Talk:Wikimedians for software freedom

REQ-3-no-identification

In my opinion, this should be outside the scope of group, since it may implemented even if all software is FLOSS and does not have anything to do with software freedom at all. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 16:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Right. But it could be nice to put it as secondary goal. So, differentiating purposes related to FLOSS (core interest of us as stake holders) and other purposes related to other digital rights (secondary) Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not even sure it is a good goal, though. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 16:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Last year I've seen a Google Form from Wikimedia Foundation where it was asked real name, surname and sexual preferences. I also think that is a bad goal but I think that somebody should say that this is not nice. Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if this is a goal, the group should probably be renamed to Wikimedians for digital rights or Wikimedians for human rights. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 16:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it OK for you under a generic "What should be also nice to have" section? or still too unrelated? Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikimania 2022 concerns

Hello! We can help in this page: wikimania:2022:Present and future Thank you so much everybody! --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Name

I find the name of the group bizarre. How can someone calls themselves a wikimedian if they're not for software freedom? Nemo 18:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You do have a point. But the reality is that this is not a given, but something we need to advocate for. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 18:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Everytime I see your feedback I think we should frame it in gold and put in homepage as best review.

You are both right. Unfortunately we made the mistake of taking it for granted. ValerioBozz (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Asking to Maryana Iskander a statement about Free and Open Source

After discussing with CROW [1] I think it's a good idea to contact the Wikimedia Foundation's CEO (User talk:MIskander-WMF) asking to share a small official declaration about FLOSS. This is the stub of the message, feel free to contribute in CC0:

Letter

We are volunteers and active users in Wikimedia projects. We are concerned about the future of some Wikimedia Foundation projects, like Wikimania, since sometime they diverge from the vision of Wikimedia Foundation, in terms of digital freedom and privacy-protection.

The problem is that Wikimania 2021 and Wikimania 2022 were not designed with Free and Open Source in mind and have also some data protection concerns related to Google Analytics and GDPR in Europe (wikimania:2021:Present and future · wikimania:2022:Present and future). So, we are here because we think we can do better in the future.

We don't want to cut off heads. We don't want to scold anyone. We don't want to delete WMF from YouTube. We don't want to destroy macOS or Microsoft Windows from volunteers' computers or from WMF staff. We would simply like to see an official statement from the executive director to remember that Free and Open Source is a good strategical direction to reach free knowledge, in a world where it's easy to use the technology against users.

Example statement:

"We are the Wikimedia Foundation and we sustain Free and Open source, since Wikipedia was created in 2001. We believe in active participation, transparency and freedom. We are not like other Big Techs, who often risk to create massive surveillance systems. Our challenge is to proactively adopt and support and develop Free and Open Source, from projects to official Wikimedia events, to deliver Free knowledge with Free software. Thank you to all the people who contribute in this direction!"

We are not asking for a meeting, but for an evaluation of such statement.

Could it be interesting in editing and sharing that statement, for example on a social or on Meta-wiki?

Available for clarifications,

Thank you for what you can do

Comments and signatories

• wrote the first stub - feel free to contribute! and please feel free to use also my username to firm this statement --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• In my opinion this is like demanding from the president of France a statement declaring that Paris is part of France. (What I mean is: rather than making people believe in it, it makes everyone believe the city is under siege or occupied by hostile forces.) Nemo 15:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• The "Free knowledge and open source" principle proposed by the Movement Charter Drafting Committee in the Movement Charter draft would be something of interest to some folks here. I invite you to join the upcoming consultation if you'd like to give your feedback about this. Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  @RamzyM (WMF): Thank you, you are very kind. Sorry for my question but is it possible to have the next consultation with us on Jitsi Meeting (Libre and Open Source) instead of Zoom? Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• ...
• ...
• ...
• ...
• ...
• ...
• ...

