Separate simple... ratings scheme offense, IRC defense... black ants! Angela Uueh, Thanks! Sj Hi. improving interlingual ties : interesting and meaningful. I have some new ideas, too... Press Corps 17-yr cicada req. attracted en:User:Lupo, who added some photos. :-) User:Tomos hello :-) bad browser on meta? adding space between caracters. Anthere UTF-8 codes breaking! Please care about it. please. Suisui ugh! And sometimes it adds an "e" at the end of a block of text. And replaces certain international characters with a literal "?" [ :( ] Sj Multilingualism : Something has to be done on multlingual communication on wiki... one of its main powersouces I think. I contacted Arno Lagrange, Anthere. -- MattisManzel

wmf miscellany - jd ৸, August 2006

Communitas and thoughts on Wikipedia interlanguage priorities - user:Quinobi, July 2006

ludism's WikiNode preview in late '06 (NTS)

Fantasy, June 2007, asking about iswiki flagging (for sitenotice editing in '06)

user:Guaka gets a laptop, June 2007

Craig Franklin on a Brisbane bid, February 2008.

KTC statement thanks, and privatemusings talk request, May-June 2008 (UTC)

Mikhailov Kusserow revising a speedydel of userpages, March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about commons:Commons:Village pump#Russian Copyright Law issues concerning edits in Wikipedia made by Russian citizens?

Hello Sj, this edit is correct? Greetings, 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (both from someone logged in as me!)

Image license for Wp 4juillet-board.jpg (early 2007, jusjih, pathoschild)

You've got email. Dragons flight, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Assessment tools for readers -AG

Managing translations --Nemo, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Software development transparency: see mw:Development process improvement and comments: 1, 2 which lead to this suggestion; and chat log starting at about 20:34. Cheers, Nemo 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey - nice work on organizing this. :) I consider the budget passed today as a second beta budget, the next one will be a full version and I'd like your help beforehand in putting it together (need to start work on this early in March).

Some notes: We did not have enough money for a reserve this time (other than just saying that anything we take in that is over 75ドルK is the reserve), but all the board members present indicated that this is very important and should be a budget item in the next budget. Your idea of 3 months' operations expenses is the standard recommended amount by GAAP for non-profits, so that is what I'm going to push for but it will likely not be that large until the end of the year. My proposed budget had 20ドルK for special projects (such as outreach, WikiReaders, yada yada, Mother Teresa-type stuff, etc), but that was tied to being half of the Lounsbery grant. In the meeting I found out that that money was marked for 'physical expenses during quarter 1 2005', which wiped the special projects item (the 0ドル item). Once again, great work and I look forward to working with you. --Daniel Mayer 06:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS - If you are interested, IRC is a good place for us to work together. #wikimedia is the logical choice so long as it stays fairly quite. I'd also like us to eventually form a real finance committee with at least one board member being an active participant (Anthere seems to be obvious choice). A way to logically coordinate what is put on meta and what goes on the foundation wiki also needs to be worked out. We also need to draft a contract for Brion and maybe for Chad. Sensitive stuff like contract development may need to happen on the grants wiki. --Daniel Mayer

Wikimedia budget/2005/Q4

Any help, esp on the detail pages, would be greatly appreciated. :) --Daniel Mayer 00:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Reply

Hi Sj, is Wikimedia Quarto still active? If not, I am thinking about a reviving, how do you think of it?--Wing 08:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Reply

I think you speak of two very critical points. The one is recruiting authors, the other is translating. How was these done in the past? On the authoring side I am thinking of invite people write articles, and I would also accept people write articles in their own language and try to find translators to do the translation for them. How do you think of this?--Wing 13:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Reply

It has been dormant, but I think the need for something like it across the projects has only grown over time. I would love to spend some time recruiting new authors and translators, showing them how we produced that sort of visual newsletter without too much trouble. +sj | help with translation |+

Replies on your talk page . +sj | help with translation |+

Sj, if you wish to move all Wikizine editons to Meta, many are there already, look at this, and all others are in a simmilar form at the wikizine wiki. All editions must be somewhere in the "construction-layout". --Walter 12:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

Super, thanks. It's on my weekend plan while in Chicago :) I commented it out until I have time to work through the list. -- sj | help translate |+ 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

You probably have enough people already, but if you ever need help here on Meta translating between English and German (in either direction), drop me a note on en.wikipedia. Cheers, --Goodmorningworld 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

Just so you know, we're not ignoring you... Alex and I are just thinking about it. ;-) A quick question though, does it just have to be "technical improvements" (as in related to technology)? Cbrown1023 talk 22:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

Not at all. most tech solutions have social equivalents and vice-versa. I think some of the most telling changes would be social. Simply stating there are core languages that should be considered equal for the purposes of a main jumping-off point for localization, or a canonical document about the Projects, would be a significant change for language issues. Or conversely, the proposed explicit statement that all strategic planning be done in English will define how groups are formed and discussions started. For outreach, wiki and social issues about where presentations (or conference papers) are shared and archived, where event calendars are posted and updated, & how requests to talk are shared are all relevant. -- sj | help translate |+ 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

At the very least, you could bring up the topic at the English Wikipedia's village pump. But before any change can take place, we need to involve a very broad swath of the Wikimedia community.

We could conduct a poll similar to the various logo selection processes. Each of the Wikipedia editions would have to carry a visible notice about the poll, because the portal is by far the most visible of Wikimedia's webpages, and every language (at least the 100+ languages) would be affected to some extent. And of course, we can add a little blurb on the portal itself, maybe just below the search bar. Ideally, we'd involve the translation community here; visitors from non-English projects may feel left out of the decision if we allow most of the discussion to take place in only English.

So far, the only serious proposals I know of are Catherine's current design and Forseti's. We should expect a good deal of support for the current design, so we'll have to make a good case for changing it (internationalization, expandability, newer is better, etc.). We also need to make clear the new design's requirements, based on our experience as admins having to maintain the portal regularly. For example, we can't just say that every language with over 100,000 articles gets to be at the top, unless we have some way of accommodating 15 or 20 languages up there, even on lower-resolution screens. (Because we should expect the new design to last awhile.) We also need to keep an eye on page size, load time, and accessibility. So although a clickable Flash map of the world would be a cool way to select a language, we really can't use it.

By involving the wider community in designing the portal, the portal will seem like less of a temporary hack (which it is currently), and maybe the developers will finally get around to fixing bugs like 4501, 1534, 15518, and 15758. We could really excite volunteer designers with a well-publicized poll.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

It's certainly a long-term discussion. And strange that only those two proposals have been considered seriously -- this is a famous and highly visible page! Now that Jack and others are actively working on improving the page, it seems like a good time to get new designers involved. Thanks for highlighting those related bugs; I've been trying to gather important bugs for various long-term projects, since we don't have a unified set of priorities at the moment (or even a list of a hundred different clusters of priorities belonging to different groups).

Before any large poll is started, existing discussions about the portal should be consolidated -- they are hard to follow, especially for someone coming in fresh. The odd naming convention for the portal pages doesn't help. We need to convert something like Initiatives into a meta-equivalent of w:Wikipedia:Wikiprojects, and organize a discussion there - that is something that visitors from large wikipedias might be more comfortable with. -- sj | help translate |+ 06:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

Actually, the poll that decided the current design was between Catherine's design and a temporary design that really no one liked. [1] (It looked something like the current "Wiki does not exist" error page.) Unfortunately, Forseti introduced his design just a bit too late for the majority of voters to take notice, and efforts to merge the two designs as a compromise never resulted in much change. Forseti's design did get reused for some Toolserver tools and the old server downtime message.

