Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4

new resource for movement discussions.

There is a whole new set of forums being utilized now, which are available for discussion of any and every topic that pertains to Wikipedia, and our community and the Wikimedia movement. please feel free to go there and sign up for an account, and participate as often as you may wish. I hope you will click the link below to do so. we would welcome your input. thanks!!

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are discussions about Wikipedia being held at another site? We have talk pages here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The domain registrant for movement-strategy.org claims to be Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., so this appears to be yet another Meta. We already have too many other WMF sites that few Wikipedians ever visit trying to control us; let's hope the latest diversion dies quickly. Certes (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hear hear. We have meta for that. We don't need yet another external site. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the replies above. In reply, I would note that we do already have multiple platforms that are external and off-wiki. if you prefer to not use those platforms, or if you find them counter-productive, then of course that is fine, and one is fully entitled to one's own opinion on that. however, there is no objective basis for precluding the existence of an individual off-wiki platform, in view of the context of multiple other platforms being in existence and fully accepted, prior to this.

the off-wiki platforms that are already fully active, and used regularly, include: Telegram, Discord, IRC, Slack app, (such as the slack channel listed at this page).... et cetera. this is not a full or definitive list. please note that, just as one example, the usage of the app "Telegram" includes multiple groups (i.e. threads) there. the thread on Telegram that is labeled as being for the "Wikimedia movement" as a whole, has over 700 members, and is fully active. in addtion, on Telegram alone, there are additional active threads for Wikimania, for Wikimedia Hackathon, for WikiVibrance, etc. and several other active topics as well.

So Telegram is clearly an existing active external platform. not only is it not on any Wikimedia site, it is clearly an app that is not under control of WMF in any way. the main difference with the MS Forums is that they are indeed fully designed by Wikimedia itself. so in that sense, they are a resource that is much more focused on the WMF community itself. I hope that is helpful. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Not only is this yet another demonstration the WMF's pathological hatred of their own Wiki platform,
  • not only does this perpetuate the WMF's disastrous pattern of cooking up plans off-wiki which end up in hot conflict with actual community consensus,
  • community members are prohibited from the site if they declined to register an e-mail address on their wiki account.
    • According to WMF figures I came across, somewhere between 20% and 45% of users decline to provide an email, and an outright majority do not have a verified email.
Note that Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy says Because we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement, you may:
  • Read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account.
  • Register for an account without providing an email address or real name.[1] Alsee (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bad idea doesn't cease to be a bad idea just because someone else has already done it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
true true. perhaps go to the threads onTelegram, and address these thoughts to them? I didn't know that alternative processes for open and free expression would attract such opposition here. perhaps you should go to the Telegram thread, and tell all 700 people to discontinue all discussion? if you're right that such interchanges is a bad idea.,how then can we address those errant individuals who seem to persist in this practice? perhaps wikipedia has some articles on some historical methods for pummeling such practitioners of untrammeled discourse? I'm deleting my own tongue-in-cheek remarks. I guess I'm trying to say, in a large, diverse, dynamic and vibrant community such as the wikipedia world community, isn't it good to have some diverse methods and platforms for discussion? it seems to me to have some obvious benefits. Sm8900 (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note that anyone can anonymously create an email address at protonmail aka proton.me —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sm8900: Could you clarify whether you're inviting us on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and what particular benefits beyond the wiki interface this forum brings? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi. no, I am simply an ordinary editor. as far as the benefits of this forum, it is basically that threads there are serving as semi-permanent communication threads, to reach out to communities that are less-represented, and to enable the wikimedia movement to be more inclusive. for one thing, one good feature there is that it can translate mutliple languages easily. Sm8900 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's important to distinguish between "official" platforms set up by the Foundation and unofficial platforms created by a group of volunteers. For an official platform, decisions can be made that will apply to a broader community, and there may be an expectations that those who wish to talk about, say, movement strategy are aware of the discussions taking place on the platform. In contrast, I don't think there's any expectation that Wikipedians need to follow what's said on Telegram, Discord, IRC, etc., in large part because the guardrails we have in place ensure that no big decisions can be made there that will affect the broader Wikipedia community. They're for more casual chat and collaboration, or for working on wiki-adjacent projects like planning edit-a-thons or coordinating with museums.

That said, let's be real: MediaWiki stinks for trying to work in multiple languages at the same time. Good for encyclopedia that anyone can edit, bad for multilingual discussion forum. This looks like interesting software that may make it easier to do just that. I'm all for a trial run to see how it might fit in and/or what it might replace. But if you're going to tackle an important, consequential process like movement strategy with that trial, I'd hope the WMF is clear that it's unofficial and optional -- that Meta is still the primary site where decisions are documented and decided. Perhaps a staffer can clarify this (or perhaps Sm8900 knows the answer?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rhododendrites, thiose are all very good and valid points. I can absolutely attest that the MS Forums are not to replace any official processes, any currently-existing forums generally accepted by the community, such as Village Pump, or any and all internal decision-making processes in any way. none.
this is purely meant as a way to give a forum and a voice to communities and to groups who have previously been under-represented here. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sm8900: However, there is no objective basis for precluding the existence of an individual off-wiki platform.
Actually there is plenty of reasons.
  1. We have established workflows and tools for discussions. We have WP:RFCs, with centralized discussions etc... We have our watchlists, which lets us easily monitor these discussions, or at least the hubs in which these discussions occurs. They are integrated with WP:AALERTS, which are monitored by thousands of editors. We have RFC bots which advertises those discussions. We have cross-wiki ping notices. I have email notices setup too.
  2. Whatever other external site exists, I don't check it every time I log in Wikipedia (which is several times a day) and doesn't have this level of integration
  3. And lastly it's a damned hassle and splits discussion and the userbase for no reason. All of what could be achieve on an external site can be achieved here already. SO USE WHAT WE HAVE and stop making external sites. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
by the way, creating external platforms does not split the user base, actually. in actuality, it expands the user base, by reaching additional people and groups, who might be more interested in that external platform as a resource. Sm8900 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your reply. You make some highly valid points. I would suggest just one small thought on this.
Obviously not everything that an external platform can do could be replicated here, simply due to the technical features themselves. I simply mean no platform is equivalent to another, just like email, WhatsApp and telegram all have different features. --Sm8900 (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a look, and the inline Google Translate feature is awesome! Is that an add-in? Could the Foundation develop something similar for MediaWiki? (Sure, wiki talk pages will never have all the features of Discourse, without building something like Flow. But if people are saying MediaWiki sucks for such-and-such purpose, then invest in work to make it suck less.) @Rhododendrites@Sm8900 ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 21:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google Translate is indeed awesome but might raise concerns if built into MediaWiki. For example, not all editors would be happy giving Google such an easy way to link their wiki account to an IP address. Certes (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could proxy the requests through Wikimedia servers, so that Google never sees the end user's IP. That's how the Content translation tool does it when machine translation is used. the wub "?!" 08:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's pretty costly though. I doubt if we were to do this for all discussions, google would let us have that for free. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can easily do this on the user side by using Google Chrome, which has translation built in. I think Safari and other browsers also do the same. It does not need doing on the server side... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the translation services provided at the MS Forums are highly useful, and outweigh the beneffits of doing so via the browser. Sm8900 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pelagic, how about coming by MS Forums, to discuss your ideas for Wikipedia add-ins? Sm8900 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the WMF have rules or policies for when banned users apply for or are part of the team that administers grants?

Last week, a discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard was opened concerning a global image-adding contest. In the course of the discussion, it was raised that a $7,000 WMF grant was awarded to help run this contest last year, and that one of last year's contest organizers (the "Project Manager & Coordinator", in fact) responsible for administering said grant was in fact ArbCom banned from English Wikipedia several years ago (still in effect). Among the findings of fact for that Arb case were that the user had used sockpuppets, introduced potential BLP violations, engaged in COI editing, and repeatedly uploaded copyright violating photos (the user had their account renamed, so don't be confused by that). Admins attempting to address issues the contest introduced into English Wikipedia pointed out that the fact the photo-adding contest organizer was Arb banned (in part to mishandling of photos, no less) made it difficult to coordinate fixes. There was also general dismay at a banned user being entrusted with WMF money. One admin in the discussion pointed out that another banned user has also received WMF grants, despite the fact that their bans on two projects were apparently related to misrepresenting how they were going to use the grant.

A lot of this is a year-old stuff, but in general, users banned from one or more WMF projects receiving grants raises a number of issues:

I think the WMF, if it doesn't already, needs a policy (or perhaps UCOC provision?) governing when a banned or blocked user applies for a grant (including topic bans). I think this could maybe be presented in the form of a question on the application which says "Are you under any active sanctions on any Wikimedia projects? If so, please provide diffs of what led to them and explain the circumstances of the restriction being placed against you, and why you do not think this will adversely affect the administering of the grant." The WMF should then scrutinize the answers to determine whether or not: a) this person can even be trusted; b) this person is the most effective grant recipient; c) this would look terrible to the community and strain community-WMF relations. Gross or willful misrepresentations of one's own restrictions should be grounds for that user automatically failing the grant application.

I look forward to other comments. @I JethroBT (WMF): as I was informed you were likely the best onWiki WMF person to know about grant administration and be the best person to let know about this discussion. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Indy beetle for opening this. It's a worthwhile discussion. It does seem worth distinguishing between (a) a general analysis of risk when considering a grant, which would include the trustworthiness of the grantee, any on-wiki issues which may impede the execution of the grant, and mitigation strategies to ensure it can be carried out smoothly; and (b) the generally bad feelings parts of the community will understandably feel about the foundation giving money to someone who was considered harmful enough to the project to indefinitely block/ban. I'm going to guess the former is something grant officers already look at. In this case, for example, there are a lot of people involved who could pick up the slack on any wiki one or more organizers could not edit, just like you'd get other people to cover projects in a language an organizer didn't speak (for most international projects, it's unreasonable to expect a single person to be able to oversee it in every language). That makes me think the issue is primarily (b), and if that's the case, how can lines be drawn? If someone were banned from, say, the Croatian Wikipedia or Chinese Wikipedia, or any of the small Wikipedias where it may be hard to overturn a single admin's decision, would they be disqualified from any grant? (I know this is not what you're proposing, necessarily, Indy beetle, though the idea that an enwp ban should be disqualifying seems to underlie some of the comments at AN). Some tricky mixing of money, community relations, and governance here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue of potential admin/community abuse (or say a really old trivial ban that's been forgotten about) is why I'm suggesting diffs and that the applicant explain their side of things, so WMF can review it. After all, based on the stories, being banned from Croat Wikipedia is essentially a badge of honor and decency. With regards to a general analysis of risk when considering a grant [...] I'm going to guess the former is something grant officers already look at: Yes I'm sure they do that, but does that include block/ban history? I don't know, and I don't know to what degree WMF examines a user's behavioral history on the site. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is worth noting that as part of the Wikicology case, I JethroBT (WMF) stated,
Our team recognizes that Wikicology has contributed extensively to the Nigerian User Group, and has made good-faith efforts to plan grant proposals supporting their community. That said, Community Resources requires that grantees and committee members remain in good community standing while participating in our programs. Recent AN/I discussions ([2], [3]) highlight several concerns about Wikicology’s contributions, including copyright infringement, contributing content unsupported by citations, providing false citations, and repeated creation of autobiographical content. Persistent inappropriate editing behavior, in spite of community warnings, is inconsistent with good ambassadorship for the projects in outreach and off-wiki work. In light of these concerns, we have communicated to Wikicology that the following conditions will remain in place until these issues have been resolved:
  • Status changed to inactive on the Individual Engagement Grants Committee,
  • Removal from accounts for WMF-funded activities, and
  • Removal from primary leadership, coordination, and training roles in WMF-funded activities.
We continue to welcome Wikicology’s participation in our programs through support roles not dependent on those skills called into question by the current discussions. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Reply[reply]
This was the last the community knew about this. There have been no updates to the case page since then regarding this aspect. If the issues raised then were resolved, how and when were they resolved, and where was the community informed? Andreas JN466 07:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference, user pages on the Foundation wiki:
FloNight, you commented on the case at the time, saying, "Wikicology's future roles will be partially determined by whether and when he retrieves mentoring on Wikipedia English." Did you follow events further after the ArbCom case concluded? Andreas JN466 08:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've filed an amendment request at WP:RfAr proposing a temporary lifting of T_Cells' site ban so that he can participate in this discussion about his role if he wishes to do so. Andreas JN466 08:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Indy beetle and Jayen466: Thanks for your questions around these circumstances, and I can understand why there would be concerns here. For those not aware, I'm a program officer with the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Resources team, where I help manage some of the funding programs we maintain. A number of people on my team, including myself, were involved with decisions around Wikicology's eligibility for funding, both during 2016 when the ArbCom discussion was taking place and more recently. I'll do my best to respond to questions below:
I think the WMF, if it doesn't already, needs a policy (or perhaps UCOC provision?) governing when a banned or blocked user applies for a grant (including topic bans).
  • The Community Resources team maintains a set of behavioral policies when evaluating a proposal and the applicants involved with it. (Topic bans would also be a relevant consideration affecting eligibility and our evaluation of an applicant's community standing, though in my experience, they haven't come up that often in proposals I've reviewed.)
Does the WMF regularly screen for grant applicants' standing, or did this happen in the Wikicology case because attention was brought to it by the fact of it being an ARBCOM case?
How does Community Resources ascertain "good community standing", when it is lost or regained?
  • We evaluate a number of factors, including active blocks, block histories, community warnings on talk pages (even if they are removed), and will try to look at applicant behavior in spaces related to the block (e.g. user talk pages, article talk pages, relevant articles, admin discussion spaces, etc.) In more serious or systemic matters, we will consult with the Trust & Safety team.
  • Blocks and bans are always an important indicator of community standing, but there are other considerations as well. A user who is not blocked, for example, may still have a long history of persistent, disruptive conduct (through frequent warnings on their talk page), and may have never been blocked at all. Conversely, just because someone is blocked or banned on a project doesn't mean they will always be incapable of constructive work on other Wikimedia projects. Importantly, we require that applicant with an active block or ban to demonstrate learning and understanding as to the cause of the block or ban by directly corresponding with them about the circumstances, and gauging what they will do to prevent that conduct in the future. This means that applicants with a block or ban cannot casually ignore the block and jump to another Wikimedia project and get funding without addressing the original block with that community and our team.
  • We also evaluate whether that applicant has demonstrated evidence of constructive work on other Wikimedia projects, especially any contributions related to the reasons for the block on another Wikimedia project.
  • Finally, we also ask that applicants make a good-faith effort to complete an unblock or unban request through relevant community processes. If the request is not approved, the applicant is not eligible for funding if the proposal requires them to contribute to the Wikimedia project they are blocked on (which would clearly not be possible anyway).
I hope this provides some clarity to the questions above about our procedures in cases where there is a block or ban. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@I JethroBT (WMF): Thanks – may I ask for a little further clarity? You said at the ArbCom case (my emphases), Community Resources requires that grantees and committee members remain in good community standing while participating in our programs. Recent AN/I discussions ([4], [5]) highlight several concerns about Wikicology’s contributions, including copyright infringement, contributing content unsupported by citations, providing false citations, and repeated creation of autobiographical content. Persistent inappropriate editing behavior, in spite of community warnings, is inconsistent with good ambassadorship for the projects in outreach and off-wiki work. In light of these concerns, we have communicated to Wikicology that the following conditions will remain in place until these issues have been resolved:
  • Status changed to inactive on the Individual Engagement Grants Committee,
  • Removal from accounts for WMF-funded activities, and
  • Removal from primary leadership, coordination, and training roles in WMF-funded activities.
So (1) how and when were these issues resolved, and (2) was the community notified of Wikicology's change in status?
Also, given the history of misrepresentation that was brought up in the ArbCom case, could you (3) please confirm that T_Cells is indeed one of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader nominees, as it says on his Wikimedia Foundation user page? I tried to verify this online and all I found was T_Cells' own statements to this effect. In the past, he falsely claimed to be a university lecturer (and subsequently apologised to the community for that). I'll be happy to congratulate him if he was so nominated, but if he wasn't, then this indicates that the same problems that led to his site ban here are in fact continuing. Best, Andreas JN466 09:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^This. Also, with regards to the 2021 contest, if you can answer, how exactly did he get put on the team for that with grant funding? From one point of view, leading the team at the helm of a grant-supported contest which will greatly effect a project from which one has been banned...it's like funding editing by proxy! Unless there was some stipulation that all enwiki matters were to be strictly handled by other contest leaders. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@I JethroBT (WMF): What is happening – could you give us an update please? Andreas JN466 07:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reminded I Jethro that there are outstanding questions. --Andreas JN466 10:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Indy beetle: Note that User:T_Cells is also listed as a member of the Leadership Development Working Group, a group of volunteers paid a $600 p.a. stipend each, according to the documentation on Meta, to come up with a definition of good leadership in the context of the Wikimedia movement. (See also Wikimedia-l.) Andreas JN466 14:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Enwiki ban is what it is, a ban from the English language Wikipedia. It is not a ban from all languages Wikipedia. If a user is site-banned from the English Wikipedia, the WMF may not fund a grant request from them for projects that are related to the English Wikipedia. BUT if they are in good standing in other languages Wikipedia, and the WMF is convinced that the user(s) could implement the project in that language, they may be funded regardless of our ban on enwiki. SuperSwift (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But if I'm banned from the main wiki I edit for, say, bullying (a somewhat universal behavioral thing), do I get to turn around and apply for a grant while saying I'm a user on another language wiki? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, there's a lot of small wikis out there with dubious governance. If you get banned by a bunch of rogue penguins on aqwiki, that shouldn't automatically disqualify you from getting a WMF grant. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is arguing for that. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But if a user banned from the English Wikipedia gets a grant for organising a competition that involves edits to the English Wikipedia that is a problem. In this particular case the WMF could not be convinced that the project could be implemented without concerning the English Wikipedia because no attempt was made to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I think the issue starts at the user group level here. Affilates and projects are pretty seperated and independent from each other right now. You can be banned from one while being allowed to participate in the other (which is how it works for different projects). That's the status quo, and it should be examined more here. –MJLTalk 23:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment "Persistent inappropriate editing behavior, in spite of community warnings, is inconsistent with good ambassadorship for the projects in outreach and off-wiki work. In light of these concerns, we have communicated to Wikicology that the following conditions will remain in place until these issues have been resolved" (from 2016). I remember this case as being particularly egregious. When were these issues resolved, and how? Peter Damian (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Size of grant matters. I would not be concerned to learn that someone with a sockpuppetry block on one project had received a $40 grant for reference books on another project without some assessment of their block. A more substantial grant is a different matter. Time is also a factor, especially if in the intervening time they have been behaving well on other projects. More troubling would be if the grant meant a return to the areas or activities where the past problems arose. ϢereSpielChequers 21:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Are we talking about a White-collar crime or a mistrust? But for me as a Wikipedian, what look terrible to the global community is : NO ONE CHECKS WHY A USER GOT BANNED. I believe there is a lot of missue of access in many projects, so we better to stop judging users based on their block-log. Access-holders are not the [elite .Therefore, for this reason, it is better to talk about the banning of users. I don't know about the user/users mentioned by Indy beetle. But I know about jealousy among users in small projects. --Ruwaym (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: @I JethroBT (WMF), Indy beetle, and Peter Damian: For reference, all it takes to make someone a nominee of the "Young Global Leaders" programme of the World Economic Forum is to go on the younggloballeaders.org website and nominate them.

As the website points out, "Due to the large number of nominations received, the Forum of Young Global Leaders only contacts successful candidates. Some candidates may be contacted as part of the due diligence process."

I am happy to tell you that all three of you can now add "Nominee, Young Global Leader, World Economic Forum" to your Wikimedia user pages, as I've just nominated all three of you. Just kidding. But I do think the WMF should hold its grantees and potential grantees to certain standards of personal conduct, and perform related assessments as part of its due diligence before awarding a grant. --Andreas JN466 08:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ABorba (WMF) blocked

I have blocked ABorba (WMF) (talk · contribs) for operating ([6]) the account Scungiliman with contributions such as [7] and [8]. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since they didn't edit after being warned, what's the point of the block? Levivich 22:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Preventing further disruption from someone who needs a warning to not add "fuck shit" as the short description of biographical articles perhaps. I didn't check the warning's timestamp closely, though; I thought they had continued after a warning. Anyway, if these edits have been paid by the WMF, I'd first like to see a statement from someone else than the blocked user that this has been seen by their employer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a valid use of the block tool. Levivich 22:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Preventing disruption is a valid use of the block tool. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but these blocks obviously were not needed to prevent disruption because there were no bad edits made after the warnings. The disruption had already stopped by the time you arrived at the scene, TBF, so there was no need for a block to stop it. I get you may not have realized the timeline when you made the blocks, but now that you know, you should unblock. Levivich 22:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just read their UTRS appeal and remain convinced they should stay blocked for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of whether the block was too quick or hasty (or even unnecessary), I can understand why, in the heat of the situation, one would be inclined to block. What else would your reaction be if you saw a WMF account (or an account that looked like a WMF account) operating sock accounts for vandalism? If it's an actual vandal impersonating WMF, then problem solved; if it's a legitimate account, things can be clarified and the block can be removed later. But in the heat of the situation, seeing a seemingly-legitimate account vandalizing raises a lot of suspicions, and a block is absolutely on the table for stopping disruption, especially if the account really was a privileged account. I've been threatened for blocking an "unblockable" for vandalizing project pages which is not a good look: admins shouldn't hesitate to use their tools to exercise their judgement if they believe the project is in danger. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This block might have been too quick, and probably would have been better to see if the warnings to knock it off worked. This has the appearance of dumb and careless user interface testing rather than vandalism, and blocking all 3 accounts with no warning seems overkill. *All* warnings were given after the last edit: last edit --> warning 1 --> warning 2 --> block. If it were up to me, I'd unblock now, but if the block remains, I at least think that "making sure their employer knows" is not a valid reason to keep the block; they should be unblocked, at the latest, as soon as there is an assurance that such "testing" won't recur. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
concur with Floquenbeam, this block seems premature. Andre🚐 22:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It took me a while after the first block to notice that a WMF account is behind this, and even when I saw that an WMF account's userspace was involved, I first thought I'm dealing with impersonation. There needs to be, at very least, proper disclosure of the account ownership for all involved accounts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it's going to be handled thru UTRS: link. And I'd agree proper disclosure is need; not as a condition for unblocking, but as soon as they're unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my side, it won't be handled through UTRS. On-wiki disruption paid by the WMF, on-wiki block appeal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. My assumption was impersonation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ToBeFree At the minimum they appear to also be using/have used:
plus Pineappleupsidedown (talk · contribs), though you've already blocked that one. How many testing accounts does one person need? (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks like another case of an employee who needs The Talk with management about on-wiki conduct & use of WMF accounts. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are making an appeal via UTRS so not everything is public. If the appeal is not going to be public I would rather it be handled by Arbcom than by UTRS. No offence, but Arbcom is elected. ϢereSpielChequers 14:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I do not think ARBCOM is meant to be a political solution for the admin corps to hide behind. You have expressed your opinion about this twice and reiterating does not make it any more valid. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once I realized this really is A WMF employee, I closed the UTRS ticket. Had they proven not to be a WMF employee, the actions I would have taken would have been more than a redirect to the user talk. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WereSpielChequers, repeating public information in a private forum does not make it private information. There's nothing in UTRS appeal #62492 which is not already known on-wiki on one WMF project or another. The UTRS appeal was redirected to the user's talk page. Any appeal to ArbCom would be bounced in the same way. Cabayi (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UTRS is not really a private forum. Just the place those w/o TPA can go to request unblock. While I signed the Confidentiality agreement, I believe all admins now have access to UTRS. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section break 2

The following accounts are  Confirmed by checkuser:

The amount of password resets that I see on Pineappleupsidedown makes me think it may be shared. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad this was resolved, however, I'm curious why my username showed up with checkuser? If there was any activity that led to it being flagged, or there is anything I need to change about my testing. I don't make any changes to articles except on testwiki or my sandbox, or my own test user talk pages. Please advise. EdTestCommons02 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EdTestCommons02: Emailed -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

section break 3

I have a better analogy. Would you be willing to tell your Congressman (or Congresswoman) about the trends of property values on the block where you live? ok, now how about a random stranger? ok, now how about if a random stranger started asking you some pesky questions, and when you waved them away, you then found out that the erson was your local congressman? you'd run after him to have a friendly chat, right?
ok, so think of WMF as your local Congressman, or any local politician. almost everyone finds politicians annoying in some way; however, when a politician takes an actual interest in some local item, usually people prefer to cooperate.
I see the WMF as dirrectly analogous to one's local elected officials; in general, we would probably find them annoying, however, most people would agree that they still serve some useful purpose. I hope no one minds my small excursion into analogies here; however, I have used this analogy to explain the WMF quite a bit, and when the topic of general irritation with WMF comes up, this is one way that I like to view this whole topic, and this whole issue in general. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree in general. I think though like any good politician, WMF needs to understand and cater to some public sensitivities. Admit the "mistakes were made" and put in place protocols and plans to avoid it in the future. It's a PR problem. Andre🚐 21:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At a minimum, all of these test accounts need to disclose:

  1. That they are running tests on behalf of the WMF
  2. Who owns them

To comply with WP:SOCKLEGIT. The owner needs to have an unlocked WMF account with a name and contact information. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Unless the project is about edit summaries and the testing needs to take over the entire edit summary field in order to have a valid test result, I would expect any such live testing to use the edit summary field to clearly label it (maybe with a bit of shouting) AS A TEST, and to include a link to a page on mw or meta or wherever the case may be, where one could find a project page describing the particular testing going on. The project page should also list previous project testing on test.wikipedia.org, and why stopping there wasn't sufficient, and it had to be continued live. Presumably, it would be accompanied by a Project talk page, where any Wikipedia editors who were discommoded or had other comments could register their thoughts and get feedback. Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement from Jan (WMF)

Moin. First, many thanks to @Guerillero:, who notified T&S. Let me briefly share an update on where we are at and to be transparent about my email reply to him earlier today, too:

I also promised Guerillero to circle back with an update after the upcoming meeting. I am happy to share that follow up here, too, if there is an interest. Best regards,--Jan (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JEissfeldt (WMF), Thank you very much! In addition to account naming and notifications, I'd hope for an agreement not to insert obscene references to copulation or similar vandalism simulations into mainspace articles at all. There are surely less disruptive ways to test edit filters, and there's no reason to believe that the community would deny or object to the creation of a test filter for a custom keyword such as "WMFTESTFILTERBLOCK". As the team has agreed not to conduct further tests until the issues have been resolved, I'll remove the three blocks I have placed for now lacking a preventative need. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, ToBeFree, your proposal strikes me as very sensible and I will raise it on Wednesday. The team has done lots of good work helping to improve software before it reaches the community wikis. That wasn't always the case at the WMF before this team was created. So we should be able to work out a way for them to do their work without unnecessary disruptions, especially in the main space. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, and maybe the QA team needs to publish their test plans 24h or 48h in advance and allow experienced admins to object. And maybe they shouldn't do this kind of testing on prod at all but make a test environment. Andre🚐 17:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JEissfeldt (WMF): I think you're missing an important element here, which is that, putting all the issues with accounts and lack of disclosure aside, enwiki has a longstanding policy that says making disruptive edits for research or testing purposes isn't acceptable; see WP:NOTLAB. We're a real encyclopaedia on the real life internet and we don't want our readers to open up a biography and see "fuck shit" under the heading, even if it's only for a few minutes. As several editors who work in tech have said above, running tests on your production environment is unprofessional. – Joe (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re I also promised Guerillero to circle back with an update after the upcoming meeting. I am happy to share that follow up here, too, if there is an interest. – I would personally be grateful for that update after the meeting. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@L235: Noted :)
@Joe Roe: We agree on both points. I have never met anyone in my nearly two decades here who thinks testing in production is a good pathway. That the testwikis themselves sit in the production cluster, too, just illustrates the larger problem of technical debt (of which our testing infrastructure itself is basically part). If you are interested in my personal views on the latter, I outlined them - including the caveat that I naturally don't speak for Product and Technology - during the Board's community office hour in April (the relevant community question gets read out at 1:00:22). Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moin, @L235, Joe Roe, Andrevan, Guerillero, and ToBeFree: thank you for your patience while I discussed your concerns with the Quality & Test Engineering team. They were very interested in your proposals how to improve their work here and agreed to:

  • Would the technical village pump be an acceptable home for brief announcements for local tests?
  • Would you be interested in joining them in a call to discuss the rules - and the technical limitations they work under that are forcing them to conduct some tests in production - before they take effect?

T&S can help put a call together if you are interested in the conversation. Best regards, -–Jan (WMF) (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's good enough for me as a step in the right direction, I'll let others chime in. No need to join the call, I already have enough on my plate to manage on my actual job. Andre🚐 15:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my point of view the technical pump makes sense as an announcement place. But I think there needs to be broader onwiki documentation about why production testing is sometimes necessary rather than just discussing it on a call. This could live here, on meta, or mediawiki, and then linked to as appropriate. If a call does end up being organized I would be interested in joining. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not completely sure how this became a T&S issue, but yes, I'd be happy to be on a call to discuss this sort of testing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again 🙂 The upcoming renames and userpage disclosures are probably the most important step; I'm happy to see them on a tangible timeline supported by the T&S team. Regarding the announcements/explanations/discussions, I guess as much as possible of them should be held on-wiki (too), where I'd happily participate. I'm also happy to see Barkeep49 and RoySmith, both of whom have programmed userscripts implying noticeable technical competence, joining the call if there is one. I'm thankful for the kind invitation, but I'll stick to written English. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JEissfeldt (WMF); I would be more than happy to jump on a call with you and them to workshop a proposal -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey folks, circling back on this with an update. Anthony has provided a list of 10 test accounts to the T&S team. We have just renamed to have them standardized and dropped a disclaimer on each of their userpage. The accounts are User:QTE-Test1-WMF,...and User:QTE-Test10-WMF. We will send out a doddle to Barkeep49, RoySmith, Guerillero and folks who are interested to the call together with Jean-Rene Branaa, Engineering Manager for the Quality and Test Engineering team and Jan from the T&S to discus the rules and where to post. Thank you.--Wikimedia Foundation office (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. Are these logins for individuals, or role accounts? Certes (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The disclosures on their user page say they are "role accounts", so I would presume the latter. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I looked at the page history of user talk pages of the accounts which are being renamed. I found that there are still several accounts which looks like test accounts. They are Scblr (talk · contribs), UserTesting1 (talk · contribs), Viladedoggo (talk · contribs), Talktest2 (talk · contribs), Tannerjs91 (talk · contribs), HeyDimpz (talk · contribs). Some of these accounts also edits other user talk pages which those accounts also looks like test accounts. They include WikiEditorSam (talk · contribs), JoNewbie (talk · contribs), Climadeo (talk · contribs) (see its user talk page history, there are test accounts and a staff editing its user talk page), UserTalkTest (talk · contribs), Dbrant testing (talk · contribs), Scblrtest (talk · contribs), Scblrtest2 (talk · contribs), Scblrdev (talk · contribs). I don't know whether those accounts are being created by other staffs but I believe that they are likely test accounts. (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of these accounts have disclaimer for working with the WMF in their user pages. Are those accounts required to be renamed? (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At first glance for most of the accounts: yes, I suspect. My folks will be sorting them together with that (different) team based on the rules and the results of the upcoming conversation with Barkeep49, RoySmith, and Guerillero. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a suggestion on the test accounts to be created in the future by staffs. As accounts owned by staff should have the "WMF" tag, which is in the title blacklist, I suggest to grant some staffs an account creator flag to override the antispoof. It also allows to check which staff created the test accounts. (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would hope that this is essentially unnecessary, since staff already have the ability to override the title blacklist through the Staff global group. stwalkerster (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by a Community Member

I have a few comments. First, in looking over the election materials, I think that there is some insight into what is wrong with the Foundation's attitude. They ask the candidates what radical changes should be made to the Foundation or the Movement. Some of us didn't sign on to a Movement. Some of us think that the Foundation is the corporate structure for managing a large data center in support of various stakeholders. Maybe the fact that the Foundation thinks that it is the vanguard of a Movement is part of the problem.

Second, it appears that, perhaps because it thinks that there is a Movement that will change the world, the Foundation hasn't tried to stay in touch with its stakeholders. Each of the wikis has at least two communities of stakeholders, the readers and the editors. We are the largest and most active community of editors, and we might be similar to some of the other communities of editors and might also be able to provide insight into the largest community of readers. The live English Wikipedia is on servers that belong to the Foundation, but the encyclopedia belongs to its communities. (So go and test somewhere else.)

Third, you aren't showing that you have a clue as to how to change the world if you don't know how to manage your own data center, but are in the data center business. (So go and test somewhere else.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the general thrust of the comments by Robert McClenon. The monetary value of the Wikimedia Movement has been created entirely by the volunteer editors, especially the diligent, long term editors who contribute to Wikipedia in English. German, French. Japanese. Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Portuguese and Italian. Not to criticize the editors who contribute in other languages, but the editors working in these languages I have mentioned contribute the vast majority of the useful content, and the English version in paricular is heavily viewed in countless countries worldwide, since English is consided the lingua franca of business and academia in countless countries. To summarize, the volunteers who are actually creating the monetary value are solely responsible for the financial clout that enables the WMF staffers to receive their generous San Francisco based salary and fringe benefit packages. If the staffers were responsible for creating excellent encyclopedic content, the entire project would fail in short order, because the majority of the staffers have shown little interest and less expertise in actually creating encyclopedic content in multiple languages. That would be OK if the WMF staffers showed respect for the people who volunteer (in part) to allow them to receive their generous salary and fringe benefit packages. Based on my 13 years of trying to interact with WMF staffers, my experience is that the more cash that the WMF hoards, the less interested the WMF staffers are in meaningful collaboration with the various volunteer communities, and the more inclined they are to focus on interaction with fake community representatives who are all about grant programs instead of genuine support for the broad communities of editors. It is really sad to see how badly WMF money is misallocated, and what poor results there are for their paid outreach efforts. The bottom line is that financial incentives attract careerists, not genuine encyclopedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree in general. The more money there is, brought in by fundraising campaigns widely thought to be misleading, the more it becomes the glue that keeps the movement (!) together, and the priorities and ethics and mindsets change beyond recognition.
The availability of "easy money" earned in large part off the work of others has a corrupting influence all round. The other day I compared the top salaries in the Wikimedia Foundation's 2018 Form 990 versus the 2020 Form 990. I found (please check ...) that from 2018 to 2020 –
  • the CEO's total compensation incl. benefits increased by 7% (to $423,318),
  • the DGC's and GC's by 10%,
  • the CFO's by 11%,
  • the CTO's by 17%,
  • the CAO's by 22%,
  • the CCO's by 25%,
  • the CT/CO's by 28%, and
  • the CPO's by 32%
– all over a two-year period when the annual US inflation rate was reportedly at 2%. All but three (the GC, CTO and CT/CO) were the same person in 2020 as in 2018. I'm pretty sure those are better raises than most donors got – including this pensioner last year with $18 to his name, who promised he'd donate as soon as his social security check would clear. Andreas JN466 07:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The questions for the videos were proposed and voted for by community members here: m:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022/Community Voting/Questions for Candidates#Proposed Questions. So the phrasing in this case was down to a volunteer. This said, I'm not sure who first started speaking of a "movement". I'm not overly fond of the term. People used to refer to the "project(s)"; that seems to have become less common as references to a "movement" have increased. Andreas JN466 06:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Is this supposed to be under the thread about ABorba? – Joe (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Joe Roe - Yes. I put it here on purpose. It was brought by their testing on the live English Wikipedia, which is why I told them to go and test somewhere else. Yes. That test is indicative of a grandiose attitude by the WMF. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I'm a little confused for how the board election and the idea of a Wikimedia Movement(TM) relate to the attitudes of the staff members on the Quality and Test Engineering team. I mean, they all feel like very separate issues? –MJLTalk 05:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has a high degree of pot calling out elitism of kettle. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's nice to finally see Cullen328, Robert McClenon, and others now using the very argument I've used a hundred times over the past 4 years that goes something like: "The WMF is more interested in its pursuits of becoming a socio-political movement than supporting its volunteers with necessary software that makes the whole thing work. It's not what I signed up for" Be careful what y'all say though about these WMFers on their celebrity salaries and junkets, it was my repeating a totally innocent but extremely accurate comment of Cullen's that was 40% of what led to me being desysopped. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many of the WMF's socio-political goals are reasonable ones which I share, but diverting readers' donations to them is as immoral as lining their own pockets. The WMF continues to grab so much power from the communities, one inch at a time, that it can dictate whatever terms and conditions it likes. Our only recourse is to stop editing. At least Wikipedia is safe in one way: The WMF can now afford to hire paid editors to replace the volunteers it seems hellbent on driving away. Certes (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community members meeting about QA

RoySmith, Guerillero, and I took up Jan (WMF)'s invitation above to have a meeting where we could discuss changes to avoid this kind of situation happening again. We met earlier today. It was, from my perspective, a very productive meeting. Coming out of the meeting there was a commitment to (among other things):

I expect some of these to happen quickly - Jan has already begun working on elements to be hosted here on enwiki - while the last two pieces might be more medium term projects. But on the whole I found the foundation staffers we talked with to be open to hearing the community perspective and eager to be productive collaborators. If I missed anything I hope someone else fills it in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My take on things is pretty much the same as Barkeep's, and his bullet list jives with my own notes. I'm happy with the way the meeting went and I'm fully confident that WMF will soon have improved processes in place to make things run smoother in the future. On the enwiki side, I think we all came away with a better understanding of the constraints under which the WMF QT&E group works and how they will on occasion require testing in a live environment. And I think the WMF folks now have a better understanding of what particular issues got enwiki folks so excited. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with what Barkeep and Roy said. I came away from this meeting thinking that JBranaa (WMF), from the testing team, was extremely open to our input and wanted to get it right. If anything, he was less thrilled about future testing being done on enwiki than Barkeep, Roy, and myself were. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you vote in the WMF Board Election? Voting closes September 6

While people are paying attention to this page, I want to remind everyone that voting in the WMF Board Election is open for a few more days. Regardless of our opinions of the WMF, it plays a key role in the operation of Wikipedia and this is one of the few ways that community members can have a significant impact on how the WMF operates. A lot of people have not voted yet - this year the English Wikipedia has a turnout rate of 5.852%, last year it was 7.947% (about 500 votes).

I encourage you to:

Legoktm (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some current board members have possibly implied that the needs of individual Wikipedias' volunteer editors communities are not only not a priority, but are not within the board's remit, suggesting also for example, that the volunteers should do technical MediaWiki repairs themselves. Support from a genuinely motivated board would obviate the need for heavily subscribed appeals such as these, and fundraising based on stark misinformation. The current situation does not instill trust in the BoT.
I wonder just how many voters have actually bothered to read these short videos.
With only 2 seats directly elected by the community from a pre-selected short list, and the rest of the members 'appointed', a Board of any kind will only ever be a mere semblance of a system of checks and balances on the Foundation. The electoral system itself should be a top priority for radical change and kept as simple as possible while primarily representing the communities and not just the WMF and the affiliates.
There is a common misunderstanding that salaried staff (and affiliates) are more qualified and competent than people among the hundreds of editors whose voluntary content work is the source of the funds that maintains the WMF and the BoT. It seems fair that these volunteers without whom the entire movement would grind to a standstill should have the majority influence in the candidate nomination and electoral processes, and it should be reasonable to let them.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously your work has zero value, or you would be getting paid for it, right? Dennis Brown - 12:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kudpung: I agree with your critique of the election system and composition of the Board (though I would clarify that more these 2 seats are community voted, e.g. last year we elected 4 people to the board), but regardless I hope people will vote in spite of how flawed the system is, while continuing to lobby and push to make it better.
For everyone else, if you don't want to watch the videos, you can also read transcripts of the candidates' responses. Legoktm (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The system is indeed flawed. The volunteers have a right to know who gets on the board, how they get there, and to be directly part of the selection making. Rightly or wrongly, I have always had the impression that the BoT simply rubber-stamps the intentions of the WMF who will do what they want anyway. I'm sure that plenty of Wikipedians share the same opinion and would like to be convinced otherwise.
As Dennis possibly implies, in the eyes of the WMF, it's volunteers are an unwashed mob of expendable galley slaves. If catastrophe is to be avoided, this year's composition is going to be crucial in the way the encyclopedias will continue to be supported in the future. Unlike in the past, it is going to be essential for the Board to intervene to stave off the WMF's next series of faux pas; "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." 1867 John Stuart Mill, 1867, British philosopher.
That is not to say of course, that the WMF is especially 'bad' per se, but they have lost sight of Wikipedia grassroots and embark upon goals that have little to do with what the tens of thousands of unpaid editors and maintenance workers signed up for and what new editors are completely unaware of until they later become involved in Wiki politics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The videos are important. They may provide insights on the candidates' sincerity and goals that cannot be conveyed on paper. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When the voting compass talks about the WIkipedia community, does that include editors, or everybody but editors? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wakelamp the (s)election system is such an unholy complex mess (nearly as complex as US presidential elections, but even less democratic), I doubt very much if anyone even bothered to consult the compass. I know I didn't and I haven;'t a clue what it is. It didn't prevent me from knowing exactly who I should vote for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please vote for those you prefer by midnight UTC, and consider consulting the compass first. It confirmed my opinion of the candidate I'd already picked as a clear number one, and helped me rank the others. Their views on the WMF's role vary, and the right choices can make an important difference to our future. Certes (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kudpung the ideas that the wmf is out of touch with the average editor and that the average editor shouldn't vote seems like a really bad combination. For people upset with the direction of the foundation I think one of the best things they can do is vote. Same with people who are happy with it. Both kinds of candidates can be found in this election. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Barkeep49, sorry, pardon? I think you just pinged the wrong user. Things happen when we're busy ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kudpung no I meant you Face-smile.svg. You had said it was less democratic than US presidential elections and that it has lost sight of Wikipedia grassroots. I was suggesting that voting was a way to remedy that problem rather than just bemoaning undemocratic elements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Barkeep49, beats me how you can construe this as a call to not vote: The volunteers have a right to know who gets on the board, how they get there, and to be directly part of the selection making. If you check my edits you'll see I been going round the site encouraging people to vote! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wakelamp: "community" generally refers to people who edit and contribute to the wikis. Different people have different opinions on how broad or narrow the definition should be. The Wikipedia Community is one essay that I quickly found that explains the different ways of looking at it. Legoktm (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder, voting closes in about 21 hours at 23:59 UTC today. The statistics show that turnout rate has gone up to ~7.6%, but we are behind other large Wikipedias, like German and French, which are both at ~10% (we're also behind Spanish, Italian and Commons). English Wikipedia makes up 35% of the electorate but only 32.7% of voters. Please vote, it's important that the English Wikipedia's opinions are appropriately reflected in the results. Legoktm (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Nosebagbear, I wanted to make sure that it would no longer be possible to change my vote after looking. Some of the candidates may not have been as familiar to me as others but I have the advantage of having been around long enough to know what's afoot in the covert corners of the Foundation. It was therefore not difficult based on their backgrounds and statements to assess which ones would best represent the interests of the WMF's main asset: the volunteers who provide and maintain the content for free while the the staff enjoy their celebrity salaries and junkets on the proceeds of that free work.
My main concern is the amount of effort (and probably money again) spent on researching for and producing the compass for an election for just two preselected candidates out of a total of 11 seats. The entire system of (s)election of the board members makes a mockery of the meaning of 'democracy'. I'm sure even Barkeep49 can understand my opinion even if he doesn't share it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the EC, I believe, uses a free platform that someone found during the MCDC elections (though obviously any staff time in setting up does have a fiscal opportunity cost), I can absolutely agree as to the preselection of candidates aspect Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Back in April, there was considerably more fuss about this year's (s)election method in German Wikipedia than here. :/ The interesting question is what (s)election method the WMF will stipulate next year.
This said, I am happy that two or three decent candidates made it through the affiliate selection process this year. But without changing the board composition, community representatives will always have a hard time trying to change the WMF's course. It doesn't help that they are not allowed to voice disagreement with any board decision (see the odious section 9). Andreas JN466 13:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names of WMF Senior Management

There is no current list of names. Any help appreciated. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/ not sufficient? * Pppery * it has begun... 00:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation English fundraising campaign - October pre-tests

Hi everyone,

As previously mentioned here, I will continuously inform you of pre-tests on English Wikipedia as the Wikimedia Foundation prepares for the English fundraising campaign later this year. As part of the English campaign we test our infrastructure on a regular basis throughout the next few months and you might see banners every now and then on Wikipedia if you are not logged in.

The scheduled dates for October are (you can find the September ones in this post):

Generally, before and during the campaign, you can contact us:

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks you and regards,

JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) by * Pppery * it has begun... 22:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JBrungs (WMF): Can you provide a list of banners that you plan to run? BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I will share those closer to the time - most likely in early November. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JBrungs (WMF): Thank you, but I was referring to the ones being run in October. BilledMammal (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Sound Logo: What is the Sound of all Human Knowledge?

On September 13, 2022, the Wikimedia Sound Logo Contest was launched. In the tradition of the movement's visual logo contests, the Wikimedia Foundation has organized a contest to select, this time around, a sound logo to represent all Wikimedia projects. To learn more about the initiative, visit soundlogo.wikimedia.org.

(!) If you want to learn more about sound logos, need help with your submission, or if you have a good idea but don't know how to capture it, join our workshop on September 29 at 15:00-16:00 UTC. Sign up directly on Zoom or check the contest meta page.

CalliandraDysantha-WMF (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) by * Pppery * it has begun... 22:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English Wikipedia user group?

It's rather difficult to miss the underlying feeling in some areas of the English Wikipedia that the Wikimedia Foundation is perhaps not listening as closely as it should to y'all — most recently, this has surfaced in topics such as PageTriage and the fundraising campaigns. I can certainly share some aspects of this feeling, and try to surface this constructively where I can.

The formation of a Wikimedia user group for the English Wikipedia would, among other things, allow for a delegate to attend the Wikimedia Summit and voice concerns directly to decision makers. I'm no fan of complex bureaucracy, and as such can offer no suggestions as to how a delegate would be selected/how the user group should run etc, but I did want to surface the idea and see if this is a direction y'all would consider investigating — providing the "message" doesn't get spread too thin, more opportunities for discussion can't be a bad thing.

For transparency, I am employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, but consider myself a volunteer first and foremost and make this suggestion as such. I think this is the most appropriate village pump for the topic, but please do feel free to move it if not. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potentially this is "too much and not enough". If the Wikimedia Summit winds up as an influential forum within the movement then one delegate from this community would be a tad farcical given the proportion of Wikimedians who are active here and how we differ on several key things, but having that one delegate risks people thinking that that forum somehow represents this community. I'm fairly confident that a number of attendees will be active on this wiki, but they won't be there to represent us and may not have views that would be mainstream here. I detect something of a governance flaw in this project, user groups thematic orgs and chapters all have their roles, but if they each start sending people to a meaningful summit then we risk some people realising that they potentially have multiple routes to the summit; (the chapter where you live, a couple of subject based ones and now a project based one or two). The more attractive being at that summit becomes the more we risk a proliferation of such orgs, some of which won't do much other than send one of their own to an annual jolly. ϢereSpielChequers 19:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s not there for the same reason as that the en.wp editors don’t have a conference of their own. No one wants to organize it. The ppl who want to organize things are all already doing that. All the ppl who don’t want to organize things are the ones complaining all the time. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a single user group for all of the English Wikipedia is the wrong size. I think smaller subgroups of the English Wikipedia, say functionaries, NPP, AbuseFilter rule helpers/maintainers, DYK enthusiasts, WikiProject <whatever>, etc. would be a much better fit for the user group model. Legoktm (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Legoktm: The meta:English Wikipedia Functionaries User Group is in the works. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]