Wikimania talk proposal about FLOSS - early review

We have a Wikimania 2024 proposal with the following title, to bring our topics there:

The importance of using Free and Open software in all activities of the Wikimedia movement: situation, opportunities and next steps

https://wikimania.eventyay.com/2024/talk/review/XV9VPNKRDW7UX7YB8QQSH9XQVZCA9QJE

Thanks for any idea or any comment to further improve this proposed space :) ValerioBozz (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed meeting during Wikimedia Hackaton in Tallin

See also: phabricator:T364081

Thanks for any contribution in Tallin :) --ValerioBozz (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed sessions during Wikimania 2025 Nairobi

As discussed in our past online meeting ( https://t.me/wikimedians_for_software_freedom/94 )

• thanks to Mario Behling from FOSSASIA who submitted a panel about Free and Open Source, titled Empowering the Wikimedia Community in Africa and Around the World with Open Source, duration 55 minutes, with panelists Mario Behling (Founder of FOSSASIA), Alice Kibombo – Librarian, Wikimedian (Wikibrarian) from Uganda, and me (as Tech Commission member of Wikimedia Italy)
• I tried to also late-submit a "drama" lightning talk :D titled How Closed-Source Software can Control Volunteers and Wikimedia Organizations (Worst Case Scenarios)

, here the review page: https://wikimedia.eventyay.com/talk/wikimania2025/talk/review/3RQ7LKFFEDSSJQUNZTZKXZXNW3APUNV9

• Anything else? Feel free to share!

If you have anything related to Free/Libre and Open Source @ Wikimania 2025, feel free to share to help each other in review. Thanks and happy hacking ValerioBozz (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Stub application to start the user group

This is an operative thread to create a stub submission, to submit our request here when we are ready: Special:Contact/affcomusergroup.

Thanks for comments!

---

Subject

New User Group: Wikimedians for software freedom

Name

Suggested name: Wikimedia Community User Group [your area or topic]. See the name guidelines if you want to choose another name.

Wikimedians for software freedom

Location

Please provide the city and country where your group is planned to be based. If your group is planned to be an international group, you can put "International".

International

Three active Wikimedians

Please provide the name, email address, and Wikimedia username for 3 members with 300 or more contributions to a Wikimedia project on a registered account that has existed for more than 6 months.

1. User:Valerio_Bozzolan
2. User:Ainali
3. User:Waldyrious
4. User:Arcstur
5. User:Mind Booster Noori
6. 🟠 add yourself

Wiki page

Please provide a link to your group's page on Meta-Wiki. If you don't have a page yet, you can review this setup guide. Your Meta-Wiki page should contain:

basic information about your group; and

an outline of your group planned activities for the first year.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_for_software_freedom

Letter of intent

As a group, you must be independent from other Wikimedia organizations. Please provide a link to your group's public letter of intent to all affected/overlapping Wikimedia projects and movement affiliates. If you don't have one yet, you can use this suggested text.

🟠 TODO

Logo

Please link to the Commons file of your user group logo.

🟠 TODO

ValerioBozz (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Great start! I volunteer as a contact person. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 08:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Great! Added! One more needed \o/ ValerioBozz (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

REQ-NO-VOLUNTEER-BURNOUT

I've added a new FAQ about how to avoid volunteer burnout (e.g. avoid online free demos...). It's a very stub section, so thanks for any improvement.

Wikimedians_for_software_freedom#REQ-NO-VOLUNTEER-BURNOUT ValerioBozz (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

REQ-ACCESS

Should we add a REQ-ACCESS (with this or any other name)? Useful for services like YouTube that suffer from being blocked or severely restricted in several countries. Mind Booster Noori (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you expand a bit on what it would mean? ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 12:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

