User talk:NahidSultan (WMF)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

How can He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named work for the Foundation??[edit]

Have they finally admitted to being an evil organization? – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's simply that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named will be exploring the other side for a few months :-) – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malk asahbi katmhi lina libi Hassan cha9lo (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

শুভ কামনা[edit]

জনাব, আমার পক্ষ থেকে বসন্তের শুভ-কামনা গ্রহণ করুন। আশা করি আপনি এই নতুন দায়িত্ব সুচারুরূপে পালন করতে সমর্থ হবেন এবং উইকিমিডিয়ার উচ্চাভিলাষী আয়োজনকে নতুন মাত্রায় উন্নীত করবেন। ভাল থাকুন। Tanweer (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

আপনাকে ধন্যবাদ। দায়িত্বটি সফলভাবে পালন করতে আপনাদেরও সাহায্য লাগবে, আশাকরি সাথেই থাকবেন। – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the translation of Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Summary 29th March to 7th April. I wanted to warn you that was also added the summary related to Chinese Wikipedia so no need for this paragraph to be translated in your own language so that it can be can be understood easily by users who do not fully understand English. Particularly in view of the second round which will begin on May 1. For this reason it is used to translate the Chinese wikipedia paragraph as soon as possible. Thanks for your attention and excuse the bother --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 22:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"suitable for sister projects"?[edit]

Hello. I read the summarization of Theme "A" - Healthy, inclusive communities (Meta). I wonder about this passage: "suitable for sister projects." Would it contrast what this says: "This theme is more suitable to Wikipedia as the sister projects are not as impactful as Wikipedia, Commons, and Meta-Wiki"? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @George Ho:, Thanks for the tip. You're right, I've corrected it. – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-free CC license"?[edit]

Hello again. I must have inadequately mentioned "NFCC" without explaining what it actually stands for. Therefore, I saw "non-free CC license" at Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/Summary/June 4 to 11#A truly global movement - C. I notified the person, who soon corrected the mistake. I also made note for clarification. May you also please amend last week's summary to fix the error? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 23:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "collaborate more with experts" entry from Theme A is entry #74, not #75. --George Ho (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the clarifications. It's now fixed. Best, – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks for fixing one part. What about the link to entry #74 of Meta source? May you or I please fix that? --George Ho (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Thanks. Fixed.--– NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Congratulations, Nahid! I wish you all the best for your current work at the Wikimedia Foundation as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety. I hope you will be able to fulfill your responsibilities with honesty and dedication. Congratulations once again. Best of luck! Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jony! – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Account renamed[edit]


Could you please apply this account rename here ?

Thank you in advance


--NoFWDaddress(d) 08:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Thank you again. NoFWDaddress(d) 08:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's a typo in the title, better for someone with a staff account to move it. --Minorax (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the flag, Minorax. Corrected :) – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpublic information[edit]

I used the wrong name to sign two non-disclosure agreements for careless and I forgot to correct it. How can I sign again? In addition, because I have applied for a user name change, my phab user name is inconsistent with the one on wikimedia, can I change it? (`・ω・´) (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -akko, I believe you signed with your previous username and now wanted to sign again under your current username. Is my understanding correct? If yes then you do not need to sign them again. We've already updated your name in the public NDA list. If you want it to be updated in our internal record, all you need is a written note to ca(_AT_) and we can update our internal NDA signatures spreadsheet. Also, You can request to change your phabricator username here at Talk:Phabricator/Help. Hope this helps. Thanks. – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For some reasons, the name I used to sign the agreement (include phab:L37 and phab:L45) is slightly different from my real name now, so I want to change it. (`・ω・´) (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please send a note to ca(_AT_) please. – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confidentiality agreement[edit]

Hi Nahid. I signed the agreement in July this year but I was never added to the noticeboard. Have I signed the agreement properly or something is still pending. Thanks! --Hulged (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hulged, please send a note to for NDA noticeboard related inquiries. Best, – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

@NahidSultan (WMF)

Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. For paid contributions that are not disclosed under the ToU, will WMF investigate? If it is only at the "suspect" level, how will the investigation process happen, and if confirmed, will there be any sanctions against that user? Is it a WMF global ban? Tryvix t 15:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Tryvix1509, Apologies for not replying sooner. It depends on a case-by-case basis. But the T&S investigation process mostly follows this when evaluating a request for an Office action. The Foundation Global ban is taken as a last resort. You can reach out to ca(_AT_) with details and we can look into this specific situation. – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There needs to be a reconsideration of this. Since when are staff members exempt from applying for interface administrator rights? I do not see that there is that policy right, which I believe is reserved to local bureaucrats. I do not see that you should have applied that right. My understanding is that trust and safety members apply the respective "staff" rights that are listed at Special:ListGroupRights. If there is that change then that needs to be discussed with the community. Please undo that assignation and progress to a community consensus. Ping to user:Xaosflux  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst we likely don't have it documented well, but based simply on Special:ListUsers/interface-admin this is not something new (and in many cases is still the "least privilege" type of action). We certainly can bring this up at a better forum then this talk page, but in isolation I don't agree that a revocation is needed based on what is likely an out-of-sync documentation with the Staff userrights policy here. That being said, I suspect I know why this case has a spotlight on it now - and that there is likely a training opportunity needed about making certain types of changes from staffers. — xaosflux Talk 02:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I politely disagree Xaosflux that having practice that has snuck in doesn't make it within the expected policy nor reasonable. Not documented, and not discussed means that it is outside policy of metawiki. If those others have been snuck in outside our policy, then they should ideally be removed too. This is a community wiki, and there needs to be the clear following of policy for that accountability. If staff need that role then they need to do the legwork just like everyone else. If staff wish to roll that user right into a staff right then do that leg work too, and have the accountability and the demonstration of knowledge of this community's culture and practices. How does it currently look? Roles allocated applied outside of policy, maintained without clear adherence for the policy, and no clear overview. This is not leading by example nor best practice; and we should be politely holding WMF to account to act within local policies. That they have not been held accountable by bureaucrats reflects poorly on the bureaucrats.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst you have some good points for discussion and suggest you open a thread at Meta:Babel about it. — xaosflux Talk 23:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Billinghurst, Let me start by saying that I understand your point. From the Foundation's side, when T&S receives a request for userrights from a staff member, we review the request and the use case and assign the most appropriate one. When reviewing and granting the rights we usually try to minimize the access and grant them where they need it to avoid unintended use of the rights on other projects where one might not need it, especially on Meta. T&S also maintains a detailed log of all the userights assigned and conducts periodic audits and part of that log is also available here as you are aware. As for the internal policy that Xaosflux mentioned above - is the policy that we follow when requesting and granting the userrights for staff members. I agree that there should be a clear publicly available document and policy around it. I think some of the Stewards also raised it during WMF-Stewards calls in the past. And, we also raised it in our internal meetings a few times, and there is an agreement to create a publicly available document incorporating the current policy and practices T&S uses for staff userrights where the community can also suggest improvements. It is mostly my fault that it hasn't materialized yet. Sorry for that. I started working on it but then it fell through the cracks. How about I take this opportunity as a reminder to complete that unfinished task and publish it by the end of this month/early December? Thanks.– NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was never going to take it further than this page. I (we?) do need to be strident about some of those faded, broadening grey lines, as they catch up with at some point, as people move and the history gets lost. I have no issue with the rights being allocated, just wish to separate the staff vs community, or to have that policy change. Then each sector is suitably responsible and accountable; and no, I had forgotten all about the page if I had ever particularly paid attention to it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

about SecurePoll[edit]

Hi Nahid, I noticed that you are (electionadmin) on and I want to ask how can we create a new Secure Poll for User Group election if that possible, thanks for advance. Ibrahim.ID 17:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ibrahim, This is technically possible but currently running an election on votewiki requires staff involvement and general concerns around it would be team bandwidth and to find a cycle to run it. Can you please email ca(_AT_) with details so that we explore the option? Thanks. – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User name[edit]

hello, let me ask. What do you think about naming users using emojis? Is there a policy regarding that? My name was changed without my permission. can you help. this should be a minor problem. KopiHangat (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are referring to this [1] which is not a „change without permission“ but rather a reversal of renaming that happened by mistake to the previous username. Johannnes89 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]