Wikimedia Forum

← Discussion pages

Wikimedia Forums

Archives →

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.) This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page. You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page
• Meta-l mailing list

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help

Request to remove notices

Added header to separate from unrelated "De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong" section. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that this is not the place for my request, but I don't know where to put it. I keep getting notices about new translations. I am not interested and I don't need those notices, so if someone can remove me from that list it would be much appreciated. I basically contribute to Wikipedia in Norwegian and that's it. Ulflarsen (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

• Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (15 December 2016)
  • Introduction to process and information about budget spending resolution to support it
• Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (23 December 2016)
  • Start of search for Lead Architect for movement strategy process
• Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (8 January 2017)
  • Plans for strategy sessions at upcoming Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (11 January 2017)
  • Introduction of williamsworks
• Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 February 2017)
  • The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
• Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (10 February 2017)
  • Tracks A & B process prototypes and providing feedback, updates on development of all four Tracks

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help

Backlogging in OTRS

I read c:Commons:Village pump#Backlog in permissions-commons OTRS queue (diff)), where the backlogging issue of OTRS queues is raised. This issue may affect all projects awaiting the permission queues to be verified. The projects depend on OTRS for proofs of permission, especially when the projects use images for illustration. I also see that OTRS also has management issues, according to comments there. From what I've heard, the number of volunteers declined. Pinging Pigsonthewing, Jarekt, and Multichill, so they can provide their viewpoints about this. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

toollabs:krdbot/otrs/permissions.png seems to be kept up to date and confirms the growth of the backlog. --Nemo 17:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What can be done about the backlogging, Nemo? I see one person, who is blocked from meta-wiki, kindly responded and very dedicated to help out. --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Recruiting, either by invitation or by advertistement. Blocked users are often problematic to utilise, the situation that got them blocked usually is taken as an indicator of traits not wanted for the task.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

OTRS admin, views expressed are my own however. We are always looking for new agents, however; commons and OTRS don't always work very well together. My last call for volunteers on Commons was here, please read the ensuing mayhem and make your own call. I personally have no desire to contribute to commons after that little game.

If you know of someone who would be a good fit for permissions, please feel free to have them apply. OTRS/V is thataway, and we are always willing to accept new agents.

For a bit more transparency in the application process, an explanation may be in order. When a person applies to OTRS, they do a public post on OTRS/V and an email to a dedicated email address. The public post is a place to solicit feedback from other non-OTRS admins, which is included in the final decision. The email contains a discussion between OTRS admins on the suitability of the candidate. We require three supports on the email discussion, that is; three supports from OTRS admins. Then an un-involved (fourth) OTRS admin closes the discussion and handles the signing of the confidentiality agreements (L4 and L32). Then an account is created and they are given access.

I am available to handle any more questions or ideas, feel free to contact me here, via Email, or on IRC as nick "Matthew_". ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 03:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Matthewrbowker (shall I re-ping you?): To be honest, I haven't volunteered OTRS before, so I'll stay neutral about the process. Maybe we can use the "mailing list" to announce this discussion. Also, we can notify all projects about this, like Wikipedia. If OTRS has issues like Commons community said, probably OTRS needs to be reformed. I'm not confident that more recruitments and easing the backlogging would resolve whatever issues the OTRS has. I welcome more opinions about the OTRS. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Thank you for the feedback. Again, my personal opinion: the problem OTRS is running into is the same you run into when you're dealing with administrator backlogs on the English Wikipedia. We simply have more backlog than we have agents to handle it. Agents get burned out, overwhelmed, or leave. We've had to remove a few after careful investigation (full disclosure: I wasn't part of that process, sadly. I had a personal emergency going on). Our amount of emails is increasing as well. So, acquiring more agents who help us long-term will make the backlog more manageable. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 03:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Matthewrbowker: Okay, I fully understand your responses. Besides recruitment, what are your alternatives? --George Ho (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Matthewrbowker: Replies to that call for volunteers included these two comments, among others: "Now I think that this is quite an interesting call, given that OTRS administrators kick people out of OTRS without bothering to justify their actions at all. Perhaps changing that particular policy could help you get more volunteers involved in OTRS." and "What user:odder said. This needs to be sorted out, before you start asking for more volunteers.", made by User:odder and me, respectively. Perhaps you can tell us what changes have been made since then, to address the issues described? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Hi, Andy. Valid questions, though I may not be the best person to answer them. I'll give it a shot though.

Agents are removed from OTRS for one of two reasons. The first is inactivity. We give an automated email notice about 2(?) weeks beforehand, thanks to an awesome script by Krd. The second is if agent conduct becomes a concern. The standard procedure for that is via email to our email list, followed by a discussion among admins. If the consensus is strong enough, an admin makes the removal. For example, Ktr101's removal was handled about two days before his office ban, we had been approached that an office ban might be possible and made consensus-based action. It is worth noting, this system is not perfect. I understand mistakes are made, and sometimes the justification given isn't enough. On a personal note, I'm more than willing to attempt to explain removals if I'm contacted via email or PM on IRC.