It could (should?) go beyond this, but here's an example: If w:Censorship of YouTube#Countries where access to YouTube is currently blocked is correct, people currently on Turkmenistan are not able to access to content on YouTube, even if they do have access to Wikimedia projects. Mind Booster Noori (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The general concept you propose to describe would be very useful to me - I don't know how to express it - @Ainali: I'm terrible at section names. Any idea? Premising that one thing is when a government blocks a service, but here we want to avoid a service blocking countries. Thanks for any ideas ValerioBozz (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure this REQ- shouldn't cover other types of service blocking other than geographic. For eg. we should not be using a 3rd party gated by age limits (that are becoming more common) since we want wikimedia content to breve available to everyone (children included)... Mind Booster Noori (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant and wondering if this is necessarily in scope for the user group and not already covered by other REQs. I think the four freedoms for software basically should be enough. There is no need to have REQ-ACCESS that applies to some proprietary platforms because they already fail on REQ-FREEDOM. It is bad enough if they fail one, so we don't really need to grade them on a badness scale. Perhaps it is a "nice to have if other REQs fail" but that just basically imply that we act as if we have given up on the essentials and are grasping for what crumbs we can get. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 13:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You have a good point there, this could and probably should be covered by REQ-FREEDOM... re-reading it, however, makes me think it isn't (yet): REQ-FREEDOM is explicit in saying that "MUST NOT impede, exclude or discriminate who feel unsafe with proprietary software", while with what I was proposing here I was basically trying to say that it "MUST NOT impede, exclude or discriminate anyone" (no matter where they are, what's their age, etc..). Mind Booster Noori (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I tried to think about expanding the phrase about software freedom. But, at this point, what about REQ-NO-DISCRIMINATION? Not discriminating is also a concept well-known for the Open Source Initiative and includes everything we are talking about. https://opensource.org/osd - and we can share two clear examples, about not discriminating by country, or by not discriminating who do not share sexual preferences in a form, etc. ValerioBozz (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

It's clearer, and more succinct, to rephrase the last clause in REQ-FREEDOM to "MUST NOT impede, exclude or discriminate who feel unsafe with or who cannot use proprietary software." ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 22:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Ainali, yes please add it! That would make the REQ-FREEDOM stronger. But, even with that improvement, we are somehow not trying to describe that a service blocking an entire country is not acceptable. So I would still be OK in seeing a stub about REQ-NO-DISCRIMINATION, if somebody wants to write.

Also, Ainali is correct in remembering this: not fulfilling 1 of these requirements, is already a big problem. Thanks for any edit to better clarify this. With or without REQ-NO-DISCRIMINATION ValerioBozz (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

youtube embedded

On the section regarding YouTube, we probably could use some text about why embeding an YT video on our websites does not 'solve' the problem -- to avoid situations like in Event_talk:Wikipedia_25_Virtual_Celebration#Reliance on YouTube. Mind Booster Noori (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh lol. Yes please add something! Thanks ValerioBozz (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

done. Mind Booster Noori (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

P.S. thank you so much @Mind Booster Noori: for that added clarification. Premising that the part about Google cookies only applies in some specific circumstances (and premising that YouTube is already owned by Google, so the phrase can be a bit confusing). I would say: be bold to mention the specific example. Like «For example, embedding a YouTube video in the website XYZ would make the situation worse, because it exposes visitors to both YouTube's problems and your own site's problems, including other Google cookies.» or something like that. Feel free to use the above suggestion as an idea for an edit. What do you think? Thanks :) ValerioBozz (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the cookie example I write isn't well developed, even if I also think your suggested text is confusing. But any enhancements to the text are welcome! Mind Booster Noori (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

discord

Should we have a section aiming Discord? Mind Booster Noori (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes please! ValerioBozz (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Discord is evil since it also bans unofficial Free Software clients. ValerioBozz (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

w:Discord runs on proprietary software; that would defeat the whole point of a community-run community. w:Discourse (software) is GPLv2 (and also starts with Disco ;)), but I haven't heard of a Wikimedia community Discourse server. Another alternative would be the w:Fediverse, which allows participants to communicate across a federation of servers (instances), e.g. w:Lemmy (social network) or kbin or mbin for indented type conversation threads (similar to reddit), or w:Mastodon (social network). There is already something of a Wikimedia community/Wikimedia-supportive community on the Fediverse, including, but not limited to, wikis.world. Boud (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone in WFSF would want to run an independent Fediverse instance, but just as an illustration of the power of FOSS and the Fediverse, WWU setup its own instance https://social.wikiworkersunited.org, without needing to request anyone's permission, and the WWU user already has 1600 followers on an account created just 22 hours ago. Its self-introduction toot has 1200 boosts. Boud (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of Wikimedians for Software Freedom should be to run any software or platforms at all. That should be outside of our scope. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 21:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Organising the pages

I suggest breaking the page into several pages to make the content more understandable (participants, initiatives, resources...).