But none of these designs really did anything about the severe usability issue of choosing between hundreds of languages. Plenty of websites feature a language selection page upfront, but Wikipedia's the only site I know of that suffers from the issue to that extent. Even a clickable Flash world map wouldn't work for us, because of geopolitical issues and the sheer number of minority languages represented here. So not only do we need designers to step up, but we also need to engage usability experts. WikiProject Usability at the English Wikipedia might have some professional usability/HCI contacts who might be of help in creating a new proposal.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

Things of beauty or things that make you smile? Perfect. :-) What a wonderful question. I'm going to use that often. --Philippe 02:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Reply

Fundraising booklet: frdisc

I herd you like quotes! you should send that to comcom; v. useful.

Sent! –SJ talk | translate   17:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hi SJ,

I'm Serita Cox, a member of the strategy development project team, and project manager from Bridgespan. Tyler forwarded me your message as it expanded beyond her area of focus (Content stub) into process and I wanted to respond to the entirety of your posting.

First, thank you so much for your input, it is greatly appreciated. To answer your questions: 1- Process. Yes, the project team has now thought through the process sufficiently that we have identified activities, roles, timelines, and deliverables for the entire strategy development process and are looking to post them for Community input this coming week. We wanted the Community to have something logical to react to, but given your comment re: Content/Quality stub being "too polished" I worry we might get similar reactions to posting the process. It is a fine balance to strike between giving the Community some starting point and appearing too set/decided. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated on how to hit this right balance.

2- Your message around editing the Content/Quality stub couldn't have been more timely. I had that very day raised the concern that these stubs were not getting the kind of traction we were hoping in terms of views, edits, inputs, comments. Clearly, they are sub-optimal in engaging the Community. Their purpose is to provide a place to start collating and analyzing data around Content/Quality, Participation, Reach so that the Community Task Forces set-up in Phase II have a starting point to begin analyzing and defining potential strategic opportunities and priorities for expanding reach, expanding content, improving quality and expanding participation. It is true that the Bridgespan-side of the team is tasked with providing the first development and subsequent synthesis of these fact bases which is why you see large postings, but again, it would be very helpful to us to get your thoughts and input on how we can clarify the purpose of these fact bases, the continuous "work in progress" nature of these fact bases, and how best to frame/layout these fact bases for maximum Community engagement.

I would really appreciate any feedback you can give us regarding our transparency of process, clarity of purpose, and desired engagement with the Community. You can reach me via my User page http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Serita

Thanks, Serita

Hi, Serita -- I responded on stratwiki. I'll get over my concerns about founding a new wiki one I have a process for synching it with meta... -- sj · translate · + 15:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Reply

Rich Farmbrough 21:01 14 July 2012 (GMT).

Would love to have your take on this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Namespace_for_Iberocoop_in_Meta . Cheers, notafish }<';> 22:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I'd like to hear your opinion here. I'm happy to see that the board is engaging in community discussion more (as in the proposals for new projects) and I think this issue is worth such an effort as well, with some sort of support from the board, as the board's licensing policy is completely ignored on most projects. Frankly, we've seen many resolutions with negligible impact (as with BLP and Openness), but this seems a good area for the board to start making its own resolutions effective. Thanks, Nemo 12:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hi. Using rollback on a non-vandal edit is unusual. Did you mis-click or was this intentional? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

No special intent, meant as a normal revert. –SJ talk 

Hi Sj. I'm interested to hear what you have to say about this, and I've seen you editing since it was posted so please respond. Thanks --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hello MZM and Hi Krenair, nice to meet you. This looked to me like an epic troll being set up on Meta, after gradually creating increasingly provocative new pages here. Pedophilia advocacy is a flash point for communities everywhere on the Internet -- and a favorite topic to use to rile others up. An easy way to start a flame wary is to start a thread claiming pedophiles are being oppressed, defending them, and playing off anti-pedophilia and anti-censorship factions against one another. I see he is continuing a new essay in this vein using flamebait about strawberry ice cream.

This tactic has been used to disrupt online communities for years... including our own wiki communities. The author has a history of playing games with / exasperating communities (cf. when user:sarsaparilla and socks were asked to leave en:wp).

I would like to hear more about why you two are defending and interested in the the cross-promotion of this writing. At any rate, the pages seem suited to userspace if anything. While I would like to see a serious discussion of viewpoint censorship, the current page is not one; it is a soapbox. –SJ talk  19:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

This is a valid topic to discuss, I would not call it a trolling tactic, even if such things have been used as a trolling tactic in the past, here or elsewhere on the internet (They certainly can be, but not everything bound to start a discussion on the subject is automatically a trolling tactic. In fact, considering it as such would be very, very dangerous in my opinion.).

I don't know much about the author, so what does this have to do with w:User:Sarsaparilla? I just checked the author's enwiki account and it seems he's been blocked by the Arbitration Committee there... But (削除) neither the block log nor his user talk page actually give any reason (削除ここまで) (?!).

I'm defending it here because it's obviously relevant to the page you attempted to remove it from. ("editors [...] who advocate [...] will be indefinitely blocked" is blatant viewpoint censorship.) Because this sort of page is bound to cause disagreements, such is the nature of the topic, I was also under the suspicion that your removal of the link was because you disagreed with the page (based on your response so far, this doesn't appear to be the case). --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

Sj, «Pedophilia advocacy is a flash point for communities everywhere on the Internet -- and a favorite topic to use to rile others up»: true, but this argument can be used against either side of this (IMvvvvvvHO) completely uninteresting/useless debate, and you removed the link to one opinion but not to its opposite (right above it). I'm not sure this works very well as an anti-troll tactic, but you surely have more experience than me. --Nemo 22:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

A good point - neither link belongs as a 'see also'. You're right that this debate is a distraction. But any subject of policy or interest on the Projects, as well as philosophical essays, are fair topics for Meta. Let's keep further comments on the essay talk page.

Thanks for explaining, Krenair. The author's talk page on en:wp does explain the block: he is Sarsaparilla, banned there in the past for some combination of canvassing, socking, and hoaxes. –SJ talk  01:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

Well I don't know how the hell I missed that. Maybe I was looking at the wrong page. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

On «neither link belongs as a 'see also'», FYI someone seems to disagree. --Nemo 17:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

I see a pattern of censorship. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

I'm arriving kind of late to this discussion, but oh well. In my opinion, a large part of the point of essays is so that you can write a lengthy post laying out your thoughts in detail, without either (1) editing them down to a short sound bite suitable for posting to a talk page, but inadequate to fully state all the nuances of one's opinions or (2) clogging up talk pages with lengthy posts. They allow for the conversation on a topic to be split into subtopics discussed separately. They also diminish the temptation to repetitiously post the same opinions in one venue after another by allowing one to satisfy oneself that one has fully vented one's spleen; and if one comes up with anything further to say on the subject after that, one can revise the essay accordingly. Essays are, therefore, highly useful vehicles for a variety of expressive purposes.

