User talk:KTC

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

Preventative protections[edit]

«It is standard procedure to protect the rules page of an upcoming WMF Board election». I think you're a bit confused here, I assume this is a misunderstanding.[1] [2] I understand that as a temporary administrator you don't know Meta-Wiki policies and guidelines, and our project pages don't help much with that, but it would be better for you to refrain from a hasty usage of your flag. If you don't revert your last protection, I'll consider this intentional wheel warring, ask another administrator to intervene and consider asking the removal of your temporary flag. Thanks, Nemo 11:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you will find that you are in fact the one that is mistaken. (2011, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005) You are of course free to ask for an outside opinion into this from a bureaucrat, another admin or the community in general, but I would just like to point out that in the same day you have accused a member of the WMF board election committee of trolling and reverted the action of another without discussion on a board election page for which the committee is tasked by the WMF board with running. -- KTC (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Nemo, I'm sorry but you seem to be the one who is confused. It does not matter that they are temporary, the election committee has Complete control over the election pages, their word is final. No normal meta admin (who is not also on the election committee) or crat has any right to barge in and declare that they have priority and no local policy is in play here. This has been the LONG standing policy and is nothing new. In my honest opinion any sysop or crat who tried to remove rights from an election committee member because of an action they committed on an election page (unless it's an emergency temporary action because you worry about account compromise) should lose their own rights, permanently. It is attitudes like this which is why Strategy was better off in it's own wiki and why people don't like to set up separate projects on Meta. Jamesofur (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just read what above and I disagree with it. I planned to reply later but I recuse to do so per [3]. The situation is very worrying but we have to live with the catastrophes of the world. Thanks, Nemo 20:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


Translate questions[edit]

Hi KTC,

I added a question to the page below.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2013/Questions/1#Zusterprojecten_.28English_translation_below.29

I was not sure about where to put the Dutch translation, maybe you can help me.

Cheers,

Tim, Timboliu (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Transclusion questions Board/FDC elections[edit]

Hi KTC. You made this page which is then transcluded in the question page of the elections. I find the link to the user name only to be counter intuitive on this page. While on the questions page, people who click should be led back to the candidate statements rather than user pages, which usually don't show the candidacy statement. I would link to candidate statements like so: Cristian Cantoro. What do you think? notafish }<';>

+1 this is a good idea. Thehelpfulone 19:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for changing this! notafish }<';> 21:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. -- KTC (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Learning Pattern session[edit]

hey KTC! i heard you had some excellent learning that was shared in your talk at the diversity conference (I sadly had to miss it). it would be great if you could attend the Learning Patterns hackathon this week to help capture some of those learnings! let me know if you can make it :) Jwild (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for CN adminship[edit]

Hi there KTC! I've right now closed your request for CN adminship as successful and gave you the necessary rights. As I've already mentioned on the page, maybe you are also interested to help with the upcoming steward elections in regards to central notice banners, see here for more information. Have fun with the new right! -Barras talk 14:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll have a look at the Stewards election coordination when I have a chance. -- KTC (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

CNBanner:Wikimania2014Scholarships-text1/vi[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you translate this message using a machine translator of some kind. In this case, both Bing Translate and Google Translate came up with better results than the translation plugin you used. However, please avoid using Vietnamese machine translation for CentralNotice banners, because the banners are very visible and Vietnamese machine translation is usually erroneous, or at least very inconsistent. Whenever a Vietnamese translation is urgently needed, please feel free to ask any of these users. Thank you. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't do the orignial translation. I copied those from last year that were listed as "published" and changed 2013 to 2014. -- KTC (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, sorry for the confusion! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted[edit]

Hi KTC, As you requested, deleted 172 pages from the link you gave, I left 4 pages as they had 2015 related texts and edited by someone else, those are listed below. Please confirm if you want them to be deleted.

CNBanner:Wikimania2015Scholarships-text2/en ‎
CNBanner:Wikimania2015Scholarships-text1/en ‎
MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Wikimania2015Scholarships-text2 ‎
MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Wikimania2015Scholarships-text1 ‎

--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, those 4 can go as well, as they're all associated with the deleted 'Wikimania2015Scholarships' banner. KTC (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done :)--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

transfer[edit]

Hi, thanks for moving the section, I was reluctant to do so myself (as the script for adding candidacy worked this way). Pundit (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

CentralNotice banner FoP[edit]

Hello KTC, I am coordinating the CentralNotice banner for the FoP issue for more than a week. I noticed that on the English Wikipedia a text was used in the Sitenotice that is problematic and does not meet the minimal requirements that are needed for a sensitive subject as this. The next is not credible, compelling and certainly not accurate. Also this does not fit in the strategy of the EU policy group who is coordinating the European effort. If a wording is used that is not accurate and credible, Wikipedia gets harmed. I can imagine why this text is used, as the text proposals I made in an earlier stage are not removed from the page, nor commented for the problematic wording. We as coordinators of the initiative have spoken about the wording without writing it down on the wiki. So please, do not activate the banner with this text, this would harm the initiative and Wikipedia. I am tired, so now first I go asleep. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's all very well suddenly saying now that we've discussed in secret and concluded the text should be something else. What's that something else? Why should it be something else? etc. etc. -- KTC (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I must first say that it is great to see the English community wants to show a banner to protect Wikipedia. Besides the requirements I wrote in my previous message, this is also a political sensitive subject. For the text we base ourselves on the political situation. Talking about such in public is not a good idea. The current text I see in the banner is also not accurate. The current text says "A proposal in the European Parliament would require removing thousands of images of modern buildings and sculptures from Wikipedia." This is factual not true. The proposal would not require this, because it is the European Commission who is the one who has the power in this field, and not the Parliament. If we put a banner on top of Wikipedia pages, which is not accurate, credible, and compelling, this would bring the trustworthiness of Wikipedia in jeopardy. Also the current statement in the banner would put the willingness of Members of the European Parliament to listen to us at steak, as they know the statement in the banner is not true. Wikipedia/Wikimedia is now considered a trustworthy partner, with already results: today MEPs have submitted a change to the proposal, something Wikipedia would benefit from. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You didn't actually really answer what I need Romaine. I am (attempting to) implement the consensus of the discussion over at en.wp, and the current text is simply what was on the discussion page. If you have a suggestion on what wording you would like to see instead, please say so and I will use it. All you've done at the moment is say don't use that, without actually say what should be used instead. -- KTC (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've changed the text, and it's going live. -- KTC (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for changing the wording! I am sorry I disappoint you with not saying how it should be, this is because I find it difficult to say anything about this. I try to coordinate the banners and communication a bit, but the other people in the EU coordination are not that clear in what they want. I have now written an e-mail to WMF to see how they think of the current text. Thank you for your effort, I understand the difficulty. Romaine (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks from me too. Please change 'brings' to 'puts' as mentioned at Talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe in 2015#Banner wording wrong. --Hroðulf (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You fixed the wording.[4][5] Thank you! --Hroðulf (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@KTC: WMF/coordinating team approves the text. I will ask for translations from other communities and use them in the same banner. Romaine (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Temporary admin rights expired[edit]

Hello KTC,

I just wanted to inform you, that I've right now removed the temporary admin rights, which have been granted to you for the 2015 election committee work. Regards, -Barras talk 10:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Barras. -- KTC (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for FOP work[edit]

Hello KTC. I just wanted to leave a quick note thanking you for the work you've been doing on the FOP stuff and especially for your help with the central notice. Thanks very much. Diphthong (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the banners. Can we turn them off now?[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure if the message is already propagating, but User:dimi_z, WP's person on the spot in Brussels, has just emailed and posted this on the Commons co-ordination page: diff

Short version: we won, and we now need to reduce the volume of messages going to MEPs.

So, having worked so hard and so valiantly to get the banners up, could you take them away again please ?

Thanks! Jheald (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It are the various communities that decided to have a banner (or not), I do not think it is a good idea to just switch it off, as that would bypass the communities. Also there are various local Sitenotices about the same subject. If the communities are not involved first, they might re-active their Sitenotice again, and those had multiple times texts that are not accurate and are worse than the current CentralNotice. The current CentralNotice texts have been reviewed by WMF/EU team first. Romaine (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I would think it is too early to "declare victory". It ain't over till its over (as explained in 8th item too). Waiting till the 9th would only take 7 days, our discussion to remove them probably longer. -- とある白い猫 chi? 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi KTC, I have informed all the communities now and I have sent various e-mails to users who are involved in the local coordination. If the local community decides that they like to switch of the CentralNotice for their language, they will request it here, as I wrote in my messages to the communities. Thank you for all your work so far. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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. 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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. 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December[edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical (2012-2016).svg

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Inspire Campaign on content curation & review[edit]

WPCube.png

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)

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

Request for Input - New Central Notice request process[edit]

Hello fellow CN admin!

Back in February I emailed the CN-admin list regarding part of my role to look into the Central Notice process and see where we could make improvements including: the campaign process; its functionality or lack thereof; and fundamentally the documentation that supports it. You can see many of the issues that I identified at CentralNotice/Process_Review. If there is anything additional that you feel has been left out then please feel free to leave any comments on the talk page.

My first task is to improve the requesting of campaigns by communities and affiliates. I am looking to set up a more formal request process, similar to those used in many projects. The aim is to: increase the transparency of Central Notice; improve the support provided to affiliates (including making such support more consistent); to provide a forum for community input into campaigns.

I have been working on a very rough strawman version of the process and I would be interested in hearing you comments about what such a process should involve and what you think it would require. Please feel free to leave such comments at the process talk page section. I would like to have a working page in place by the end of May. This would not need to be a final version. The process can be improved upon over time as we learn about how well it works.

I encourage you to:

Regards

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) Advancement Associate (Community Engagement) -- 02:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Participate in the Inspire Campaign and help address harassment![edit]

NounProject Leaves.png

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)

Schulze STV[edit]

Hello Election Chair! ;-)

Reminded by the recent election I have tried to look around who and why have decided to pick the current voting system, and why it's not something much better suited to an open movement, but all I was found that sometime the community wherever have decided, and options were not considered due to time constraints. It's fine. I was fine.

However I would like to propose to use (partially not due to any specific problem but to popularize the use of a better voting system) methods which are suggested to be more reflecting the voters' intentions, as well and being more resistant to various vote infiltration methods.

My suggestion - after reviewing again the multi-winner voting systems - would be the Schulze variant of the Single Transferable Vote sytem. This is a proportional, preferential, multi-winner system which is similar to the single-winner w:Condorcet method (which is in turn is usually favoured by many open bodies). There seems to be an already opened (and stale) task about implementing a kind of STV system (meek), even that would be better than the current one but I would rather suggest Schulze which is a bit more resistant from tactical voting than Meek.

How should I propose that the EC would consider actively supporting a new voting system, including implementation in SecurePoll?

Thanks! --grin 08:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Grin (talk · contribs), there's this dicussion ongoing. Alternatively, feel free to leave comments on the post mortem after the election. -- KTC (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Election campaign[edit]

Hi!

I'm running for Board of trustee election. But I'm wondering if it is a good idea to post messages (discussion pages or other) for support. E.g: I need you spport for this election. do chose me for a better management...--BamLifa (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)