been told that this page is often referred to on English Wikipedia. The fact that it is only translated to one other language makes me inclined to believe that this is not the case on most projects in other languages than English. In the policy/guideline/etc mess, what "status" does it have? How official is it? Why is it here, and not at foundationwiki? Should we have it listed at Translation requests? If there is reason to suspect that there will soon be changes to it, that is not a good idea of course. I obviously don't have a clue, that is why I am asking. // habj 14:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

asking for ombudsman help.[edit]

Hi, this request comes to you since you are listed as a member of the Ombudsman commission.

If this is not your business, don't bother; yet it would be nice to let me know where to turn, if you know, or forward my petition for help to the right place.

This is not a complaint directly against checkuser abuse, but against a beurocrat soliciting checkuser information in a manner, and under circumstances, which I see not in line with CheckUser Policy. In part, he did not get the data he was asking for, see here, and there, where he started off already with false or highly questionable assertions.

Is it possible for the wmf, to remove sysop or beurocrat rights based on conduct, without having a de-election in the respective wiki? There is this closely related request (btw. also giving more precise causes for my doubt against the abovementioned checkuser requests — If I am possibly misinterpreting or misunderstanding the policy, let me know, please.)

Thank you. --Purodha Blissenbach 06:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Our role as the ombudsman commission is limited to investigating misuse of the checkuser tool itself. UninvitedCompany 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Purodha Blissenbach 14:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

sk OTRS queue[edit]

Hallo. Your name is listed among the contact persons at OTRS as a contact person. We would like to start the queues info-sk and permissions-sk for the Slovak Wikimedia projects. I have been trying to get in touch with one of the contact person for a while, but I have not received a response. Could you please help? Thank you! (w:sk:User:AtonX / w:sk:User talk:AtonX). --AtonX 09:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Handling email for Wikimedia[edit]

Hi - I'm interested in voluteering for the OTRS handling email system. How can I get involved? Auroranorth 10:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request to Ombudsman[edit]

Dear Sir,

I was a gentleman every time, every day in every discussion even under attack. I never insult anyone and never offend any user.

If anyone send me a hyperlink with one only insult I am guilt. But is impossible because I am courteous every time.

I only give my support to other user against a group of users who systematically erases intersecting articles.

They accused me be a sock puppet, like you know. They blockade me because of that. But, after some considerations (like I forward to you in the last email) the burocrats raise the blockade.

In this time I never started a discussion and run way from the disorders. I only reply messages to me. But, the group of users I told you, continue insisted I am a sock puppet, and tell if I am not a sock puppet I need to be blockade in the same way for infinite time.

They want me a way of Wikipédia because I disagree and I am capable to argue very well against their actions. I am very courteous and serious in my discussion, so they never have any pretext or excuse to punish me. However, they tried many times. They tried telling I said words and expressions never told.

Some weeks ago the other user (who they accuse me to be his sock) write this article. They take the article to erase. After two weeks, the community voted to maintain the article. After one week, the article, with a absurd pretext, was taken again to vote to erase. One more time the article win to be maintain.

Two days ago I edited this article (B), and the same person (the leader of the group) reversed my edition with any reason. But other administrator replace the article again, because is a good edition.

Today, I decided start this article… I write the entire article. However, the group once again attacks me and proposes the article to erase. I argue again. They accuse me to vandalism because I write this article. But I place in article every references. Some references to MIT and to other wikipédias.

So, they decide make a voting to decide if I am a sock puppet and If I need to be blockade. This is not in the rules. They make this poll only to erase me from wikipédia.

This voting is illegal, the administrator who promote the voting wrote this is only to him know the opinion of the community. So, 9 users (the group – and only 9 of the group of 14) vote telling I am a sock puppet – but they don’t write any evidence of this. And I write a lot of facts to prove I am not sock puppet, like edit in the same time with a distance of 300Km (like you can see from the IP’s). Anyone of the burocrats vote telling I am a sock puppet.

14 users (the same 9) and more 5, vote to blocked med. 5 users vote to not blocked me and two retire the vote to not blocked me – may with afraid of reprisal, retaliation or revenge of this group.

The wikipédia is more then 9 or 14 users. If you take a look in in the voting to erase the page I told you (this - ) you see more the 9 users to vote.

They blockade me to the infinite. Why? What I make? Please send me every hyperlink where I disrupted, where I was rude or ill-bred. Ask the group only one hyperlink.

