Jump to content

User talk:

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

How to contact me[edit]

File:Wikimania WCA Tomer video notes 11 July 2012.pdf[edit]

Hi Fæ. Please could you add licensing information to this file? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fae, I hope you're well. Just dropping a note here to ensure you're aware of my question at Talk:Wikimedia Chapters Association#Community participation in the WCA discussions, You're probably someone that has been participating in most of the WCA-related discussions in their various forms, so I would appreciate an informed response from a knowledgeable person such as yourself. Thanks! Thehelpfulone 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm hanging back, as I want to encourage lots of different viewpoints and see if the page focuses a little. You may find it helpful to browse some of the resolution discussions, these were quite helpful around some of the topics mentioned. Outside of the Chapters list and a handful of direct emails, there is no other forum that we use. I constantly point folks back at meta if they have something to discuss. Cheers -- (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi, sure that's understandable, thanks for your reply. When you believe there are sufficient viewpoints, could you please also poke someone to confirm what Sue mentioned re the Chapters list being closed to subscription from the WMF (and any other subscription rules such as those that Johnbod suggested) is valid? I would poke someone myself but as you mentioned in a previous discussion, it's unclear from what's publicly available who should be poked! Thehelpfulone 11:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not sure I need to poke that one very hard, I believe this was covered by list discussion, though we probably ought to have a summary of that particular conclusion somewhere, so I may poke that aspect. If you think about it long enough, it probably is a good thing for independent governance, though I was not involved, nor an architect of that decision. -- (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure, thanks. If you could get that summary soon it would be appreciated - for example there was an email forwarded from Chapters-l to Wikimediaindia-l a couple of hours ago about a new "Wiki Loves Earth" photo contest, something which wasn't sent to any of the public lists by the original sender. Presuming there are other emails such as this being sent to Chapters-l I'd like to subscribe (as I'm sure others who are interested in general chapter news would). Thehelpfulone 15:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think the idea is that the chapters list is restricted to current chapter boards and staff (people drop off as soon as they leave the relevant board), but I would like to see this defined more clearly and it may well be that a chapter can recommend anyone it wants. The email you highlight would not be appropriate if restricted to the closed list, and we are normally quite conciencious about material relevant to the wider movement being cross-posted and I don't see that much on the list that would be very interesting or useful for non-Chapter bods. I did raise the question on the Chapters list itself with the following email, though nobody has got back to me yet, so maybe it was missed. I know you are active on IRC, so you might want to nag for action on the #wikimedia-chapters channel (which is open to all ;-) ):-- (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply


Request: Publicly available scope of this list
Fae [] 	8 February 2013 23:14
To: Wikimedia Chapters general discussions <chapters@wikimedia.ch>

As the topic was raised at
and Sue Gardner felt the need to explain the differences between this
list and Internal, could someone update
<https://www.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/chapters>, which I believe is where
an "official" public definition should be, and also the definition on
our wiki at <http://chapters.wikimedia.ch/Mailing_list>.

If a simple definition of scope, and how chapter folks can apply to
become a member of this list, is not already defined somewhere,
perhaps it should be agreed on the wiki?