Typically a troll seeks to annoy people. Part of the point of writing an essay, at least in this case, is to avoid annoying people by, instead of hijacking their thread with a lengthy analysis of viewpoint censorship (which could end up covering a lot of topics unrelated to the original thread), starting a new thread, and posting a link to it, which doesn't take up too much space. Some people can't handle frank discussions about topics such as pedophilia without getting angry. I used to be the same way about certain political topics, including wiki-politics; it's one of the reasons I got banned from enwiki. Well, that along with some mischievousness (e.g. the Obuibo Mbstpo hoax).

Events since then, including some learning experiences that weren't all that pleasant, have crushed my spirit, and/or altered my attitudes, to the point that I don't fight in the ways that I used to. Although the ability to successfully push for reform is sometimes frustratingly lacking, I've come to view humanity's progress as an evolution that will be a marathon rather than a sprint, and therefore requires patient application of effort where it can yield some good, since there is usually at least some endeavor available that meets that description. E.g., lately I've devoted a lot of work to MediaWiki.org, since it's pretty easy to improve the documentation and codebase without getting into a lot of arguments; unlikely public policy matters, it's usually not a zero-sum game where one person's getting what he wants prevents others from getting it. This is largely due to the software's modularity and the ease of establishing verifiable facts (something that is not nearly as easy when dealing with, say, economics or history; see Wikipedia cannot be neutral).

Also, I've grown a few years older; with age, people have a tendency to become more serious, and I think I have become less mischievous than in the past. Therefore I probably wouldn't get banned again if I were given another chance over there. Whether that chance will be forthcoming or not remains to be seen.

Perhaps I'm not helping my cause by delving into controversial topics on meta, but those are some of the same topics I would probably be covering on enwiki, so if the ArbCom frowns on the edits I'm making here, they'd probably also frown on the edits I'd be making at enwiki. Therefore, in the final analysis, it probably makes little difference. I don't think it's always a good idea to censor oneself for the sake of pleasing others; sometimes it feels good to stand for principle, whatever persecution may come. Self-censorship can be a real drag. Leucosticte (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for this comment. I'm glad my worries seem to have been unfounded. –SJ talk  00:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Reply

As you may be aware there have been significant governance issues on en: concerning Arbcom, checkusers and the Audit Subcommittee at least.

Only for the abuse of checkuser is there an offical path of escalation, in the form of the ombudsmen. It appears, however, that this group is moribund, therefore there are no apparent constraints on the abuse of power on en:.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Penyulap#Update for more details.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough 15:23 16 December 2012 (GMT).

Thanks for the note. I'll look into it next week. Less moribund than in need of a public noticeboard that registers when new requests are made at least... so it seems to me.

Also, I could use some pointers on bot manipulation... I have a batch of 6000 pronunciation files I'd like to post to WikiData and add to appropriate en:wp articles, and I'd like to learn how to do it properly myself :) –SJ talk  03:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

That would have to be very carefully done. For example editors are complaining about Arbcom releasing their personal information supplied in confidence, adding this to a public noticeboard would be to further publicise the leaked information. In this case the editor was completely open about his alternative accounts, and chose to post the complaint on his user page in the spirit of openness. Not all complaints will be so open. Moreover complaints can be made about abuse of process which involve third parties who have a right to privacy.

There are additional questions coming to the fore, concerning freedom of information and whistle-blowing - these might be worth having in the back of ones mind over the coming weeks and months.

Hit me up when you are ready to do some work with the pronunciation files.

Rich Farmbrough 11:24 17 December 2012 (GMT).

I think "registers when new requests are made" is sufficient. It doesn't need to say who made the request, or who received it, or what it was about. It's enough if every request gets a single public pip, and someone from the commission replies to each and says "being handled" or some such to ensure it hasn't fallen through the cracks. The noticeboard mechanism could add "noise" of a few days to avoid people correlating requests to some specific on-wiki event, if that matters. –SJ talk  17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

Yes that sounds like a suitable idea. I think the details of each case should be as open as possible, but cannot be pre-judged. Entries like:

• Case 1234 based on email received (MD5 checksum xxxx), responsible ombudsman Joe Blogss, opened 00:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

and also updates to status. Rich Farmbrough 00:48 19 December 2012 (GMT).

You may be interested: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foundation_wiki_feedback&oldid=4865819#Purpose_of_wmf:Home>. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hi. Request for an account on the Foundation wiki/header lists the current requirements for obtaining an account on wikimediafoundation.org. Perhaps you could amend the rules appropriately? I think your edits will hold more weight than mine. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

+1, tell me what you think. Other specific suggestions? –SJ talk 

Thank you. Your edits look good to me. Now it's just a matter of recruitment. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

Links you may be interested in:

• Talk:Non-disclosure agreements
• Legal docs
• Foundation wiki feedback/Changes to home page (spring 2013)

I'm seeing a lot of needless resistance lately. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

That's interesting, I see useful progress, particularly on publishing legal docs - much more than last year. Your being testy on wmfwiki isn't helping, I think. –SJ talk  15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

Probably not. I'm annoyed at the mess (uncategorized, out-of-date, and obsolete pages), which I'm now working to clean up. The annoyance gets compounded when, while I'm in the middle of trying to clean up, someone comes along and tries to take ownership of the wiki (or just its main page, I suppose). It isn't Jay's wiki or the Wikimedia Foundation communications department's wiki, as Philippe and others seem to keep casually suggesting. (And frankly, I'm not sure why Jay or anyone else would want to claim ownership for a wiki that's been overrun by outdated, un-curated, and uncategorized content.)

Thank you for the edits to Legal docs. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

I'm very happy you're cleaning up there; thank you. I think it's just questions about the main page that people are worried about. (This happens to all sites, community wikis and foundation wikis and grassroots org websites... it's one of those shed-painting issues: it's a question that affects many people's casual daily experience, everyone has an opinion, both about design and about who should determine it, and there's no obvious way to choose among conflicting opinions.) Though setting a reasonable admin and access poilcy is a broader question. Warmly, –SJ talk  20:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

Wikimedia exit interview ← I'm trying to tread lightly. I asked Jan-Bart what he thought.

User talk:Jan-Bart is indefinitely semi-protected. :-/

I've created Legal protection, as I think the "word of caution" section in particular isn't well documented. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Sj, did you see the email that I sent to you? I'm hoping that you can send a reply to Wikimedia-l. Thanks and happy new year. --Pine ^✉ 07:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

I did and glad you asked. I will respond soon; I'm still thinking about it. I am impatient in my own way, so on the one hand I always want us (as a board and movement) to do more; and on the other I have to actively take time with some responses to reflect on them. Warmly, –SJ talk  22:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

I understand. Thank you. --Pine ^✉ 23:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi SJ. Some time has passed. Are you still working on the email, or did you send one and I missed it? Thanks, --Pine ^✉ 00:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

I wrote one, asked a friend for feedback, and life's little disasters got in the way. I will get back to it this week; it is a topic that was dear to aaronsw's heart too. –SJ talk  02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thank you. I was sad when I heard about Aaronsw. I'm glad to see that the Wikimedia community is remembering him in numerous ways. I look forward to your email, but maybe it would be best to have this conversation a few days from now after we've all had a chance to do some emotional processing. Could you send the email on Thursday or later this week? Thank you, --Pine ^✉ 19:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi SJ. A month has passed since I first wrote to you. Are you still planning to respond? --Pine ^✉ 02:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

I've replied on my talk. :) --Nemo 07:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

