Dronebogus

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Dronebogus. 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). Also worthwhile acquainting yourself with the functions of global user pages. Happy editing!

~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Answer at the discussion of Dronebogus

Dronebogus, I created the proposal to Wiki Bible because I believe in the Bible. I am divulging the word of God. Please, change your opinion for in favour of the Wiki Bible, and you evangelicals, please, vote in favour of the Wiki Bible.

Leonardo José Raimundo (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Leonardo José Raimundo, https://pt.wikisource.org/wiki/Categoria:B%C3%ADblia and https://pt.wikiquote.org/wiki/B%C3%ADblia already exist for this topic. I respect your faith but it is not Wikimedia’s job to promote any particular religion. Dronebogus (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up to your proposal

Hello! Thank you for your comments there, and I'd like to clarify a few things. For context, I've been involved with small-wiki content assistance for years, and have had many good and bad experiences trying to fix anti-LGBT content on small projects, everything from admins simply making the requested change and thanking me for noticing, to users ending up community and WMF banned for enforcing anti-LGBT policy.

Stating that "non-English projects are getting away with" homophobia is a misunderstanding of the problem. Many projects, including English-speaking ones, have unsourced and opinion-based content on gender and sexuality topics. Though it more frequently occurs on projects whose language is common in a country with anti-LGBT+ laws or culture, this isn't an English vs. everyone else issue as you imply. LGBT+ Wikimedians originate from every linguistic background, and on each project that struggles with maintaining neutral LGBT+ related content there are generally editors on multiple sides, with relatively few exceptions. Many projects have articles on LGBT+ topics which are split between neutral and homophobic, as many editors with differing intentions edited the given page independently.

Anti-LGBT+ content, and any sort of bigoted or opinion-based content in general, tends to arise on projects where individuals, who hold strong opinions that they're interested in posing as fact, are given sole editorial authority with no oversight or checks. The only time a top-down approach is really needed is when such an individual or small group are the only administrators, and are preventing discussion and the improvement of content. As an example, the now-globally and WMF banned user Til Eulenspiegel was formerly an administrator on the Amharic Wikipedia and enforced anti-LGBT+ content and conduct guidelines. Generally speaking, civil discussion with local editors is the best method of achieving lasting improvement in content.

On the topic of the Universal Code of Conduct, it is a conduct policy, not a content policy. Though bigoted and opinionated anti-LGBT+ content is not something that is welcome on Wikimedia projects, it does not inherently fall under the purview of the UCOC, though I suppose that may be up to interpretation. With your reference to WM LGBT+, it is not an inclusivity initiative, it is a Wikimedia user group that intends, with varying degrees of success, to represent queer Wikimedians.

I appreciate your eagerness in this, but a top-down, English vs. the rest of the world approach is ineffective at acheiving lasting and positive change in the nuanced landscape that is the Wikimedia community. As for what does tend to work, I have left a comment here, and I hope it helps. Best regards, and please let me know if you have any questions, Vermont (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary Multimedia: Stalled or Staled?

For this project proposal, you marked it as "Stale (could be re-opened)" on the main PNP list, but also marked "Stalled" within this proposal page, I need a clarification on the actual status of it, as both are different English words. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

They mean the same thing in this context Dronebogus (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

you have closed wikilawsuits

you said this text is incomprehensible. but it is not completely incomprehensible, for example, there are english words, which should be comprehensible each itself. you should be able to show at least a one point in the text which is incomprehensible, like several words used together and the meaning formed by them is not acceptable, because it contradicts some well known ideas, facts, or some other place of the text. --QDinar (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

“open way to write declarations and track and upload documents and link to them for court publicly for topics that bother many people” is most of the “proposal” and it’s an incoherent run-on sentence. I don’t know what else to say, you can re-open it if you’re convinced it will find support, which is highly unlikely in its current state. Dronebogus (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

i have reopened it. the mistake appeared easily. the first version of the same sentence is ok. in the second the "and link to them" is added in the wrong place. i think you could edit it by yourself, you could write to me publicly in my talk page, or send me email, to show the wrong text. --QDinar (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

you have again closed it! it is said in the rules, in the process description:

it is clearly redundant to another project or project proposal, or is not a serious or intelligible proposal— i.e. jokes, trolling, proposals with extremely vague scope, and patent nonsense (tag "Procedurally closed");

do you think that after 1 month you have written a critic comment and i have not answered it, you have right to close it? btw you have not proven that it is not understandable. this time you had only written "still don’t understand what this is at all" . i am going to answer to you again in that location also as i answered here, and to reopen it. --QDinar (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2022 Announcement

Wikimedia LGBT+ and the organizing team of Queering Wikipedia is holding a Queering Wikipedia 2022 Meeting for LGBT+ Wikimedians and allies. The program will start with an informative, social and cultural activity on Friday 21st October at 18h UTC and working sessions on Saturday 22nd from 14h until 18h with an informal follow-up.

If you have been an active Wikimedian, contributing on LGBT+ topics, supporting LGBT+ activities or if you identify as part of the larger LGBT+ community and allies in Wikimedia, please come help us build our network of LGBT+ Wikimedians, set goals and develop our organization.

We will be meeting online, but encourage you to join in person with fellow Wikimedians if easy and safe. Our working languages are English and Spanish.

Registration for this online event is free and is open until Friday 21st October at 21h UTC.

More information, and registration details, may be found on Meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/QW2022

Thanks, from Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikidebat stale ?