I have no idea what compelled you to post private emails on the WCA Talk page. I thought I wouldn't have to point you to an established policy about not posting private or offlist mails here. I have been party to several blocks here on Meta for that exact indiscretion. I would ask you to remove that as soon as possible or offer Alice's permission as proof that she was aware. This policy is irrelevant of the content or the subject of the email, and expects a minimum level of privacy with email exchanges. Theo10011 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Theo, does this apply to my own emails, as these were the only ones I posted, apart from the email I explicitly asked permission to post on meta? It is worth noting that my first email asked what capacity the email was in, and on the 7th October 2012, my email asked "Could you also confirm if you are happy for us to make your email public at our discretion?", the answer the same day was "But if you see benefit in involving a broader audience, feel free to do so." I would appreciate a link to any policy that applies on this matter. You will note that all my official correspondence as a charity trustee and when acting in my capacity as the Chapters Association Chair are considered on the record, and may be produced in any public investigation or audit. Those emails which are private and confidential are marked as such. Thanks -- (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, in the past this has applied to private emails from the sender, though there is some discretion until the recipient complains. It is entirely contingent on the other party's objection. I'm surprised that I have to explain this trivial point about minimum expectation of privacy in a private correspondence. Second, I read your exchange before you posted the email and it did not have any explicit permission from Alice. It was more along the lines of "Do what you want, I'm not getting involved." That hardly qualifies as her permission. As for your official capacity, it is completely irrelevant here. This has nothing to do with your board, chapter or WCA. You might be charity trustee in your country, it has no bearing to your record and standing on this wiki. You are a user of this wiki, there are admins and we follow certain rules. I might have to dig through the explicit mention on a policy page for this, but its usually derived from common sense that you don't post private correspondence publicly. I can however link you to a couple of admins including myself who have blocked or warned individuals from posting private correspondence, I can do even better than that and link you to a similar response for posting private mailing list content like Internal-l. And as a matter of law, all private emails, even those unmarked are considered private correspondences and require some sort of breach of privacy depending on the jurisdiction. There is an inherent expectation of privacy, especially in the last case since the email was marked "OFFLIST" - that alone explicitly makes the email not for public disclosure and qualifies it as "private and confidential". As I suggested on the page, the first thing you should do is remove that email, unless Alice responds and doesn't object, my warning stands. Theo10011 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I'll remove it based on your official warning. Personally, I remain surprised at your view that there would be any doubt over publishing an email exchange where two trustees from the Wikimedia Foundation board were writing to the Chair and deputy Chair of the Chapters association in their official capacities on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and where there had at the time been a written confirmation that is was okay to republish the email, or that this can be interpreted as publishing a personal correspondence where there would be a natural expectation of privacy. As for the other email where Alice's release is given in the conversation meta, I have followed your direction and censored the discussion until such as time as Alice gives a full and proper release that meets your expectation in line with the established policy on meta. I am sure that she would rather these matters were public, rather than be thought to be engaged in secret correspondence, in line with our shared value of openness and transparency. Thanks -- (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I appreciate it. If she was indeed communicating in her official capacity as both of your positions suggests, she would have replied onlist, the fact that she explicitly marked her email as offlist gives her discretion in which capacity she might be speaking in. It is not for you or me to judge, and better to avoid. If she wanted it public, it is better she posts rather than you, in the heat of the discussion with her choosing to abstain and distancing herself from further involvement. I hope you can look at this from a neutral point of view without any of the issues surrounding the email or that discussion, and see the point. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply


http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Elections/2013_Chair&diff=5288080&oldid=5286358 – Thank you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

About membership of WCAC[edit]

Hi, WMBD signed on the Berlin Agreement in support of forming the WCA and we had an informal discussion about our representation in the council shortly after chapters meeting 2012. And in that discussion, I was chosen to represent our chapter in the council for the interim period and that remains so till now . However, we are yet to make any formal resolution on that. We will have formal discussion about selection of our representative soon and will formally nominate our representative. Till then, just corrected the wrongly written name:)


- Ali Haidar Khan (Tonmoy) (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved[edit]

I moved a discussion that you participated in to User_talk:Tarc#Ad_hominem_tangent. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Wikinewsie Group provisional board selection[edit]

Hi. You indicated an interest in supporting The Wikinewsie Group. We are currently in the process of trying to determine the best time for a meeting to determine the composition of the provisional board of the organization. If you are interested in attending or possible running for the board, please go to The Wikinewsie Group/Meetings and indicate which time would be best for you by 26 April. We plan to announce the time for the board meeting based on greatest potential availability on 28 April. --LauraHale (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Wikinewsie Group provisional board selection meeting time[edit]