And again. (Thanks for the other edit, sorry for the surreal discussion.) --Nemo 11:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I thought you might have useful perspective on this: Talk:Special Interest Groups -Pete F (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Reply

Re: "I would love to see not just a FDC but a tech dissemination committee where people can apply for tech support for projects." -- this is a lovely idea. –SJ talk 

Thanks SJ. Wondering how I should pursue it? I and many other I am sure need tech support for the work we do on Wikipedia / Wikimedia projects. And while I am even willing to pay someone I have no idea about hiring people who know how to edit Media Wiki software.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

I think you want a Tech version of the GAC, actually. Most tech needs are in the 1-2 developer range for a few months, for a fixed result. (The FDC equivalent would be a small dev-team for a year for an unrestricted variety of projects.) I suggest starting by proposing requests to the GAC, asking for tech time rather than $,ドル and see what they say. They may have good ideas. –SJ talk 

Thanks will give it a try :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

This is a fantastic idea. -Pete F (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

I don't know what sort of tech support you're talking of and coming from whom, but Sumana seems to see Lead our development process as a product adviser or manager as something somehow similar to this. --Nemo 07:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Tech support would come from the WMF. The WMF is an expert in hiring people who do tech work. Wikipedians are not. So even if we have money / get money through an IEG this may not be what people need.

For example I need this or some equivalent tool to work in more languages than English [2]. User who created it is to busy to adapt it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thank you, Sj. :) I've spoken to the legal team about this, and Michelle Paulson put some thoughts here that might be useful consideration. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

Lovely, thanks Maggie. SJ

Sj,

You might notice that there's a new page at Endowment here. In the links at the bottom is a question about your edit here. You may wish to comment as to where that discussion happened... or not. :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hello. A bureaucrat discussion has been opened to decide the outcome of this request for de-adminship. It is opened for more than three days now and it has only received one comment so far. If you could please pass by and leave your comments over there it would be really appreciated. Best regards.

— Delivered via Global message delivery on behalf of MarcoAurelio, 15:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks Marco. I commented there... –SJ talk  23:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

to get ur attention on that discussion: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Elections/2013_Chair#Are_u. Thanks.--Angel54 5 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

have you forgotten one purpose for Wikinews? to serve as a record of what was known at a given point in time? - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 21:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

Yes, that too. This is partly addressed by historical revisions. More detailed comparisons of the value of "record v. persistent context" would be useful. I'm sure there are examples where one of those uses dominates, and others where both matter.

The record/snapshot of the full set of things popularly discussed is likewise important to put in context. Right now we don't have any way of capturing that : we don't work well on wn with other data feeds; today there are a number of compatibly licensed news sources that don't generate entries of any sort on WN. So I think there are many useful conceptual updates that could be sorted. –SJ talk  03:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

... here notafish }<';> 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi SJ,

I have emailed Emily Gore and Pam Wright. Below is a copy. Love to hear your comments.

Emily and Pam – We are a group of Wikipedians who would like to be the DPLA’s "first customers".
The group will download NARA metadata from the DPLA to Wikimedia Commons. To this end, digitized item-level materials from NARA’s ARC database that have corresponding empty categories in the NARA-Commons partnership have been identified. The categories will be filled, and the images will be made available for Wikipedia editors – as an example of the power of the DPLA and its partner agencies.
The initial download includes NARA Record Group 330: Records of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1921 – 2008; however, if there is another preference, please let us know.
This collaboration - between Wikipedians and the DPLA, and using NARA records - is an amazing first step: NARA data is used first, furthering the agency goal to bring materials to Commons in a structured way, the DPLA has a high profile "first customer", and Wikipedians are first in the door of what is the future of records aggregation.
After the completion of the first download, NARA records can continue to flow on to Wikimedia Commons, using the templating, categorization, and naming structures already in place.
The DPLA Technical Development team has expressed support of the plan, and will let us know when the download can begin.
This effort brings together diverse groups for a common goal – your input is welcome.
Emily – When appropriate, we will tweet, blog, and FB during the live download. We can provide you with the url of the Commons page the data will flow to, so you can watch the progress as well. It should be exciting!
Pam – As mentioned above, Record Group 330 seems like a good choice – military images are popular on Wikipedia. If NARA has another preference, please let us know.

Best, User:Bdcousineau User:Michael Barera User: Sarah Stierch User:Smallman12q

cc: SJ Klein, via user page

Thanks. Bdcousineau (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Great start! One thing we should consider: becoming a DPLA hub (say, along with WikiTeam), for both existing Wikipedia data, and perhaps providing curation services for repositories and communities that don't know how to get their material into the proper format, but are happy to contribute it to the DPLA through us (as a community hub) . [think of the smaller collections of primary sources, or sites like geograph.org that are busy gathering new data and may not have time/experience to scriptably massage the data into new formats. –SJ talk  17:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Great idea of Wikipedia as a DPLA hub; I'd love to be involved any way that is appropriate. I've always thought Wikimedia is missing all the materials from so many small county and regional historical centers/museums.

Sadly, NARA is not so enthused about the DPLA/Commons/NARA collaboration. The team has decided/is discussing a different download, perhaps the 10k ARTStor images that are in DPLA. Research shows they are also PD. We will check in again. Thank you for your time and support. Bdcousineau (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi Samuel,

I wanted to tell you about ITU Telecom Young Innovators Competition's new challenge on preserving diversity of digital content. We are calling for concept papers or start-ups from all around the world, started by young women and men (age 18-26) who work to inspire the creation of local content in a less frequently used on the Internet language. We recognize the dis-balance of digital content available and are devoted to help diversify the content by supporting talented young entrepreneurs who have projects in this field. We accept concept papers or start-ups (already up and running and in need of further help to scale up). We offer up to USD 10 000 of seed funding to the best 10 submissions, and we really hope that some of them will be for our challenge on digital content.

More information at our website .

Any questions, as well as applications, should go to young.innovators@itu.int

Thanks if you can spread the word for us in your networks.

Dimitrina

Thanks, Dimitrina! I will definitely spread the word. This looks like an amazing effort. Are you asking them to release their work under a free license? –SJ talk  23:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi. Can you please fix Wikimedia user group? It redirects to itself. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Done. –SJ talk 

Ha! So I'm not alone. :-)

I updated groups groups. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

P.S. Wikimedia exit interview/Sue Gardner is underway.

Hi, thanks for participating in the RFC for interproject links. There is a new option that might be interesting to explore. Please check Dropdown next to title 1 and Dropdown next to title 2. They are part of Option 5.--Micru (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Dear Samuel,

If they had any trouble they should indeed talk about it. I am glad to help, the extent of my participation depends, however, on the content of their trouble in round 2. If they wish they can contact me at FDC portal/Appeals regarding FDC process/2012-2013 round2 or by e-mail susana.morais@wikimedia.pt.

If they wish to complaint about the FDC recommendations to the board, it is better to discuss them directly with the board representatives on the FDC.