Please feel free to contact me with any further questions, either publicly or via email if it's sensitive. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 18:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Matthewrbowker: I'll leave aside the inactivity scenario, which I don't think anyone has questioned. My question to you was about changes since our least exchange, and you seem to have glossed over that. But to clarify what you do describe (and please correct me if I'm wrong in any aspect): If an OTRS volunteer becomes "a concern" (not defined; no published criteria), a bunch of admins discuss the matter in private, without involving or notifying the volunteer. A decision is made, but not published, and as a result the volunteer may be dismissed from OTRS service, with no explanation, and no notification of any appeal process (none is publicly documented publicly), and no notification of what should be done to remedy the supposed "concern". As I said before, and quoted above, "This needs to be sorted out, before you start asking for more volunteers." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Matthewrbowker: No response? Anyone else? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Fæ, Pajz, HJ Mitchell, Tuvalkin, Jkadavoor, FDMS4, Colin, and Multichill from the 2015 discussion for invitation. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Every time OTRS is mentioned on Commons I hear about the "Purge". I am not sure what happen or how many people lost they rights but I do not think we need to dig into it. We have a problem with a backlog now, and we are presently in a process of alienating people donating images. I ask many new users to send their permissions to OTRS, they dutifully comply and than their images are deleted. They might not be around to see them undeleted and I do not have time to research which pages they were removed from. So undeletion does not restore them to the article they were intended for. We need more volunteers, and at least for time being more Commons admins with OTRS rights, because in most cases we need images to get undeleted. --Jarekt (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Im willing to help. I already have OTRS rights on some projects, but not on commons permissions. I belive I shouldnt apply for commons rights here on Meta, but at otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org? I understood there was some problems regarding instructions what to do,do?I suggest you provide an easy ad how to help, 1. where to apply for the rights 2 link to instructions, in order to get more users working with this. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Dan Koehl, that is great you ask for access at OTRS/Volunteering. I am not aware of any instructions for that queue, and I am not an expert, as I only began helping there about a week ago. In the past I worked a lot with OTRS tickets, fixing files with incorrect OTRS ticket numbers and handling specific tickets when asked, but I am a newbie when it comes to handling a queue. I agree that we need instructions on how to handle a queue and I will look into starting one, although it might be better if some with more experience with permissions-commons wrote them. There are 200 people on c:Category:Commons_OTRS_volunteers list. --Jarekt (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I confess, I'm also confused about the "Purge," I've never heard that term. The only mass-removal I'm aware of is when we were required to implement an NDA (viewable here and here. I know we had some problems with the first drafts of these documents, and didn't handle questions very well at all. These documents have since been modified and updated.

@Dan Koehl: thank you for thinking about volunteering! If you already have OTRS access, go ahead and post on otrs-wiki requesting additional rights. If you don't have OTRS access, post at meta. Our training is not that good, however; there is some documentation on our agent wiki. One of my long-term goals is to improve our training, and I'm always willing to hear feedback! If you need help, we also have a mailing list just for permissions. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 18:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Matthew. However, the phab links you provided are restricted to only members of the phab; I can't access them without login. Would you summarize the documented links please. Also, how "not that good" is the training? --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Asking for more volunteers, while the problems that caused past volunteers to leave, whether willingly or otherwise, and in a singel "Purge" or otherwise, is ridiculous. The same problems will recur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Keegan, Krd, Mailer diablo, MarcoAurelio, and Sphilbrick about this. --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged, sadly I don't see on what. Please advise if there is any question. --Krd 08:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Krd: Shall the OTRS service be investigated? Shall we do the RFC on Commons OTRS? If neither, besides asking for recruitments, how else do we solve the backlogging? --George Ho (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Be investigated to answer which question? RFC to achieve what? The backlog is a well understood problem, easily resolvable with the right people who do the routine work quickly, consistently and continuously over time. Sadly there are always not enough people who do, and even if they did the amount of work would magically increase and setup a new backlog at another level. A structural problem like at all other backlogged places, i.e. the most admin tasks on all wikis, which often stabilize on some level defined by a non-understood principle. (I could give you a few dozens of examples what absolutely should be done regarding permissions and OTRS as soon as all backlogs are clear. Fortunately no need to discuss them as this likely never happens.)