Hi. This is to inform you that the meeting for the provisional board selection meeting for The Wikinewsie Group will take place in #wikinews-groupconnect on May 4, 2013 at 13:00 UTC, which is 8:00 in Mexico City, 9:00 in New York City, 15:00 in Berlin and 23:00 in Sydney. If you are interested in being on the provisional board but cannot attend, please comment at Talk:The Wikinewsie Group/Meetings to let the community know. --LauraHale (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please fill out our brief Participation Support Program survey[edit]

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on the Participation Support Program! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you submitted or commented on Participation Support requests in the past.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the Participation Support Program again soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Haitham, Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrative overhead[edit]

Despite some talk in the past, I've not been able in a 40 min search to find any page summarising even in the briefest form what administrative costs/overhead are and how to classify them. It would be nice to create at least a disambiguation page under a simple title here (with plenty of redirects) pointing to some resources. I found some past discussions but they were unhelpful so I don't find them worth linking. --Nemo 10:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

(Quick brain dump, while I'm here)
I'll try to remember to return to this (busy week ahead). I did email on this last year to Wikimedia-l, with some feedback on that list from a couple of parties. From my recollection of digging into it, the SORP definitions (and even PQASSO) can be twisted around by able politicians in several unhelpful ways, as can almost every accounting standard. For Wikimedia Chapters in mind, a clear definition could be based on defining the highest "value" coming from end charitable outcomes of open knowledge projects with the necessary activities directly contributing to those outcomes. Everything else must be of less value (being secondary or tertiary activities) and should be managed to be as lean and minimal as reasonably possible within the framework of national legislative requirements or necessary reporting to ensure high quality transparency. Benchmarking would be essential to assess those necessary but less valued activities.
So, we can break down activities by outcome value rather than forming an arbitrary and possibly destructive definition of bureaucracy:
  • Highest value - activities, coordination and communication that directly delivers open knowledge goals such as preserving open knowledge, improving user guides for how-to share knowledge, providing access to open knowledge, or curating open knowledge.
    Examples: Delivering an editathon, developing tools for end-users like cat-a-lot, video transcoding, or citation tools.
  • Medium value - coordination of volunteer proposals or expense payments, running conferences for Wikimedians to share best practices, paying for research into better methods of access to open knowledge.
    Examples: WIR programmes with editathons, WMF individual grants, Eduwiki/GLAMwiki conferences, Chapter or WMF employees who support programmes to deliver open knowledge outcomes.
  • Lowest value - necessary bureaucracy or internal facing activities with indirect outcomes for open knowledge.
    Examples: WMF or Chapter employees and their offices (rent, facilities) who manage the bureaucracy such as annual accounts, budget management annual funding proposals, general fund-raising management, HR management of employees, payments to lawyers, accountants, consultants for activities that are not directly contributing to more open knowledge assets, board meetings, Wikimania.
These definitions avoid endless ruddy pointless debate about whether "administration" includes paying for a volunteer's train ticket or not. Obviously putting Wikimania as lowest value is controversial, however any contribution towards open knowledge could be done far more directly and much of the expense of running it comes down to flying so many people around the world and hiring an expensive location, during which very little is delivered for open knowledge even though this may stimulate people to agree future productive projects. -- (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I think we could just paste this text in a stub essay in ns0, like Activity overhead or whatever title containing "overhead" and no "admin*" and then link it a page on "administrative *" stating "here's one way to assess it". --Nemo 11:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm happy for this to be moved. I have several commitments on the go, so I'm hesitant to do this myself as I will probably limit my time engaging in any complex discussion about it in the next few weeks. -- (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

WMF permissions bot[edit]

Hi, there seems to have been an error here: [1] (twice the same line, once incomplete). Also maybe the bot could sort the table by usernames in the wikitext? --MF-W 19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed the odd row, however it is like that in the WMF Google Spreadsheet, so it ought to be corrected there. I thought about filtering out rows with missing user names, but I'll wait until there are new changes to see if it is worth it. I can sort by any field, but it's best to stick to how the Google Spreadsheet works. The table is sortable, so you need only click on the first column to sort by usernames. -- (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply


... and you find the responses to AffCom's questions re: WMLGBT satisfactory? Obviously, the name still has to be worked out... :) --Another Believer (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mate, I'm just delighted that you are following them all up and know you are doing a good job on it. I briefly read though and thought about them, but I'm distracted with getting the Wellcome uploads underway. All of this will make a good discussion at Wikimania in a few weeks time, which is probably the best moment to make responses or documents 'official'. :-) -- (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re: Wikimedia Conference 2015[edit]

Thanks for your support and nomination, Fae. I hope we can rotate who represents our group and will keep your 'yield' in mind for the future. -Another Believer (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Could you do one for Wikidata and one for the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia (nowiki) as well? Thanks ;-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done -- (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great initiative!! Could you do one for pt.wikipedia ? Best regards Rodrigo Padula (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

pt added. Note that the first run will probably take 24 hours. I may be able to kick off another run tomorrow, so long as no bugs on WMF labs crop up! -- (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks by your time and great help! I'm spreading it now to our fellows on pt.wikipedia. Best regards Rodrigo Padula (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you please de-activate counting for de-wiki or tell me how to opt-out from this stuff - Achim Raschka (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know this would be an issue. Leave it with me for the moment as stopping the run is messy. -- (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
To calculate if it should be an issue please read [2] - it's in German but I can tell you myself an a lot of others are not amused about these statistics on very private issues ... -- Achim Raschka (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have no issue with adding an opt out as a courtesy. I just did not see the public thanks log as a possible issue for anyone, certainly not a privacy issue. I'm re-jigging the report now as I'll probably have to separate Germany for a run...
Okay, I have added a courtesy opt-out list and reset the report. Please pass on in the German discussion that I'm quite happy to quietly opt-out anyone that wishes to and this will not leave any trace in the reports. I suggest anyone worried can email me in confidence and I'll opt them out, rather than doing it publicly on-wiki (though their account name will be listed in my program on WMF labs, this is for most practical purposes too hard for anyone to track down).
P.S. If you account appears again by accident, just email me and I'll have another go. Thanks -- (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Why is there a need for "Opt-Out" in such a data-mining enterprise? Such stuff should always be Opt-In, only Opt-In does really respect everyones privacy. I personally don't trust people who use Opt-Out, as it's inherently against privacy. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 22:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you think the thanks notification logs should be private, then establish a consensus to change it to be private. The only information used by Faebot is public, and has been for a very long time. As a courtesy I have added an opt out, there is no personal or private data, so there is no consensus that reports of public data ought to be an opt in.
I am not attempting to globally force this report on anyone. As I emailed on wikimedia-l, I will add projects based on request. In the same manner I have removed de.wikipedia until there are positive requests for me to re-add it. Thanks -- (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
If the deWP will one day decide to opt-in to this by a Meinungsbild, you could ad them again, so far thanks for the quick response! ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nice stats. I have previously queried these on Meta back in 2013-2014. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

If it's ok, please, calc for uk.wikipedia. /me personally wants to see the results -- Ата (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done Note the next run might be in a few days. There have been some WMF labs outages, this might be the reason why this is so slow. -- (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Is it possible for the bot to use the new username when a user which appears in the reports was renamed? E.g. the change Helder.wiki --> He7d3r is not reflected on this report. Helder 15:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Possible, but I do not really want to build in temporary rules. Once the tables for 2014 are finished, Faebot will not be looking at that data again. I suggest you wait until they are completed (a couple of days more at this rate) and then edit the page by hand to swap account names. The changes you make will not be overwritten. I hope this is sufficient. -- (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm curious, where is it taking the old user name from, considering it is not in use anymore? Is it from some dumps from before the username change? Helder 17:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks notifications are permanently in the main log of account "actions". These are not records that get changed on account name changes, though in rare circumstances, such as accidental outing, records can be hidden from public view. Thanks actions themselves can be opted out of public logging, but the default for Wikimedia projects is that they remain on the public log. In general, I think this is a good thing, as it fits our principles that all edits are public and accountable. -- (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for stopping monitoring the German WP. But I fear you do not understand the underlying problem. You make aggreates of private data and I think that the German WP is not unwilling to hide the source of this data from everyone but high ranking users (Admin is too low) in order to solve real problems like hounding by thanking. By the way: Who hast authirized Jon Harald Søby to speak for our Norvegian friends? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think this is being over-dramatized and overly hypothetical. As far as I know there have been no cases of hounding using thanks notifications (I have never heard of anyone being blocked for it) and the information being counted is not private data. If other no.wp users would prefer to not have the report generated for their projects, I suggest they have a discussion about it, in the same way that de.wp has done. I will accept any consensus, or take the cautious route and pause any report while a debate is continuing for any project. Thanks -- (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I do not agree, that DE:WP ist kicked out, but this just to mention my private suggestion. If I'd like to thanks someone, everybody may know. Otherwise the tool is useless at all. Best regards --Commander-pirx (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please fill out our Inspire campaign survey[edit]

Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!

Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.

Many thanks,

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk), on behalf of the IdeaLab team.

23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

I know you know, but consider this invite a formality. :) -Another Believer (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?[edit]

Hi! The Wikimedia Foundation would like your input on how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project.

After reading the Reimagining WMF grants idea, we ask you to complete this survey to help us improve the idea and learn more about your experience. When you complete the survey, you can enter to win one of five Wikimedia globe sweatshirts!

In addition to taking the the survey, you are welcome to participate in these ways:

This survey is in English, but feedback on the discussion page is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 01:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Last call for WMF grants feedback![edit]

Hi, this is a reminder that the consultation about Reimagining WMF grants is closing on 8 September (0:00 UTC). We encourage you to complete the survey now, if you haven't yet done so, so that we can include your ideas.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 19:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

Your post in the mailing list[edit]

Dear Fæ, thanks for pointing me to your post in the mailing list that I didn't see up to that point since I decided to quit my subscription last year and with which I can identify fully. I also would like my vote and comment not to be misunderstood as ranting, I think that Arnnon Geshuri is not suitable for the position he got appointed to, while I don't have any business in vilifying him on a personal level, and I think that serious harm is done to the movement by the current performance of the board. But anyway, with engaged people like you I still have some last sparks of hope for this movement ... Best, --Julius1990 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

lyzzys blog post[edit]

I just saw, that some stuff was already translated in the signpost. Should we include that, thus change some paragraphs, or keep it as is? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd say keep the first rewrite as is. If a Signpost writer or experienced translator wants a go, that would be good. Getting idiom right is tricky, and it's mostly gut feel for me as I have no German skills; so I'm not going to argue with any rewrites. -- (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Adding Outreach wiki to User:Faebot/thanks[edit]

Dear , Thanks so much for your thanks bot reports. Would you please add Outreach wiki <outreach.wikimedia.org> to the list of projects to collect thanks data from? It will be interesting to see how much thanking is happening overall, and if thanking is increasing or decreasing over time, and who are the most and least prolific thankers. It's a great barometer of a community's gratitude, albeit only one measure of it. All the best, Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll look at adding it in a few days. The report has suffered from being unable to write updates due to repeated log outs, presumably related to the general logout problems. -- (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@AKoval (WMF): The report seems to be running, though it was logged out last night. I have added outreach, it may take a while longer for all the reports to add in the missing months and be current. When it's done, you might want to let active outreach people know it exists. -- (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, ! :) I noted this news on the Outreach wiki Village pump here: Outreach:Wikimedia:Village pump#Request to add Outreach wiki to User:Faebot.2Fthanks. Really appreciate you tracking thanking, . This is my favorite metric ever. :) Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add plwiki (Polish Wikipedia) as well? thanks in advance. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 14:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Added, being populated now. User:Faebot/thanks/pl -- (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Inspire Campaign on content curation & review[edit]

I've recently launched an Inspire Campaign to encourage new ideas focusing on content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia volunteers collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge, and we’re looking for your ideas about how to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible. We invite you to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is welcome - your skills and experience can help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign to improve review and curation tasks so that we can make our content more meaningful and accessible! I JethroBT (WMF) 05:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery.