I also suggest focusing on two main activities

1. Observatory. Monitoring the use of free and proprietary software among the chapters and the foundation. We already have a preliminary research and we can keep updated it. We also have good practices and previous experiences. Since I'm doing several interviews about this I can also add them.
2. Events. Recommendations and support in avoid associating the Wikimedia brand to proprietary products during public events (which are often streamed and recorded).

iopensa (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

(↑ COI: I usually always agree with this person since is smart and beautiful lol)

Observatory: totally agree - thanks iopensa

Events: Maybe can become "Organizing Events" - so it's not confused as a list of "our events". Since we are probably not going to create "our own events" around the globe - but "we" are "just" trying to improve Wikimedia online events in general, presents and future.

So thanks for these precious edits ValerioBozz (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the Observatory, do we need a new page, or should we adopt FLOSS Exchange as a page we help maintain? ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 11:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Ainali. The idea was to give more visibility to the current pages and research work. Boz added a direct link to the "Matrix" in Wikimedians for software freedom/Observatory, but personally I think that:

1. the term FOSS is not understandable by people who are not advocate for FOSS. Maybe we should name the pages differently
2. It would be interesting to have a specific page for all affiliates, so we can include a story and more information about best practices and experiences. I'll also make some interviews specifically on the experience of Wikimedia Italia, Wikimedia CH and Wikimedia Sweden.

Any other suggestion? iopensa (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

WMF comment, en Village Pump discussion

We already have this at FLOSS-Exchange/Matrix, but just so people are aware:

• Slack is apparently forced on WMF employees:
  • WMF foundation:Special:Permalink/580592#c-Boud-20260517091700-Forcing WMF employees to use Salesforce Inc is an ethical violation (live link) for w:Slack (software)
  • en:Special:Permalink/1354599895#c-Boud-20260517093800-Forcing WMF employees to use Salesforce Inc is an ethical violation (live link)

Boud (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Boud: Yep! thanks for integrating your useful notes in this page: Wikimedians for software freedom/Migration away from/Slack and for sharing! ValerioBozz (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Cross-wiki watchlist?

@Valerio Bozzolan and Iopensa: I suspect that a reason for the low activity on these pages is that many people - among the 47 currently self-entered as participants - are in my situation: we're happy to be supportive and contribute when we have a moment free or when it really appears needed, but we rarely look at meta.w.o pages, and even more rarely (if ever) at our meta.w.o watchlist page. In my preferences, I have cross-wiki notifications enabled (and I've seen this work in practice), but there doesn't seem to be any cross-wiki parameter (and associated mediawiki code) for the watchlist. Maybe there is, but I couldn't find it. And proposing that for the Wishlist would be a long-term request that right now isn't being handled by WMF very well (which is an orthogonal topic to Wikimedians for software freedom). On the other hand, pinging 47 people every time an edit is made to the Wikimedians-for-software-freedom talk pages here would be rather excessive.

Any practical ideas of how to keep the "participants" informed while not getting into harassment (apart from the long-term solution of proposing a wishlist task to WMF techies and that feature actually getting implemented)? One option would be to ping all 47 (split e.g. into 3 groups of 15 or 16) just once, and seek proposals and !votes from the full group on what the best notification (in the generic sense, including cross-wiki watchlist communication-of-information) method would be. Boud (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I've just tried my first time at using the "subscribe" button on a talk page section. If that works cross-wiki, then we could encourage the 47 participants to "subscribe" to a key section; that would provide a less aggressive notification method than a ping-to-all and would be more clearly opt-in and switchable by participants in the "subscription". Boud (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Boud I use the Special:GlobalWatchlist here on Meta-Wiki to see my watchlist on many wikis, including these pages here :P but I guess some option to keep participants more informed would also be super nice! Arcstur (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Uh - I was not aware of GlobalWatchlist. Thanks!