Hi, i wrote Years ago this wikimedia sister project that's true, but i think it necessary for me to keep this page open. For me it is not closed, thanks for your understanding. Wiikkkiiii (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you’re asking the answer is no. Dronebogus (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2023 conference

Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group and the organizing team of Queering Wikipedia is delivering the Queering Wikipedia 2023 Conference for LGBT+ Wikimedians and allies, as a hybrid, bilingual and trans-local event. It is online on 12, 14 and 17 May, the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia #IDAHOBIT, with offline events at around 10 locations on 5 continents in the 5-day span as QW2023 Nodes.

The online program is delivered as a series of keynotes, panels, presentations, workshops, lightning talks and creative interventions, starting on Friday noon (UTC) with the first keynote of Dr Nishant Shah entitled: I spy, with my little AI — Wikiway as a means to disrupt the ‘dirty queer’ impulses of emergent AI platforms. Second keynote is at Sunday’s closure by Esra’a Al Shafei, Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees vice chair, entitled: Digital Public Spaces for Queer Communities.

If you have been an active Wikimedian or enthusiast, supporting LGBT+ activities or if you identify as part of the larger LGBT+ community and allies in Wikimedia, please join us in advancing this thematic work. We encourage you to join online or in person with fellow Wikimedians if it is easy and safe to do so. Our working languages are English and Spanish, with possible local language support at sites of Nodes.

Registration for the online event is free and is open until Wednesday May 10th at 18:00 UTC, for safety protocol. Late event registration approval and event access denial is at the discretion of organizers.

More information, and registration details, may be found on Meta at QW2023

Thanks, from Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Accidental deletions by User:Д. Карнаж

Hello, when discussion happens quickly, sometimes different people's edits can clobber each other, as seen here:

[1]

Normally I'd just put the text back myself, but it seems much of this could be characterized as being somewhat unhelpful to the conversation.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and ultimately I will always respect it. But this could also be a blessing in disguise.

Take a minute to cool down and think about what you want to put forward, and what impression you'd like to give of yourself and of the quality of discourse you'd like to see wrt Wikimedia in general. Then we can put back anything you'd really like to have put back, or you can take the opportunity to rethink your wording.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, too late, you hit undo yourself. You seem to be rather rushed. Take your time, meta.wikimedia.org will still be here tomorrow. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your recent proposals

Hello Dronebogus,

First of all, I want to say that by and large, I agree with your slant that the WMF made "too many" wikis back in the day, and having fewer Wikis with more maintainers would have been the wiser course. So I think we're on the same page there.

However, I have to note something. I know you supported my request for closing Pitkern Wikipedia, which is appreciated. But if you go back and read the first two closure requests - they weren't very convincing. There's a reason they failed. I bet if the proposers had done their homework better and laid the groundwork, they might have succeeded at the time, and we wouldn't have needed to have three discussions. These discussions actually made the process of getting a deletion through harder, not easier, because they seemingly established a consensus that the Wiki WAS supported. Basically, these nominations were counterproductive to the "goal".

Do you see where I'm going with this? I'd like a cleanup of dead Wikis as much as you, but your requests are also very unconvincing, just like the old Pitkern closure proposals. You notice all the "oppose" votes, right? Your comments on Scots Wikipedia were also simply factually inaccurate and betrayed impatience and a lack of understanding of what's going on. You could have brought the closure proposal up on Scots Wikipedia first, politely, and gotten feedback there, and avoided going to Meta until you had straightened that out. If you drop off a "hey is anyone here, should this Wiki close" comment off and nobody replies for three months, that's a good sign the Wiki is in fact dead. And if someone DOES reply, then hey, you have someone who can tell you what's going on. This is the bare minimum to do before a Closure proposal, I'd say. And even then, it would help to draw up the case better. You are not coming across well, as just a random hater in your nominations - don't trust me on this, I didn't vote, trust all the oppose voters who got angry at you. You've poisoned your own credibility on the matter.

I would ask that you please slow down, for the sake of the cause of reducing the Wiki count if nothing else. Can I suggest that either you restrict yourself to just !voting for closure, but maybe don't nominate anything new for closing for awhile? Or if you really, really want to nominate more stuff, to talk to someone first - I'd be happy to volunteer, but don't just fire off a proposal on Meta and hope for the best. It's counterproductive. SnowFire (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said but there’s nothing much that can be done now, is there? I’ve not only “poisoned my credibility” (yet again, I’m seemingly good at this) but made useless vanity wikis even more bulletproof against even reasonable arguments. I hate the fact that even perfectly sensible proposals become impossible to implement after they fail enough times for all the wrong reasons, entrenching a “consensus” that doesn’t even exist. Dronebogus (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I too get your frustration when similar well-reasoned proposals fail for (mostly) nonsensical reasons. I don't think there's any solution to this, though. --SHB2000 (t • c) 07:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

question

I notice you've signed w:WP:NONAZIS and I'm somewhat curious why. While I'm not favorably impressed by most essays that exist in the WP namespace, that one is exceptionally bad. It does not seem to describe an extant problem so much as it constructs an archetype or trope which can then be used as an ad hominem. This is not to say that the beliefs it describes are correct nor that they aren't held by some people, but rather that the essay is typically applied as a dishonest rhetorical device and tends to subvert dialectic argument. At the very least, isn't it intellectually lazy to call one's critics or opponents nazis? Not to mention that it's against official policy, as w:WP:NPA explicitly forbids "comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people." AP295 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not your friend. I agreed with your proposal because I think it’s a good idea, not because I agree with anything else you happen to believe. I’m not going to debate you for the hell of it. Dronebogus (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"I am not your friend." I didn't presume otherwise. "I’m not going to debate you for the hell of it." I didn't ask you to debate me. I only asked you a question. AP295 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)