User talk:Raystorm

Welcome to Meta!

Hello Raystorm!, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Primera reunión presencial de la JD

Me dice Góngora que estará en Madrid los próximos días 5 y 6 de Mayo...¿qué tal te viene a tí para la primera reunión presencial?...te recueros que dijiste que invitabas a McMarisco... Saludos, guapa.--Marctaltor 19:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Party Quijote 2010

Hola Raystorm, soy el Coordinador General de [Party Quijote 2010] una concentración informática que este año se realiza en [Azuqueca de Henares], muy cerca de Madrid del 8 al 11 de julio.

He visto que estáis creando Wikimedia España y quería ofreceros nuestras instalaciones e infraestructura por si queréis hacer una reunión del grupo durante esos días.

Nuestro evento tiene gran repercusión mediática y creo que puede ser provechoso para ambos.

Si estáis interesados o quieres preguntarme lo que quieras puedes contactarme por correo en info en partyquijote punto com .

Un saludo. Manchego 09:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Raystorm. If I read the diffs correctly, you are the first person to have filled in the Funds Dissemination Criteria Table -- thank you! I also saw that on your enWP talk page you translated the article on Ann Bannon! I have a personal fondness for Ann Bannon because I interviewed her once, about 15 years ago, and I think her books were really important in the development of lesbian culture. So, yay, you! for translating her article :-) Thanks Sue Gardner 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hola Ray

Quería preguntarte si no hay userbox de socio de WM.es para meta, como la que hiciste {{usuario:Raystorm/WMES}}. Besos. Dorieo (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Uy, no tengo ni idea de hacer plantillas, userboxes, etc, sino te lo preguntaría. Cuasi-analfabeto digital que es uno. Gracias. Dorieo (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomenCamp Registration Form

Hello,

You listed your name as someone interested in be part of WikiWomenCamp, which will be held in Buenos Aires from 23 to 25 May, 2012.

We are asking everyone to fill this form will all your info. Everyone is invited to fill this form, even if you don't have a grant to cover your expenses yet.

Thanks for you interrest, and I hope to see you in Buenos Aires in May :)

Béria Lima ^msg 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the IEG Committee

Hi Raystorm,
Thanks for signing up to join the Individual Engagement Grants Committee! It is my pleasure to confirm your membership. We’ve got a lot to accomplish together, particularly during the next 6 weeks, and it will be awesome to have your help. Here is how to get started:

To make your membership official, please do 2 things by February 11th:

1. Introduce yourself in the IdeaLab.
2. Send your email address to IEGrantswikimedia.org, so that we can subscribe you to the committee mailing list.

Then there are 2 first tasks' for active committee members to start on right away:

1. Review information in the Committee Workroom (your new organizing hub on meta), including responsibilities and the review process. Feedback and questions are very welcome at this stage.
2. Start giving feedback on open ideas, drafts and proposals. Asking questions to gather information you’ll need to make a recommendation helps prospective grantees think their projects all the way through, and will give us more great proposals to choose from.

Our formal review of proposals starts February 22nd. I’ll be posting information about scoring and selection of proposals on the committee mailing list and in the Workroom soon, so please keep an eye there!

Thanks again for joining this new grantmaking program...I hope we’re going to see some amazing impact from these grants! :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

WM Uruguay

Hola. Anoche nos reunimos para discutir los cambios sugeridos a los estatutos. Cambiamos los que pudimos. Aqui te dejo los comentarios. Aún queda pendiente alguno. Saludos. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

All done. Cheers. Ganímedes (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Avisaré a los compañeros, para que ayuden con la traducción si es necesario. Solo indicar que el sistema no lo elegimos; es el sistema que indica el MEC. Saludos. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

¡Hola, Raystorm! Sigo la discusión acá, ¿te parece? --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping user:Ganímedes. Raystorm (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Convidando o Brasil

Pleas, I would ask your attention to the comments of the committee evaluation, thank you.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 01:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Grantmaking Barnstar

	Individual Engagement Grant Barnstar
	I so appreciated having your wise voice, thoughtful experience, and calm sense of humor on the committee in this first round! You always helped smooth the way and find a path forward. I know how much work you do all over Wikimedia, and hope you realize how awesome you are to also be serving in this role. Thanks!! Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Fundraising translation feedback

Hey Raystorm,

I wanted to ask for your help. As you may be aware we have been running banners on many language wikis. We have a lot of new content this year and I really want to conduct a thorough review of our translations. This is a combination of feedback from the community, readers, donors as well as those with professional translator experience. This will help us ensure the highest quality of translations used in our messaging.

To help us out with this I wonder if you would be willing to give us feedback for Spanish using This Link

Simply follow the simple instructions on that page and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.

Many Thanks

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I seem to be always on my mobile device, and unable to add potential translations. :( Hopefully when I'm done travelling I'll be able to use my home computer to fill it up! (IF it's not too late). :P Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Individual Engagement Grant reviewer survey

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on Individual Engagement Grants! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the IEG program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you served on the IEG Committee.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

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

Happy editing,

and , Grantmaking & Programs, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I already filled it up. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Amical's bylaws

Hi Raystorm, how are you doing? I was updating Amical's bylaws (to be approved, hopefully, in next week's AGM) after Affcom's suggestions. May I ask you to propose a wording to comply with this comment you made:

• You would have to put a clause signalling independence from WMF, no content control, etc, to avoid potential liabilities. Preambles have no legal impact in Spain.

We are okay with that, however, where and how would you reccommend to add it? as a new article in Chapter 1 maybe?

Thanks in advance, --Arnaugir (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just added what we agreed on. Bylaws have been updated (see Talk:Associació_Amical_Viquipèdia#Updated_bylaws), there is the diff in case you and other AffCom members want to take a look at the changes. I think I included them all but a second pair of eyes does never hurt ;-) cheers --Arnaugir (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, modifying the bylaws is not difficult. Thanks for your kind offer about the fee, we would let know if it's the case. We will forward you the minutes the same day, so you can start the final steps towards Amical's recognition. :-) thank you--Arnaugir (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

afaik we haven't checked yet. I will do during this week preceding the AGM, I will let you know. This should be more complicated than changing the bylaws.--Arnaugir (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! How are you doing? Yesterday the GA was celebrated. I sent an email to affcom but anyway I wanted to tell you ;-) the bylaws have been approved with no objections. Thank you for your interest!--Arnaugir (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great. Yes, I'm planning to start updating all pages in Meta tomorrow :-) thanks for your answer. We will be waiting for Affcom's resolution. Cheers --Arnaugir (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Moltes gràcies! It's been a though way but looks like we finally made it :)--Arnaugir (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you have an estimation on when the final resolution from the Board may happen? :-)--Arnaugir (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Affiliations Committee/Resolutions/Budget request for 2013 annual meeting – April 2013

Just making sure that you notice the questions asked. odder (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Very considerate of you. Raystorm (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

board

It was nice to see your statement -- I am glad you are running :) -- phoebe | talk 20:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost

Dear María,

I've emailed you on a Signpost matter.