Anyway yes, on-wiki tools to subscribe this talk page should be sufficient in an ideal world. We could recommend to watch this page from the participants page. Clarifying that it's an optional thing indeed. Thanks ValerioBozz (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Excellent. I see that Special:GlobalWatchlistSettings allows opt-in adding of other WMF wikis than meta. But I don't see any button for Special:GlobalWatchlistSettings, or any way to modify my preferences to make that my default 'watchlist' button. (Again something that could be added to an official wishlist, especially once the current WMF conflict has been sorted out, which I'm sure will happen, maybe sooner, maybe later.) People will have to either memorise the string to type or add a link on their user page for convenience. I edited the WFSF page with instructions. Feel free to fix them. After all, this is a wiki :). Boud (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ainali, Waldyrious, and Mind Booster Noori: I'm a bit reluctant to ping all 47 people, but you three have your names listed in the draft User Group application, so I don't think pinging you is excessive, as you are, allegedly ;), active Wikimedians. I'll leave it open to wider consensus if someone wants to ping the other 40 or so people who expressed an interest and would likely be interested in knowing how to better keep an eye on things here. Boud (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

After adding other wikipedias to Special:GlobalWatchlistSettings, some extra w:UBlock Origin#uMatrix XHR access need to be allowed. There's no point adding that to the instructions: people who use uMatrix or UBlock Origin or other plugins to limit 3rd-party sites should know that they may have to authorise more 3rd party access. Boud (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I personally don't need to be alerted whenever these pages are updated (but am of course happy to be tagged directly for things specifically meant to be targeted to me). Perhaps I do not understand the purpose of this talk page entry. Mind Booster Noori (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The reason for the talk page entry is that there seemed to be a bunch of people interested, and then almost no activity by most people for a year, so it's possible that many were in my situation of not knowing practical ways of balancing between the extremes of too little "notification" (loose generic sense) versus an overload of spamming. I'm not committing myself to being active, and I'm not blaming other people who are busy with other stuff either. I think we've already got some immediately practical answers (I updated Wikimedians for software freedom with these), and some possible proposals for tech improvements if anyone has the time/energy to do these (and remembers to make them as proposals) after the Wishlist/WMF/tech team problems are resolved (I'm happy to use the existing tools and trust others to be active on the Wishlist). Boud (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You can subscribe to all new discussions on a talk page through the subscribe link i the tools section in the sidebar. For example, subscribing to this page is done through the link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedians_for_software_freedom&action=dtsubscribe&commentname=p-topics-1%3AWikimedians_for_software_freedom Doing that will give you a notification every time someone starts a new topic on this talk page. (This feature is fairly new, it has only been around for three years.) ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 18:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Sidebar or topbar, depending on which skin you've chosen. For me (Vector 2010?) it's the top menu, under "More". Boud (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Boud I think we should roll back these changes as they are not specific for this initiative but just general wiki knowledge. (Otherwise, they could just as well be added to every page on meta.) ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 21:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Matrix chat

I've shifted them to a note - is this OK? After all, that's the only FOSS-based way of communicating that we have listed. Telegram server software is proprietary and rather problematic ethically, which is rather self-defeating. A matrix-protocol group would allow people to use a diversity of home servers for a single group. It's true that the info is valid for other meta pages, but it seems that at least a few people here (not just me) didn't know about these methods (or vaguely knew but not practically). Even experienced people may lack knowledge (such as Wikimedians for software freedom who coordinate using the proprietary server Telegram). Boud (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Boud If you like, you are free to set up a matrix-protocol group and inform us here when it is done. Thanks! ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 20:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Done: https://matrix.to/#/#wikimedians-for-software-freedom:matrix.org I've updated the Starting with Matrix section a little, though it's just a rough edit. Once a few people who are active here have 1 created an account, 2 chosen a client (browser, standalone, or terminal), and 3 joined the group, I'll share admin/moderation power in the group based on rough consensus so that I'm only the BDFAM (benevolent dictator for a moment).

