User talk:Doc James/Archive2

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

IRC office hour for Wikimedia Foundation copyright strategy[edit]

Hi there - thank you for your participation in the copyright strategy discussion so far! In addition to contributing on-wiki, you may be interested in an upcoming IRC office hour the Wikimedia Foundation legal team is holding to discuss the copyright strategy. It will be on September 15 at 14:00 UTC. More information is available on Meta-Wiki. Thanks! Joe Sutherland (WMF) 00:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

WikiFactMine project[edit]

Greetings from petermr and the WikiFactMine grant/project. We have just had our initial project meeting with Marti Johnson and she suggested that you and us can work closely together. This would be great - this message is just saying hi, and waiting on Marti to join things up.Petermr (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:Petermr From what I understand you will be mostly developing software for Wikidata correct? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Doc James Yes, that's a large part of it. To increase the amount of useful items in Wikidata and also to promote the value Petermr (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC).Reply
So you are building a system which automatically finds sources for claims already within Wikidata? Or are you building a system that finds claims that could potentially go in Wikidata? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think the first would seem to be more valuable, but - if there is a demand by users - we could trawl for potential claims. Petermr (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Okay. For medical claims one needs to make sure to use high quality references. Low quality references can be used to say nearly anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. We wouldn't want to completely automate the ingestion of papers supporting claims. It's more likely that we can create high quality lists that can be presented to experienced editors. I'll be talking with Daniel Mietchen (Q20895785) next week at NIH who is working on the Zika corpus project. I think this is a good archetype for collecting facts.
We are looking mainly for high quality secondary sources rather than high quality primary sources as references for En WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Fully understood. If you have Open Access sources/reviews that you regularly use we'd be happy to explore those. We'll probably concentrate more on bioscience Petermr (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

On the top of all talk pages for disease articles we link to a link to all "Free review articles" on a topic. However not all of those review articles are deemed high enough quality to be a Wikipedia reference. Typically we do not use journals with an impact factor of zero and journal articles which are copied and pasted from Wikipedia (which is happening amazingly often now). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I fixed that graph[edit]

An attempt to correct this prior revision in light of this updated data.

If you like it please share at e.g. Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Briefing. Thanks again. James Salsman (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

What was wrong with the prior version? Are you saying that everyone will have access to the internet by 2030? I am doubtful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The data wasn't in the cited sources, and was very low. Not everyone, but almost everyone; at least the level of mobile phone penetration today. James Salsman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am not seeing the link you provided as supporting the new graphic. It just shows developing world generally and not by country. It is also only to 2020. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Do you think the old version was supposed to be for 2020 instead of 2030 given the full-world projections? We could quibble about whether most countries will be closer to 90 or 95%, but I would rather work on what you told me to work on. James Salsman (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on outreach to outside knowledge networks from February 2017. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating. I want to improve how campaigns are run, so let me know if there's something that could be done better for next time.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

(Opt-out instructions)

Survey link error fixed[edit]

Hi there, there was a error with the Inspire survey link that caused the survey to be shown as expired, but has now been fixed. The link in the above message should now bring you to the survey. Apologies, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply


I am very glad that you are a candidate for the Board election.--Mautpreller (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you User:Mautpreller for your vote of confidence :-) While the WMF is in a much much better place than when I was on the board in 2015 there is still work to do. I believe that it is important that we have strong and active editors among their number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.[edit]

Hi James,

Thanks for starting a draft here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Whose Knowledge?: [April 2017][edit]

Whose Knowledge News
April 2017 • Volume 1 • Issue 2
Activities and Events:
Dalit History Month Events; Wikimania 2017 submissions
Resources lists
Wikimedia Movement:
Wikimedia Strategy: Knowledge is Global
About Whose Knowledge?
If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

We hope you enjoy this issue of the Whose Knowledge? News. Please reach out to us if you have any ideas or suggestions! -- Saileshpat using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

2017 Board Elections candidate interviews[edit]

Dear candidate,

Thank you for running for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in this year's community elections. I am contacting you on behalf of the community podcasts Wikipedia Weekly and Source Code Berlin. We are sure you recognize the importance of transparency and a fully-informed community when it comes to these elections. To that end, we would like to conduct short audio interviews (under 30 minutes) with each of the candidates for publication in podcast form prior to the conclusion of the election. If you agree, we will contact you via email to coordinate the time and date of these interviews. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:Gamaliel Sure sounds good :-) And thank you for taking this on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for agreeing to our proposed candidate interviews, but we have decided that we will not be conducting them this year. We feel that Sunday's video interview has accomplished the goal of providing the community with exposure to the candidates and we are currently exploring ways that our potential election coverage can supplement and not duplicate that exposure. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
User:Gamaliel many thanks for following up :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply


Could you review my en Wikipedia account. I respect your opinions on Socks and your experience with the project as well as your contributions. I would like feedback on my actions by users interested in socks and who I respect. If it is too much trouble that is fine. Please revert if you feel I am bothersome. I am mostly trying to logically understand the current policy stance for Sock (I am not even allowed to talk about or to them?). I would like you to also not participate in any admin actions on my account or related to my ban, partly due to this notice but also because of our previous interactions. I am purely looking for convincing feedback so that I can improve and contribute more effectively to the project. Thank you for your time, Endercase (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:Endercase happy to take a look :-)
You were blocked for 72 hours. Appears the issue revolves around "warning templates on talk pages is "discussion""
Appears the issues are these[1][2].
Which sock are you concerned about? The one above I image? What specific aspect of policy are you interested in? Yes one can discuss with socks some but not really appropriate in great detail as one does not want to encourage those who are being disruptive by using socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Given how hard it is to truly identify a Sock if they are knowledgeable. I'm honestly not sure what all accounts they have edited under, all I can really say for sure is that their accounts are far more numerous than the ones that have been found by the check users, based on DUCK and my interpretation of identifying features of SOCKs. The check users have identified the account you imaged as the "main head" of the user (sock) that set this off. The user their has claimed they have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 under numerous accounts cite: they sent me this link <publicly on a talkpage>. Primarily I was attempting to open discourse with a SOCK to get a full understanding of consensus (from all sides of the issue). It appears as if some check_users don't think their are any appropriate uses for SOCKs and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate has been removed. I was told that any defence or even knowingly interacting with a SOCK is considered Disruptive (they consider all interactions encouragement). I personally don't think that persistent socks need any encouragement; if the user had been editing from 2004 to now it isn't like they were going to stop anyway. You saw some of my first attempts at communicating with COI socks at the page we first encountered each other. I think the use of excuse of calling another users a sock to avoid policy discussions is ridiculous, much the same as cutting IP editors out of policy discussions. One of the issues I have is the apparent battlefield ideology some check users have with socks, I understand how it came about given doxing and aggressive behavior by some Socks. But treating all Socks like they are the enemy encamped and should not even be Civilly communicated with is very disturbing to me. I also have some issues with Bbb23's behavior, as I have logged in the UTRS and in the diffs you cited, and along some of the same lines as their recent AN/I by Flamous7. Hopefully this begins to explain my stance. Endercase (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I try hard to be civils with socks and happy to be called upon it if I am not.
We do need methods to limit some people's access to edit Wikipedia. Not all are here to build an independent high quality encyclopedia unfortunately.
With respect to changing policies around the us of socks that should occur on the respective policy page rather than on the socks talk page/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I appear to have been T-banned from talking about socks on en.Wikipedia, at the very least a good number of admin may attempt to indef-ban me if I continue to attempt to enforce policy to protect the rights of socks, COI or other "sub-human" (or as I say "untouchable") users. Several have explicitly said this on various talk pages. Endercase (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
To be clear I do support banning users who are beyond being brought to consensus and "harm" the encyclopedia. But in my view many users are blocked as disruptive purely for arguing their stance logically and not just rolling over under the face of apparent authority. I find this very contrary to the founding principles of Wikipedia, vocally disagreeing with "authority" should never be considered disruptive in and of itself IMO. No POV should be considered disruptive just because it is different IMO. Particularly when the user has expressed that they are willing to change their POV given logical arguments. When a user refuses to engage in discussion or cite sources when asked and continues to push POV (not trying to engage in discussion), I do find that truly disruptive and harmful. Endercase (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
The expectation though is that people will generally restrict themselves to one account (with rare exceptions allowed) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is no exception to civil nor to consensus building IMO. If a user wishes to to engage in policy related discussion while being civil on a talkpage they should never be banned from doing so IMO (though they maybe labeled a likely sock, canvassed or COI in discussion if appropriate). The misuse of policy to silence dissent and circumvent discussion is one one the main reasons for the chilling of editing on Wikipedia IMO. This type of behavior is compleatly contrary to the founding principles of Wikipedia IMO. I personally think all users that attempt to push POV in that manner should be banned as harmful. I was deemed disruptive because I called an Admin out on their blatant violation of policy and because I suggested that socks should still be allowed to participate in consensus. The use of template to inform a user that they violated policy and provide a location for future discussion about that violation is not harmful to the encyclopedia IMO. I have never seen another user banned for a single use of a template (without edit warring) and/or for attempting to discuss policy with a sock. I believe they engaged in battlefield behavior because of my apparent defence (or humanization) of a sock and because of my willingness to express my POV on policy and to engage in discussion to defend that POV. The suggested T-Ban for me such that I can no longer talk about socks on en.Wikipedia honestly disgusts me as it is clearly IMO an attempt to suppress logical discussion it is very difficult to AGF in this case. This appears to be a concession or a barter for sides in a war and not based in what actually hurts the encyclopedia or for what is best to further consensus. Please explain how their behavior in my case (particularly the removal of my rights to edit my talk page) helped the encyclopedia in terms of harms, as harms are the foundation of all policy, so that I can understand and be a productive editor in the future. Endercase (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
But what would than prevent 50 socks from the same person from confusing consensus? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have several very good answers to that, that are already in place in policy. If you would like I can give them. However, at this point I shall answer your question with a question: How to do you know they already haven't? Duck and check users can only stop unskilled socks (duck stops the technically skilled but not the socially skilled). It wouldn't be too difficult for a technically skilled nation state or even a wealthy individual to field an army of admin IMO. Automated edits are relatively easy to do these days, particularly grammar, spelling, and unreliable source changes. Slightly more complex are vandalism fixes. But, even some of those are still very automatable and would directly lead to adminship in time (if nominated and defended at RfA). Even with COI editors it would be possible to input a "final copy" of an article into a basic AI that distributes specific editing tasks to multiple socks and even fakes disagreements and talk page discussions. They would just have to stick to a loose script like one of those choose your adventure novels (maybe even learn from other talk pages). Have you seen some chatbots these days? I'm just saying we certainly don't catch the most damaging socks, we only catch the ones that don't really know what they are doing. This doesn't even touch on meatpuppets. Endercase (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
It is definitely an area that needs more study. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think one method to help deal with that would be to mark accounts that are participating in a discussion with other users that they frequently interact with, particularly when those users appear to agree. This could automatically start building evidence per DUCK or Meatpuppet (a good Sock is indistinguishable from a meatpuppet or even a sympathetic editor). Masking identifying features and even arguing with or threatening other socks (of the same user) is not difficult to do and effectively hides the nature of the sock.
As far as simi-automated accounts used to increase credibility; I'm not really sure what to do here but to devalue the metric of edit counts. This would cause a number of issues in the current social hierarchy of Wikipedia so I'm not sure that is a wise course of action. Another method would be to start valuing the thanking metric; maybe only the first time A account (extended confirmed) thanks B account should it count (otherwise socks can easily exploit this system too). Another way would be to add a human edit option next to the thank button thus turning Wikipedia into a giant Turing test (this is also abusable). I would like to stay away from a centrally verified user system, as we can see the PR mess that turned into for Twitter. We could also add a "Slashdot style" moderation system for comments...but, that would be a significant change. Endercase (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not entirely sure they actually want to catch all the socks. If there were a button they could push that would magically stop all unauthorized socking, I'm not sure they would push it. The way we know that is that they say stuff like this; and I think I've seen some other comments by admins along those same lines, saying that sometimes they recognize a banned user but take no action unless he starts causing problems. There are, on the other hand, other admins who will always block a banned user at every opportunity, I guess because they believe in the rule of law, or trust those who make decisions on such matters, or whatever.