Regards from Lisboa! Lusitana (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Reply

Methinks your EdwardsBot is a bit trigger-happy... I thought the page in question says that renames will happen by August? Where is the May 27 deadline from ? –SJ talk  18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

It was actually supposed to be done in May, but James realised that it would cause huge problems for checking voter eligibility in the Board and FDC elections, see his email to Wikimedia-l. The helpful one 18:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

"and" = "amd" in your statement. -- phoebe | talk 18:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

The irony is that there's one in your statement too, "foward-looking". :D The helpful one 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Ha! See, if only someone helpful had told me about it... thanks MzM for the fix. To the below, I am aware things are editable; but a statement is a particularly personal piece of writing, not meant to be changed. It would be especially inappropriate I think for the candidates to start editing each other's statements, even something as minor as spelling. To SJ: apparently this is what happens when we don't proof for each other. :) -- phoebe | talk 00:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the catch! And fixes. I'm using... antiquated technology this week to edit. Definitely throws off the proofreading reflexes :) –SJ talk  18:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Just a gentle reminder: this site is a wiki. ;-) Be bold, &c. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Now, now ..:) Someone other than me did fix the typos (thanks!). And it's reasonable for one candidate to avoid touching another's orthography, touching on how touchy some are about touching. What if I were using a statement generator based on the 'optimal # of typos in trusted communication'? –SJ talk  18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hey SJ, just following up from the discussion a couple of months ago about publicly publishing the chapter agreements that are currently only on the private (and soon to be closed down?) internal wiki. I see Geoff replied a few days ago to your message on his talk page. From a quick count I see that there are 12 links to internal on Chapter Agreements. Do you know who the best people to contact would be to get these chapter agreements published? The helpful one 18:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Let me take a look. –SJ talk  18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks. I also just thought that it might be good to add columns for FR2012 and FR2013, and possibly FDC eligiblity. What do you think? The helpful one 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Geoff suggests the WMF is fine publishing the custom versions, but the chapter has to agree. Most of the links to internal were to the stock template from 2007, which I've published here.

Hi Sj - Please note that I have trimmed your candidate statement to 1200 characters, as specified by the published rules of the election. You may wish to confirm that it still appropriately conveys the points you wish to convey, or rewrite it if not. I left the trimmed part in the raw wikicode, so you should be able to see it in the edit mode. For the election committee, Philippe (WMF) (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your creativity, SJ. But frankly, we DO NOT see such alternative fesible, as most of cost for chapter-survival (paid staff, audit cost) either lay in long term paid staff, or concurrent expenditure. Even your dear grant adiminstrator can block us on spending the previous remain fund on concurrent expenditure like audit cost. If we cannot finish the audit report, it is a criminal offence, and the whole board can be get sued & fined by the HK gov't [3] [4]. So what can we do? Yes, the FDC decision just force us to disband the chapter. -- ※(注記) JéRRy ~ 雨雨  ※(注記)  Was?  ※(注記)  18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

That sounds... like an alternate reality to me. If you need funds this year, grants are available. For next year and beyond, there are both grants and FDC. If you get (any) new grant, the previous funds can be applied to that. –SJ talk  22:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Dear Samuel,

I've emailed you on a Signpost matter.

Kind regards, Tony (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for keeping us informed. We look forward to celebrate the resolution. Obviously you are invited to the party.--Gomà (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Very kind. :) –SJ talk  20:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi. We still wait for a lot of answers from you. You are one of the candidates I really would like to vote for, but I draw a line for myself some time ago: candidates who don't answer the questions (and it is possible to say "I don't know the answer!", this is [some times a good one ;)] an answer) will not get my vote. But time is running away... -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thank you, Marcus! I have answered the questions as best I can now. There are certainly some difficult questions where I don't really know the answer :-) but I have shared my best approximation in each case. –SJ talk  18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

I know it is hard - I would have problems to answer al lot of these questions ;). But I don't have to *g*. That's why I wrote, it's for me OK not to have an answer. It's better than to construct one. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Reply

But why are you manually adding T:x comments? They get added automatically when you mark a page for translation. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Well, now I know what sorts of formatting the parser chokes on :-) Let's see if it minds my including the comments directly. –SJ talk  18:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Replied on my talk page. The rest of the discussion (if there is any) should happen on my talk page. I want to keep it in one place. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

I left a question for you there relating to this SJ. :-) The helpful one 20:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

As we don't yet have Echo on Meta, just a ping to let you know I've replied. The helpful one 22:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

I notice that you have understood exactly - like Phoebe and Maria - what kind of dilemma we are trying to solve. After almost 10 years, where we are working on this project, we simply see the need, working on new ideas, even apart from established structures.

BTW: Karl and I are Austrian citizen and although we consider ourself - of course - as part of the German language Wikipedia, on the other side, we see ourselves as representatives of regional interests too. --Hubertl (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

You write, «I have not always succeeded in part because I am seen as an extreme voice [in the WMF board] on these issues; even though within the spectrum of positions in the rest of the community I do not think my positions are particularly extreme.» This is something that worries me a lot, because I hear it constantly: WMF board members with different opinions or backgrounds get marginalised or ignored and are put in a corner. Maybe one day someone will be able to change this unfortunate situation, in the meanwhile my condolences for this hard job: I really do not wish anyone to be elected on the WMF board! I hope you know that many of us felt and shared your pain in these years. --Nemo 09:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your comments, Nemo. Perhaps I should find a different phrasing: 'one end of the spectrum of voices on the Board'. I don't mean it to have a negative connotation there, or to suggest there is any marginalisation going on - we are a very consultative and consensus-focused board. But on a small number of issues we take up a broad spectrum of views, and one of them is how much the WMF should direct vs. support the projects. The context there is usually some difficult problem that has not yet been solved; so it is not clear how a solution will come about. Some people believe that the WMF, by being larger and older than many other institutions, naturally knows the best solution to thorny problems; I am not so sure. Sometimes I see the best solutions coming from individuals.

But even on issues where I am the odd Trustee out, I do not feel ignored. And usually, on every issue, we come to a compromise in between the extremes of the spectra of views. –SJ talk  02:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi,

I have a couple of questions regarding your candidate submission:

1. How the previous board fullfiled tasks, you would like to do in the future?

   The previous Board learned to work together quite well: reaching consensus quickly, and finding alternatives to consensus when needed. We never worked in factions. The Board has also become good at delegating work to committees and to staff groups, without confusion. This required building trust within the whole Foundation, and within the {ED+Board} team, that each part was working as it should. We started to open up the Board process, inviting a Board Visitor to sit in on some of our sessions. And I personally learned a lot through our movement roles process: about how to develop guidelines for the Foundation through community efforts.

2. How you would evaluate your work in the previous Board?

   I feel good about my work to shift the WMF's definition of movement groups : so that it now pays attention to how much support is given to individuals and small groups; so that chapter successes are learned from, and so that there is also a well-defined place for thematic organizations and individual projects in the Foundation planning and analysis. I tried to bring consensus to the Board even when we had thorny discussions about whose work defines our mission, and how to accept healthy risks. I worked smoothly with the ED in the past two years; who is an important part of any well-functioning board.

   I was not able to get long-term financial planning underway, which is important to me; this took longer than I had hoped. This year, after joining the Audit Committee, I learned how to be more effective in contributing to those plans. And I feel that, despite best efforts, we still spent more time reacting to recent events than planning for the future. These are both things that the next Board should address. It should significantly improve the WMF's long-term plans, and spend much less time on short-term drama.

3. What do you think about funds redistribution to the Chapters? Why chapters always grunt about it? What should be done in this area? And it something, why it wasnt already done?

