User talk:EllenCT

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


Thanks for the support on the Ideas Grant Lab!

Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics[edit]

Idea Lab
Idea Lab

Hello, EllenCT! We've added Events to IdeaLab, and you're invited :)

Upcoming events focus on turning ideas into Individual Engagement Grant proposals before the March 31 deadline. Need help or have questions about IEG? Join us at a Hangout:

  • Thursday, 13 March 2014, 1600 UTC
  • Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1700 UTC
  • Saturday, 29 March 2014, 1700 UTC

Hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically to IEG and IdeaLab participants. To unsubscribe from any future IEG reminders, remove your name from this list

page_counter and Quarry[edit]


Glad you are finding Quarry useful :) the page_counter column has never really been used in wikimedia wikis for the longest time, and has been completely removed recently (see: Hence that column will not give you any stats on page views, I'm afraid. There is no view counter available on labsdb, and so we can not use that from Quarry :(

Will attempt to fix the other dead link! Thank you for reporting that! Yuvipanda (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yuvipanda: now that the pageview analytics are sorted out, what are your wishes about how to approach that deprecated field? Do you need more engineers, dev ops, DBAs, sysadmins, or the like? EllenCT (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?[edit]

IdeaLab logo dark orange.png

Hi there,

I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results[edit]

IdeaLab badge 1.png

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey on content curation & review Inspire Campaign[edit]


Thanks for your participation in IdeaLab during the Inspire Campaign focused on improving content curation & review processes from February to March 2016. I'm interested in hearing your feedback about your participation during 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.

Immediate results of the campaign can be found here. Please feel free to review them and let me know if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

Your questions to the FDC candidates[edit]

Hello EllenCT! Thank you for your questions to the candidates to the FDC. To answer your question in the summary, yes, it is better if the comments are signed, it helps give some context to the questions. Also, you have asked two questions about paid editing for which I fail to see a direct connection to the work of the FDC. Could you please reframe them both so as to make sure that they are relevant to the particular context of FDC and/or grant making? This would tremendously help to keep the discussion focused and make sure the outcomes are valuable to chosing the right candidate. Thank you very much! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Delphine (WMF): many FDC applicants have experimented with programs undertaking editing with various direct and indirect financial supports in the past, and they are likely to continue. Facilitation and sponsorship of topic-focused editathons are one of many examples. I'm a little bit surprised at this, frankly. EllenCT (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@EllenCT: Thank you for your reformulation of your first question. The second question is still out of scope, you seem to be asking the candidates to evaluate programs that your question does not define and to take a stance on a complex matter. I do not believe the Q&A session in that context is the place to ask such questions. Thank you! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Delphine (WMF): I most certainly am asking the candidates to take a stance on a complex, open-ended matter because I want to evaluate the candidates by their ability to respond to the questions. If you believe that is insufficient justification for either question, then please let me know to whom I may appeal your decision. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @EllenCT:, there's no "appeal" to a decision I have not made :). I was just trying to keep the debate on track. The candidates have started answering all questions anyway, so I guess we're good. I am just not convinced about the kind of insight such an open ended question brings into this particular process. In any case, thanks for participating! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi EllenCT, I saw your edits to the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey page. The Wishlist Survey is a Community Tech team project; we're going to run the survey every year to create a backlog for the team. As you can see on that 2015 page, it's a pretty involved process -- we have two weeks where we invite people to post proposals and review them, and then two weeks for people to vote on the proposals. We're planning to start asking for 2016 proposals around mid-November. So I'm glad you're looking forward to the next survey and you have a couple proposals in mind, but you're a few months early. :) I'm going to remove the links that you posted on 2016 Community Wishlist Survey -- they'll need to be expanded into full proposals, once the survey starts at the end of this year. Let me know if you have any questions? Thanks, -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Questions asked at Talk:2015 Community Wishlist Survey#2016. EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hi EllenCT! Thank you for participating in the FDC candidates discussion. Your questions and their answers will be taken into consideration by the Board when making their decision, so thank you for providing different thoughts and outlooks on the nominations. Cheers! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Strategic Approaches Report Part 2 now uploaded[edit]

You can find the Strategic Approaches Report (parts 1 and 2 now combined into one doc) as a PDF on Commons. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - should say that the new stuff starts on page 71. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A paper on personal attacks in English Wikipedia[edit]

Hi! You're receiving this message because you signed up as a participant to the m:Research:Detox project. We just wanted to let you know that some of the researchers on the project have released a paper that uses machine learning to analyze some aspects of the nature of personal attacks in English Wikipedia. The paper can be found on arxiv here. If you get the chance to read it, we'd love to hear your thoughts over on the m:Research:Detox page.

Help us understand Toxicity on English Wikipedia[edit]

Hi! You're receiving this message because you signed up as a participant to the m:Research:Detox project. We have just launched a Wikilabels campaign to collect more information on Toxicity in Wikipedia. If you'd like to help, please rate a few comments via the Discussion quality WikiLabels campaign (Warning: comments may contain distressing content).