So I'd suggest to think solution oriented here. What can you personally offer to do to improve the situation? --Krd 10:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Krd: I read there was a mismanagement, which led to the current backlogging issue. Also, I read that the training was inadequate. That's why I asked for investigation. As for the RFC, I would like a feedback on the OTRS in general. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Asking for recruitment would be the last thing I want to do. Like Wikipedia, OTRS is voluntary. Therefore, I think investigating or more RFC discussions would resolve the backlogging more efficiently than asking for recruitment. --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have special insight and background information. Thank you for your work. --Krd 07:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. What shall we do next? --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

you could blow up OTRS and start over. we need a functional process design with training and feedback. the volunteer powers that be are incapable of providing the leadership necessary to run a process. you should expect thrashing and repeated dysfunctional conduct until adult supervision is provided. Slowking4 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I just want to give a small report here: I applied for permission on OTRS, and in my application mentioned I would search for a mentor, who could introduce me.I believe if I hadnt added that last sentence, my application wouldnt had been granted, because of my previously limited experience of copyright issues associated with OTRS. My application was however granted, on provision that I found some experienced user who would introduce me. An experienced OTRS admin offered me generously caching, and invested about an hour with me on IRC, with a number of selected tickets. Very considerate, step by step, we went through the different issues, and I learned a lot in this hour, and hope I have a basic understanding what to look for and checkup on permission tickets. I havnt done a lot of tickets since then, but this has other reasons, and I will soon continue to work on tickets and learn more. I even found a mail from a user who uploaded thre files in January, which had been accepted, and when reading through, discovered that those three files were not fully covered by the rules, and now they are deleted. (And may get undeleted, should the user return with complete permission records) In genera, I had a very positive experience from this mentorship, while the OTRS admin could also try me, and see to that I gave an impression of being qualified to continue going through permission tickets. I strongly recommend this concept should be developed, and maybe rationalized, so one coach at the same coach more than one user, in a semit teacher and class setup.Dan Koehl (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: Can you offer such a coaching for new permissions agents? --Krd 09:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Krd:, I dont think that would be such a good idea, I have too less experinece now, maybe later. I suggest that the OTRS-admins locate suitable coachers, nd kindly ask them for support oof such a project. I just want to recomennd the system, since it will bring in more users who can help, instead fo waiting for that anyone learn by their own. For rather many Wikimedia administrative functions suffer from low number of participants, simply because interested users who request to help, are supposed not to have enough experience and competence. In my POV, it would be better to educate the users who are interested, if they dot qualify, when they request different functions. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice. This has been discussed as lot of times, but there is nobody with free capacity to do so. Also, although you have strong arguments, I'm a bit doubtful regarding the actual need when I take the fact into account that every account creation I handled since 2015, likely more than 200, contained an explicit hint to contact me at any time if there is any question. Guess how many questions in total I ever got. --Krd 11:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• George Ho, Matthewrbowker and all: There is a proposal in Commons on how to improve the communication between the copyright holders and us. Jee 09:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The future of Wikispecies

As a long-term editor of both Wikispecies and Wikidata, I've been involved in a number of discussions about the future relationship of the two projects.

In particular, I'm keen to reduce the workload involved in maintaining two separate, parallel, sets of data, one on each project, and the confusion caused to our users when something is present on one, but not the other, or is present on both with conflicting data.

I have assumed that we would be moving to a model where the data is maintained on Wikidata, and transcluded onto Wikispecies (as it will be transcluded into, for example, Wikipedia infoboxes), with a more human-friendly presentation, and an editing interface for making changes to the underlying Wikidata data, also on Wikispecies. I have suggested this as the best solution, to Wikispecies users in various discussions.

For the first time, today, one replied by saying that "The data should be put in [Wikispecies]... Then mined by Wikidata for use in other projects. Data from WS to WD should be a one way flow chart ie WS --> WD --> all other projects." As I replied there, I see (outside of that discussion) no appetite whatsoever for that, or against adding and updating data directly in Wikidata.

What are the views of the wider Wikimedia community? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

As I understand the data model for Wikidata is flat while in Species it is a tree? Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata is a graph, but data can be extracted as a tree. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Andy you misunderstood me. I was speaking as a programmer sorry. I do not care if the data is stored in WD, I said it should be entered at WS then stored at WD, not the reverse. In SQL of course I would be using a text editor or a front end (eg Specify) to create my data, ie data entry, then I will execute an sql query (automatic) to save that information into my database (eg mysql) ie data management, using queries other programs such as a web browser can then take data using queries from the mysql database for viewing as desired, ie data usage. That is what I am getting at. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you prefer to enter the data on WS instead on WD? What makes it easier to enter the data at WS? ChristianKl (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically because taxonomic data is highly specialised and requires access to the complete data to do it well. I personally could enter data at WD, but most taxonomists wont. The advantage WS has it is clearly specialised in what taxonomists are interested in. It is much easier to convince them to edit there. Plus the way we lay the pages out, and align them is hierarchical, which is how the linnaean code works. We include all the pertinent data for a name to be validated. Is WS perfect? no. we need more editors, need to further refine our pages, differences between codes (eg plants, animals) being a big difficulty in getting a consistent format. But we work on it, and as many of us are taxonomists, we understand the codes implicitly and work with each other. I dont tell the botanists how to list the species because I know they have to work with their code, just as I a zoologist have to work with mine. We find a middle ground. We can tell whether to follow a particular proposal or not. Because that takes experience. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out in 2013, there was too much assuming and too little asking or discussing. Apart from me, for several years nobody bothered even checking what the Wikispecies community thought. I'm happy there is some discussion now.

Personally I've never been convinced that Wikispecies is a viable/worthwhile project, but I also never really looked into it so I don't have an opinion. In theory Wikidata can do better, mostly because imports of authoritative databases ought to be easier, but I've not seen a comprehensive plan yet.

Scraping Wikispecies to augment Wikidata sounds unlikely, but who knows, maybe it will be possible at some point as for Wiktionary as long as some researchers know about the possibility. Certainly it will never be a straightforward path. Nemo 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a side note @Pigsonthewing:, I have been saying this is the best model since the first discussions of WS and WD working together. Nobody has managed to create an all encompassing database of life yet. The highest is the Order level, most are incomplete, all are hand edited for data entry. Why? because it is not about the latest literature with an ISSN number and a DOI its also about some obscure piece of paper published in 1800 that probably no one alive has. You have to account for every type of every species named and tie them all together, cannot be done by database as 80% of the museum specimens in the world are not electronically catalogued, anywhere. It has to be done by hand and it is painstaking. Wikidata can not do this, for the simple reasons of 1. they do not want to, 2. they do not know how to. It is hard enough to get taxonomists interested in editing Wikispecies, and there they do it because its all Wikispecies does, they will not edit on WP or WD because they worry they will be expected to do other things. They do not have time. You have to take into account your human capacity to do what is a human data entry problem. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

When your refer to Wikidata as "they", who exactly do you mean? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

By they I am meaning a generalisation of the editors that are on Wikidata. It is not a criticism, it is not their specialty. I know there are a few exceptions to this, eg Succu and Brya, but they are few. Too few to cover 7 million eucaryotes. Let alone the rest. Let Wikidata do what it can be good at, database management. Leave taxonomy to what Wikispecies is good at. Data entry is at WS, data management at WD. It is the least risk approach to the data. The data is what we should all care about. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that there will always be some data entry at WD and there might be conflicts between data entry at Wikidata and data entry at WikiSpecies. ChristianKl (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to referencing obscure papers, Wikidata will likely get better at it through WikiFactMine. I don't see where the worry about expectations to do something else come from. Part of how a Wiki works is that everybody does more or less what he thinks important. ChristianKl (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Fwiw: On en.wn and en.wb, we don't remove local interwiki markup once the information is also on Wikidata. I see several fundamental problems with keeping such information only on Wikidata.

• By keeping it in a centralized location one maximizes damage caused both accidentally and maliciously. When something does go wrong, it is made easy for local users to not notice, and hard for them to notice even if they're trying to; and difficult for them to fix the problem.
• The Wikidata model is fundamentally unsuited to sole direction of interwikis. Wikidata is a rigid ontology, greatly concerned with separating items with any semantic difference, just one of which must then be selected to provide interwikis for a local page. Interwikis, by contrast, are links provided for readers to whatever is the closest analog to a page on other-language projects; these are most useful when they are based on a liberal interpretation of the analogy, and they benefit both the reader, source project, and destination project. There are plenty of cases where generating interwikis from the Wikidata ontology systematically deprives the local projects of interwikies, thus materially damaging the local projects. I've noticed this happens even on Wikipedias (though the examples I can think of are on en.wn, the project I'm most familiar with); it's common to have a page that covers several topics on one project (e.g., n:Category:Guantanamo Bay), then other projects have pages that cover a superset, subset, or just partially overlapping set of those.
• The loss of local control is also unhealthy for the local projects, especially if they're small. The systematic removal of customized interwiki markup painstakingly created over the years gives a psychological impression that local volunteers' efforts are not valued, and the move to Wikidata likewise suggests devaluing of local contribution.

Ideally, imho, each local page would have local interwiki markup and a prioritized list of Wikidata items; by default, an interwiki would be drawn from the first-listed item, failing that from the second, and so on. If there were a disagreement between the local interwiki and Wikidata, local users would be offered a choice, either to change the local markup; to change Wikidata; to offer a possible change for Wikidatans to consider; or to make a note that there is a good reason for the discrepancy, so that local users don't just keep being pestered to change it until they do, and so that later users who do consider the discrepancy have a conveniently located record of why someone thought the discrepancy ought to stand. (I hope that sort of thing will become possible, after a while, as use of wikidialog becomes increasingly sophisticated over time. I consider such customizations fundamentally should not be provided/maintained by a central authority, but by the local communities themselves, which is the point of wikidialog.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata is the perfect candidate, not to replace Wikispecies as a project, but to provide the underlining structure to host its contents. Wikispecies is precious as it is a project centred on biology, with a higher proportion of specialised contribution from academia than in many other projects. It provides a valid platform for confrontation and to discuss taxa. However, writing Wikipedia-style pages that duplicate the information already present in the categories in Commons is not effective. As suggested, I see the future of Wikispecies as a dedicated (and very very simple) interface to Wikidata. In that way, both projects would benefit from eachother directly. However, some work has still to be done to achieve this. --Ruthven (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I very much agree on this @Ruthven:, the problem is that, at least some members feel like it would be a threat against WS existence, if all records were submitted directly to WD. I think one way to gain confidence in this ambition, could be to create an interface on WS where the users could try out a second option, submitting records at WS, while they would get stored on WD. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Dan Koehl, that's why I talked about the interface, as the mandatory step to integrate the two projects. Many information in Wikipedia is already being migrated on Wikidata, which provides a structured way to keep information. I feel that users on WS will be familiar with that, as wikidata items looks very like the cards in a museum catalogue. Then, the links between cards can be easily changed, like branches in an taxonomic tree ;) --Ruthven (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

yes, and to simplify even more, see to that as many items as possible could be dropdowns, like higher taxa and such, so the "work" gets faster. If as much work which is tedious to do manually, could be more effectively rationalized, with dropdowns, Ajax pre choices etc, not only the work would be easier and faster, but the quality would also reach a higher level. I have spent hours with AWB on WS, just correcting misspellings and false attributions, which would be eliminated, if the user could choose from dropdowns made on the fly, while they are editing. I am not sure, bit I think that the system with all those templates could be omitted, once the template content would be submitted once, and ready to use in dropdowns. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The thing is as has been acknowledged the editors at wikispecies, who do the main pages on the taxa, are largely specialists. They are motivated by the taxonomy, are scientists. When it comes to that data they know what they are doing. There is a current ICZN commissioner with 300 edits there. For myself I have twice been nominated as a commissioner. I am all for an interface that send the data on wikispecies to Wikidata. That interface needs to be designed with the input of wikispecies taxonomists. Currently the information on Wikidata is incomplete from a taxonomic and nomenclatural viewpoint. They are not specialists they do not realise what is important data and what is extra data for a species. It is also important that what appears on wikispecies is not overwritten by information from Wikidata that some editor who is not a specialist has put together. Anything Family and higher could be utilised from Wikidata via templates, the family higher taxonomy is stable and what changes are made are rare. But below family is very dynamic. At species level we are technically dealing with unstable data. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I partially agree with you Faendalimas. It is clear that a page on the future Wikispecies will update Wikidata, as any other project can, with a correctly implemented interface. You can pull information from Wikidata (as it is done in several templates all around the projects, e.g. the coordinates of a monument), and also push them in certain cases. Wikispecies, as an interface, will directly update Wikidata items, as I see it. New fields can and should be added to match taxonomy needs. For what I see, what is missing (but I can be wrong) is a data structure to store bibliography items, in order to use them for a taxa. But, all these beautiful data must be editable by anyone, otherwise it would be against one of the Pillars. --Ruthven (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: I appreciate the the issue with regards the Pillars of Wikimedia. This very pillar is the one that makes it difficult to get scientists to edit. Though this is not always the case and many scientists manage it. I want to see a way developed that has Wikidata be a database, and Wikispecies be the input interface. There are currently an average of 2-300 new reptile species named every year (this is just one group). Over my career the number of species has gone from 3200 to 10400 known species. This is what I mean by dynamic. Of course this does not include rearrangements of names. I have already suggested that wikidata have a species field, and that this field have the following identifiers: Name, Parent Taxon, Original Reference, Original Combination, Current Combination, Current Combination Reference, Holotype, Type Locality, Etymology, Synonymy. It should also have a similar one for higher orders, eg Genus, main difference would be type species instead of Holotype, and no need for type locality. The above are the data-points needed to justify a name. Having stated-in is irrelevant, anyone can state whatever they like it does not make it correct. For a name you need the reference for the name's declaration and the reference for its current combination. On the issue of bibliographic information, I happen to agree, Wikispecies needs to change its referencing system to make it more usable for data collection, the current one does not work. We have two issues there. First a number of editors their are not that familiar with modern data usage, making it difficult to get consensus, another of WM foundations, second what changes have been proposed have been suggested as ways for Wikispecies to assist Wikidata, not as a means for Wikispecies to help itself. In other words they have been badly worded and seen as having ulterior motives. In the end I want to see an information flow that makes sense, is in the best interests of accurate data and is highly usable. But it requires some people on both sides of this discussion to take a breath and see the bigger picture. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Sorry to interrupt, Faendalimas and Ruthven; the "Five Pillars" link refers to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia), not Wikimedia. The real Five Pillars at meta-wiki is a dabpage here, which shows Founding principles and Values as links. I mean no offense; just reminding you both. BTW, does Wikispecies have its own set of principles, like "Five Pillars"? --George Ho (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @George Ho: noted, and please do not apologise, if I say something incorrect tell me. From this perspective we do follow the principal that anyone can edit. We encourage people to edit. However, we do tend to hold off on autopatrol rights until we see what they are doing. We do have some fairly hefty requirements for evidence presented for major changes to the current taxonomy. That is if a new editor tries to make nomenclatural changes without providing the evidence we are going to question this. It does not mean they are wrong, we just want to see the published work that supports the claim. We do not have our own set of principals though, we follow the general WM ones. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no worries ;). --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(conflicted) Well, no problem at all, call it Founding principle then: The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration. In any case, I doubt that a regular user knows about the very last species discovered, or about holotypes, so the risk of vandalism is reduced. Another thing I was thinking about, is to have a trace of synonyms (which I always find difficult to find) and maybe a period they were used. --Ruthven (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Synonyms are complicated depending on how you deal with them. Most databases have entries for all names proposed within the group the database covers, they then have a field that flags the name as valid or invalid, and will list that it is a junior synonym of "x" species. This way only one name for each species will be valid. Then if you do an sql query it will display all the junior synonyms of the valid species name. However that requires entries for all names ever used and since species can have as many as 20 junior synonyms that is a massive blowout of data space just to create a synonymy. I do not think there is value in Wikidata doing it this way. Locating all the synonyms of a species, thats a tough one. I am about to publish a new synonymy for a species with 5 names in it not previously recognised as being that species. It can take me years of research to track down all the names and it can be very difficult to figure out which species a name applies to. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Faendalimas writes. But in the long term everything in Wikispecies could be included in Wikidata. Short term, comparing Wikidata with the "ideal-database-that-has-everything-taxonomical", it is apparent that Wikidata is mostly empty (missing 99% or so, of all data) and has lots of error. Everything that anybody enters into any Wikimedia project ends up in Wikidata, and quality suffers accordingly. In fact, at the moment Wikispecies is a major source of errors for Wikidata (may well cause the majority of errors in Wikidata). Also of unwanted material. - Brya (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

New Projects:

• Vida
• Foods
• Homes
• World
• Universe
• Clothes
• Factory
• Television
• Cars
• Cultivos
• Planes
• Solar

--Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Javier José Moreno Tovar18: No se' que prefieras espan~ol o ingles pero... You have proposed way too many projects at once, with virtually no forethought. None of these will be accepted as projects. Some of these could be good user groups though. Focusing on finding other editors interested in these topics and how you can collaborate across existing projects. E.g. Foods: there are articles on Wikipedia, a cookbook on Wikibooks, you can make cooking and nutrition resources at Wikiversity, etc. There is no need for an entirely separate WMF project related to food nor is there any prospect of one getting made. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯

Hello Justin, I really hope we can do something about it, we need urgently to focus on activities, that's what those projects are about, and I'm not propossing one for each area of knowledge, just those ones that are really vital, we need urgently a world of free access to goods and services, and cultivation and foods are in the center of this for example, and we also need urgently a free production community and a free access to physics labs for example, that's why we are proppossing those groups, just the most important ones. --Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Energy usage report

Does the Wikipedia Foundation release a report outlining which energy sources (wind, coal, etc.) power the servers which run sites such as Wikipedia?

Daylen (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

See Sustainability Initiative for some data published by WMF. I suppose there is some page(s) maintained by WMF for publishing such info, but I do not know where. --LPfi (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

• Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (16 February 2017)
  • Development of documentation for Tracks A & B
• Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (24 February 2017)
  • Introduction of Track Leads for all four audience tracks
• Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 March 2017)
  • Seeking feedback on documents being used to help facilitate upcoming community discussions

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help

en.wikipedia Teahouse

There is a discussion happening here regarding the en.wiki Teahouse which may be of interest to a wider community. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be only enwiki related. Stryn (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of page edit history (forget I asked)

How do I request the removal of pages from the edit history? --WPPilot (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but I cannot understand what you're trying to achieve or question. See Help:Page history for what the edit history of pages are for. —MarcoAurelio 18:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Usually, if content is to be deleted, there is a process for it and any admin can do it. Completely deleting the page history is reserved for Oversight/Suppressors and is rare. It's usually done for legal reasons or in cases of wanton abuse. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Marco the request was a normal one by all accords in other projects removal of history by request is done all the time. Sorry I asked. I will not waste time here again cheers...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WPPilot (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2017‎ (UTC)

Re-pinging Marco as pinging didn't work without sig. --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@WPPilot: I'm not sure why you're acting this way: there's no reason to be so cryptic or to have your feelings hurt. It's not common to ask that the entire history of a page be deleted. If you want that, just contact an Oversighter and provide your reason. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Acting this way, what on earth are you talking about? I asked a question and was told no after some ding dong spouted out I beg your pardon, as if I was asking for something out of line. It was clear that the question was answered and I removed it, to be belittled is not something that I enjoy nor will I tolerate, it was rude. Nothing cryptic here, I made a mistake and drafted a proposal that I would like to remove, its a waste of time and energy plus it would be only applicable to me, so I made the mistake of asking a simple question to be greeted with "I beg your pardon". If you care to direct me to a oversighter, then fine, if not great, thank you for allowing me to waste my time, here, again.....--WPPilot (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I know that "I beg your pardon" is offensive... —MarcoAurelio 11:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@WPPilot: I am sorry if I have had your feelings hurt. It was certainly not my intention whatsover. —MarcoAurelio 12:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@WPPilot: "after some ding dong spouted out I beg your pardon" -- Now I do beg your pardon: calling me a complete fucking idiot is absolutely unnaceptable and I demand that you retract that statement. —MarcoAurelio 13:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: you were being a ding dong, (ding-dong /ˈdiNGdôNG/ noun informal noun: ding-dong; plural noun: ding-dongs; noun: dingdong; plural noun: dingdongs) 1. "North American: a silly or foolish person ".) I called a spade a spade, as I thought your comment was silly, nothing more, that is a far cry from "a complete fucking idiot" but if the shoe fits, wear it.

The"urbandictionary.com" is not a reputable source, the one I found (the Oxford dictionary) is. I am not going to play into this, I am sorry that I ever drafted anything thing on this stupid site. I would rather have all of my contributions removed. I will not contribute here again. Go play your word games with someone else. Please do not contact me again, ever. Don't use the language if you don't understand what your saying or need to rely on unreliable websites quoting "Urban" terms to attack me...

También hablo español bastante bien, pero sé lo suficiente como para no usarlo cuando estoy tratando con personas en este sitio web. Demasiadas cosas pueden ser fáciles de entender mal como lo han demostrado. --WPPilot (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, if you wish that I pretend that you didn't mean to use ding dong in the way I quoted to you then it's your choice, but I've an age already to know what people want to tell. Don't pretend that calling me either a silly or foolish person is not a personal attack. You've been the only intentional rude here so you only have yourself to blame. And I'm going nowhere. If you wish to leave this project que lleves tanta gloria como paz nos dejas but you're made a storm out of a cup of tea, so don't blame others for that. I already apologized if my "I beg your pardon" offended you twice (three times counting this). If you really know Spanish you'll know how easy is to mess things when using literal translation (ruego que me disculpe ~ I beg your pardon, which is a very polite introduction). I'm not demanding apologies for that not for asking you to stop the profanity caused by this misunderstanding. But don't worry, I won't contact you again and I hope that you don't either to me or others on this site in the absolute unpolite way you've done so far or you'll have your access to this site disabled as well. And please, stop being disruptive hidding this thread. It'll be archived by a bot when the time comes. —MarcoAurelio 15:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If you honestly think that for a moment I meant the word as anything other then silly you are only fooling yourself. Now your threatening to block me as you want the term to be the Urban version as opposed to the normal way ALL American's use the word as you found that on a webpage..... OMG. I do not use the Urban version of the English language. You are the first person to ever have contact with on this site and I was met with something, well a phrase that was inappropriate to me as the first three words from you. I tried to bring to your attention that its use was off handed and unsavory. I did not know your English was nominal till I looked at your user page. This exchange demonstrates how a single piece of sand ventures off into a mountain over nothing. You could have left it at face value but you found a site that made the assertion I intended a word that IS [A CUP CAKE COATED WITH CHOCOLATE IN EVERY STORE IN AMERICA], and turned it into something repulsive, as you found it on the web and you want to block me now over it. ahhhhhh once again OMG........--WPPilot (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to block you. Instead I'd really love that this whole misunderstanding be settled out for good. How shall I do, in your opinion, to achieve that? —MarcoAurelio 16:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Marco, WPPilot (who is declared retired from the meta) meant undoing his contributions to Grants:Learning patterns/Plan aerial photography projects. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@WPPilot: MarcoAurelio es un ejemplo de un Oversighter. Hay tres ma's tambien. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 3/20/2017

Wiki 4 Coop

Hello everyone,

I come to you to invite to re-read the submission of a new partnership project between the Wikimedia movement and the Belgian NGOs. The project is titled Wiki 4 Coop and I invite you to discover its submission page on Meta-Wiki. Do not hesitate to endorse the project if you like it and even correct my English if you have a little time. A beautiful end of day for all of you, Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 11:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)

This message, "We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)", was sent through multiple channels by Gregory Varnum on 15 and 16 of March 2017 to village pumps, affiliate talk pages, movement mailing lists, and MassMessage groups. A similar message was sent by Nicole Ebber to organized groups and their mailing lists on 15 of March 2017. This version of the message is available for translation and documentation purposes

Dear Wikimedians/Wikipedians:

Today we are starting a broad discussion to define Wikimedia's future role in the world and develop a collaborative strategy to fulfill that role. You are warmly invited to join the conversation.

There are many ways to participate, by joining an existing conversation or starting your own:

Track A (organized groups): Discussions with your affiliate, committee or other organized group (these are groups that support the Wikimedia movement).

Track B (individual contributors): On Meta or your local language or project wiki.

This is the first of three conversations, and it will run between now and April 15. The purpose of cycle 1 is to discuss the future of the movement and generate major themes around potential directions. What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?

We welcome you, as we create this conversation together, and look forward to broad and diverse participation from all parts of our movement.

• Find out more about the movement strategy process
• Learn more about volunteering to be a Discussion Coordinator

Sincerely,

Nicole Ebber (Track A Lead), Jaime Anstee (Track B Lead), & the engagement support teams

05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Reporting abuses

What's the best place to report abuses of the administrators of a Wikipedia in a specific language? —  Ark25  (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no place to report them. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You can discuss it here if you may, Ark25. May you specify which Wikipedia (like Czech Wikipedia) and which language? BTW, there is Requests for comment, which has subpages about other Wikipedias. --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, I think Requests for comment is a better place to report admin abuses, I see many others opened such topics there. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If the specific Wikipedia has an arbitration committee you can report to them as well, they are supposed to be independent though in practice there might be some admins present.  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  12:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia is filed. I tried to find the Romanian version of ArbCom, especially from ro:Categorie:Pagini de serviciu. I could not understand the language. Nevertheless, ro:WP:ABR refers to biographical articles; ro:WP:AB/R, Romanian version of reassessing Good Articles; ro:WP:AB, Good Articles. I don't think Romanian ArbCom exists, does it? --George Ho (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating Tamil Wikisource count

Tamil Wikisource has reached 409,974 pages per https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/Sitemap.htm. Please update the main page of Wikisource to reflect that. Thanks.--Shriheeran (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Endowment

May I please have some substantive answers from the WMF to the questions asked at Talk:Wikimedia Endowment#How should we select members of the Wikimedia Endowment Advisory board?.

For background, see User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia : Wikipedia -- user pages

In WP I have a user page. In WM I presently do not. In WP my user name shows up blue (page exists) and in WM it is red (does not exist). While I might become a WM contributor, presently I am not.

This entry started because I want to email a WP / WM contributor to ask about a photograph. In order to email the contributor I must be logged in. I write this entry only after several fruitless searches in the help and forum sections.

This question is multi-fold --

• Can someone email a WM contributor if one only has a WP user name?

• Are there are shortcuts / techniques for linking from WM to WP?

• Are there expectations that WP users should (or should not) create a dual WM page?

• Are these questions answered elsewhere in WM and if so how would one know?

Thanks

GeeBee60 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your account is 'global' (what we call single user login, also known as SUL) which allows you to seamlessly move between projects, and as a result, when you click on a link to this site (Meta) from English Wikipedia, you're automatically logged in. This means you're able to e-mail contributors on Meta (but as almost all contributors have the same global account that you have, you can e-mail users from English Wikipedia).

There are ways to shortcut between projects, not just from Meta to English Wikipedia or vice-versa, but to our other sister projects. Please see Help:Interwiki_linking

If you create a userpage here on Meta, it will appear on every other sister project, so you could move your English Wikipedia user page from English Wikipedia to Meta, or you can create a different userpage here. It's entirely up to you. There's no expectations either way. You're welcome to have a userpage, but equally, to not have a userpage.

There's a variety of information here on Meta, and across Wikipedia. It's sometimes difficult to find this information, but a bit of searching will usually reveal most of your information you're looking for. Google sometimes works better than the site search here. And if all else fails, you can ask, just as you did earlier. Nick (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Nick for your help / advice. Might I suggest adding Help:Interwiki_linking to the sidebar. GeeBee60 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: worth reading Global user pages as meta is specially configured among the wikis to assist functioning of user pages (and user scripts) at all WMF wikis. To add some other links to give background, also see Single unified login; email sending depends on the setting that each user sets AND on each wiki, ie. I have it on here, though may have it off on other wikis; the dynamic list of shortcuts available are at special:interwiki and available at each wiki. To adding a link to the sidebar, umm, it is a tricky one, especially for multilanguage wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you billinghurst sDrewth . Now I must stop following this thread (that I started); the Wiki world is a wondrous vortex and I feel adequately informed. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No editing for 30 minutes on two days

Due to the server switch project, all of the wikis will be in read-only mode for 20 to 30 minutes on two days soon:

• Wednesday, 19 April 2017, starting at 14:00 UTC
• Wednesday, 3 May 2017 (two weeks later), starting at 14:00 UTC

If you are a MediaWiki hacker, then please note that the normal deployment schedule has been canceled during both of those weeks.

There is more information at Tech/Server switch 2017, including a link to the official schedule. Please leave a message on my user talk page or "ping" me if you have any questions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF):Will this message be pushed to the local wiki? If not, I will manually push this message to my wiki community.——星耀晨曦 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech/Server switch 2017 will be sent to all of the pages listed at Distribution list/Global message delivery, probably around 13 April 2017. You can add any missing pages/wikis to the distribution list, and you can help by translating (and reviewing the translations) of the message. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

• April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
• April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
• April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
• May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
• May 15–19 – Board vote checking
• May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

• Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
  • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

• Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
  • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-electionswikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help