A) http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidelidade&diff=7314278&oldid=7277748 In this case the leader of the group make a big campaign against me, because was when I was blockade with the accusation of sock puppet. Because of this, only because of this, some users change the vote from to maintain to erase.

B) http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidelidade&diff=7314278&oldid=7277748 This was after the burocrats rise the blockaded, was a retaliation

C) http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Implicar This is my last article. I was trying as best as I can to write the article as right as a trivet. But I was blacked in this exact time. Coincidence? No. And some of the users are voting to erase because they don’t agree with the title and don’t know nothing about subject. The title is implicate/implication and some of them thinks is better implying. The article was write by me based in one of the best sellers about the subject. A book from Allan and Barbara Pease… But other books are in the reference. What kind of wikipédia is that? A group of users can make what they want. And create selective and arbitrary rules only to blacked.

One of the members of the group wrote this to other user : http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Incognitus&oldid=7397540 The translation is “I ever was told the Portuguese are donkeys but I never thought was so stupid” – After that phrase he wrote the Portuguese only know rink red wine and heat olives. This user is Brazilian.

Note: This group of users, are administrators, but with the under the stress of the circumstances, because they make mistakes over mistakes only to attack me and other 5 users. Know we are 2 blacked – They blocked too the others sometimes, and others administrators don’t agree, and rise the Blocked, but they blocked again in the same time and the other administrators don’t make anything because they didn’t want a fight.

IMPORTANT – The other user blocked (my friend) was blocked today too. And in the last two weeks he never edit or disucss any think. Only yesterday and today the edit tree or four times and only to vote and reply two messages from me and one message from other user asking his vote. And he is blocked again after be rise the blocked for suspicions of use of sock puppet. In this time he didn’t edit ony vote two or three times yesterday and today. In a normal voting.

Sincerely,

Rui Resende

ratresende@gmail.com

My user in PT Wikipédia

Dear Sir,

Amazing.

And more:

I tell you the user http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Ozalid did decide make a voting to decide if I am a sock puppet and If I need to be blockade.

I tell you too this is not in the rules. They make this poll only to erase me from wikipédia. So the voting is illegal to to a real propose to blockaded me.

Like I write to you, only 9 users vote telling I am a sock puppet – but they don't write any evidence of this. And I write a lot of facts to prove I am not sock puppet, like edit in the same time with a distance of 300Km (like you can see from the IP's). Anyone of the burocrats vote telling I am a sock puppet.

And only 14 users (the same 9) and more 5, vote to blocked med. And not 5 users vote to not blocked me and two retire the vote to not blocked me – may with afraid of reprisal, retaliation or revenge of this group. Near the 2/3 to make this decissions respectability they get.

BUT AMAZING is the proponent of this pool casted vote for the other users. So, from the 14 users who vote to blocked me only a few of them really vote. The proponente vote from the other users because HE INFER, PRESUME, DEDUCE, GUESS their orientation of vote.

I was blacked with any evidence or any charce with basis, reason or motive, and not even a single prof about my disturp.

What is this?

Rui Resende

88.157.78.22 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Wikipedians Plight[edit]

Dear Steve,

I am writing this to bring to your notice, that all the IP addresses of Sri Lanka Telecom ADSL service (the only ADSL internet provider in Sri Lanka) has been blocked, because my self and another user were blocked as sockpuppets of the same user, which is not the case.

We provided a whole a lot of information to the blocking admins including one editors scanned passport and id details, however convincing the information was, we still remain blocked.

Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT) provides ADSL to thousands of people and it allocates ip's from the same pool to multiple users , hence time to time the users may share the same ip addresses several times. Please intervene and help us on this issue.

Regards Arsath aka Netmonger Netmonger 12:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman Referral[edit]

In regards to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHECKUSER

"Privacy violation? If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission."

Please note that so-called "private" uses of check user are occurring as seen here. How can someone report a privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used?

Please consider this a formal complaint as I will also advise the Stewards. 64.229.31.192 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez OTRS[edit]

I need to open an OTRS on the Matt Sanchez article, could you please advise?

Matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.com

Admin confirmations[edit]

Your rights were removed after the yearly confirmations. Cbrown1023 talk 00:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Musical score transcription project proposal[edit]

Maybe this project interests you: Requests for comment/Musical score transcription project proposal.--Micru (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)