Kind regards, Tony (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

María, I'm pretty sure I sent it via the Spanish WP (about seven hours ago). Problem is, I've had to do a huge number of WMF emails today, and Meta and en.WP both "throttle" after about five in a day, so I've been having to email via a number of WMF sites ... all rather messy!

I've just resent it via your page at the Spanish WP. Please let me know if that doesn't work (perhaps email me via this site so I can return email). And do let me know if anything is unclear. My best wishes to you! Tony (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If my return email didn't work, Ed, our editor in chief, is now online. He can send via Meta. Tony (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've sent it! If you can confirm that you've received it, we'll be able to move past this at long last. :-) Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 10:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Important announcement: Election delayed by one week

The Election Committee regrets to advise that it is necessary to delay the start of voting in the WMF Elections 2013 for one week. This delay is being implemented for three reasons:

• We have been unable to verify that the list of eligible voters is complete and that all voters meet the published criteria
• We have been unable to verify that the SecurePoll setups for the election are properly functioning
• The voter interfaces have not been translated and are not currently available in any language other than English, thus disadvantaging Wikimedians who do not read English.

The following changes are now made to the Election timeline:

• 8-22 June 2013: elections
• 23-25 June 2013: vote-checking
• 25-28 June: publication of results.

For the Election Committee, Risker (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations María on your election! I look forward to the next two years on the Board. –SJ talk  00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon Invitation (in person and remote participants welcome)

Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history!

You'd be welcome! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your win in WMF board Election. Best wishes --Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

   Auguri e in bocca al lupo, Raystorm  Klaas|Z4␟V

  08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Come celebrate IdeaLab’s (re)Launch!

Idea Lab

Idea Lab

We’ve redesigned the Grants:IdeaLab to make awesome collaborators and shiny new ideas easier to find.
You’re invited to the (re)Launch party!

Come visit and create a profile, share or join an idea, and tell us what you think about the updates!

Hope to see you there! Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Internal/Private wiki discussion

Hi María, following on from the question about the private wikis during the board elections, please could you add your thoughts on moving things forward at Talk:Wikimedia_wikis#Are we re-purposing Internal?. Thanks! :-) Thehelpfulone 00:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT / User Group

Please see this discussion regarding User Group status. Thank you! --Another Believer (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal and Moral Rights?

Please have a look at Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Personal_and_Moral_Rights.3F. JKadavoor Jee 03:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable response. I replied there. JKadavoor Jee 07:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(reply) Thanks; it is highly appreciated. I'm willing to accept whatever may be the decision of the Board. Thanks, JKadavoor Jee 09:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear this news. Any updates? JKadavoor Jee 06:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Onam greetings!

Have a nice Onam tomorrow! JKadavoor Jee 17:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OnaSadya

Please fill out our brief Participation Support Program survey

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

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

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

Happy editing,

Siko and Haitham, Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Happy Diwali!"

While Diwali is popularly known as the "festival of lights", the most significant spiritual meaning behind it is "the awareness of the inner light". It is the belief that there is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman. The celebration of Diwali as the "victory of good over evil” refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling all ignorance, the ignorance that masks one's true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. With this awakening come compassion and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Satcitananda (joy or peace). Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this Inner Light. While the story behind Diwali and the manner of celebration varies from region to, the essence is the same – to rejoice in the Inner Light! And this year Diwali and All Souls' Day come together to fully defeat the Evil! "Happy Diwali!" – JKadavoor Jee 06:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! Thanks for letting me know about that wonderful festival! (BTW, Tomas, the photographer is one of my best friend in Commons!) JKadavoor Jee 08:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolution:Media about living people

Thanks! JKadavoor Jee 06:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics

Idea Lab

Idea Lab

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

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

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

Hope to see you there!

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

Barnstar and a request for feedback

	Individual Engagement Grant Barnstar
	Thank you for commenting on Individual Engagement Grant proposals during this recent round! We really appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts. To help us improve the IEG program for future participants, would you mind taking this quick 3-question survey? Thanks again for your help, --Siko and Haitham, Wikimedia Foundation Grantmaking

en:User:Jmorgan (WMF)

Why Did You Support Granting Private Information of Editors to Anonymous Administrators?

Dear Mr. or Ms. Sefidari,

I am dismayed that you and the rest of the board of trustees approved an "Access to No-Public Information" policy that allows totally anonymous administrators on the English and all the other Wikipedias to see the IPs and other potentially personally-identifying information (browser version, settings) of volunteer editors. Even though not usually immediately identifying in itself, this information can obviously be used as a stepladder to identifying through tools like Geolocate and TraceIP, as well as supporting indicators in websearching other clues from the editor's edit history.

Would you please inform me the factors that led to your support of the non-identification revision to the policy? Why would you have done this?

For your reference (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy) "[t]his policy has been replaced by a new Access to non public information policy, which was approved by the Board of Trustees on 25 April 2014."

I don't deny that Wikipedia's administrative participants in some cases do constructive work, in policing clear vandalism for example, or reporting to the WMF the rare cases of threats of violence. But access to personally-identifying information is not needed for that. If there are cases where volunteer administrative participants do somehow need that information, it should be entrusted to identified individuals, not anonymous usernames like "Wizardman" and "Beeblebrox" and "Dord" and so forth. Authorizing checkuser and the other tools to anonymous participants is going to attract, and has attracted, exactly the wrong kind of individuals. It's emboldening, frankly, creepers and cyberbullies. And those who participate in Wikipedia as if it were an online computer roleplaying game, without regard to the fact that those they choose to sniff and snoop (and pursue) are actually people as opposed to a computer game's NPCs (non-player characters).

Have you ever been snooped and sniffed, cyberbullied, websearched, by some creep online? I have, and it's not nice. I think if you'd been treated that way, and really understood the reality of the cyberbully culture, that you'd stand up now and reverse your support of the WMF's granting of these invasive privacy-violating tools to wholly anonymous and thus unaccountable administrative participants. Is that what it's going to take for you to change your mind? Somebody has to do it to you?

Please respond as to why you supported granting access to IP-invasive and potentially personally-identifying tools like checkuser to anonymous administrative participants.

Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WMF superblocks it's community

Hi,

since Erik doesn't answer, I'm now sending this remark to some other WMF officers and board members. I apologize for using your time.

I'm a crat in german wp. The so-called super-protections that Erik Möller/User:Eloquence and User:JEissfeldt (WMF) have put on our common.js on sunday, acting officially on behalf of WMF, have left some blood on the carpet. Many fellow wikipedians are upset, even those who accept the media viewer (which had been the conflict's origin). Several long-time contributors have left or stopped editing due to this. Journalists picked up the case.

Personally, I strongly protest against the WMF's action, and it's failure to communicate afterwards. Our communities are capable, and willing, to handle problems like this without office-actions.

There have been no official or private comments from WMF in the last days, so I'd like to suggest you have a look and give some response to the criticism.

(apologize again, for my translation errors)

Rfc: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Superprotect_rights

Links to ongoing discussions in german language: [1], [2], [3]

Greetings, -MBq (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, i second MBq's request and also e.g. this post by Rich. This issue is not taken lightly especially among german wikipedians. Regards, Ca$e (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi MBq and Ca$e. Thank you very much for the links. I don't speak German, but I will try Google Translate and see if that works enough to understand the comments on de.wiki. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Raystorm, thank you already for your reply and willingness to have a look at this issue. Maybe the best point to start at the moment is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov , as almost all essential points are now already voiced and discussed there in english. Regards, Ca$e (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ca$e, this is helpful because Translate is giving me somewhat confusing results, and the conversation appears to be happening in multiple places at once making it all the harder to get a cogent picture. There are some good insights in that page, which I appreciate. Acknowledging that how and when this Superprotect right was set up could have been much different, and the understandable concerns about it regarding content and administration, I think Lila is more than willing to engage in this issue, and it doesn't look like common understanding is completely impossible to achieve here. That is heartening. I think it would be crucial if she could get a thoughtful answer to her key question: "we put up a note for people to engage last November -- it gets removed. We do not force it to stay. So now, people are saying they did not know and did not engage until it is rolled out to over 800 wikis -- all but 2 with no pushback.... Now that we are here... Why not do an RfC on how to improve? Why force it out to where it is impossible to actually make better... I don't know how to make sense of it. -- LilaTretikov (talk)". This is where the German community in particular can explain, and she can respond to that, and we can move forward. We need to aim for mutual understanding and bring the conversation up – I have read comments about stopping to do maintenance and overall sabotaging de.wiki to make a point that I find disturbing as an editor. Instead of engaging on a race to the bottom, we need to do the opposite. Do you think this is feasible? Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Raystorm. I think you may have misunderstood the overall tendency in the german-speaking community. No one there really is keen on sabotaging anything. (And no one actually has!) However, people discuss matters of last resort, should the current situation not be resolved (on the steps we - and not only from the german-speaking communities - expect, see already the post by Rich linked to above). A new user hierarchy and a direct involvement in local affairs by WMF will never be acceptable and several people are indeed willing to, should WMF stand by this misbehavior, either refrain from a long-standing relationship or to actively do something against its recent downfall (not at all by sabotaging anything despite perhaps a currently unwanted MediaViewer, which can do nothing essential any better but lacks lots of functions that are present without it -- people have several other ways to make their protest loud and clear, lots of them e.g. would more or less directly effect WMF's funding). Regarding the question "Why not do an RfC on how to improve?" - questions like that could be discussed when the pressing issue concerning the newly established user hierarchy and direct overruling in local contexts is resolved. However, a preliminary note in that regard: We do not nor will ever accept technology that makes things worse. We did give lots of input regarding the defects of MediaViewer in its previous state (and we have been aware of sufficient input by others with profound expertise, like, for instance, Pete; we are accustomed to making decisions not on the mere numbers but the quality of insight and argument, thus many of us refrain from raising their voice as long as all has been said already by others, perhaps in a much more profound capability, too). A technology as broken as that will never be accepted as default by those who have knowledge and a say in the matter. This group consists of roughly 200-800 german-speaking people at the moment, with 50-100 who are really involved to expertly judge about the flaws in design of software like that - people who mostly got wind of MediaViewer even before you put any notices out. Regarding the structure of not only the german-speaking community (by the way, the second largest, while even larger ones protested comparably -- again, the numbers in phrases like "all but 2 with no pushback" are quite misleading regarding the factual base and structure of people involved), please have a look at the quick summary given here by Tolanor. Maybe, however, it would we best to move this discussion to a place where people are already involved in discussing more or less the same topics, like, e.g., at Lila's talk page? Ca$e (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind replying to my question?

I asked you in a section above ([4]) and see that you have since responded to another, but not me. Would you mind replying to my question about why you as a trustee in the board meeting earlier this year supported modifying the Access to Non-Public Information policy to grant privacy-invasive IP and other information about editors to completely anonymous administrators? Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had resisted the urge to frame your question in a way that implied that we must have supported the adoption of this policy to support harassers... This is much preferable, thank you.

So. The background for that decision can be found here, in the recommendation that the Legal team presented to the Board after consultation with the community. The Board discussed at length all the possibilities available. Personally, I lean more towards the position of having stringent identification requirements. If a user has an objection to identifying themselves to the WMF, I honestly don't want them handling non-public info. But, and this is important, the Wikimedia Foundation staff have found it difficult to balance privacy of identification with the [2007] Policy's requirement to assure accountability, meaning that past identification practices did not comply with the previous policy. WMF couldn't claim complete and accurate knowledge of the identities of all community members with access rights. You must have seen the different proposals of an updated policy that the Legal team proposed to the community. Some problems highlighted by community members included the ease to provide false information, you can read them at length in the page I linked to. In the final (adopted) version, there is no identification requirement, true, but it still provides for minimum age and confidentiality requirements. As you can see here, among other requirements these users will have to agree to a Confidentiality Agreement, which you can find available here. Of course, local communities can adopt more restrictive requirements, and this global policy can serve as guidance for that, and is more honest than the 2007 one.

I will say one last thing, just in case. This is not something that is approved and goes away. We are flexible: we track, we see how things are progressing, and if need be we will revise again the Policy in the future. This was not done to harm anyone, but to be honest about the reality of the situation regarding the previous policy. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am pleased to get a response from a trustee, grateful for your time, so thank you. Now, I just reread my comment for the second or third time and feel that it is fairly stated, doesn't impugn your motives at all, and is not "framed in a way that implied that [you] must have supported the adoption of this policy to support harassers." So I think you are wrong about that. Perhaps it is not my words but rather that you independently fear you may in fact have ended up supporting harassers. If you yourself "lean more towards the position of having stringent identification requirements," then I'd say you voted the wrong way, didn't you? The reason the practice did not comply with the previous policy was because Philippe Beaudette decided he was going to shred and secure-delete identifications in flagrant violation of the policy. (More here on that if you want to read it: http://timsongfan.livejournal.com/1170.html.) The correct answer to a WMF staffer violating WMF policy is to tell the staffer to start following the policy, not to change the policy to conform to the rogue action of the staffer.

With your assertion that the administrators still agree to confidentiality and that they're at least 18, c'mon Raystorm. It is meaningless and silly to take the stance that binding agreement may be reached with an anonymous online persona. "Goobydoo" and "Superskeeter" and "Lordofmajiks" cannot enter into binding and certainly not into lawful requirements. You say you'll track and monitor things but who actually among you is doing that and how are they doing it? Do you mean "we'll do it this way for the foreseeable future and see if anything blows up?" The problem is the new policy has placed the WMF in an orientation of deliberate ignorance, and further empowered the worst sort of creepers to do as they like, confident that there's no risk at all of being held responsible for any abusive use of the tools or privacy invasion of common editors. I have an authenticated copy of the infamous "anvil" email, in which an arbitrator undertook the most heinous privacy invasion of an editor I've ever seen and made repeated threats to turn his family against him with poisonous phonecalls and even threatened to call his wife's employers. It's psychotic and appalling, and it was thoroughly enabled through the checkuser tool and other administrative resources accorded to the anonymous FT2. This is the kind of thing that the policy change foments. I'll see about getting you a copy of that in hopes you'll change your mind and call for the policy to be reverted now, not years from now. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You disregard what I said, but I can scarcely be clearer. Having a false sense of security is a horrible outcome. This Policy does away with that. Raystorm (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If it does, it does it by exposing the users' non-public information to anonymous creepers. I feel that I did not disregard what you said. I read your comment twice or three times and responded to it as best I could without writing a novel. You did not previously say that stuff about false sense of security, nor did you clearly imply it. If the situation was "by shredding the identifications when we tell users we are keeping them, we are giving users a false sense of security" the way to address the matter was to stop shredding the identifications. Not to amend the policy! I don't know exactly how to right now present you the authenticated FT2 email threat, repetitively a threat to the editor's family, but I can point you to an edited version online: http://encyc.org/wiki/Anvil_email. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out our Inspire campaign survey

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

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

Many thanks,

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

23:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Community discussion on harassment reporting

There are many current proposals as part of the 2015 Inspire Campaign related to harassment management. I’ve created a page, Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting meant to serve as a central space where the various stakeholders in these proposals and other community members can discuss which methods might serve our community best so that we can unify our ideas into collective action. I encourage you to join the conversation and contribute your ideas! OR drohowa (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WMF board resolution on user rights process

Please urgently get this topic/resolution scheduled for a meeting, discussed and voted; and express your opinions on the noticeboard. Thanks for your work, Nemo 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry

Hi, I've emailed you. Thanks. Tony (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi from the Chapters Conference

Hello! Very nice meeting you at Wikimedia Conference 2015! The page I mentioned to you was Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting, and here is the current proposal that we are developing: Grants:IdeaLab/Centralised harassment reporting and referral service. We have a long way to go to translate these proposals into working projects and solutions but I am excited to keep the conversation going! OR drohowa (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! How are you? xoxo, --Pro patria semper (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015

Dear candidate. My general opinion about administration of Wikimedia is negative. Many texts and images had been removed with pretext of protection of rights of the owners of the copyright owners. The special permissions by the copyright owners were just ignored, and removed together with the files. In particular, this refers to images of the Soviet dissidents and their texts.

Below I suggest only few examples in order to let you know what is happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sofiya_Kalistratova&oldid=649939072 https://ru.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Софья_Васильевна_Каллистратова&oldid=93595 https://ru.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Леонард_Борисович_Терновский&type=revision&diff=1312548&oldid=585736

I investigated the case and I revealed that many removals were performed by bureaucrat Lozman, who has absolutely no experience with obtaining permission from the copyright owners and does not even remember, who made him bureaucrat. However, this is only example.

Sorry for being late, but I just received the invitation to vote. You still have two days to change my opinion about at least one of the candidates suggested. One example of complain by the author is available at site TORI, http://mizugadro.mydns.jp/t/index.php/Kouznetsov,_permission I mention it because it has English version, although many Russian authors were offended in the similar way.

Now I formulate the question:

Do you think it is still possible to handle the cases mentioned?

Do you think that you can find time to deal with the cases mentioned?

Sincerely, Domitori (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

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

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

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?

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:

• Respond to questions on the discussion page of the idea.
• Join a small group conversation.
• Learn more about this consultation.

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)

Toc?

I was unable to make any sense of your comment at the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. What was it supposed to mean? In the context of a discussion as to why questions to members of the Board are remaining unanswered, please could you be slightly less opaque in your comments. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you also for your edit correcting a typo in my question [5], which neatly serves to signal both that you have seen the question and that you are not prepared to answer it. It is more than a little disappointing that questions at that board go unanswered, indeed unacknowledged, more often than not. I encourage you to take a part in reversing that trend. At the present moment, there is the need for more not less engagement between the Board and the volunteer community, as I am sure you will agree, and yet the pattern of unresponsiveness to simple questions persists, to the detriment of that engagement. I would suggest that it is not an exaggeration to say that a crisis of confidence is imminent within the community and that if it were to become explicit it would do grave damage to the overall project. Please do what you can to prevent that damage occurring. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Rogol Domedonfors: actually, I went to have dinner. :) It is late in my corner of the world. But you are right that I don't feel I am the best person to address that question. Neither Kelly or I were involved in the decision process that led to the appointment of Arnnon (I assume you mean that). And for the disparagement comment, I imagine you have a specific example in mind or you wouldn't mention it. So maybe add it to your comment? I mean, I could say I have made no derogatory comments about another trustee or past trustee ever, but I wouldn't necessarily know what every other single trustee has done on other projects, languages or social media. But going to your main point: I do see that that page is a draft, and it might be interesting to ping Anthere to check its history. If we do not have an official equivalent, it could be interesting that the BGC takes it upon itself to develop something along those lines, some kind of code of conduct for trustees. I think it would be a very interesting idea. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. It is indeed late, in the metaphorical as well as the literal sense. I am asking very simple questions, which are quite explicit, and can in principle be answered either Yes or No. They are intended to stimulate a productive and constructive discussion between members of the Board and of the community about what the expectations are of the Board, in the light of certain recent events -- it is not intended to rehash those events but to try and develop a productive dialogue going forward. If it were to be agreed that the draft captures the expectations the Board sets itself then it might be appropriate to discuss whether it has fallen short of those expectations in any specific instance. But without establishing some common ground between Board and community, and in the face of a pattern of disappointing unresponsiveness at that particular forum going back months or even years, it will be difficult if not impossible to restore confidence. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rogol Domedonfors: I have added my last part to the noticeboard, to acknowledge your comment and perhaps spark a conversation. I agree more engagement is preferable. :) I think developing a Code of Conduct could be feasible on top of interesting, and it could help set expectations of both board and community members. I have to say that it would be very helpful to have global notifications or something along those lines: it is not intuitive having to remember to go to Meta to check the notifications and the noticeboard, which can lead to the perception of unresponsiveness. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Last call for WMF grants feedback!

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)

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?

Hi there,

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

Here’s how to participate:

• Learn more about this consultation
• Vote on and submit new campaign topics in the AllOurIdeas Survey
• Discuss campaign topics and ask questions on the IdeaLab talk page

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results

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

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Email with urgent questions from The Signpost

Hi Maria. Congratulations on your appointment to the Board. The Signpost has several questions we sent to you via email, and need a response by Wednesday morning UTC. All the best, Go Phightins! (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Harassment workshop

Greetings! You are receiving this message because, at some point in the past, you have participated in a discussion around the topic of harassment. The Support and Safety team is holding a series of consultations gathering feedback on the best potential solutions to the problem. The next stage is a workshop where we hope to narrow the focus to individual actionable ideas and explore how to bring some of these ideas to life.

• Please join us at the Harassment workshop!

Best regards, the Support and Safety team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign on content curation & review

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.

@Raystorm:Your help is required here regarding approval of Khowar Wikipedia. Regards [6]--Rehmat Aziz Chitrali 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants

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

• Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
• Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants

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

Wikimania

Hello Maria. I just sent you a wikimedia email. Please tell me if you do not get it. Thanks in advance. Anthere (talk)

Participate in the Inspire Campaign and help address harassment!

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)

Tone

Your posting "Do not misrepresent what I said" is unnecessarily combative and I regard it as uncivil, Being a member of the Board does not give you the right to address other members of the community in this way. I suggest that you withdraw that sentence and either rephrase it politely or, better still, drop the issue altogether. I also suggest that you consider whether you owe me an apology for the discourtesy and the implicit accusation. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page and I am happy to accept your apology for the tone of your posting. I would have been more receptive to your proposed olive branch if it had not come within minutes of a further, aggressively phrased, posting in a public forum in which you chose to question my good faith. I suggested there, and suggest again here, that we agree to terminate that particular discussion as unresolved: indeed I had supposed that was the position six months ago. If you find my style confrontational, you may wish to consider the extent to which it reflects the style of others. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Whose Knowledge? user group update

Hi! Thanks for joining the Whose Knowledge user group - we’re so glad to have you involved!

Here are some updates about recent activities:

• User group approved: Our user group was officially approved in October - hooray! Big thanks to Raystorm and FloNight for the idea to create a user group for the Whose Knowledge? campaign :)
• Mapping feminist knowledge at AWID's 2016 Forum: Interested in learning more about what we’ve been doing lately? Read our blog post on what we learned from mapping feminist knowledge at Association for Women's Rights in Development's 2016 Forum.
• New grant proposal:
  • We’ve proposed a WMF project grant. It would be great to have your feedback and/or endorsement by November 1 if this project interests you!
  • It would also be great to have your help notifying communities already working on systemic bias about this proposal. Here is a draft message - please translate, change as you see fit for your own context, and share in any communities you’re active in on and off-wiki!

Looking forward to doing more together very soon! Siko (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

YGM

—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Whose Knowledge? News - February 2017

Thanks for all of your support for Whose Knowledge? so far! Get ready, we're going to need lots of your help in 2017 :)

What's new in 2017:

1. Volunteers needed

As Whose Knowledge? grows, there are lots of things to do! Can you help?

• Are you good with data entry, categories, mailing lists or social media? We especially need people to help with organizing knowledge for Dalit History Month, and building out our communications (including this monthly newsletter!) right now!
• If you're interested in volunteering for these or any other projects, please signup here

2. Pilot projects

Building partnerships and testing our approach with marginalized communities.

• Dalit History Month: We're working with Equality Labs to support Dalit communities in South Asia and the United States to map knowledge and create Wikipedia content. Dalit History Month edit-a-thons are coming in April!
• Women's Human Rights Defenders: In partnership with Urgent Action Fund, we'll be supporting a group of women's human rights defenders around the world with more mapping and wiki content creation. Themes and geographies coming soon!
• Kumeyaay Wikipedia Initiative: Following the 2016 Indigenous People's Day edit-a-thon, we're continuing to work with members of the Kumeyaay tribe in Southern California and Baja to map and contribute indigenous knowledge to Wikimedia projects. A discussion day with Kumeyaay community in San Diego is being planned for May.

3. Funding:

We've got financial support for 2017!

• WMF grant: 6-month funding (February-July 2017) was approved to pilot our approach to mapping knowledge and creating Wikipedia content with the Dalit community and global women's human rights defenders. Thanks for all your endorsements!
• Shuttleworth Fellowship: Anasuya is a Shuttleworth Fellow! This means we'll be able to spend more time organizing, and have support for convenings, campaign infrastructure, etc.

4. Wikimedia Strategy

Find us at Wikimedia Conference.

• Anasuya and Siko will be carrying the Whose Knowledge? vision of diversity, pluralism and representation of marginalized communities into movement strategy conversations in Berlin March 2017.
• What's your vision for the Wikimedia movement? If you have a perspective that you'd like us to help represent in Berlin, please reach out and let us know!

In solidarity,

Siko (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Uncontrolled spending increases

In my essay at User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer I make several proposals.

Whether of not you agree with the essay as a whole, would you be willing to propose and/or support the following?

• Make spending largely transparent, publish a detailed account of what money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details.

• Limit spending increases to no more than inflation plus some percentage (adjusted for any increases in page views). Are you willing to support any limit at all on spending growth, and if so roughly how much? 10%? 20%? 30%?

• Build up our endowment and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Since I see you have asked this here too, allow me to reply there. Thanks, Raystorm (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Answered on 19 April 2017 -Guy Macon (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Whose Knowledge?: [April 2017]

Whose Knowledge News

April 2017 • Volume 1 • Issue 2

Activities and Events: Dalit History Month Events; Wikimania 2017 submissions

Resources: Resources lists

Wikimedia Movement: Wikimedia Strategy: Knowledge is Global

About Whose Knowledge?

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

We hope you enjoy this issue of the Whose Knowledge? News. Please reach out to us if you have any ideas or suggestions! -- Saileshpat using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 Board Elections candidate interviews

Dear candidate,

Thank you for running for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in this year's community elections. I am contacting you on behalf of the community podcasts Wikipedia Weekly and Source Code Berlin. We are sure you recognize the importance of transparency and a fully-informed community when it comes to these elections. To that end, we would like to conduct short audio interviews (under 30 minutes) with each of the candidates for publication in podcast form prior to the conclusion of the election. If you agree, we will contact you via email to coordinate the time and date of these interviews. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Please email me the details Gamaliel. Thanks, Raystorm (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to our proposed candidate interviews, but we have decided that we will not be conducting them this year. We feel that Sunday's video interview has accomplished the goal of providing the community with exposure to the candidates and we are currently exploring ways that our potential election coverage can supplement and not duplicate that exposure. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Uncontrolled spending increases

(I am asking this question of all board candidates.)

In my essay at User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer I make several proposals.

Whether of not you agree with the essay as a whole, would you be willing to propose and/or support any of the following?

• Make spending largely transparent, publish a detailed account of what money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details. There is no need for you to remind us that some things cannot be published because of legal or privacy issues. I am asking whether we should be as open and transparent as possible, not asking the board to do something stupid or illegal.

• Limit spending increases to no more than inflation plus some percentage (adjusted for any increases in page views). Are you willing to support any limit at all on spending growth, and if so roughly how much? 10%? 20%? 30%?

• Build up our endowment and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad. There is no need to answer with something to the effect that either you or the WMF have good intentions. I am specifically asking whether you support making the endowment principle legally untouchable, allowing the WMF to only spend the endowment interest.

If we do these things now, in a few short years we could be in a position to do everything we are doing now, while living off of the endowment interest, and would have no need for further fundraising. Or we could keep fundraising, using the donations to do many new and useful things, knowing that whatever we do there is a guaranteed income stream from the endowment that will be large enough to keep the servers running indefinitely. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon,

1. Yes, we should be as open and transparent as possible. I don't think anyone will argue with that statement. What can be a matter of discussion is the desirable level of detail - the budget of WMF is not comparable to eg one of the affiliates, where it is relatively easy to atomize. But reasonable questions for details are fine. Proposals to increase transparency are fine. Currently WMF publishes the 990, the yearly financial reports, the annual plan for the FDC and community consideration, quarterly reports, the mid-year check-in... WMF is open to suggestions for increasing transparency.
2. I support strong spending limits based on income and reserves, not inflation. I don't see how you could foster innovation with such an approach.
3. Yes. This is what is happening now, including eventually moving the endowment to a new 501(c)(3).

Thanks, Raystorm (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Questions of Hindi Wiki Community to WMF elections 2017 Board of Trustees Candidates

Please go through https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A1%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE:%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8C%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2#Questions_of_Hindi_Wiki_Community_to_WMF_elections_2017_Board_of_Trustees_Candidates

Thanks --Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC) (Executive Committee Member- Wikimedia India Chapter)

Done. Thank you Suyash. :) Raystorm (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 Board Elections

Congratulations for you! :) Jmvkrecords ⚜ (Intra talk) 20:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

Jajaja muchas gracias @Jmvkrecords:. :D Raystorm (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!!! Good luck on your term!!! TenorTwelve (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Encuentro Iberoamericano de la comunidad

¡Hola!
Queríamos invitarte al encuentro iberoamericano de la comunidad que vamos a realizar el 10 de junio a las 18:30hs. en el bar Back in Black de Recoleta, CABA. Podés encontrar más información en la página del evento.
¡Sumate a compartir este espacio que reúne voluntarios/as de distintas partes del mundo!
No te olvides de firmar en la página.

¡Te esperamos!
--Constanza Verón (WMAR) (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Error at Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees page?

At the timeline chart at Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and History of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees#August 2013 I don't see any confirmation for "On August 8th, 2013 I became a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees". Was there a user name change, or should I put in a request to correct those pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I see it on both pages... But hey, here you go. Thanks, Raystorm (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Note to the reader: Nowhere on this user page are any of the names on the page Raystorm just linked to listed, and nowhere on that page is "Raystorm" mentioned. I had to go to Google and search on each name to find Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2013/Candidates#María Sefidari (Raystorm). María Sefidari (Raystorm) was a community-elected board member --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is golden, bookmarking this interaction for future reference. Thanks! Raystorm (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello Raystorm! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

RachelWex (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have resources (or do you have advice) to deal with edit reversion anger?

Hi Raystorm!

I hope you are doing well.

I was wondering if Wikipedia has any resources for dealing with anger from edit reverts? I often have various missions that I assign myself and can get very passionate on various topics. Some of it is the activist in me wanting to make a difference in spreading information, particularly on equality issues. I don't know if this is just me or not or if this is a systemic thing (the edit revert anger thing). I don't like being angry and it disrupts my thinking; I am generally a good-hearted person; that's where much of my passion comes from. Is this something I need to work on individually? Does Wikipedia have any resources that can help? Or can they be created? Granted I am not asking you to intervene in edit disputes and whatnot, as that would be rather extremely inappropriate addressing an Administrator and Board Member about---that's not what I'm seeking. Do you have any advice? This is not the first time this has happened with me: Earlier times I wasn't as prepared for what would happen intellectually/emotionally; it hurt a lot--still a new editor then, somewhat, but also super passionate for the things I wanted to add for comprensivality to make up a new word. I'm feeling those emotions again now (today) but I recognize them from before so there is less pain but it's still pretty sharp; enough to wonder if this can be remedied or if it happens elsewhere in the Wikiverse or whatever word is needed for the Wikipedia community. Do you have any thoughts or advice? Or if there are resources or if they need to be created (if they should)?

Thanks with hope, appreciation, and respect,

TenorTwelve (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey TenorTwelve! Sure, I have some advice which you might find helpful. Would you like to email me so we can have a videoconference? :) Cheers! Raystorm (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy Idea

So I am wondering if it were to be possible for Wikipedia to create a page-viewing history so it is easier to re-locate articles one found earlier but forgot what to search for?

(btw, writing the other message was very therapeutic for me)(if it's ok I said that)

(are things like this under your domain?) (ie. policy stuff?) TenorTwelve (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Though thinking this over, there could be privacy issues that could be raised---ie. parents or others looking up what others looked up. TenorTwelve (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Mmm I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. As in, a History of the articles you have previously checked out? Yeah, we try to be careful with privacy issues. But if you are talking about favoriting/bookmarking articles for later reading... That would be a nifty idea. Raystorm (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I think when I was writing this initially I was thinking the article history thing, but I would be open to either change: ie. favoriting/bookmarking. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

New message at Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard

Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Wikimedia Cloud --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy idea: Citations and Automatic Internet Archiving

Hi Raystorm!

I hope you are doing well.

Today I was working on a page I recently created and of the seven or so citations I used to write the article, I put them into the wayback machine for archiving to prevent them from turning into dead links. It took a while to do so. So it got me thinking: what if: every time someone puts a citation into Wikipedia via the formatting---what if it automatically submitted it to the Wayback Machine or some other internet archiving site. Theoretically it could almost completely get rid of Wikipedia's dead link problem. Granted some collaboration with the wayback machine folks would be required software-wise. Or, potentially, if not automatic, an option could be created for Wikipedia users to have the option to store it in the wayback machine (or whatever archiving site is used, if others exist)

I've also been trying to see if there are drawbacks to this proposed idea---probably the biggest one is that if it is on a website that gets updated, it wouldn't show changes, even if the initial info was incorrect or needed to be deleted or something like that. Though that probably is a drawback for the wayback machine in general

Or potentially, perhaps to rectify this drawback, a message screen could come up (if someone wants to go "hunting" for the website from the citation) that the message screen could give options as to whether someone wanted the page from when it was originally saved or how it stands now. Though in a sense if Wayback Machine is used, that probably wouldn't be necessary?

(Does my train of thought/words make sense?)

Thanks,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is worth exploring. :) You should get in touch with the people working with Wayback Machine, if you haven't already, to see if it is feasible before anything else. Then it would be up to the different communities to see if they think this route would make sense. (Sorry for the late response. Wikimania + holidays, you know... ^^) Raystorm (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Whose Knowledge?: [July 2017]

Whose Knowledge News

July 2017 • Volume 1 • Issue 3

Activities and Events: Okvir pilot in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Wikimania 2017

Resources: Emancipatory Design Research

Wikimedia Movement: Letter from Buenos Aires

About Whose Knowledge?

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

We hope you enjoy this issue of the '''Whose Knowledge?''' News. Please reach out to us if you have any ideas or suggestions! -- Saileshpat using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

<grin>

yw. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 15:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay? A bit of context? Raystorm (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Join us tomorrow for the last event in the series Women in the Wikimedia movement: Women in technical spaces!

Hi! Thank you for signing up to attend one or multiple virtual events in the conversations series Women in the Wikimedia movement . Your participation has made the events and conversation really interesting and good so far.

In about 12 hours, we will be hosting the last event of the series, Women in technical spaces. The virtual event will take place on BlueJeans, and will be broadcasted on YouTube. Our presenters will be Josephine Lim, who will be presenting about her work contributing to the Wikimedia Commons Android app, and Ciell and Ecritures, who will be sharing their experience creating an all-women and non-binary people hackathon in the Netherlands. After their presentations, there will be some time for conversations. I want to encourage everyone to participate! To this end, please join us on the BlueJeans link if you are able.

I look forward to seeing you tomorrow! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Come join Wikimedia CEE Spring 2018/CEE Women again! <3

Get a postcard from one of the countries in red :)

Hello, Raystorm! You receive this message because last year you took part in the CEE Women challenge. This year the challenge repeats, and it will take longer: from now until the end of May (about 10 weeks).

Please, feel invited to visit the page Wikimedia CEE Spring 2018/CEE Women and join the challenge again. Help have more notable women from Central and Eastern Europe in more language versions globally, including Spanish. We again have a list of ideas for biographic articles all over the CEE.

What is different this year is that now you can set your own minimal number of articles as a measure of your challenge (i don't advise you to challenge yourself with more than 70 ;) 10-20 is perfect!). Also, you can receive as a prize a postcard not only from Bulgaria (as in 2017), but also from a list of countries from CEE and around the world. Apart of being a receiver, you can also opt to be a sender of postcards from your country to some of the other participants! That would also be awesome!

Thank you in advance for any contribution you make to CEE Women, and for spreading the word in your local wiki community! Love, Vassia / →Spiritia 18:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Sign-up for Whose Knowledge? on-line newsletter

Hi everybody,

We are leaving the wiki newsletter format behind and venturing into the email newsletter format. We'd love to keep sharing our projects and adventures with you all! You can sign up here to make that happen.

See you all there!

With love & solidarity,

Claudia - and the WK? Comms Team using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Fram

Hi Raystorm. As the current chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, I was wondering if you had any insight into the unilateral block of en:User:Fram, a user on the English Wikipedia, by a WMF account. You can read about the issue here: en:Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Your thoughts here or on the page I've linked on en.Wikipedia would be very welcome, in particular whether you consider the block was justified? And whether you feel it is reasonable for an anonymous WMF role account to act in this way? Thanks, Fish and karate (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Unanswered question

See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#13 years --Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I already did and replied, as you saw. Beyond stating the recent action taken by the Board that explicitely includes the matter of accesibility, trustees can hardly comment on operational questions resulting from that decision. You do have on that thread a product manager from the Core Platform Team stating they will follow up on the specific matter you raised and to feel free to contact them. Raystorm (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Brand Project

Hi Raystorm, you were one of the board members who approved the Brand Project last month. You did this despite significant opposition by the community. Do you as community selected board member endorse the new survey which does not provide the status quo as an option and which doesn't take the result of the RfC into account? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations

		Wikimedia 2030
		Thank you very much for everything you did to help create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations! I am especially grateful for the enormous amount of work you did in the Resource Allocation working group and all the care and commitment you brought to the process. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Dear Raystorm,

I love wikipedia and I’m proud to be a small contributor. I also think that wikipedia has to make some changes in its model in order to evolve.

Wikipedia is a wonderfull tool and it is already the #1 choice to anyone that wants to learn something about a particular topic. I would like it to become also the #1 choice to anyone that needs to learn. Wikipedia needs to become a reliable source for education. .

Schools do not consider wikipedia to be a reliable source of material and the reason lies within the very core of wikipedia model: it has no professional editorial supervision - any anonymous can edit wikipedia. This decentralised editorial model was what made wikipedia great, allowing anyone that loves science, literature or any branch of knowledge to jump in and make a contribution. However, by relying exclusively on this model, Wikipedia is missing an opportunity that it just can’t afford to miss.

If kids get used to work with wikipedia in school, this habit will last through out their lives (take the example of Microsoft and their effort to implement Office in education) and using wikipedia to learn is a great habit.

So, what I suggest is:

1) slowly, wikipedia starts producing articles with editorial supervision and announcing them visibly as such: eg. For the article volcano insert a badge in the top right corner with “Editorial supervision: Dept. of Geology of University of XXX” Which leads to my second suggestion:

2) to contact head of departments of reputable universities and ask for their collaboration. Is a win-win situation: wikipedia gains a free professional editing and the university gains exposure: Volcano article has 78k monthly views: is there a better way to promote a university?! … furthermore any University teacher will jump in if he believes it can add a line or two in its CV.

3) work with existing “semi-protected edit requests” tools. i.e. any contributor can make an edit request but, instead of having to wait for a consensus, is up to the Supervision Editor to approve the change.

4) Start with articles relating to middle-school curriculum and them move your way up the ladder. “Simple English” can be used to deliver simplified content for kids.

5) Get the schools involved in the initial stages of the project and ask for feedback.

I hope you can forgive me extension of this message and, though I do not know if you’ll find any merit in my suggestions, I am confident that I gave you something to reflect about and maybe consider. Please accept my kindest regards and congratulations as Wikipedia embodies the best in all of us.

Your sincerely, --Coel Jo (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees

Dear Board of Trustees,

This is an open letter from arbitrators and arbitration committees from across the Wikimedia movement.

We have followed closely the process of the creation of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). We know that many small communities do not have a basic set of rules, so it's hard for new editors to have a good sense of what is allowed and what not. Additionally, we encourage the creation of basic rules of conduct for all wikis to ensure that nobody gets treated poorly. Editors in our communities wish to have an environment conducive to creating high quality content. We do not want to see editors discriminated against based on opinion, culture, sexuality, etc. Editors should be judged by their editing. In our experience, the global community and our projects will generally endorse rules that ensure no individual is a victim of discrimination or hounding.

However, we are concerned about the enforcement of the UCoC and concerned about how that enforcement will be viewed on our projects. The lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above, rather than being seen as a legitimate community endeavor. Several of our projects have seen major damage and harm done when the communities have come into conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation (for instance dewiki with SUPERPROTECT and enwiki with FRAMGATE). We do not want that to happen with the Universal Code of Conduct as that could undermine the benefits it has to offer for projects without well-developed policies, systems, and experience for dealing with editor behavior. Recent changes to the timeline to allow for more consultation and discussion are a positive step.

It is therefore vital that projects with more sophisticated governing systems, like ours, be formally involved in the next step of the UCoC process. We note the recent call for a new committee to draft the second phase. At least one person with experience as an arbitrator, or similar experience dealing with complex and difficult behavior issues, should be added as a member of the drafting committee, and at least one additional person with this experience, or experience as a Steward, should be added as an advisor.

We understand that individual projects cannot be given a veto over the implementation of the UCoC. However, we hope that you understand that individual projects must feel committed to whatever enforcement mechanisms arise. Without this sense of investment and partnership the UCoC will ultimately fail. Mere consultation is insufficient. A formal process for ratifying the UCoC enforcement system is necessary.

The UCoC must also be a living document. The community is changing and evolving and so has universal behavior. We know that this is a different document than if it had been created 10 years ago, and we feel that universal norms will be different in 10 years. A way to amend the Universal Code of Conduct must be added, and this amendment process should build on lessons learned to date to ensure that communities and individuals have a chance for meaningful input before any amendment is adopted.

Wikipedia and other projects are only possible because of the hard work of editors at communities to create and maintain the incredible store of knowledge available. This path is longer, but hasty decisions and decisions that lack legitimacy in the eyes of the volunteers they effect could cause real damage to our communities and the work we do. In the words of the Wikimedia Foundation values, "Collaboration is not always easy. Sometimes we struggle. Working together is hard, but it’s worth it. We do it because it makes us stronger." We ask you to be stronger together with us.

Sincerely,

Signing members of the cswiki-arbcom

• --Tchoř (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• --F.ponizil (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Khamul1 (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Mario7 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Signing on behalf of the dewiki-arbcom

• Luke081515 19:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Sophie Elisabeth (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Ghilt (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Arabsalam (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Helfmann (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Stephan Hense (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Regiomontanus (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Lantus (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• -- Miraki (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

For the enwiki-arbcom

• David Fuchs (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• – bradv🍁 14:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• --BDD (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Maxim_(talk) 16:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Primefac (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• KevinL (aka L235 · t) 18:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Worm^TT 19:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• SoWhy 19:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Casliber (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Katie^talk 13:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Signing members of the frwiki-arbcom

• — Racconish ^💬 20:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Ledublinois (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Fanchb29 (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Braaark (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Sir Henry (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Triboulet sur une montagne (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

For the plwiki-arbcom

• Wulfstan (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Openbk (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Ptjackyll (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Hektor Absurdus (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Gytha (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Ented (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Szoltys (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Adamt (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• GiantBroccoli (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Signing members of the ruwiki-arbcom

• Кронас (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Сайга20К (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Sir Shurf (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Signing members of the ukwiki-arbcom

• --Kisnaak (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Mcoffsky (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• --YarikUkraine (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• --Dgho (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Signing members of the pswiki-arbcom

• --Af420 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Offline resources for WikiFundi

Hell. An appeal to the Wikipedian in you :)

I would love you having a look at WikiAfrica Offline Resources/en, in particular the Spanish section, and suggest recent documents or resources that could be added to this offline package. It will be made available on WikiFundi/2021 as well as on http://kiwix.org many resources meant for offline use. If you are aware of super cool and valuable resources mostly targetting organizers of local events, or teachers ... please jump in. Anthere (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC).

Will do, thanks! Raystorm (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in Universal Code of Conduct survey - WikiWomen's User Group

(You are receiving this message as you signed your interest to participate as part of the WikiWomen's User Group)

Hello, my name is Mervat Salman, a UCoC Facilitator, Trust and Safety team.

As you know, the WMF Board of Trustees ratified the Universal Code of Conduct early in February. That's the beginning; the policy itself cannot be used if the enforcement pathways are not defined. The implementation and enforcement of the UCoC requires the continuous cooperation to define clear definitions of enforcement pathways and processes. This needs to be done in a way that does not contradict with the internal bylaws and codes of conduct currently in place, but rather to support them and complement their deficiencies, if any.

In this phase of the process, we would like to invite you to share your ideas, thoughts and concerns about the UCoC implementation, reporting and enforcement pathways using this survey:

• English
• French
• German

Notice: This survey will be conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement <https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/UCoC_Affiliates_Survey_Privacy_Statement>.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact msalman-ctr@wikimedia.org.

Best regards,

Mervat (WMF) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14-16

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

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

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 15:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for service

Thanks for the timely announcement and for getting these final things in order before leaving. Nemo 21:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message @Nemo bis:, appreciate it. Raystorm (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Whose Knowledge? Drop-in July 2022 invitation

Over the next 2 weeks, we want to invite Whose Knowledge? User Group members to a community conversation about the upcoming Board of Trustees election. We’re also testing these drop-ins as a great way to be in touch, and establish periodic check-ins with our community.

There will be 2 informal drop-in sessions on different days and times. Please come to the session that works best for you:

• Drop-in 1: Thursday, July 7, 2022 - 12pm UTC

• Drop-in 2: Monday, July 11, 2022 - 6pm UTC

To learn more, visit the event page. If you can't join us, but you are interested in the conversation, we’d be more than happy to hear from you on our Talk page!

Just a gentle disclaimer: You are getting this message because you have signed up as a member of Whose Knowledge? User Group. We will send invitations like this from time to time, but we promise not to burden your Talk page. Feel free to unsubscribe from the distribution list.

--Mariana Fossatti (WK?) (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Critical at WIKIMANIA <3

Thank you for being critical and analytical voice at the stage of WIKIMANIA. It is never easy to do such work at popular platforms, where people want to be entertained and praised as movement, but avoid facing complex and hard realities of others.

It was good to hear your inputs and I hope they will resonate in and with others who were present or would watch the recording. I would encourage you to also do it in text form so it is more accessible, findable, easily quoted and referenced.

Unfortunatly too much of WMF work for a long time was about looking the other way from problems (while hyper-investing in PR and 'communications') and I hope that with new CEO this will be shifting systematically to change the core of WMF and Wikimedia as system.

I am sorry to have missed an opportunity to meet. -- Zblace (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Zblace, hope we can meet in the future. Raystorm (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Raystorm I look forward for the opportunity and if not in person then maybe online. -- Zblace (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the photo contest Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports 2023

English Dear Raystorm,

We’re excited to share with you our first-ever art and photo contest for this year’s #VisibleWikiWomen, on Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports!

We’re inviting submissions of photos, illustrations, and other forms of art depicting womxn and non-binary people in sports — as athletes, fans, cheerleaders, referees, journalists, and much more. Our #VisibleWikiWomxn contest celebrates the bodies of womxn in sports by centering their voices, images, stories, and experiences in all their diversity, plurality, and glory.

You can find all the information on our landing page: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports

Spanish Hola Raystorm,

Queremos invitarte a participar de nuestro primer concurso de arte y fotografía "Cuerpos plurales en el deporte" en el marco de la campaña #VisibleWikiWomen de este año.

Estamos convocando a presentar fotos, ilustraciones y otras formas de arte que representen a mujeres y personas no binarias en el deporte - atletas, personas aficionadas, animadoras, árbitras, periodistas y personas ligadas al deporte en todos los aspectos. Nuestro concurso #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra los cuerpos de las mujeres en el deporte centrándose en sus voces, imágenes, historias y experiencias en toda su diversidad, pluralidad y gloria.

Puedes encontrar toda la información en la página del concurso.

Portuguese Olá Raystorm,

Ficamos felizes em convidar você a participar de nossa primeira Wiki-competição de arte e fotografia, como parte da campanha #VisibleWikiWomen deste ano, sobre "Corpos plurais no esporte"!

Estamos recebendo fotos, ilustrações, e outras formas de arte que retratem mulheres e pessoas não-binárias nos esportes — como atletas, torcedoras, juízas, jornalistas, e muito mais. Nossa competição #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra os corpors de mulheres e pessoas não-binárias e coloca ao centro suas vozes, imagens, histórias, e experiências em toda sua pluralidade e glória.

Você pode encontrar todas as informações necessárias em nossa página: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports.

Mariana Fossatti (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter

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

Dear Wikimedian,

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

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

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

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 15:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)