   I think a chapter in every country or region is, when developed properly, an effective way to organize partnerships, funds, and other resources. The WMF initially encouraged all regions to develop chapters, to hire staff and 'professionalize', and to acquire funds. Then starting three years ago, this advice changed; I think chapters complain in part because of that shift in expectations. In community-drive projects, there are many alternatives to 'professionalizing' and many ways to distribute resources without a lot of staff. In the past few years, the movement has seen amazing organizations without staff, and amazing projects without organizations (such as WLM). The WMF wants to support this sort of work without prejudice -- based on its value to the projects. And wants to redistribute funds to supports each part of the world, not only proportional to how much that country donated. This required changing how fundraising and allocation worked. This has led to the FDC and more reporting; which is not as convenient as the early fundraisers. That's another source of complaint. Finally, both chapters and the WMF think that the other group isn't always making good use of funds. This is a failure in communication and shared metrics.

   I think we need to improve peer review among the {WMF, Chapters, and Thematic Orgs}, so that each of those groups trusts the work and progress of the others, and all feel that they are united in working towards our mission. We need to unify our metrics, and discuss the different goals in the strategies of different chapters. We need to prioritize translation for this level of planning and communication. And we need to describe more fully the work that only Chapters and that only the WMF can do: so that each can delegate work to the other when needed. Some of this has been done, slowly. But sharing internal planning across organizations is hard; and much of this sharing requires better multilingual communication. For instance, the detailed strategy work that WM-SE and WM-FR and WM-IT and the WMF do is, in each case, in a single language; with only summaries translated into some of the others.

   Certainly. I've mainly tried to move as much communication and documentation as possible to Meta. Including Board resolutions, so they can be more easily commented on and translated, reports and Chapter Agreements, and useful internal WMF documents whenever I run across them. I have refused to join any new private wikis (other than the board-wiki) myself; we switched having a separate movement roles wiki to publishing all materials on Meta. And most of the Board-level work that I have been part of, including drafts of many resolutions proposed to the Board, have in the past 2 years been developed on Meta.

4. How "one" can change all organisation?

   Some changes require many people. But a single person can serve as an example; and remind others to do things they already want to do, but may forget. In our case, much of the conflicts on our projects, including debates about what software to write, and Foundation-Chapter-Partner tension, is self-inflicted and self-fulfilling. A bit of mediation, and remaining calm in the face of a momentary crisis, can help avoid blow-ups and distractions.

Thank you very much for answers.

Thank you for your questions. –SJ talk 

Regards,

--Juandev (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi Samuel I just wanted to;

1. thank you for all your effort on Wiki,
2. wish you best for the election; it's good if people who get up the learning curve are able to contribute over a long period (ego declines, understanding increases, wisdom rises; value and effectiveness increases),
3. say that if in future you see a need for someone like me (early retired senior investment banker, check my edits for areas of current interest particularly in mental health, serving on various boards) on one of the boards then give me a nudge, because I'm motivated to see Wiki thrive and develop. In particular I'm hungry that Wiki be perceived as having a higher standard of content than it now is by the general public; Wiki has enormous potential to help mankind even more in future, and this is a key issue in it doing so.

All the best, JCJC777

Thank you JCJC, for your kind words and your interest. I agree that we must reach a new level of perceived use -- including welcoming the legions of disaffected academics who would like to contribute to not-for-profit publications. Do you know other community members interested in that same goal? We may also need input from talented investment experts, as we are considering building an endowment and setting up a more aggressive long-term investment plan. Right now we have 30ドルM+ of our reserve in conservative low-yield instruments. –SJ talk  19:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Congratulations on a job well done, Samuel. Your support of the foundation over the last two years and the two years before that has been exemplary. I'm very happy to have your continued support of the projects under the WMF umbrella. Congratulations and thanks for your efforts. 64.40.54.119 01:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi Samuel, I hope you are doing fine. Thanks for your answers and the most important thing: Congratulations! I am really glad you made it again, you really deserved it. Take real care and keep on doing your good work! Claudi Balaguer/Capsot 82.251.41.143 19:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (So funny not to be blocked or reverted when using anonymous IPs... but I might be speaking too quickly...).Reply

• Congratulations on your win in WMF board Election. Best wishes --Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

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

  08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations! PiRSquared17 (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thank you! Many hands make light work. :) –SJ talk  11:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks Samuel! Right back at you. :-) The next two years promise to be interesting! Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi SJ

I'll have a think and come back to you.

Initial thoughts;

Use the 30ドルm to attack the core issue of Wiki content being seen as poor quality by some people; 1. Pay for analysis of which entries are seen as low quality (certain categories?), 2. Pay good editors to improve those articles. No point in money in bank (esp. when can turn on donations, as you say); let's use it aggressively to raise Wiki quality.

30ドルm is very small in investment terms. Easy to lose significant % in management and other fees. Nowhere near big enough for own fund.

Using first year students to edit seems bad idea to me; almost designed to produce sloppy editing, and thus to damage the Wiki franchise. How about paying leading academics to quality check articles in their area of competence; maybe have a badge (red triangle?) on those articles to indicate 'checked by an expert'.

If we have resources let's invest them right in our core activity, to build Wiki credibility, to attack weak articles, and thus raise the perceived value of all the other articles. Thinking e.g. like Bezos 'get big fast': let's focus all our resources on lifting Wiki quality. That's the best way to maximise how much value Wiki has and how much good it does.

Best wishes, JCJC

Hi SJ, as previously discussed, I've started something at Talk:Wikimedia_wikis#Are we re-purposing Internal?, please add your thoughts there. :-) The helpful one 00:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Reply

I like your suggestion of a condensed monthly summary of tech–related news that you brought at Talk:Tech/News; would you mind expanding on the idea a bit? :-) odder (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi SJ,

Would you be interested to give a comment on the Global Economic sister project proposal on Wikipedia?

Thank you, Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Reply

I'll have to take a closer look at it. This sort of map is clearly needed; though many such projects can be realized within an existing sister project - as a new type of page, to begin with. –SJ talk  18:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Reply

at meta isnt even matching the simplest rules of politeness: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#This_isnt - how rude will it get here?--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hi Sj! Do you think this proposal has any chance of being revived in the near future? It had a lot of promise. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Reply

SarahStierch (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Reply

Sj, I'm setting up a new page format for info on problems with Croatian Wikipedia and I've moved your contributions from the old page to here. Please let me know if all looks ok. Also, we're planning to open the pages for submissions soon, so any feedback on the layout & instructions is very welcome. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Reply

I have sent you an email, would you be so kind when you read it to send me an answer. Thank you! SpeedyGonsales (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for the email. Replied! –SJ talk  01:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks. J Kadavoor J e e 06:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Reply

The Dutch version is not updated. I'd like to do it, but have no edit rights there. Can you give them to me, please? Thank you in advance,  Klaas|Z4␟V:  22:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Reply

You mean the original resolution? The new resolution is posted in Dutch, and looks up to date. 66.31.203.244 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Reply