I myself am still on the dominant homeserver matrix.org, out of inertia and because matrix.org (which as I understand it is related to, but distinct from Element Creations Ltd (Q58821126) the ensemble of four companies: Company information (Q139821030)) is not (yet) evil enough. I mostly use the terminal client gomuks, but also the browser "Element" client (in a firefox tab) for a few things like accepting invites (or, rarely, creating new groups). On my phone I use gomuks in a terminal. Boud (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, joined! ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 07:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

And the power structure is now no longer a pure dictatorship. Open to future rough consensus as more people join. Boud (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Iopensa: A bunch of people have joined; I have admin status; Ainali has moderator status; we have bridged the Telegram room to the matrix.org room. Before adding a small handful of other people as moderators, I'd be more comfortable if the moderator group (at least on the matrix side of the bridge) were more gender-balanced - without forcing anyone to out their gender identity, but there does appear to be a mono-gender dominance right now. Boud (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC))

@Boud: Thanks again for the appreciated Matrix room, and thanks for having more than 1 admin in the room: for example please promote @ainali:matrix.org and me @vboz:matrix.org 😺

Reason for somehow trusting me: I've created the page Special:PermaLink/23595594 and I know how to use Matrix 😸

Reason for trusting ainali: early founder too, we know each other in person

We promise we are real human beings and not scammers lol. ValerioBozz (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Then we have gender unbalance problem, but maybe iopensa can adopt Matrix soon etc. 😺 ValerioBozz (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've put some links to the problems of implicit feudalism in online communities at Matrix.org/Administration, with a quote Exceptions like Wikipedia and Debian have required considerable, intentional effort to counteract the implicit feudalism of their tools' defaults, from w:Nathan Schneider 2021 Admins, Mods, and Benevolent Dictators for Life: The Implicit Feudalism of Online Communities (Q140084111); FOSS communities have an advantage over non-FOSS ones, but FOSS doesn't automatically prevent feudalism. Boud (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Matrix room proposal: share admin powers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In the spirit of w:WP:CRFC, and compromising between too little structure and too much bureaucracy, I'm taking the risk of closing this as an involved closer, since there appears to be consensus: there were no objections against any of the proposed admins. There were some objections to having a structured decision procedure; and objections to me, not a member (or admin) of the Telegram group, requiring a structured discussion. By giving admin powers to the other four individual people and the matrixgc account (currently two people), these objections become obsolete (at least for this particular decision). Valerio and I had a user page discussion to cool off :). In a few minutes I will give admin powers to the full set:

• User:Boud = @boud:matrix.org
• User:Ainali = @ainali:matrix.org
• User:Valerio Bozzolan = @vboz:matrix.org
• User:Nemoralis = @nemoralis:matrix.org
• User:LydiaPintscher = @nightrose:kde.org
• matrixgc (currently User:Legoktm + User:1997kB) = @wmfgc:matrix.org

(involved closer) Boud (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Proposal: Since currently the only admin (in the matrix sense) of #wikimedians-for-software-freedom:matrix.org is User:Boud (User:Ainali has moderator power, which is less than admin power), we need to add some more admins, to reduce the risk of having a single person hold power, and we don't have to keep Boud at admin status. Proposed admins include: User:Ainali and User:Valerio Bozzolan who are well-trusted Wikimedians and established participants in WFSF. Boud founded the matrix group (ready to edit-war against allegations of being only a co-founder? ;)) and so probably could remain admin, at least for the moment. Ideally we should have gender and geographical diversity in the set of admins.

Suggested time scale, since we're a small group, and since future proposals could override this one if needed: 72 hours.

Please state Support or Oppose for one or more candidates (currently three four five + @wmfgc), and/or add yourself as a candidate. Boud (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

•  Support Boud+Ainali+VB+Nemoralis+LydiaPintscher+@wmfgc Arguments against: Boud+Ainali+VB is a group that lacks both gender and geographical balance and Wikipedia has a track record of gender and geographical bias. Arguments for: having three well-known, trusted people share admin power is less risky than having a single person hold the top power level, so this is acceptable as a temporary initial configuration, without prejudice to future changes. If other candidates are proposed, I'm likely to update this !vote, especially if they help with the gender+geographical bias problem. Boud (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC) (edited Boud (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)) (updated Boud (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC))

  I oppose having a vote and a formal procedure. Just hand out the rights to anyone that seem trustworthy and are willing to do the boring cleanup. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 09:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  See democratic backsliding and democratic resilience. After all, a key argument for FOSS in Wikimedia is that technical power is political power. Boud (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, then let's have a vote first if we should have a vote about this rather than someone just deciding it. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 10:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Let's be practical.