My major beef at this point is that there's increasingly a lack of transparency. But even if there were transparency, I think there's one policy in particular that's blatantly and purposefully discriminatory and needs to be repealed. And yeah, Endercase, sometimes socks are members of "a class of people historically discriminated against".

Now, Wikimedia is a private organization, so they have the right to discriminate, ... or do they? When you think about it, the same people who say, "This is private property, and we can decide what goes on here," would probably vote against allowing another property owner to put up a "WHITES ONLY" sign. These are not libertarians, after all, but leftists we're talking about, for the most part.

I have to ponder that. I mean, I could just go away. But then what? Edit Kings Wiki, I guess. Maybe more sockmasters should leave and go to other wikis. It's a tempting idea!

The only downside is that nobody notices or cares about any of that work. But maybe it's like quitting Facebook -- after you've been away from it for awhile, you stop thinking of it so much, and eventually you discover a big world outside of it, full of possibilities. Or even just sitting around and doing nothing might be superior. Waddup, Ender (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Uncontrolled spending increases[edit]

(I am asking this question of all board candidates.)

In my essay at User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer I make several proposals.

Whether of not you agree with the essay as a whole, would you be willing to propose and/or support any of the following?

  • Make spending largely transparent, publish a detailed account of what money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details. There is no need for you to remind us that some things cannot be published because of legal or privacy issues. I am asking whether we should be as open and transparent as possible, not asking the board to do something stupid or illegal.
  • Limit spending increases to no more than inflation plus some percentage (adjusted for any increases in page views). Are you willing to support any limit at all on spending growth, and if so roughly how much? 10%? 20%? 30%?
  • Build up our endowment and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad. There is no need to answer with something to the effect that either you or the WMF have good intentions. I am specifically asking whether you support making the endowment principle legally untouchable, allowing the WMF to only spend the endowment interest.

If we do these things now, in a few short years we could be in a position to do everything we are doing now, while living off of the endowment interest, and would have no need for further fundraising. Or we could keep fundraising, using the donations to do many new and useful things, knowing that whatever we do there is a guaranteed income stream from the endowment that will be large enough to keep the servers running indefinitely. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  1. Yes spending should / must be largely transparent. Generally we should be transparent by default with secrecy occurring only with good justification.
  2. Yes I support limits on increased growth. When I was last on the board I supported the leveling off of spending. I have stated here that we need a hard upper limit of 15% over which a movement wide consensus would be required.[3] (ie the foundation would need to convince the movement that a greater increase is justified. With respect to tieing it to pageviews, many ways of viewing Wikipedia such as via mirrors and offline are uncountable yet very important (especially in situations were governments block our websites). I think that generally when all is going well growth should be around 5%. We need to be careful about overly aggressive fundraising messages.
  3. Yes I support not allowing the principle to be touched. Good intentions are not always enough and people change over time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
In case anyone cares what I think, I strongly support your candidacy, and the above straight answers gave me even more reason to do so. I hope that the "Doc James for WMF Board" sign on my lawn helps... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Guy. While I doubt I will be able to fix all problems at the WMF I hope I further improve matters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Opinion on candidates requested[edit]

Doc James, amongst the candidates standing in the present elections (other than yourself), who would you like to see elected, and who which you be disappointed to see elected, and would you briefly explain why? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:EdChem Yuri has an excellent technical understanding and strong background within the movement. I have enjoyed working with him in the past and would like to do so again in the future. He understands the importance of building tools to help editors created great content for our readers.
Dariusz and I share in common many positions on issues. He has not pushed as hard as sometimes things needed to be pushed but I believe he is an overall positive on the board.
I do not know Maria well. She however was on the board when Superprotect came into being and did not actively speak out against it despite significant movement concerns.
I do not know the rest of them well enough make a statement. In my opinion active editing of our projects is key. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks... am I correct in thinking Dariusz opposed your removal from the board? EdChem (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
That is correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Board of Trustees election - question about French language[edit]

Hi James, I was looking at your presentation for the Board of Trustees. First of all, thank you for being a candidate. I have a question for you. You wrote that you speak French on your presentation page, but you have almost no contribution to Wikimedia projects in French. Why ? Tobovs (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

While I can speak some French my ability to write in French is nearly non-existent. French Wikipedia is also fairly well developed. As such my abilities in French are not sufficient to make further improvements. I am by the way on the board of Wikimedia Canada were our board meetings occur in both French and English :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
User:Tobovs PS By the way I was involved some in the development of the offline WP medical app in French[4]. It is the third most used version after English and Arabic Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on your success in WMF board elections 2017!!![edit]

Congratulation on your election to the WMF Board!! Good luck on your term!!!

TenorTwelve (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:TenorTwelve many thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

A question about WikiProject Med Foundation[edit]

Hi, as one of your voter I think you own me five minutes of your time!

Just kidding, but I have a question for you. I was talking to a friend of mine (a doctor) about user groups. We have now a lot of UGs of different types, even related to topic. And there are topics who clearly require a lot of effort and combination. If Wikiwomen can have a user group why can't "wiki doctors" or at least people who care about the articles of medicine?