Russavia and Steward requests/Global[edit]

Before accusing someone as a sock of Russavia, you should look carefully at the edits of the suspected sock. And you should ask first Scott via IRC. I just asked Scott if Bugglebuzz is his sock, and he said no. You don't have strong evidence to prove that Bugglebuzz is a sock. If I didn't asked Scott, then the WMF have locked it already without knowing that they are just innocent. Thanks, Pokéfan95 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Through June, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas focusing on addressing harassment toward Wikimedia contributors. The 2015 Harassment Survey has shown evidence that harassment in various forms - name calling, threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation, among others - is pervasive. Available methods and systems to deal with harassment are also considered to be ineffective. These behaviors are clearly harmful, and in addition, many individuals who experience or witness harassment participate less in Wikimedia projects or stop contributing entirely.

Proposals in any language are welcome during the campaign - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign so that we can work together to develop ideas around this important and difficult issue. With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Opt-out instructions)Reply

Conference report[edit]

Thanks for this update, but I'll move your comment to the 2017 report. :p -Another Believer (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

How dizzy of me. ;-) -- (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Gay propaganda[edit]


Some people may ask you not to bring “politics” or “sexuality” into the community

Noo, can't be, right? --Nemo 21:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Loves Food[edit]

Curd Rice
Curd Rice

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, we are going International. To make this event a grant success, your direction is key. Please sign up as a volunteer or sign up on behalf of your affiliate here.--Abhinav619 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your input on the Women in Red Discussion Page[edit]

Thanks for your input and honesty. I don't know if the other three founders are available this morning to discuss this very important issue. We are going to get back to you as soon as we can. (I see courage, not a negative nelly!) MauraWen (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - not up to date[edit]

Hello Fae,

I guess you are aware of this, but User:Faebot/thanks/fr is not up to date. Is there a reason why? Theses stats were interesting.


--AntonierCH(d) 16:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@AntonierCH: updated, something changed on labs, not sure what. -- (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks report - eo[edit]

Hi! Can you add eo.wiki to the thanks report? Thanks! NMaia (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Added! -- (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Concerning ShakespeareFan00[edit]

The concern of the other contributor isn't that I asked here, it's that they have a justified perception, that having raised this issue in #wikipedia-en and them having provided the relevant information, that they hadn't been listened to. Given that I trust both their and your expertise, I am not going to argue with the position they present. There has been a distinct growing lack of competence on my part, and the self imposed block is partly to prevent any possibility of reactionary behaviour on my part, and to ensure my (demonstrated) lack of competence cannot cause any more damage, in the medium term, given how the wiki break enforcer works, it can't now be changed without administrator intervention anyway. Yes you may think it is an unreasonably long period, but it had to be 'meaningful'. BTW as to the ban on my handle in #Wikipedia-en, you can relay my thanks to whoever implemented that, under the circumstances it was something I had actually requested. 22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC) (As User:ShakespeareFan00)Reply

Graffiti in London[edit]

I'm looking at my watchlist every now and then to see if there are new developments.. And obviously that DR popped up. 78 user talk pages were notified, inevitably some of those would be on my watchlist.