  @Boud: as already kindly requested 3 times, please consider immediately promoting somebody more than yourself as admin 😁 After this good faith action, everything you said has totally sense to be discussed, based on a spirit of mutual trust between those who have been participating in chat discussions for 4 years without ever considering the moderation as a problem; and those who have just started a new chat, self-promoting unique admin. ValerioBozz (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  On self-promoting: if the consensus is to remove me from adminship, I will respect that by removing my admin power (after first adding the other admins). 72 hours is a very short period compared to 4 years of apparently intensive Telegram chats, so the risk of the 70.5 or so remaining hours of Boud-dictatorship is low. As I stated above, we don't have to keep Boud at admin status. Boud (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

•  Support Nemoralis (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Based on informal acceptance as an admin candidate by you (User:Nemoralis), I've updated my !vote above to include you. This improves geographical balance. Boud (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Iopensa, Mind Booster Noori, Novem Linguae, Yiyi, Nemo bis, and Arcstur: Ping to other people who have been active. Boud (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think in such small groups this should be volunteer based. Since @Valerio Bozzolan , @Ainali and @Nemoralis already volunteered just promote them to admim and this issue can be considered solved.

We can further discuss and decide on a process for the future though. Irdiism (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Boud: While I appreciate conversing about better democracy tools, and we need it,

And while I deeply appreciate the new Matrix room, thanks!

I must share that I feel totally unsafe in seeing a self-declared admin delegitimizing previous admins, and proposing a vote to then vote themselves 😺

My sincere feeling is: «ehm... what?»

So, as I understand previous tacit consensus about previous admins is bad; this is worst. Not this way.

User_talk:Boud#Thanks_for_the_Matrix_room_-_and_now..._😺_more_than_1_admin_pls ValerioBozz (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

On self-declared admin, see 1 June 2026 at 20:41 If you like, you are free to set up a matrix-protocol group and inform us here when it is done. I did that work. Since there was pressure on me to hand full admin power to people whose roles and selection in the Telegram group do not appear to be documented on Wikimedians for software freedom subpages or talk pages, I did the work of proposing this !vote titled Matrix room proposal: share admin powers for a minimally deliberative+participatory+transparent process. As stated above, I don't have to remain an admin of the matrix group. Ideally, someone uninvolved will close the !vote process 72 hours after it was opened; at the risk of enwiki people being biased in my favour, w:WP:CR is at least one place where we could call for a cross-wiki closer - there are likely to be plenty of people there who are uninvolved here.

The advantage of this procedure has already been demonstrated: we have at least one proposed admin who is from outside of the EU (and outside of the core anglosphere). Boud (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

 Support @ValerioBozz for admin - he already is the owner of the telegram group. Mind Booster Noori (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• @LydiaPintscher: accepts to be a candidate admin too.
  Also matrixgc @wmfgc:matrix.org, currently accessed by Legoktm and 1997kB, is proposed as a candidate admin. Boud (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks everybody 😁 Minor comment: since the intention was to do not delegitimise this week all previous 9 administrators 😁 and since the declared goal for 4 years was to bridge more chats:

It would make sense to elevate @telegram:t2bot.io as moderator in Matrix. As the vice-versa is already a moderator since the day zero.

That just means: Matrix users trust the previous admins, as vice-versa is already happening.

The goal is that a scam message is identified once and deleted once, and chats are just easily in sync, so these chats are safe spaces, easily. This makes sense since also Matrix has decent auditing tools, so it's easy to see if a message was deleted.

The bot is just a technical tool: there are no problems as long as admins trust themselves and do their job in well manners. If somebody don't trust a particular admin: that's a future problem.

I recommend to do not start conspiracy theories about platforms 😁 since Pavel Durov surely has better things to do than moderate our Matrix chat, and vice-versa the owner of every single Matrix instance where admins have their home have better things to do than altering Telegram comments. Can't wait to be wrong, so to discourage Telegram even more 😸 In the meanwhile, let's finish this nice bridge. --ValerioBozz (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)