Same problem in French, not updated on the WMF site. Ideally the amended texts on the WMF site should be resubmitted for translating updates here in Meta, and further reviewed for updating on the WMF site. But it would be simpler to have these texts maintained only here, by locking translations once they are approved. The WMF site would then just host a local mirror of the last validated translations. verdy_p (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Reply

dear Sj, I read you created a poster page here on meta quite a long time ago. I also read that posters where part of the submissions for Wikimania in different years. I think now is really a needed format since there is a multiplication of education projects, GLAMs experiences, Wikimedia chapters and affiliates and tools, which is difficult to track. Posters can provide simple and short overview, a link to get further documentation and the chance to cross experiences we didn't know about jet. I would like to prepare some posters for the GLAM exhibition and event in Lugano 2014 I'm working for (by Spring 2014) and i think the posters can also be great to reduce the number of panels at Wikimania (it is related to the bidding we are submitting for 2015). Still interested in it? can you provide some hints? can you maybe suggest people I should contact? can we resurrect the poster page? I think Wikimedia chapters and people promoting projects can be willing to help in making some of them but i wanted to see if i can get a graphic design to make the template to assure a nice level of visual satisfaction (sic). thanks, --iopensa (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Beautiful idea. I would contact the current Program Chair for Wikimania 2014, and the wikimania mailing list to discuss it for future years. –SJ talk  17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Thanks, Done. --iopensa (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hello Sj! GregorB suggested I should contact you for advice. Back in September 2013 he & I have started the pages for gathering information about alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia ("evidence pages", in short). The pages have benefited greatly from GregorB's experience & judgement but he has since semi-retired, and I'm left as the only fully committed Wikipedian managing the pages. While I am quite confident I can see the process through, another pair of experienced eyes that could spare even partial attention to it would be immensely helpful.

What remains to be done is unlikely to be very involved. After a sufficient period of time for comments and late submissions (currently being decided, likely 30 days), the evidence pages need to be closed for good and archived. I am not expecting much traffic during this time, in part because the saga has been going on since last autumn and fatigue has set in on many sides.

I'd very much appreciate any advice or assistance in managing the process in the remaining time it's active.

Many thanks! Miranche (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Miranche, I am still thinking about this. Clearly it is an important sort of problem to address. And something that the stewards may be in the best place to evaluate. I am trying to understand how current stewards feel about the issue, so that we can set expectations about how we can collectively respond to it and future issues like it. –SJ talk  22:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Reply

I recently added some comments proposing to create a new genealogy-oriented wiki on top of Wikidata that I hope to get your input on if you have time. Thanks.--Dallan (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

You missed a few comments when you moved a thread from a project page to a talk page. I get the sense you did this deliberately because of the "uncomfortable" nature of the content that you conveniently dropped in the move. Also, when you move other people's work, isn't it common courtesy to notify them of your decision to do so? - Checking the checkers (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Reply

AGF, Checking. No. It is not common to notify people when moving comment. In fact, I can't remember ever seeing it done. If they are registered editors, the move of comment will appear in their watchlists.

However, Sj, I do suggest, when moving comment like that, do it in pieces so that it's transparently clear that what is being removed is what is being copied to Talk. I haven't yet verified the specific claim of Checking, above, but you combined removal of comment, with your own additional comment,[5] not good practice, leading to confusion and, yes, suspicion, especially if some mistake is made because of the complexity of that single edit.

You also broke up and partially moved individual comments. That violated a basic principle of not taking apart people's comments, which then leave what remains out-of-context. If you wish to move a comment to talk because it's out of place, you can do that, then bring back a quotation from it, with reference to the full comment for transparency.

Thanks for all your service to the WMF. --Abd (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Reply

You are welcome, Abd. Splitting moves into separate edits is good practice, I was just in a hurry.

Checking, uncomfortable questions are welcome, as long as they are respectful and asked in good faith. I intentionally removed the backhanded attack on a staff member. I also removed other inappropriate mentions of a departed staff member, neither of which belong on the Board noticeboard talk page. Part of the question (about harrassment) seems to have been in good faith, and I will answer it. –SJ talk  20:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Reply

I removed part of the restored material because it was blatantly uncivil, without raising any actual issue. As to the rest, I agree that a Board Noticeboard is not the place to raise contentious criticism of the Board and Staff. We would not allow criticism of specific Stewards, nor of the whole body of Stewards, to stand on Steward requests, for example, though sometimes criticism of specific actions is allowed there. Everyone makes mistakes. My comment about the removal was not intended to make it wrong, but was simply about the way it was done, which made it not transparent, so thanks for accepting that. --Abd (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Reply

At 07:53(I think UTC), 24 February 2014 you changed the Discussion page for the TOU Amendment and made a new subject "Rewording and revisions" One of my posts were moved along with a couple others. I initially thought it was deleted and was a little sad, but I found out what actually happened and I just wanted to thank you for making the page so much nicer. Thank you for your kindness.Peoplez1k (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Reply

Please visit this page if you wish to contribute to a centralized discussion about a Wikimedia genealogy project. Thank you! --Another Believer (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hello Sj, I noticed this resolution today. I'm sure you've been fully transparent with(in) the WMF about your connection to the Centre for the Internet and Society (and many in Wikimedia have some, of course; we're close allies), but the public recording is not very clear/transparent. It would be better if wmf:Minutes/2013-11-24 contained one line, or footnote, like "Sam has declared $WHATEVER with CIS, including hosting service for a market value of 0.01 $/y". --Nemo 09:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hello Nemo. These are two different Centers, related only in name... one of the things that happens when one's project name is not trademarked.

Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society, which hosted Wikimania in 2006 and where I am a Fellow this year, does also run services like the Harvard Law School blogs. I would definitely excuse myself from any discussion involving them.

There are sister centers at Stanford and Oxford, with no governance or project overlap, but also funded or founded in part by the same family. I would note the connection, though might not abstain from discussions involving them if the rest of the Board considered there was no conflict.

Then there are other centers also focused on the Internet and Society - 6-10 of them by now, including the Bangalore Centre - which share areas of interest, exchange ideas or coauthor research. Some of these were inspired by the Berkman Center, and most are called 'partner centers' and hold a joint meeting of like-minded centers every few years. However these have no governance, funding, or founding team connections. I don't know of a reason for there to be even a potential conflict here. Do you? Or was this just a matter of name confusion?

Thank you for your attention to such details. –SJ talk  14:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hah! What an embarrassment; thanks for the kind reply. I guess the first time (in January) I read it properly, only the second read was out of context and I confused myself. We have a CIS in Turin too and I know the Indian CIS of course, I'd normally know that it couldn't be anything else.

In a more formal board like my university's, ambiguity is not allowed and full addresses are always used; in WMF perhaps slightly more context for those arriving on a page out of nowhere could help. If not "CIS India" maybe "CIS (Bangalore)" or something, no idea. But really, just my fault not actually reading the resolution. --Nemo 10:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Reply

Some "call to action" experiences, made by the community bottom-up, go well with little effort.[6] Any idea how to consolidate information on this sort of activity? I'm not even sure in what existing Meta page to place links/brief summaries. We discuss this regularly, e.g. [7] [8] [9] (recently, with an undue focus over the ill-designed Philippines en.wiki banner [10] [11]) but such stuff only works if grassroot, so we need to collect past experiences. (My favourite approach is digging WikiStats tables and hunt for explanations of the biggest peaks in the various wikis; it's very time consuming though.) --Nemo 07:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Reply

I love the idea of capturing peaks in wikistats. Looking at both outside and internal referrals. Are referral logs public, in any form? –SJ talk  17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Reply

Well, we have stats:wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOrigins.htm. But it's such a mass of data that even massive aggregation results in long tables, it would need some true genius to come up with more detailed but still digestible visualisations. --Nemo 20:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hello Sj. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/April 2014. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before April 08, 2014. Kind regards, Barras talk 10:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hello Sj,

As you might have known, ever since login.wikimedia was created, the stewards have been using it as a sort of global checkuser platform. After a discussion a few months back, some stewards even leave their checkuser bit on permanently there, compensating for this by logging every CU action that is done here. With this in mind, and the fact that when SUL finalization is completed there will be the potential for a global checkuser extension, I think it is about time that the 9 year old checkuser policy should reflect the current reality. Right now, it says that only Ombudsmen have global checkuser access, but it's talking about something completely different - at the advent of the policy, nobody was planning for the ability to be able to check from a centralized location (loginwiki now, meta if an extension is ever made), so to them "global" meant checkuser access individually on all wikis with no centralized accountability. We compensate for this with the above-mentioned loginwiki statistics page.

Given that the checkuser policy is something which derives its legitimacy from the board, I thought I'd come to you about this first. I imagine some sort of global vote might be necessary to update the policy, but I'd like to hear what the board has to say first, if you would be able to bring it up with them.

Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Reply

A fine point. Yes, this is different from what was once imagined. Do you have a proposed revision to the CU policy in mind? I'd like to see the next update to that policy come from the community, with legal support from the group that works on the privacy policy (currently, that is staff w/ community input). –SJ talk  07:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Reply

Sorry for the slow reply, been busy IRL. I do have an idea of what I'd like to see, but nothing in writing as of yet. I think that a global checkuser would be acceptable with a centralized log and published statistics, so that people could see who was doing what. I could get to work on a proposal I suppose. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Reply

this would be a good step. You might ping the other stewards to work on it with you, and perhaps file a bug against it so developers are thinking about the problem as well.–SJ talk  19:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Reply

An actual global checkuser tool is something off in the future after SUL finalization. For now, the policy could consider a loginwiki check to be a global check, since essentially it is. I'll start writing one on a subpage of the checkuser policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Reply

Good day, I have rewritten and completed the Wikilang proposal page. Could you give it a look and tell us what else does it need? Thanks, Amqui (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Reply

Sj, concerning your email to the WM-l, yes, it looks like the "history of projects" was inappropriate. In the other temporal direction, did the board have in mind that a user group might be a temporary thing, perhaps created just for one large event? (That would be unfortunate, in my reckoning, but perhaps hard to legislate against.) Tony (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Reply

Yes, the restriction needs to be removed. At the time there was probably a fear of a sudden flood of requests, but by now things got stable, better make things simpler. --Nemo 06:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Reply

Not for one event, no. But over time, just as wikiprojects come and go, it was expected that user groups would form and dissipate. A group focused on a single major project, like the importing of the 1 million images released by the British Library and related partnerships with Flickr and other importers, would make sense and might only last a couple of years. –SJ talk  06:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Reply

Right, no need to concern the possibility of trivial temporariness; and AffCom would probably pick that up anyway and ask probing questions as to the need for affiliation in that case. Tony (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Reply

Sj, I've been taking a look at the affiliation models for user groups, thorgs, and chapters. They need a revamp, in my view; there's copy-edit stuff, to harmonise the three pages; there's probably uncontroversial harmonisation by inserting/removing whole points; and there might be a few issues that need higher-level discussion.

One thing troubles me for which I lack insights to form a view: "Minimum rights" include "Simplified access to grants", for chapters and user groups (strangely, not thorgs). But what does "simplified" mean in this context? Tony (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

Simplified: grant reviews should be based on a few metrics: trust; capacity for work; and quality of proposal. Affiliation, by virtue of organizing metadata about an organization and providing a template for sharing its work, should reduce the time it takes to assess trust and capacity, simplifying the process. –SJ talk  23:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

Samuel, thanks for explaining. It's rather opaque, I think; perhaps it needs to be spelled out where used, or reframed? Tony (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

Thank for the invitation, sorry for the delay. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

You're welcome Ad, hope to see your thinking there :) –SJ talk  08:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hello Sj, could you and perhaps other members of the Board of Trustees perhaps comment at c:Commons:Requests for comment/Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy, specifically to clarify the Board's intentions wrt my concern in c:Special:Diff/126802777? I'm sure many people on Commons would appreciate your input, thanks. darkweasel94 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hello, there was further discussion there to clarify; I hope the result was clear. –SJ talk  00:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Reply

Lieber Samuel, danke für die Nachricht!

Das letzte Mal hat "User talk:Delphico" 21 October 2010 geschrieben: "The International Delphic Council granted the permission for the following files in wikimedia: Competition Baguio 2007.gif Parade jeju 2009.gif Castalia spring Delphi.jpg Delphico (talk)". Ich glaube er könnte das Gesagte bestätigen auch für alle andere "images uploaded by User:Delphico", weil viele davon stehen auch auf IDC-webseite und IDC-facebook.

Ich kann nur die Nachricht (für Delphico) weiterleiten an die officielle Adresse E-Mail: mail@delphic.org. Und zusätzlich an: jcb.kirsch@delphic.org - siehe hier: Get in touch.

Deswegen bitte ich um Aufschub! Sonst kann ich nicht helfen. Danke im Voraus! --DarDar (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

Vielen dank DarDar, delphic.org fragen ist eine gute Idee. –SJ talk  17:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

Ein großes Dankeschön für die Hilfe hier ! Hoffentlich wird das alles bald völlig geklärt... --DarDar (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

Leider sind noch viele images gelöscht. Gestern war 90, heute nur 62 in Category:International Delphic Council. Jemand ist sehr ungeduldig... --DarDar (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Reply

Hm. I regret I couldn't save them from deletion. I don't know how to prevent such bulk deletion other than having a better scratch space where well-categorized uploads are always welcome and this sort of behavior is not allowed. In this case, the archiveteam may be able to help (though it may be too small an effort for them) –SJ talk  02:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Reply

Dear Mr. Klein,

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) 16:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Reply

I asked you in a section above ([12]) 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) 13:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC) PS: I saw you in a picture from Wikimania, hope you had a good time. I would also be interested to know your impression about how David Slater's black macaque photo was used there.Reply

This topic has been covered in depth on the discussion on the policy's talk page and rfc. I contributed to discussion there and don't have anything new to add here. –SJ talk  20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Reply

I have made a good faith effort reviewing various discussion pages involved, but I can't find anything from you except a bit in January where you thanked Luis Garcia for development of the amended policy, and then a few months later in what are referred to as minutes where you called for a vote by the board on it. Would you mind giving me a link to your substantive opinions on the policy change, or perhaps telling me something that could help me hunt down whatever your positions were on this important matter? Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Reply

this is old clutter. But make u aware of my newest entry there. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sj/strategy --Angel54 5 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Reply

Thank you. –SJ talk  05:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Reply

I presume you are familiar with - Reasonably efficient interwiki transclusion. Rich Farmbrough 05:10 10 August 2014 (GMT).

Gday Sj. Had meant to catch you for more than that brief moment at WM2014 when the stewards were hanging out, however, out paths didn't seem to cross. Or that was actually, was how it seemed, then I am told recently that I was sitting near you after breakfast on the Monday morning. If you thought that I was being unsociable, then my apologies, but I didn't have my glasses on, and couldn't see [redacted]. So <ugh> and maybe at another time I will get that chance to chat.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Reply

billinghurst Indeed! You were quite sociable; wikimania is often full of brief moments, and it was good to see you. Let's chat sometime, if only via the magic of the wiki. (belatedly) –SJ talk  00:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Reply

 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/centralnotice-admins