Invitation to Proposals for new projects[edit]

Hello. There are proposals for new projects that you may consider, like WikiJournal and Wikidirectory. Share your thoughts in those pages. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

See for a proposal for a wiki-like platform concerning the environment. Ramosama (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Project Proposal for an Environmental Emergency Plan Template[edit]

Dear EllenCT, Considering your contributions and activity, I thought my proposal for a wiki-like platform to save the environment might be of interest to you. Thanks for your attention, Arnold Ramosama (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing of the RfC[edit]

You just closed the RfC regarding the naming of the WMF with the imho dubious reasoning of something about legal. I fail to see any connection between your new head-note and the RfC. Can you please explain, why you put this misleading head-note there? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: the Board Chair and a Board community liaison said it was premature, and while I can't tell you why, I suspect that the legal review to determine the potential harm to chapters and affiliates must conclude before anyone is allowed to make a decision. EllenCT (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
What has this all to do with legal? There is nothing about legality in this RfC, it's about content. I fail to see any connection with legal matters for the community< not to speak out in this content dispute. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, by the way: I think, that an RfC is not anyone's property, once it is in the open and a considerable amount of editors have spoken out, so it's not up to you to decide this, it is no longer your RfC, it's our RfC. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sänger: The yes/no question was premature because if the Legal department says there are some names that could hurt the chapters or affiliates because of confusion, then those aren't allowed. I am sure they will also look at trademark registrations and the like. Of course, who even knew there was an ongoing legal review because the Board hasn't published minutes in over a year? EllenCT (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted your premeditated and non consensual closure and started a topic on the talk pages. I still fail to see any connection between legal and the RfC,. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The legal department is expected to figure out whether certain name changes would put chapters or affiliates at risk from potential litigants. Several of them asked for that, but I didn't know it was still going on until listening to Zach's podcast. EllenCT (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Zack is saying nothing with a lot of words to deflect any criticism of his pet project, I would not trust him with anything in regard of branding. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I got the impression that Zach would have preferred that the Legal department had finished by now. Let's continue the discussion on the RFC talk page. EllenCT (talk) 09:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
And? What has Zachs mind to do with this? He's just a employee of the communities. I'd like to know, why you personally did this, despite no real need for this, as legal has no connection to the RfC. I really fail to understand your reasoning completely, I don't even have some remote clue for this for me unfathomably thinking. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the legal review to determine the potential harm to chapters and affiliates must conclude before anyone is allowed to make a decision. After almost a million dollars invested in consultancy? Why so many unethical, anglocentrist people and their conflicts of interest are running the WMF? Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 20:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the planners did not think the legal review would take as long as it has. EllenCT (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard notice[edit]

A discussion regarding your edits has been opened at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Main_page_edit_warring_over_unusual_RfC, please see that discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 00:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi. I am not certain what is going on, and whether this is typical of your contributions. Would you please read the linked page, and reflect on your recent contributions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: branding proposal[edit]

I've commented on the proposal to change WMF to WikipediaF a while ago, now I see it comes up again and my previous concern -- that the readers would mistakenly think that Wikipedia policies apply to all sister projects, and explaining this is already difficult for these smaller wikis, and could get exponentially more difficult after such a brand change -- was not addressed.

I am curious how did this change of brand originate?

Perhaps it can be called 'Wikibooks' instead of 'Wikipedia' as a Wikibook would be easier to present in any level of education to better inform the audience? Perhaps this is the future of how to eliminate the non-free publisher sector and engage people of any age in writing textbooks and books sharing their life experience and knowledge? This could possibly lead to a significantly increased impact and liberation of knowledge.

Where is the history of all this proposal? Who came up with this idea? I would be interested to speak with them in an online conference to get a better idea of the motivations, as the on-wiki documentation so far seems to convey very little and is difficult to resonate with.

Regards, --Gryllida 03:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gryllida: See Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project. The WMF's Brand team was assigned to come up with a new branding system, and they decided early on that a new system must use Wikipedia's brand, after which EllenCT started the RFC. It looks like the Brand team may have backed down somewhat, saying that some of the options being considered will not be "Wikipedia"-based. They recently announced that they will be running a survey to gather feedback on the proposals. Unfortunately, the process has been rather opaque, and it's also unclear to what extant they intend to listen to the community on this. --Yair rand (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to affiliate members to complete a survey about WMF wide Universal Code of Conduct[edit]

Hello; My name is Mervat, and I am helping the Trust and Safety team to reach out to affiliates in order to discuss the Universal Code of Conduct. I am contacting you as you are a member of the Wikimedians for Sustainable Development User Group. If you have received this from other user groups/chapters, you can ignore.

There has been talks about the need for a global set of conduct rules in different communities over time, and finally, Wikimedia Foundation Board announced a Community Culture Statement, enacting new standards to address harassment and promote inclusivity across projects.Since the universal code of conduct that will be a binding minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects, will apply to all of us, staff and volunteers alike, all around the globe, and will impact our work as groups, individuals and projects, it’s of great importance that we all participate in expressing our opinions and thoughts about UCoC, its nature, what we think it should cover or include and what it shouldn’t include; how it may develop, drawback or help our groups.   This is the time to talk about it. As you are a valuable contributor to the Wikimedia movement, your voice counts. Before starting to draft the code of conduct, we would like to hear from you; We invite you to devote some minutes to take this survey; your answers will help us create a safer environment for all on Wikimedia:


It’s possible that you are a member of more than one affiliate; hence you may receive this survey more than once, and you may have participated previously in the discussions or filled out a previous survey during the first round of consultations about UCoC which targeted wikipedia/wikimedia communities. We apologize for this; it is really difficult to identify if a wikimedian belongs to multiple groups that work to spread free knowledge. Looking forward to your thoughts and opinions and hoping that you can respond within the next 2 weeks.  If you have any questions about the surveys or difficulties accessing the link, please contact me by email ( will be considered during the drafting process for the UCoC. Thank you for your participation.

Mervat Salman - Trust & Safety (Policy) Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation. --Mervat (WMF) (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)