What appears to have happened there is that "Dfvdsfgsdfgsdfgsfgsdfgsdfgsdfhs" registered a new account (seems obvious it's not a newbie), launched VFC with c:Category:Graffiti in London as the target, selected everything (229 files in the category, 229 files nominated), started typing "FoP 2D UK" in the "reason" field, had a stroke resulting in the addition of "nnnnn" to the reason and finally keeled over as their head hit the "execute (nominated for deletion)" button. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 17:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Certain people follow my contributions across the projects, so not going to talk Commons business, nor engage much here generally. Consider the benefits of a proper wp:Clean start, it may not be so bad for someone who truly means it. There are some administrators that did similar things and years later are respected for their opinions... -- (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Just wanted to let you know what I believe happened that resulted in that DR. And I agree, this username has been dragged through the mud too much, even if those rumors are redacted not everyone will notice the rectification. But as long as I'm blocked on Commons, I can't simply move on using a new username. I mean technically I could, but with a new username I still wouldn't be allowed to edit Commons or I'd be evading my block. And being unable to edit Commons is a serious handicap on all projects. And requesting an unblock is hopeless unless the rumors get redacted. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 13:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hi! I had sent you an email about the outdated race theory maps and havent heard back from you yet; did it send properly? I've been having some email issues lately due to hosting it myself after some LTA issues. Best, Vermont (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Did get it.
There is some follow on at Talk:Black_Lives_Matter#Scientific_racism. It needs a place to list the relevant articles that probably is not en.wiki, as the articles there are not of immediate concern.
Vaguely thought about raising an Arbcom case, or a meta RFC, to make a top level "style" statement about how to format or add notices to any article that may (mistakenly) promote scientific racism, but not sure these are the best approach. -- (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Commons is broken, and has been broken for years.[edit]

yeah, WMF made the strategic decision not to invest in robust media: they did not listen to Fuzheado and Vibber. but denying MP4 file type is a commons community fail. but it's all good because we can query by depicts statements. notice the typical flex of adding layers to avoid actually engaging with the community. so it goes. Slowking4 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Some wiki history[edit]

You certainly have a memory of certain loose group of Commoners positive about sex and nudity, which has been defeated in details during 2012 – early 2015. These were Dcoetzee, Beta_M, Russavia‎… How did they identify themselves? How did others refer to them? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Out of respect for the privacy of those mentioned, this is not a discussion to have in public, if at all. Thanks -- (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

A comment on recent JSTOR uploads[edit]

"JSTOR ruthlessly came after Aaron Swartz "

no, i think rather the MIT sysadmin and the US Attorney were ruthless. JSTOR was more ambivalent. and see their subsequent openness.
"Remembering Aaron Swartz’s legacy in light of JSTOR opening access". Stanford Daily. 
"JSTOR Releases Event Summary and Evidence in United States vs. Aaron Swartz". JSTOR Evidence in United States vs. Aaron Swartz. 
"MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case". MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2013-07-30. 
"Examining The Outrageous Aaron Swartz Indictment For Computer Fraud". Litigation & Trial. 2011-07-20. 
Cohn, Cindy; Timm, Trevor (2013-05-14). "Disappointing Unsealing Decision in Aaron Swartz Case". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2021-03-03. 
cheers -- Slowking4 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the sources, I'll check them out. Though JSTOR has dabbled with some releases, the specific Commons uploads from Internet Archive have cover pages which are still attempting to restrict the release of 'Early Journal Content' (this example dates to 1671) by stating "People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial purposes". At best this is copyfraud, at worst it lays the groundwork for a legal action on a sweat-of-brow basis. In the UK this area is so badly defined that it is deliberately used as a blight on public domain reuse, where any lawyer would ask a volunteer "do YOU really need to touch this?"
In this context, you are correct that JSTOR's responsibility in the Swartz case is debatable, but it's clear that as one of the world's most famous academic publication repositories, their mission does not include helping to release or provide proper free public access to out of copyright works. -- (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. If you’re an active Wikimedian, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 15:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Divstyleblue nominated for deletion[edit]

Hello. An item which you created or have edited substantially (Template:Divstyleblue) has been nominated for deletion. Please see the ongoing discussion at Meta:Requests for deletion. Thank you. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Queering Wikipedia 2022 Announcement[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queering Wikipedia 2023 conference[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reminder to vote now to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously voted in the 2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) election.

This is a reminder that if you have not voted yet on the ratification of the final Wikimedia Movement Charter draft, please do so by July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC.

You can read the final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter in your language. Following that, check on whether you are eligible to vote. If you are eligible, cast your vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 15:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply