User talk:Marshallsumter/Archive 2017
Add topicOut of curiosity why are you opposing based on the stewards not being active at wikiversity? I could understand if that was their home wiki but for many of them (probably all) it isn't. They generally only take actions at projects if there is a request on meta for them to. I don't seem to see any recent requests for Steward intervention on Wikiversity. Not nocking you for anything but just curious on the logic behind your choices. --Cameron11598 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Reply
- Thanks for the interest! Wikiversity is visited on average by about nine different stewards during a year, mostly helping fight spam and vandalism and other constructive edits. We really appreciate that hence the positive votes! The negative votes are to help encourage the others to stop by and contribute! Occasionally unusual situations arise that need or require a steward. It's great to know that one is reasonably close in time and events! None are from our project! --Marshallsumter (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Reply
- Cameron11598, thanks for raising this question. Marshallsumter, in the last year you voted against my election for steward claiming that "Has made some 187 edits to Wikiversities, but none since 2012. Sorry for your loss!". This is not the truth. I contribute to the Portuguese Wikiversity every year, as you can see here. This led me to have a doubt: you consider edits only on English Wikiversity? Obviously this is an issue of the past, but, as Marshallsumter commented above, I also decided to clarify this point. I received some (40%?) opposing votes without any plausible or even unjustified. This is really, really demotivating and, I think, many users do not apply for steward due these reasons. Kind regards. Érico (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Reply
- @Marshallsumter: I think I get what you are getting at, however I don't think its fair to expect someone who isn't familiar with wikiversity to spend their time at that project, unless otherwise required by their duties as a steward. My suggestion would be to find an administrator from Wikiversity who is active at multiple projects and encourage them to run for steward, otherwise it seems kind of pointy. There are currently 882 separate projects the stewards are responsible for. I don't think its reasonable to expect them to be active or even semi-active at every single one of those projects. Thats just my perspective, I'm just offering another view that perhaps you haven't considered. --Cameron11598 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Reply
- I can say, having read through all the confirmation discussions of the steward election committee since 2012, that these sort of opposes are dismissed as irrelevant and carry zero weight in the final decision. If you want to read my take on what being a steward really is, you are welcome to here. --Rs chen 7754 06:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Reply
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Move_Beta_Wikiversity_to_Incubator_2&oldid=16970490 --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Reply
Stewards do not generally want anyone but stewards monkeying with request pages. They want minimum disruption and churning there. They don't want arguments, just whatever facts they might need to make a decision, generally not anything other than the clearest and simplest of analysis. Stewards want quick and simple, generally, and they are overworked and underpaid.
Removing an edit creates another notification for their watchlists, for no purpose. Even gross sock edits, IP crap, etc., will be left there. It does no harm! Obvious vandalism is removed on sight. Recent changes patrollers handle it.
We now have tons of fun on Wikiversity. All best handled by w:WP:RBI. These are trolls and they want to create arguments. They will deliberately say stupid arguments that tempt others into refuting them. There, RBI is okay. Notice that Tegel -- a steward now -- quickly reverted edits to my talk page and also globally locked accounts. We should no longer be creating steward requests unless a substantial period elapses without action. I may create an LTA meta page for this troll. Stewards have seen it all before. They handle spammers with higher spam volume, routinely. I'm not creating documentation at this time. If I want to study something, I will be doing it off-wiki -- and not in public. I am expecting global attack. This troll has done it all before. I know the real name, and will respond as necessary in the real world, but I will make no threats. This user is very, very dangerous, but some of his targets are not easily bullied and he may already be in legal hot water. Every move he makes tightens the noose he has created. From what I know, he escaped, in the past, global steward response. Had he let go, what he is getting now would not have happened. These guys, in order to defeat global attacks like this, will tolerate substantial collateral damage. (i.e., range blocks, and there is a case where a steward blocked the entire eastern seabord of the U.S. to stop a banned user. But we get to sit back and watch. The troll is calling down the thunder, not us.
Heh! https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tegel may have used nuke. One command, takes seconds. I did not request Tegel do anything. However, if I were going to do so, I'd do it by email or email to the steward request list. The massive disruption, and especially when accompanied by threats of disruption, insured that the stewards would take on the task. And there are people in the community with nothing better to do than watch stuff like this and report where necessary. I don't have to do it. Instead, I will quietly continue research at this time. because I want to create no new incentive for them without necessity. I know much more about them now than I have revealed in public, from independently developed evidence that confirms what others have found. Communities are far stronger than any individual. --Abd (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Reply
- Didn't know that but steward/checkuser Ruslik0 reverted my deletion of potentially libelous comments from illegal sock puppets, so I hope they are legally okay with having those comments visible. I'm not sure why they referred to it as voting. But, I was overjoyed to see Tegel beat me to reverting all those illegal sock puppet edits! Both recent socks have been globally locked! --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Reply
Hi Marshallsumter/Archive 2017,
I am reaching out to you because you signed up to receive updates about the Global Wikimedia survey.[1]
We will be hosting a public event online to present the data, a few examples on how teams will be using it for annual planning, and what are next steps for this project. The event will take place on Tuesday, October 10, at 9:00 am PST (1600 UTC), and the presentation will be in English. You can watch the livestream here, and ask question via IRC on #wikimedia-office.
If you are unable attend, you can also find the report on meta, and watch the recording of the event at a later time.
We hope to have you join us online! -- María Cruz 23:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Reply