Than I realized that WikiProject Med Foundation is a User Group. But is there any difference? Does it work like any other UG?

Thank you!--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

[User:Alexmar983]] no worries. Well WikiWomen work to improve coverage of topics about women we at WikiProject Med work to improve coverage of health care topics. So yes Wiki Project Med Foundation is for people who care about medical articles :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Good, I can get few members in the next months. In the meantime, with Ivo K. from Wikimedia Estonia we are organizing the 2017 edition of commons:Commons:European_Science_Photo_Competition_2015 that is going to be international. Can I send an email to the group and a message in the talk page to ask for qualified jurors of the international panel? Ivo told me that he contacted chapters, I don't think he contacted UGs. --Alexmar983 (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sure no problem. Are you going to have medical photos aswell? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I was supporting that idea. If not this year, in 2019. BTW, some of you maybe are close to basic research so some pictures of labrats is possible, I hope. And in any case my main goal here to find another juror, a good P.I. or researcher with academic publication to evaluate the photos. If an astronomer is ok to evaluate an image of a MOF crystal, than a medicine expert can evaluate that one of an elemental analysis on the clay of a Etruscan vase. I leave the message in the following days. thanks.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
There are a number of us who would be happy to provide feedback on medical images, if any are submitted :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Whose Knowledge?: [July 2017][edit]

Whose Knowledge News
July 2017 • Volume 1 • Issue 3
Activities and Events:
Okvir pilot in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Wikimania 2017
Emancipatory Design Research
Wikimedia Movement:
Letter from Buenos Aires
About Whose Knowledge?
If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

We hope you enjoy this issue of the '''Whose Knowledge?''' News. Please reach out to us if you have any ideas or suggestions! -- Saileshpat using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Update regarding Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos[edit]


I regret to inform you that the series of motivational and educational videos project, which had been planned introduce Wikipedia and some of its sister projects to new contributors, is being discontinued.

There are multiple factors that have led to this decision. The initial budget and time estimates were far too small for a project of this scale and complexity. Also, my simultaneous involvement in Cascadia Wikimedians User Group was problematic due to the shortage of human resources for the user group, which resulted in my spending far more time trying to help the user group than I had planned, so my time and attention were diverted from this video project to assisting the user group.

You can find more information in the final report for the grant.

I regret that this project did not fulfill the hopes that many of us had for it, and I hope that in the future someone with the necessary resources will choose to resume work on it or a similar project. If you are interested in working on this or a similar project then please contact the WMF grants team.

On a personal note, I am retiring from the Wikimedia community. Perhaps I will return someday.


--Pine 23:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Reply

Series director and screenwriter

Formulating proposals[edit]

I am very disappointed by the proposal on interlinking of accounts. Many of the concerns of opposing users should have been obvious and taken into account when formulating the proposal, and such a proposal should have a discussion explaining why the specific wording was chosen and what concerns are handled by it and what concerns remain. It is very frustrating to have a long discussion on issues that could have been handled by a little more work put down in the proposal itself: hundreds or thousands of lines instead of a few paragraphs. --LPfi (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC

User:LPfi The proposal will help a great deal with with undisclosed paid editing. If we at Wikipedia wish to maintain our independence from the subject mater we write about this is a critical step we need to take. We are currently being over run on EN WP by undisclosed paid promotional editors (with problems less severe in other languages). We have lots of people pretending to be Wikipedians in good standing when they are permanently banned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
This might be true. But then it is even more important that the proposal is well though out so that it fulfils its object, and that is accompanied by a thorough enough discussion from the start. It is no reason to word the proposal carelessly, so that it has bad side effects or so that we get 100k discussion about possible side effects. --LPfi (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
User:LPfi I am not sure what you are requesting? We have had multiple discussions about the issue of paid editing across multiple projects including EN WP and Meta and what potential solutions there are. The wording of this proposal was run by the legal team at the WMF and the safety team plus a few people on EN Arbcom before the RfC started.
I am not seeing any potential side effects and neither did they. One often only get people weighting in once the RfC officially launches. Do you believe there is wording that would garner greater support? And what wording would you prefer to see? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
By the way added details of a case in which this would help[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

But to summarize IMO our readers deserve an indepedent and advertisement free Wikipedia. We need to take measures to achieve this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Links we discussed[edit]

Project closures

A couple of members have commented on each of these, but without anything resembling a consensus discussion. See the two discussion threads, such as they are, at this page.

In neither case are there any comments supporting project closure, and in neither case would closure be consistent with policy. Historically, plenty of project closure proposals have stayed open months and even years. But the tone of these is such that I think the proposals should be closed promptly (as unsuccessful, of course).
Project approvals

In both cases, the tests have met requirements for content, activity of community and interface translation. (Frankly, I haven't checked activity levels for October. But there's only so much patience that test communities can have while waiting for LangCom to act, too.)

Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is clear consensus here[6] not to close it.
I will send this to the rest of langcomm. They are actively discussing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Some of these should be dealt with in the next week or so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the nudge. As a practical matter, I know there is not consensus to close either project. But I needed a statement of that in LangCom and a formal start of the seven-day clock. Now I have those.
I'm going to see if the Gorontalo project has a reasonably disinterested language expert with solid credentials who can verify the language for that project. As for LFN, we'll have to see how that plays out. But maybe at least they will start discussing now. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pop-up showing authorship info on every article in mainspace[edit]

As per your suggestion, I added the idea to the 2017 wishlist here. Do you have any further recommendations? SashiRolls (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply


Reading Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation/Votes I wonder why you go after people that oppose your RfC? This isn't just a few clarifying remarks, this is a very clear trend. — Jeblad 11:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

So User:Bluerasberry appear to state that I have not addressed the concerns raised and you are here to state I am not to address the concerns raised regarding the proposal?
Those who oppose the idea already get at least twice the vote as those who support it (and some are claiming those opposed deserve four times the vote as those who support it).
Meh Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Kurdish Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Doc James,
As you know, Wikipedia is blocked in Turkey, therefore ku.wikipedia is also directly affected. How can we make the connection easier for some users who request it, such as ku:User:Mohajeer (VPN doesn't seem to work very well). Best regards--Ghybu (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:Ghybu there are mirrors that one can use. Apps can be used aswell.
Further details here Response_to_2017_ban_in_Turkey Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re:Translation of three sentences into Yo[edit]

Done. See: here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikitext editor syntax highlighting[edit]

Regarding your Wikitext editor syntax highlighting request, are you happy with the font-weight, font-size and bolding, and just want the colors changed to be like WikED colors, or do you want the appearance including weight, size and bolding to match WikED as much as possible? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:Wbm1058 to match WikEd as much as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Global preferences ready for testing[edit]


I am contacting you because of your support for Global settings in the 2016 Community Tech Wishlist. Global preferences are now available for beta testing, and need your help before being released to the wikis.

  1. Read over the help page, it is brief and has screenshots
  2. Login or register an account on Beta English Wikipedia
  3. Visit Global Preferences and try enabling and disabling some settings
  4. Visit some other language and project test wikis such as English Wikivoyage, German Wiktionary, the Hebrew Wikipedia and test the settings
  5. Report your findings, experience, bugs, and other observations

Once the team has feedback on design issues, bugs, and other things that might need worked out, the problems will be addressed and global preferences will be sent to the wikis.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Editing on your CV[edit] has a question about whether/how people list editing Wikipedia on their résumés. Do you (or any of your talk-page stalkers) know of any useful pages describing this, or a discussion that might be useful to them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Commond deletion bot requirements[edit]

I'm contacting you because you supported the Commons Deletion Bot proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist. The Wishlist team has finalized the draft specifications for how the bot will work, and are seeking review in confirming or discussing the plans for the bot. If you have some time, please take a look and leave a comment. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:Keegan (WMF) thanks will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

SVG Translate Community wishlist survey project[edit]

Hello! Thank you for voting for the SVG Translate project that was proposed in the 2017 Wishlist survey. The Community Tech team in the Wikimedia Foundation is beginning to start their work on the project. We're currently looking for feedback on some open questions which will allow us to come up with preliminary designs for the tool. If you are interested in being involved, you can watch the project page and join in the discussions on the talk page. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and learning from your experiences. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF), Product Manager, Community Tech (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sign-up for Whose Knowledge? on-line newsletter[edit]

Hi everybody,

We are leaving the wiki newsletter format behind and venturing into the email newsletter format. We'd love to keep sharing our projects and adventures with you all! You can sign up here to make that happen.

See you all there!

With love & solidarity,

Claudia - and the WK? Comms Team using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tuskegee Study[edit]

You may wish to revisit your claim that it "is debated" that the Tuskegee Study did not offer penicillin to the men in the study (here). This is not what the source says. I've written about this misleading edit (at Wikipediocracy) and will be happy to provide a correction or update, as needed. Best, SashiRolls (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:SashiRolls source says "Finally, penicillin therapy was available in the later stages of the TSUS. By 1952, 28% of the syphilitic patients examined in the TSUS had received penicillin therapy. Ironically, only 33% of the controls received it.26"
So yes compared to the controls many of the people in the TSUS appear to have received penicillin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
On re reading the penicillin may have been given for alternate reasons (not necessarily the syphilis). Adjusted the wording. to match this[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for improving this a bit. In fact, after looking through some comments from the same author on a different article in his bibliography, I think what he's suggesting is that some of the subjects received treatment through other sources (specifically because of the mandatory testing and treatment of early-stage syphilis in Alabama at the time). As you note, others may have received penicillin for reasons unrelated to the disease. I wrote up my post at WPO before commenting here in large part because the misleading text had been on the page for 7 years. I still feel like "many of" is quite strong when we're speaking of only 28% of one cohort, when previous cohorts had percentages of less than 3% receiving penicillin according to the same article. I would have just fixed it myself if I could (adding the crucial element about the lack of "informed consent"), but I can't -- as you probably know -- because of the Cirt/Sagecandor affair. It's really surprising how often I find these sorts of misreadings / one-sided presentations. I could flatter myself and think I just have a nose for it; but in fact, I'm afraid it's more that these sorts of misrepresentations are simply quite common on English Wikipedia. SashiRolls (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Agree "many" is a little unclear User:SashiRolls. Have clarified with the exact numbers.[8]
Appreciate you bringing these concerns here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well then, I'll ask one more time that greater emphasis be placed on the established scholarship rather than on the critical / revisionist retrospective which snipes at details along the way. The fact is that all along the way those in the study were deliberately discouraged from getting therapy elsewhere, not only by the perks of being involved in the study, but also by the illusion that they were being treated. Consider the notice sent round for the completely free "special treatment" spinal tap, mentioned in the article by Allan M. Brandt that White is responding to.

Some time ago you were given a thorough examination and since that time we hope you have gotten a great deal of treatment for bad blood. You will now be given your last chance to to get a special treatment if it is believed you are in a condition to stand it. ...Remember This is Your Last Chance For Special Free Treatment. Be Sure To Meet The Nurse.

cited in: Allan M. Brandt (December 1978). "Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study" (PDF). The Hastings Center Report 8 (6): 24. PMID 721302. doi:10.2307/3561468. Retrieved September 30, 2018. 

It is no accident that one of the primary sources treated in White's revisionist piece is the Harvard historian's 1978 paper; I believe it's a mistake/distortion of the record to present one without the other.
The focus on "femmes fatales" in the literature section is troublingly narrow. What is to be said about the fact that Rabelais dedicated Gargantua to "Vous Vérolez très précieux" (most likely referring to François Ier who granted the royal privilege or right to publish and whose mistress, La Belle Ferronière, was so blamed for his infection that even her epitaph made reference to this transmission)? Why is there no mention of Shakespeare's obsession with the disease, or of the admonition on his tombstone that his bones should never be worried? Did the Bard know that one day the "substantific marrow" of his bones would give away his games? ^^
In the Arts section, it's also worth noting that the reference to does not at all support the claims being made about the choice of Jan van der Straet. It's too bad, because the story of bringing back Guyaco from Hispaniola is an interesting treatment story not mentioned in the article. (Cf. G. Barraud, Le traitement héroïque du mal vénérien, Revue d'Histoire de la Pharmacie, 1953)
Please accept these comments in the spirit of an periodic 7-year GA-review, in which the less medical sources are checked. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cochrane mess[edit]

One of our best allies in Cochrane has resigned over the handling of the recent mess: I suspect it's better to avoid any Wikimedia (official) communication related to Cochrane until they elect a new board, so that nobody can suspect we're taking sides. --Nemo 16:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agree. I have no official opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]


You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Proposal "Improve Wikipedia Watchlist Handling of Wikidata"[edit]

Hello Doc James,

I have a feeling that my pings didn't work again (which might have to do something with my usual signature), but I intended to notify you about additional remarks/questions I wrote in the Discussion section of your (already great!) proposal.

With kind regards — Mar(c). [T] 21:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:Mar(c) yes looks like the ping did not work. Will check it out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
(At least I can receive pings, yay!) Thanks, I'm looking forward to the seeing this becoming reality. Unfortunately the whole Wishlish Survey thing is fairly new to me; I discovered the tracking page and the "reasonable amount of canvassing is acceptable" advice just today... With kind regards — Mar(c). [T] 22:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks User:Mar(c). Currently travelling. If you wish to promote would appreciate that :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, yesterday was the last day to vote, unfortunately. :'-} I was pointed to your proposal in a discussion about the use of Wikidata on nl-wiki, after a crosswiki sockpuppeteer (not involved with nl-wiki) stirred things up there by his unsolicited "help" (the same funny guy who copied my vote comment btw). Anyway, in my opinion large scale use of Wikidata in the articles isn't a wise thing to do until your proposal is reality. Using it for links to IMDb is fine, but not for birth and death data. That is, in my opinion... — Mar(c). [T] 00:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yup I am with you on that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Project Medicine Foundation Membership[edit]

Membership renewal

Dear Wiki Project Med Supporter, you are receiving this message as you have shown interest in supporting Wiki Project Med in the past. As our organization grows and evolves, we want to be able to verify peoples ongoing desire of to be involved. To that end, the board has decided to require renew of membership every two years. So -- whether you are a current member or not, please fill out our updated membership form, to ensure your membership till the end of 2020. Please note -- We ask that you fill out the form by Feb 3rd, as we are close to elections and only members can nominate themselves for the board and vote!

Best, Shani & Doc James. 01:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Implementation of closed RfC[edit]

Where are we with the implementation of Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation ? It was closed in favor and an year has passed without any close-challenge. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure where you get this idea. There wasn't sufficient consensus for any specific outcome and the closure only identified three things for which maybe a future discussion could outline proposals and find consensus. Nemo 11:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Nemo bis:That's wrong and by a mile or so. We were not voting on multiple options (so,any specific outcome is meaningless) and the closure explicitly noted:-- I find that some of the oppose arguments to be sufficiently weak that, based on strength of argument, there is a consensus in favour of the proposal. Some fine-tuning needed to be done and thus, the 3 points of mention. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Point 3 can be clarified, at-ease and point 2 is basically common-sense as a subset of en:WP:Casting aspersions, meta:Urbanity et al. If you want, I can set up another RFC for defining the time-span of link-mention.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
We have had this policy for some time Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts User:Winged Blades of Godric Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Brilliant. And, I did not know of that! But, most-importantly, what's the status with the Upwork guys? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Will email you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Who Wrote That" project update[edit]

Hello. I'm reaching out to you as you participated in the 2017 Community Wishlist proposal for "Who Wrote That" project (previously known as "Blame Tool"). The Community Tech team is kicking things off on the project and we have an early-stage mockup available for you to look at. I invite you to follow that project page, where I will be posting periodic status updates for the project. You are also welcome to provide your thoughts on the talk page. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:NKohli (WMF) have you seen [9]? It is amazing. Does not work within references unfortunately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Never mind see it is already linked :-) So yes improvements of that are good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Elections for 5 seats on the board of WPMEDF & Annual Meeting[edit]

Dear WikiProject Medicine member, the election for 5 seats on the board is underway and voting is now open till March 24th. We encourage you to use your right to vote by supporting the candidates you prefer HERE. Please also note that on Monday, March 25, between 1900-2000 UTC we will be holding our open annual meeting online. A link will be sent via the mailing list / Facebook group so stay tuned. We hope you can join us! Best, James & Shani. 14:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Removal of a comment[edit]

Hi Doc James, you have removed a comment without giving any rationale. Was this intentional? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:AFBorchert thanks was indeed an error on my part. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Journal hosting sister project proposal[edit]

Hello, I'm leaving a note on the talkpages of those on the old SPCom list to ensure that you have seen this proposal discussion for a journal hosting sister project. I realise that the process these days is slightly different, but I'm keen to make sure that we get as broad feedback as possible, so please consider to adding a note to comment/support/oppose. We hope to submit a cover letter to the WMF trustees in the coming month. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Asking for a letter of support to create a research unit in Tunisia[edit]

Dear Sir,

I thank you for your efforts. We are managing to create a research unit called "Data Engineering and Semantics" in the University of Sfax, Tunisia. The purpose of this research unit is to gather Wikiresearchers from University of Sfax into a recognized research structure and have funding from Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education. In order to do that, we need to have a letter of support from institutions all over the world. I ask if you or the director of your research department can write a letter of support for us so that we can have our application approved. This will be acknowledged. --Csisc (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Csisc I can do so when I get home in mid November. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I will send a reminder in mid November. --Csisc (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unanimous approval?[edit]

I note that the summary here notes that "The Board unanimously endorses a Universal Code of Conduct...", despite the overwhelming rejection of such an idea. I would think better of you than to think you would approve such an idea despite a rejection like that. Could you please confirm whether you were asked for your opinion, and if so whether it was an endorsement? Seraphimblade (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Seraphimblade I do not think a movement developed Universal Code of Conduct is unreasonable. So yes I support / endorse the recommendation. For example do we not all agree that threatening to harm another editor is not appropriate? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well, sure, and if that's all it is, we already have that. My understanding, however, was that the proposed UCoC was intended to be rather more comprehensive than "Don't threaten people". Seraphimblade (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
We will also have "Don't release private information that people have not already disclosed on Wikipedia." Our guidelines already contain much of what a code of conduct should contain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't even like that as a "universal" metric. Some communities might decide such disclosure is acceptable in exposing undisclosed paid editors, and if they do, I would consider that a valid community decision. Seraphimblade (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes of course. And we will need to include those exceptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I see. What do you think of the support for a "Code of Conduct" for the WMF? That wasn't flippant, many people do want that too, as is clear from even the highly informal thread in overwhelming support of that. Seraphimblade (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes certainly they will be included. And we supported a Movement Charter aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
(I suspect that Seraphimblade was talking about this, regarding a CoC for the WMF, but I'm not certain.)
I'm pretty sure almost everyone in the community disagrees with the WMF deciding what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, or enforcing it, or having any involvement in development of the relevant policies. There are several reasons why the WMF might want to develop a UCoC, and none of them are good:
  1. The WMF disagrees with the community on key policy points, and wants to enforce its own version of things to override community decisions.
  2. The WMF is concerned about conduct enforcement in the very small communities that don't have decent policies of their own, and dislikes the informal way in which the local sysops, global sysops and stewards currently handle things. (If anyone wanted to start an RfC on clarifying the scope of when global sysops' blocks are acceptable (within the bounds of the small communities they work with), I think it would be received quite nicely. But this isn't something which would at all benefit from WMF involvement, which indicates that it's not what they intend. It would also be inconsistent with much of the language currently coming out of the relevant T&S people.)
  3. The WMF wants authority to block people it dislikes, in situations where the disliked user hasn't done anything anywhere near the scope of T&S's current work.
  4. The WMF wants to be seen as more directly involved in conduct issues, for its own reasons that are not related to Wikimedia's goals.
  5. The WMF wants to have a very public document include wording that indicates affiliation with a particular cultural grouping, in order to both alienate certain groups they dislike and to bring in more people from the WMF's favored culture.
  6. The WMF wants to justify its donations, even though the areas donors want improved are areas ordinarily outside WMF influence.
I suspect that it's some combination of these points, rather than just one. --Yair rand (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
If the actual issue is that the small wikis don't have sufficient clarity on the "default" conduct assumptions, I'd volunteer to start an RfC myself, if you think that it would stop the WMF from what it's doing. (It wouldn't be the first time I started a major community discussion just so that the WMF didn't mess things up.) I'm thinking something like a amalgamation of the most widely agreed upon conduct policies from major projects, working as a set of default policies on small (global-sysop-level) wikis and on those wikis which adopt it by consensus. It could be overwritten (and/or overridden) by local community decisions with more precise and relevant policies as necessary, and become part of the global sysop/steward policy set, and translated for small wikis that would use it as they're starting up. And of course, it would be completely irrelevant to all the large established projects with their own conduct policies. I suspect plenty of the relevant people in the SMWT would be willing to help out on setting this up.
...But unfortunately it's probably too late for this. The WMF appointed twelve UCoC "facilitators" within the past hour, so we're probably in for another major conflict where any actual work gets put on hold while everyone does their best to stop another disaster. --Yair rand (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what you mean by "if you think that it would stop the WMF from what it's doing" User:Yair rand? You are proposing taking the lead on a UCoC? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sure, if it will stop the WMF from trying to impose an unwanted policy on Wikimedia, and if by "universal" we mean "applying to wikis that approve it, and small wikis that don't reject it in favor of their own conduct policies". --Yair rand (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Community Wishlist Survey 2019 - Section Name in Diff[edit]


The Community Tech team (WMF) has officially started the project for Section Name in Diff, the #9 wish from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey!

You previously voted for this wish, so we are now contacting you. We invite you to visit the project page, where you can read a project analysis and share your feedback.

We hope to see you on the project talk page, and thank you in advance!

-- IFried (WMF), 14:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

AI legislation[edit]

Dear AI DocJames,

I contact you since you are marked among the "People who are interested" in Advanced technology page. As you might already know, the EU is working about a regulation of the AI environment, in order to promote its potential and at the same time to protect the citizens from unwanted uses. It is going to be an important moment for achieving the most empowering, safe and clear definition of the rights and duties related to the AI, affecting also Wikimedia's opportunities, not only inside EU. I kindly invite you to participate to the discussion, firstly by commenting the page that is dedicated to it, in order to draft Wikimedia's answers to this legislative initiative of the EU.

The linked page contains the questions from the public consultation by the European Commission on its Artificial Intelligence White Paper.

The EU's survey will remain open until 14 June 2020, but we will take input into account until 31 May 2020.

Thanks, --Mattia Luigi Nappi (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Are you gone from en:wiki?[edit]


People are worried that you will not edit after that Arbcom. I hope this is not true, as you have done so much for medical topics. Maybe you are just taking a break. I cannot express how sorry I am to see you go, if this is the case. My best wishes to you. --Kalbbes (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes am taking a break and simple cleaning up some lose ends. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ha, thank you! Kalbbes (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Brand Project[edit]

Hi Doc James, you were one of the board members who approved the Brand Project last month. You did this despite significant opposition by the community. Do you as community selected board member endorse the new survey which does not provide the status quo as an option and which doesn't take the result of the RfC into account? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I do not see the harm in offering greater flexibility / more option around naming to affiliates / the WMF.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Does that include the flexibility of asking that the Wikimedia Foundation keeps operating under the name Wikimedia Foundation in an affiliate's area, even if Wikimedia Foundation decides to use another name? (For instance, a chapter's country, a user group's project etc.) Nemo 13:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
We have not been presented a final proposal to vote on. With respect to the WMF operating under various names in various places, I would need to review the various positions on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for helping to create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations[edit]

Wikimedia 2030 Celebration Image Wikimedia 2030
Thank you very much for everything you did to help create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations! I am especially grateful for the enormous amount of work you did in the Community Health working group and all the care and commitment you brought to the process.

--Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Translators Without Borders[edit]

Hi Doc James. I remember the medical project you coordinated had some translations made by TWB. Do we still collaborate with them? Would it be possible to request other kinds of translations? If so, what are the general requirements? Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Strainu from what I understand they are still interested in collaborating. We would need someone to coordinate the process (which we have not had for a few years). What sort of content were you thinking? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
What exactly is involved in coordination? We are looking into translating B+ articles from Romanian into English and other European languages and I remembered about TWB. Turbojet, is professional translation something that would help your project?--Strainu (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes. This is a way to make it easier to get donations for WMF.
Strainu and I work on the Romanian Wikipedia. People in Romania earn little. As a retired university professor, I receive less than $ 8,000 a year. Others receive a quarter of this amount. No matter how much goodwill they have, they can't afford to make donations. However, Timișoara will be the European Capital of Culture in 2021 or 2022. Timisoara has many heritage sites and Strainu and I take care of them. I wrote many articles, but in Romanian. I think many will look for information on Wikipedia, but in English, not in Romanian. If they find it, they may be encouraged to donate. But my English is not good enough for me to translate the articles. If anyone was willing to translate, it would be a win-win for WMF. --Turbojet (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Okay have reached out. Generally we just translate 3 to 4 paragraph leads of a topic to make it easier for the translators. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Do you have any news Doc James? Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
User:Strainu unfortunately not. Will email you and maybe you can connect with them directly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


Hello there, I noticed you have a typo on your userpage. Under About Me you write "I am an editor most active on the English Wikipedia were I go by the name User:Doc James", but it should be 'where' not 'were', right? Zupotachyon (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

K thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees[edit]

Dear Board of Trustees,

This is an open letter from arbitrators and arbitration committees from across the Wikimedia movement.

We have followed closely the process of the creation of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). We know that many small communities do not have a basic set of rules, so it's hard for new editors to have a good sense of what is allowed and what not. Additionally, we encourage the creation of basic rules of conduct for all wikis to ensure that nobody gets treated poorly. Editors in our communities wish to have an environment conducive to creating high quality content. We do not want to see editors discriminated against based on opinion, culture, sexuality, etc. Editors should be judged by their editing. In our experience, the global community and our projects will generally endorse rules that ensure no individual is a victim of discrimination or hounding.

However, we are concerned about the enforcement of the UCoC and concerned about how that enforcement will be viewed on our projects. The lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above, rather than being seen as a legitimate community endeavor. Several of our projects have seen major damage and harm done when the communities have come into conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation (for instance dewiki with SUPERPROTECT and enwiki with FRAMGATE). We do not want that to happen with the Universal Code of Conduct as that could undermine the benefits it has to offer for projects without well-developed policies, systems, and experience for dealing with editor behavior. Recent changes to the timeline to allow for more consultation and discussion are a positive step.

It is therefore vital that projects with more sophisticated governing systems, like ours, be formally involved in the next step of the UCoC process. We note the recent call for a new committee to draft the second phase. At least one person with experience as an arbitrator, or similar experience dealing with complex and difficult behavior issues, should be added as a member of the drafting committee, and at least one additional person with this experience, or experience as a Steward, should be added as an advisor.

We understand that individual projects cannot be given a veto over the implementation of the UCoC. However, we hope that you understand that individual projects must feel committed to whatever enforcement mechanisms arise. Without this sense of investment and partnership the UCoC will ultimately fail. Mere consultation is insufficient. A formal process for ratifying the UCoC enforcement system is necessary.

The UCoC must also be a living document. The community is changing and evolving and so has universal behavior. We know that this is a different document than if it had been created 10 years ago, and we feel that universal norms will be different in 10 years. A way to amend the Universal Code of Conduct must be added, and this amendment process should build on lessons learned to date to ensure that communities and individuals have a chance for meaningful input before any amendment is adopted.

Wikipedia and other projects are only possible because of the hard work of editors at communities to create and maintain the incredible store of knowledge available. This path is longer, but hasty decisions and decisions that lack legitimacy in the eyes of the volunteers they effect could cause real damage to our communities and the work we do. In the words of the Wikimedia Foundation values, "Collaboration is not always easy. Sometimes we struggle. Working together is hard, but it’s worth it. We do it because it makes us stronger." We ask you to be stronger together with us.


Signing members of the cswiki-arbcom[edit]

Signing on behalf of the dewiki-arbcom[edit]

For the enwiki-arbcom[edit]

Signing members of the frwiki-arbcom[edit]

For the plwiki-arbcom[edit]

Signing members of the ruwiki-arbcom[edit]

Signing members of the ukwiki-arbcom[edit]

Signing members of the pswiki-arbcom[edit]

Thanks for reaching out with these suggestions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply