User talk:Pundit

Alex Pereira ^falaê 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You said I didn't ask you personally for translation so my argument was pointless. So now I'd ask you for your cooperation to update WMF website Polish version content, particularly Translation requests/WMF/About Wikimedia/pl (last major update was in March 2005) and Translation requests/WMF/Home/pl (last update was this February but the translator seems to work on a wrong version so it should be corrected). Requests for update were issued publicly at least twice iirc, but there was no responce, different from other language communities, sadly.

Thanks in advance. --Aphaia 05:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pundit. Thank you very much for translating {{user language}}. The template has recently been changed to add two new levels, 0 and 4 (see detailed descriptions). Please update Template:User language/pl:

• 0: this user cannot read or write Polski.
• 4: this user can contribute at a near-native level in Polski. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My obligations. You're welcome. --minhhuy ^(talk) 04:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pundit. I'm trying to make a choice for what to vote at your steward elections. And that's really not easy in your situation. On the one hand, you clearly have not enough cross-wiki experience. But on the other hand, you should have a perfect understanding of the privacy policy, which is nice for a steward.

For me, you are somebody who can be trusted. In my opinion, we don't necessarily need stewards speaking ten different languages, but people that speak correctly English and that respect policies. We also need people who are active enough to reduce the amount of work. On-wiki requests don't stay for more than 12 hours generally, so to me we don't need steward that plan to only handle on-wiki requests.

What we really need are people meeting the requirements above (for me, you are in this situation), and being active on IRC to handle emergencies and private user requests. And that's the point which makes me not really comfortable to support you at this stage. You answered to the question I asked that you "would be available at the proper IRC channel". I have waited three weeks and I haven't seen you on any IRC channel I am. Could you please make an effort to be there more often ? It's not that hard to connect on IRC, but you can believe me, I'm pretty sure you will be really helpful there.

Thanks by advance. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pundit! On behalf of the stewards' election committee, congratulations on your appointment as a steward! Your permissions have now been set and you are able to start the work.

You have been added to the list of stewards and the stewards' chart. Please take a moment to check that your details are accurate and update them if necessary. In addition, please subscribe to checkuser-l, the private mailing list for Wikimedia checkusers, and stewards-l, the private list for stewards. In addition, you will be given access to the related private wikis, one for checkusers and the other solely for stewards, details of which will be provided.

If you use IRC, please contact an operator for access to #wikimedia-checkuser and #wikimedia-privacy. Please also idle in #wikimedia-stewards when you are available for duty.

Best of luck with your new tools; I am sure you will do a fantastic job. Please remember that your fellow stewards are always available if you need a second opinion, either via the mailing list or on IRC.

Useful links:

• Stewards policy
• Steward handbook
• Steward requests

On behalf of the election committee,
— [ Tanvir | Talk ] 01:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for comments on in this matter. I much appreciate your level-headed approach here. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wanna thank you here but I'm unable to edit as the discussion there exceeded my device's (5000 characters max.) edit window support that's why using your talk page. So, thanks a lot for granting me the access. You are welcome on my pa.wiktionary talk page. And, if possible, please add my Thanks there. Thank you again. --tari Buttar (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pundit, just wanted to let you know that I've emailed you. Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 22:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

For the record I agree with you that working with the Journal of Peer Production could be nice -- partly because their "scope" is right (IMO), in that it's "not just wikis". However, there are a number of questions, most notably it's "their show" -- they have set up software and workflows, so it might be difficult to make changes (e.g. to make the journal more like a laboratory). One possible route would be to invite them to help us set up our own system, using what they've learned. This leaves the door open to future collaboration, but also allows some flexibility about the details of the setup. Of course, it would take more work on our part. Arided (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree. The advantages are in the already established board (but surely open to new people), some tools, workflows, etc. The laboratory part, in my view, has to be technically separate from the submit-review-revise-publish cycle anyway, and there if we are to be successful, recognized, etc., we need to rely on the existing tools. Pundit (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is to recognize your hard work on the first round of the FDC! Thanks! Jan-Bart (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Great work! Thanks for your commitment! Patricio.lorente (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I do not know English. Turkish Wikipedia is growing problems. Solution required. I'm not happy.--İncelemeelemani (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message. I put in some information for now and am planning to add in some more details over the next two days.--Runab WMF (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pundit, Just so you know we have answered your questions on our FDC proposal. Please feel free to follow-up on them if you need any more information to better understand our proposal. Best Schiste (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey Pundit,

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

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

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

Many Thanks

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dariusz, I'm emailing you shortly on a Signpost matter. Tony (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dariusz,

I would like to ask you to take a look at the recent GAC request submitted by the WMCZ community. My concern is that this is some bridge solution between GAC and FDC and I am not very sure if this is in GAC's scope. On the other hand, I am not sure if WMCZ is ready for the full FDC process - their FDC submission got mixed reviews and no funding due to several reasons, mostly issues with reporting/grant handling like programmes' description and reports on former grants past due.

As this might be a "chicken and egg" problem, I would like to consult with you about FDC's feelings about WMCZ's proposals and what path we can take with this community.

Best Regards, more on pl.wiki,
aegis maelstrom δ 07:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will alert the FDC to this, thanks. Pundit (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pundit, you're hardly active on en.wp as per en:Special:Contributions/Pundit, so could you explain how you came to vote in Piotrus' RfA on that project[1]. Seriously, we know that canvassing is not allowed, so I am unsure why you have engaged in it for Piotrus. I would probably advise that you strike your vote there; before I have an issue made of it. Russavia (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Russavia, thank you for your inquiry. I do not edit en-wiki much, but I visit the watchlist daily. I also try to follow RfAs, but only vote when I spot someone I know or when I feel comfortable to weigh in (which is hardly ever, due to my inactivity). I know Piotrus as a researcher, and I met him in HKG. In any case, Piotrus has a snowball chance of making it through anyway :) Pundit (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please step in and block this vandal on en.wikiquote (no local admin around to stop the disruption). Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, vandal already taken care of. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pundit, please check your email inbox for a message I sent a minute ago. :) Cheers, Mathonius (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dariusz,

thank you for the call for participation. I am sorry that it took me that long: you know the reasons.

If it is not too late, I have put 2 cents on the page, feel free to read. I am sorry it is not better structured and more complex (and earlier :) ) but I hope it gives some perspective. 3 key points would be:

• High costs of Silicon Valley Office and an opportunity to off-shore / build competence centres on cheaper markets, maybe run by affiliates;
• Need of search for new UX models - which is demanding both in terms of a budget and management;
• High, rising and inprecisely described general costs.

Kind Regards,
aegis maelstrom δ 22:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You renamed Umafiy to FuzzyDice, without first checking whether a Fuzzydice existed. It did: Special:Centralauth/Fuzzydice, and in renaming, you assigned a username that AntiSpoof would have stopped the creation for... I don't know what we should do now with FuzzyDice, but you need to check existing users before renaming. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

We should probably get them to put in a system where it would force us to tick a box to overrule AntiSpoof, I think. It's so easy to forget about it :( Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, permalinks are very appreciated in log entries for rights changes. Thanks! --Nemo 11:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I wanted to thank you for closing my nomination. Regards.--Avocato (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much Pundit, for your quick assistance over renaming my Global account. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:!dea4u&diff=prev&oldid=10346104 I have few queries in my mind post, the rename process; like 1) Is my Userid been changed across all projects? 2)I am still seeing old username at few places in wikipedia, How can they be removed/replaced? (  !dea4u   04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC))Reply

Hi Pundit , week ago I've applied for rights and got the administrator privileges. Thank you for your attention. -Beko (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I checked, the bot removed rights. Can you restores? Thanks! -Beko (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pundit, I need to get temporary Admin Rights in the ie.wikipedia again as we need to merge some pages as they are double. This refers to the articles ie:Posen and ie:Lieberec. I want to transfer the additional contents to the other articles about this town and then delete them. Also the article about the non-existing Indian writer reappeared. Where can I ask for temporary adminship? We had a direct link here, but unfortunately it has been deleted. Thank you for your help! Valodnieks (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've emailed you. Thanks, Tony (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Pundit. It seems good-faith newcomers often get bitten unintentionally by people using editing tools, even when many editors, shown the newcomer's edits in a survey, don't agree that they should reverted. Can you think of changes to these tools that might help? HLHJ (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I admit I haven't read your book, though it looks interesting. I did read the questions, including the one I think you mean. I was wondering if you had any specific ideas, but you're right; it would be better to ask everyone on IdeaLab. HLHJ (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Dariusz -- as you're aware, I endorsed your candidacy, so I am especially pleased to see you join the Board of Trustees. Well done -- and best of luck in moving the organization and the movement toward a brighter future! -Pete F (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Congratulations on your win. Best wishes.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Dear Dariusz - Congratulations on your success.... Hope the foundation and the movement will be strengthened with your endeavors.. Ahmed Nisar (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Dear Dariusz, I congratulate you for your success in this election and I am extremely sure that you can better efficiently the main performances of Wikimedia Foundation these years. --Csisc (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• For great justice! --Ricordisamoa 17:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Congratulations. --Uğurkent^talk 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• I'm very pleased for your success at the Board of Trustees' elections. I voted for you. We met in the end of your speech at Wikimania 2014 and asked you to sign a copy of your book.--Salah Almhamdi (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I was intrigued by your comment on Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard, specifically regarding Superprotect. First, I was not aware that SP had been used to enforce VisualEditor. I am aware of at least one occasion it was used on WikiData, but the evidence I have seen is that SP was actually unnecessary; there were other tools which were already in use. But I am very ready to be corrected on that event.

Can you explain your "initiative ... to resolve the SuperProtect issue"? This is a topic of considerable interest to me. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 01:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the timely response!

We may not be able to agree about the usefulness of the tool as its only purpose is to enforce a power differential between the Community and the Foundation; all other use cases I have seen presented may already be accomplished via other means. That is, it cannot be useful except to the Foundation to overrule the Community.

However, I am certainly interested in working toward resolutions which reduce conflict. A good first step is usually to make clear the current state of affairs. As far as I am aware, no public log of the use of Superprotect is available, possibly leading to distrust on the community's part because they do not know the scope of its use. If there is such a public log, it should be advertised at least on Meta, perhaps at Superprotect as well as in Special:SpecialPages. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 14:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

<nod> Again, we may end up needing to agree to disagree; my opinion is there are other tools which have been successfully used, so there is no specific need for a tool as brutal as Superprotect. However, repeating my previous point, currently Superprotect is a secret weapon which has altered the relationship between the foundation (the child of the community) and the community. It appears to me to have a chilling effect on discussion, and on creativity; people are simply not challenging the status quo, pushing the envelope to see if it can do X, or arguing as hard for/against changes they think would help/harm their work. And a lot of people have retired. I think a very important step—assuming the tool will continue to be a core part of Mediawiki, so I am not arguing for its removal in this discussion—is to reduce the mystery and secrecy by publishing a log of its use. This should have the dual effects of reducing fear/uncertainty/doubt for the community because they will see when/where it used and will better understand why, and may result in fewer uses when other options exist - Maslow's hammer¹ otherwise. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

For the anon only block you did for https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FGlobal&type=revision&diff=13002524&oldid=12998480 there is still a /32 block in place, which will need to excised somehow. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalBlockList/2001:41D0:2:7530:0:0:0:0 Looks butt ugly in reality, and might be better to look to IPBE.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

You shouly only remove his adminship. Why you also removed IP block exempt and transwiki importer flag?--GZWDer (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! The Wikimedia Foundation would like your input on how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project.

After reading the Reimagining WMF grants idea, we ask you to complete this survey to help us improve the idea and learn more about your experience. When you complete the survey, you can enter to win one of five Wikimedia globe sweatshirts!

In addition to taking the the survey, you are welcome to participate in these ways:

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

This survey is in English, but feedback on the discussion page is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is a reminder that the consultation about Reimagining WMF grants is closing on 8 September (0:00 UTC). We encourage you to complete the survey now, if you haven't yet done so, so that we can include your ideas.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Hi there,

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

Here’s how to participate:

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

Take care,

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

Please Open that by final decision please Now Wiki Thai want to open them [2] [3] --Parintar (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pundit,
Hope all is well in your end. My name is María, I am communications and outreach coordinator in the Community Engagement department at WMF. I need to reach out to you over email about your participation at WMCON 2016. The email address I have is bouncing back, however. Could you please let me know the best way to reach you? Otherwise, you can also email me at mcruzwikimedia · org. Looking forward to your message!
Best, María (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

With great thanks,

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

Dear Sir, I have been working here for eight years. Last year, probably in February, my username Shahab was forcefully changed into an ugly username Shahab~urwiki for the sake of unified login/ Global account policy, by wikipedia management. Getting dishearted, I started using my another username which is شہاب, and requested to kindly merge my two accounts one year ago (see here- serial number 55). My request is still pending due to unavailability of merging tools.
Now, when I tried to cast vote for steward elections, I was labelled "ineligible" by bot. If my both username would have been merged, I becomes eligible to cast vote.
I therefore humbly request you to kindly assess my eligibility to cast vote for steward election by manual means (instead of using some bot).

thanks
previous name: Shahab~urwiki
current name: شہاب

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

• Please join us at the Harassment workshop!

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

Hi Dariusz, could you please look into the issue of which Board meeting approved the 2015–2016 budget of $2,445,873 for the Knowledge Engine/Discovery? (See grant application, p. 9, which says the budget obtained Board approval.)

I've asked about it twice on the mailing list, [4][5] and I've looked through the minutes, but I can't find it. I'm hoping that, as a member of the Board Governance Committee, you'll be in a position to look into it further. Best wishes, SarahSV ^talk 01:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

While we have a few differences of opinion, I deeply appreciate and respect your frequent engagement in difficult public discussions. This has been hard on pretty much everyone, and I hope that in the long run all of us and WMF as a whole will survive and thrive. Thank you for being present and listening. --Pine^✉ 20:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Pine: Many thanks, I really appreciate it! Pundit (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wishing you an amazing work as a Board member. And hopefully you come back soon to the team. ;) Take care. RadiX∞ 16:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi dear Pundit, can You look this page Requests for comment/Indefinite block the user:6AND5 in the armenian Wikipedia ? I don't know what else to do...--6AND5 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've just stepped down from my stewardship! Pundit (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't understand the answer?--6AND5 (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't get involved in local wiki blocks, since I basically do not feel competent either way most of the time. Pundit (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Susanna Mkrtchyan can write the sysops and they will remove my block, but it is not doing. Her word for most sysos it as law. And the sysop, who blocked me, everywhere screaming her name, so that others are afraid to give a solution to this issue. And she says nothing... --6AND5 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Аnd who do I contact?--6AND5 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've recently launched an Inspire Campaign to encourage new ideas focusing on content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia volunteers collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge, and we’re looking for your ideas about how to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible. We invite you to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is welcome - your skills and experience can help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign to improve review and curation tasks so that we can make our content more meaningful and accessible! I JethroBT (WMF) 05:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery.

Dear Pundit,

As you probably know, the confirmation discussions for Stewards have been closed. In order to determine the outcome of these discussions, you are invited to comment on Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2016 before scheduled closure of the confirmation section "one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards" (Sunday 6th of March, 17:22 UTC), though the closing time might be extended at the ElectCom's discretion for an extra week if it is believed "further input is required before concluding". All stewards are welcome to comment, including those newly elected.

For those who ran for confirmation, consider revising comments regarding you, and replying to those where appropriate. Savh^ñ 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dariusz, people have asked several times why Doc James proposed accepting the Knight grant, when in fact he opposed it. James said he supported it under pressure, specifically because Jimmy had alluded a few days earlier to trustees being removed. For example:

"Why did I vote for the grant? I am not known for doing things I don't agree with, but I was under pressure and was attempting to vote strategically. In retrospect I made an error. Jimmy Wales had made comments about removing other board members during the days before the Knight grant vote." [6]

"One board member stating that they wish to remove other board members I believe applies pressure and is a fairly specific example. This of course happened during a discussion and therefore written evidence is lacking." [7]

Because this is alleged to have happened during a Board discussion, I assume other trustees would have been present. Did you hear Jimmy or anyone else refer to removing trustees, or to something that could have been interpreted that way? SarahSV ^talk 00:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

My recollection of what happened is that James was not threatened in relation to the Knights grant. I also had a lot of initial doubts, and was suspicious of the grant (that's why I requested additional information about it), but we reviewed it and were convinced there was no secret monkey business going on (while, admittedly, grand/iose language, some silly cloak and dagger ambitions, etc. may have influenced the application, it became clear to us that the donor shared the WMF's understanding of much more modest deliverables, and there was no "secret big project" actually under development). If I had remaining doubts, I would have voted against - even if there was pressure from other trustees. I did vote against fellow trustees, in spite of pressure, on occasions when I believed it is in the best interest of the WMF, and I believe this is a critically important quality for a trustee (to be able to resist pressure). However, let me reiterate: I don't recall any threats related to the approval of the Knights grant. Pundit (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Did you hear Jimmy or anyone else refer to removing trustees, or to something that could have been interpreted that way? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

James says here that " The project formally know as the Knowledge Engine was frequently referred to as a "moon shot" in November 2015 by a number of my fellow board members. This terminology I believe accurately highlighted the size, expense, and risk that this proposal was." Is this true? Peter Damian (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Let me support the questions above, and put this in what I hope is the least inflammatory way possible: Just speaking hypothetically, because I wasn't there, but as a general observation, it's possible for phrasing to be used that one person would not call a threat, but another person might find to be threatening with plausible deniability. For example, simply illustrating, "James, your position on this grant is not loving and thoughtful. You should consider how your bad conduct here reflects poorly on you. And further, what it might mean for your future ability to serve as a member of this board if you continue trolling like you've been doing." Now, is this a threat? It could certainly be perceived as a veiled way of conveying "If you don't get on the bandwagon, you're going to be removed.". But to say that was being done is to set oneself up for a denial along the lines of "No, no, calling that a threat is just more bad-faith action - I was merely expressing my frustration at your repeated dishonorable behavior, as you have just demonstrated once more by making such an unsupported accusation against my benevolent attempt to show you the error of your ways.". Did you observe anything like this sort of statement (subject to, let us call it, multiple interpretation)? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am convinced James is reporting what he honestly believes is true, I definitely don't want to state that in my eyes he consciously falsifies his account of the events. It is possible that what I perceived as a normal argument in a discussion about the Knights grant was perceived as a threat by him. I just don't recall a situation related to this grant especially, that could be construed as a threat. I am aware that memories are fluid and that my recollection is just as imperfect as James'. Pundit (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No one is stating that the comments regarding removal "directly" related to the Knights grant discussions. And Pundit you are being very careful to make sure your statements only cover discussions related to this grant specifically. We of course parse how higher levels discussions relate to lower level issues differently which is perfectly fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Dariusz, thanks for the responses. I agree with you completely about the importance of trustees being able to resist pressure, which is why I've been asking about this.

I'm wondering whether something was said and interpreted in a way not intended.

James has said the comment about "the potential removal of board members" was made on 7 or 8 November. [8] Did you hear Jimmy say anything about the potential removal of board members, whether in relation to the Knight grant or anything else? SarahSV ^talk 02:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Seconded. Though I suspect that if Jimmy Wales had never said anything of the sort, Dariusz would have said so long ago. That Dariusz hasn't said that kind of answers the question. Andreas JN466 23:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but I wish we weren't left to read between the lines. Dariusz, I realize that you're in an awkward position, but please just tell us what you heard. We're not asking you to interpret the words or take a side. You may strongly disagree with James's interpretation, and we may end up feeling the same way. But it's important to know what was said. SarahSV ^talk 00:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

+1 -Pete F (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Apropos clip -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Dear Prof. Jemielniak

As chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee I ask you to have the Committee consider the Board's adherence to its proccedures in publishing the dates, agenda and minutes of its meetings, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee Charter under Policies and Procedures section 2. As discussed at Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Meetings in February and March 2016, the procedures and deadlines laid down in the Wikimedia Foundation Board Handbook do not seem to have been adhered to in the case of the Board's meetings in December 2015 and January and March 2016.

I further ask you to publish the Committee's conclusions and recommendations to the Community.

Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Prof. Jemielniak

I understand that the Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee, in accordance with its Charter has responsibility under Board Composition to (1) "Establish and maintain a grid of the skills and experience required on the Board and identify those that are currently met and unmet." and (2) "Inform community members of the skills and experience that the Board requires, and, when appropriate, actively encourage people with those skills to stand for election."

Since there are currently vacancies on the Board, I ask the Committee to publish the required information to the Community in order that the Community can help you in your task.

Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Shortly after I posted this request, you mentioned at another page that Before Wikimania I intend to start a discussion about the Board's reform, and even before that I plan to publish an agreed on skills matrix [9]. Since Wikimania starts within the week, this seems an opportune time to ask whether you are keeping to that timetable, or whether you expect to have to revise it, and if so, when this skills matrix will be published. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for the reminder - I've focused on discussing an external governance review, and things got a little delayed, but once we close that topic I hope to switch to the Board reform (not entirely unrelated from governance review, btw, as it may bring good directions, too). Pundit (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that. I request that you expand on your response to say when you will publish the skills matrix, in accordance with the BGC Charter. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for posting it. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Prof. Jemelniak

I note that the Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee appears to have published no information about its proceedings since 2014. In particular I do not believe that the Committee published anything about the results of the consultation Thinking about the WMF Board composition. I wonder whether you consider that this is satisfactory? Your predecessor suggested that sufficient information was available through the Board minutes and resolutions. Do you agree?

Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Rogol Domedonfors: Meh. No, I don't think it is sufficient. Please, note that we're currently in extreme overload mode - apart from the regular BGC work (board composition, recruitment, skill-improvement for Board members) we're also seeking a new ED. I intend to re-open the conversation about the Board composition soon (before Wikimania), as I think the whole system may require more than minor tweaks. Pundit (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. I suggest that the current load on the Board does not entirely explain the lack of engagement going back to 2014. Indeed, had the BGC been more active in engaging with the Community early on, the Board might not now be in its current situation. I understand that you acknowledge that the overall situation is not satisfactory, although I am disappointed that you do not appear to disclose any plans for dealing with it.

By the way, as a speaker of a rather old-fashioned form of British English, I am unfamiliar with the precise nuances of the interjection "Meh". I understand that it denotes something in the nature of unimportant or uninteresting. If that is indeed the case, perhaps you would clarify for me which part of my comment, or your response, you would attach those words to? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all, my "meh" was meant to be an onomatopoeic expression of disappointment. As a non-native speaker I've used this expression incorrectly, it was not meant to signify a lack of interest. Second of all, I think we do indeed need to start proper reporting from within the committees. It is a tough call, when we're already overwhelmed with work, to require additional hours for minutes preparation, but we should make more effort in this area. Regarding practical solutions, so far I have proposed:

• training for Board members in three forms:
  • skills training in the areas identified by the Board members by external instructors (to be discussed),
  • knowledge workshops by the WMF staff,
  • cultural workshops for the Board members unfamiliar with the wiki world.
• improvement in reporting:
  • publishing drafts of agenda ahead of the Board meetings,
  • more timely minutes publication.

We're discussing these improvements now, I am hopeful we'll do better. Pundit (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that detailed reply. I should emphasise that the request for better communication from the BGC and the other committees is not a matter of idle curiosity, not is it a legalistic insistence on process. I believe it is important to restart this engagement because I believe that the Community could help you if that engagement were in place. For example, you are currently looking for new members of the Board, It seems likely that there are members of the Community able to suggest suitable names, or suitable themselves, if they knew what mix of skills, competencies, experience and expertise you were looking for: hence my request to you in the section above. I seem to remember that last September there was an open call for suggestions, to which I responded with some suggestions. Unfortunately there was no clear guidance as to what criteria were going to be applied and I did not receive any feedback either. That process did not end well, and perhaps more open engagement with the Community at an early stage would have prevented that difficulty. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you and soon I intend to publish the desired skill-matrix, as well as our priorities in search for new Board members. Pundit (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

We look forward to that. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Have you been able to make any progress on publishing this information to the community in the last month, or have you decided not to do so? Are you still looking for suggestions from the community of names of potential trustees, or have you now decided that the community can have no useful part to play in the selection process? Please let us know. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, the work on this has been delayed beyond my desire. I hope to move on and discuss this within the BGC before Wikimania (which is still a month later, than I expected). Pundit (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the response, which I have to say I find disappointing. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I see that the recommendations to the Board have been published at wmf:Board Governance Recommendations (April 2016). Unfortunately it is not possible to hold an open discussion on that wiki. Is there a location on which you wish to receive feedback or engage with the community on this issue? I put the question in that rather tentative way because I am disappointed by the lack of any recommendations concerning communication to or engagement with the broader community. Indeed, the only mention I can find is the line Avoid letting minority perspectives disproportionately take up the Foundation and the Board's attention which suggests to me that you intend to positively reject constructive questions, comments and suggestions from individuals such as myself, no matter how well-qualified or well-meaning they may be. Of course if that is the case, and it is consistent with the lack of engagement at the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard, then by all means say so. If the Board believes that it can resolve all the issues facing the movement now and in the future from within its own internal resources, without support from the broader community or even its own Advisory Committee, then that is your decision to make, no matter how unwise it may be from my or any other "minority perspectives". But please make that decision explicit, so that those of us trying to help you can go off and do other things instead. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  First of all, I don't think that our improvements to governance are finished. It is the beginning of the process. Second of all, I agree with you that communication is key; this is why we're considering it as a whole separate issue. We have discussed it extensively in May and the recommendations are available here. Pundit (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Additionally, we hope to improve the advisory board over the summer, and also are considering external governance consulting options. Pundit (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing to that further recent update. It seems to be mainly about the Board getting better at communicating to the Community, and not to attach much weight to be Board engaging with and listening to the Community. I had hoped to hear about the latter, which has frankly been at a low ebb, and which might have avoided some of the Boar's present difficulties. Of interest is that there is a clear recommendation to engage better with the paid staff, presumably as a reaction to the recent troubles. Are you sure that you are not simply reacting to those? I do not understand exactly what you mean by "improve" the Advisory Committee, since it has in fact lapsed completely. I assume that you mean that you intend to constitute a new one. As with the Board itself, will you publish any specifications for the sorts of people you want on the Advisory Committee, so that the Community may help you with suggestions? Are you looking for suggested names now? Or do you take the view that the Community can be of no assistance in this matter? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Communicating with staff is also a priority, one of the reasons we want to introduce some staff liaison to the board, or a similar solution. The advisory board requires serious revamp indeed. There is basically not enough bandwidth to handle all this immediately. Pundit (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately by the same token it seems that engaging with the community (two-way not one-way communication) is lower in priority. There was a proposal for how that might work but no other member of the Board thought it worth comment. I note that you are being careful not to say whether or not you think that the Community, or any members thereof, might be capable of helping the Board. Is that a deliberate omission? If it is your view that none of us can possibly be of any help to you, just say so. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary - I am convinced the community could help, the only problem is that arranging a structure for facilitating it would require the time we don't currently have. Naturally, if the community arranged a sensible ready to go structure, it would work, but it is not realistic. Even the proposal you've made to engage the community more is, in my view, practically controversial (as I pointed out), and did not pick any interest from anyone else in the commmunity neither... It is really difficult to coordinate, that's one of the main reasons our current practices are not functional. Pundit (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, we seem to be at an impasse. You believe the Community could help but taking the time to let them do so is not a sufficiently high priority. It seems there is no way I or the other volunteers can help you. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You could propose processes for such a discussion, discuss them within the community, come back with the widely accepted ideas :) Pundit (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I seem to recall that back in March, after a considerable amount of support was gathered within the Community for a certain course of action by the Board, a certain widely accepted suggestion was met with the answer "I don't think that spending 30 minutes discussing this at a Board meeting NOW makes sense" [10]. So no, thank you. If you do not choose to engage with the Community then so be it. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, since I was appointed, I contacted the ED every 1-2 weeks about Superprotect, and I also added it to the agenda of every Board meeting. I believe it did significantly contribute to its being gone sooner, rather than later. All in all, I want to focus on practical solutions, and on making things done. Just continued discussions don't serve this purpose, as long as they are not conclusive. I'm telling you now that the Board is out of bandwidth. Would it be great to engage the community more? Sure. But coordination of this effort takes away time needed for critical issues. Like, searching the new ED, considering governance improvements and review, recruiting new members, or strategy, to mention just a few. If there are good will community members who want to be active and help, the first step would be laying the ground for structural support for further communication and collaboration. Of course, it is perfectly fine if you don't want to engage. Pundit (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, but I do not see where that last sentence comes from -- or rather, I do, and I don't like it. As you must be well aware, I have been trying to engage on certain topics at the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard for some little while and have met with rather little response. You suggest that I might like to go away and get the Community create an entire structure for Board engagement while the Board does something else, being too busy to do anything about Community engagement. My response is that a comparable community initiative did not work in the past. And now you suggest that it is I who does not want to engage. That is, to put it mildly, disingenuous; it is untrue and it is offensive. It is clearly intended to put an end to this discussion, and I think I will let it do so. The Board does not wish to allocate "bandwidth", which I take to be shorthand for time and effort, to furthering engagement with the Community, and you do not wish to continue the discussion: coupled with your obvious desire to frame the narrative to make it appear that it is me not you who is unwilling to engage -- all of these things combine make further constructive disussion impossible. I think that it is a great shame that you are unable or unwilling to be helped on this crucial issue. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only thing I'm saying that it is more difficult, but also more useful at the moment to work on constructive solutions with the community, rather than only throw ideas at the Board. I honestly tell you that we're out of bandwidth for non-critical stuff - and I hope it will change. Pundit (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to archive the pre-print or post-print in an institutional repository? The journal allows it (of course). You can also use Zenodo if your university's infrastructure doesn't suffice. Nemo 08:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Nemo bis: Post-print, as it allows citations (page numbers). But I naturally gladly share pre, if interested :) Pundit (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, let me know when the PDF is available. Nemo 17:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Nemo bis: I mean, I can send it to you even now, without page numbers, just let me know a convenient email address that accepts attachments. I will post it in a public repository once the page numbers are available though. Pundit (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your offer but I'm not in a rush to read the article, I was mostly asking for a link to include in the next issue of the research newsletter. I can read the article at the same time as everyone else. :) By the way, could you tell me where I can find the institutional repository of your university, as I can't seem to find one on the OpenDOAR list (unless it's this Warsaw consortium)? Thanks, Nemo 21:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Nemo bis:I've been trying to persuade my uni to go open and start a normal full repository for quite a long while... No success yet, we're advised to use academia or researchgate, which are obviously flawed solutions, some of us also store on uni servers, but with no consistent structure. I'm working on it. Pundit (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, point them to [11]. In the meanwhile, http://dissem.in/0000-0002-3745-7931/ lists 20 publications of yours which you could upload to Zenodo with their "one click" facility, plus 52 which may need checking. Nemo 19:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Certificate of participation in Learning Day Wikimedia Conference 2016

Pundit, we hope the resources you took on this day help you to expand your projects and coach other peers in your local community! Make sure to keep the learning wheel rolling: (1) share something you learn via a Learning Pattern; (2) share any new resources you create on our portal and social media. Warmly, the Learning Day team. María (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Through June, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas focusing on addressing harassment toward Wikimedia contributors. The 2015 Harassment Survey has shown evidence that harassment in various forms - name calling, threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation, among others - is pervasive. Available methods and systems to deal with harassment are also considered to be ineffective. These behaviors are clearly harmful, and in addition, many individuals who experience or witness harassment participate less in Wikimedia projects or stop contributing entirely.

Proposals in any language are welcome during the campaign - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign so that we can work together to develop ideas around this important and difficult issue. With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Opt-out instructions)Reply

You wrote [12] on [Wikimedia-l] Community survey to support the WMF ED search starts right now the phrase "me, hopefully counting as the community". Does that mean that you regard yourself as sitting on this team not as a Board member but as a representative of the Community? Or that as a Board member, with the collective responsibiity that entails, you will be able to have some insight into what the Community might want or need, even though it might be your duty as a Bord member regretfully to give them something else? In either case, do you propose any specific actions to engage with the Community beyond those already being undertaken in order to fulfill this role? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I mean that I've been an engaged community member for 10 years, and I just happen to be a Board member for some time now. My mandate comes from the community, the community can take it (as I declared), and while fulfilling my fiduciary duties, I still remain part of the community. Pundit (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

As a member of the Board, your mandate comes from the Board that appointed you -- it having become clear that the so-called election process is in fact a nomination process -- and you have a duty to the Foundation to act in accordance with its interests as laid down by your Board predecessors. To the extent that that duty aligns with the perceived wishers of the Community, all is well. To the extent that it does not, you have the choice to act in accordance with your duty as a Board member rather than as a Community member, or to deliberately act against your duty as a Board member, or to cease to be a Board member. This is clear and presumably well-understood. However none of it bears directly on the question, which was whether in order to take part in the search process you propose any specific actions to engage with the Community beyond those already being taken as a Board member? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand the question. I advocated for having a large survey in 10 languages, to understand the wishes of the community in regards to the ED search. If you propose a better method that may help us understand the community's actual stance, go ahead - but I don't think that one single person (or several, for that matter) are better positioned to understand the community as a whole, than a set of direct questions to the community itself. Pundit (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I asked you to explain the phrase "me, hopefully counting as the community". Your answer did not seem to me consistent with my understanding of a Board member's position, but that is for you to resolve as you see fit, since the Community does not appoint Board members or assign their rights and responsibilities. I also asked whether, on the assumption that you meant that you regarded yourself as having a special personal remit to represent or relay the views of the Community, you intended to take any personal initiative to find the Community's views beyond the institutional initiatives such as those that you have just mentioned. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Does the remit of the Board Governance Committee extend to the composition of the Advisory Board? (The clause Facilitate the committee appointment process for Board committees seems relevant.) Does the Board intend to reconstitute this committee, having allowed it to lapse by the end of 2015? If so, I ask you to publish the list of selection criteria and involve the Community in the nomination and selection process. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is one of the BGC's priorities to revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board. Pundit (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dariusz! Thank you for participating in the FDC candidates discussion. Your questions and their answers will, as you well know (:P), be taken into consideration by the Board when making their decision, so thank you for providing different thoughts and outlooks on the nominations. Cheers! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think you should know that I opened a discussion at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee#Liaison with the Election Committee. I think that this was an error of judgement. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on outreach to outside knowledge networks from February 2017. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating. I want to improve how campaigns are run, so let me know if there's something that could be done better for next time.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

(Opt-out instructions)

Hi there, there was a error with the Inspire survey link that caused the survey to be shown as expired, but has now been fixed. The link in the above message should now bring you to the survey. Apologies, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guy, thank you for your message. I agree with your general principle that we should never allow the WMF to run into debt, and risk our creation. Also, I agree that there should be careful limits to growth. There are different ways to look at the WMF - one way is to see it as an organization that has to compete and play in the league with heavy players who have 100x its current budget. But I do understand your concern about the growth. My personal bigger worry is whether we spend this money wisely. I would not have a problem with the WMF having a budget of 100m, if every cent (ok, every 1k) was spent frugally, wisely and with a clear contribution to our projects. I don't agree with you that a growth in budget is necessarily a sign of cancer - in fact, I believe that with the technological advances we do need to spend more to keep up, just not to become obsolete. But I am also concerned that the money are not always spent effectively. Regarding your specific questions:

• In principle, spending should be largely transparent, to some level of granularity. The WMF budget is not transparent enough in this respect - while some general categories are visible, it is really difficult to read any details. It is convenient, but not clear. Ideally, the whole budget creation mechanism should have logging embedded, so that we can see where the money go. On the other hand, introducing a complex system of such reporting is quite costly. I'd also like to add that I think that detailed reporting should equally apply also to all affiliates.
• I think that spending increases should be capped in principle, as they are within the FDC schemes. If extraordinary situations occur, they could be changed, but increasing more than 20% annually is not healthy and leads to waste in large organizations. However, I don't think that pageviews are a good benchmark for spending (and definitely not as a sole one).
• I totally agree with the endowment idea/approach, and this is exactly how we're doing it now. Pundit (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for the clear answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pundit, hope all is well! As you may know, we at the Wikimedia Foundation's Support and Safety team are developing new training materials to help contributors deal with online harassment situations, and with problems at real life events. The final English version is now finished!

I'm wondering if you would be willing to help us translate content for these Training Modules into your language. We are targeting a minimum of ten languages for these modules, including the English original.

If the answer is yes, please let me know with a ping, or just get stuck in - either way, we would really appreciate your support! Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Whose Knowledge News

April 2017 • Volume 1 • Issue 2

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

Resources: Resources lists

Wikimedia Movement: Wikimedia Strategy: Knowledge is Global

About Whose Knowledge?

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

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

Dear candidate,

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

Gamaliel I'm delighted to see this wonderful initiative! Pundit (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Gamaliel is it still on? cheers Pundit (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for agreeing to our proposed candidate interviews, but we have decided that we will not be conducting them this year. We feel that Sunday's video interview has accomplished the goal of providing the community with exposure to the candidates and we are currently exploring ways that our potential election coverage can supplement and not duplicate that exposure. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Makes perfect sense. Thanks for all your work. Pundit (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on your reelection!!!!! Good luck on your term! TenorTwelve (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

Whose Knowledge News

July 2017 • Volume 1 • Issue 3

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

Resources: Emancipatory Design Research

Wikimedia Movement: Letter from Buenos Aires

About Whose Knowledge?

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

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

There has been a request to inform all who voted in the RfC about interlinking accounts involved with paid editing about the following adjustment in the "statement of issue" on Sept 18th, 2017.

It was clarified that this effort will help deal not only with impersonation of specific Wikipedians but also claims of being in good standing made by those who are not.[13] Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Zwracam się z prośba o jaknajszybsze usunięcie strony Iliana Alvarado, utworzona przez kogoś w Niemczech z podstawoawymi błędami. NIE JESTEM zainteresowana byciem w wikipedia. Jest to naruszenie mojej prywatności!!! Yitroquantum (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi everybody,

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

See you all there!

With love & solidarity,

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

Would you please comment at en:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Transparency and accountability of the Wikimedia Foundation? EllenCT (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

FDC was frozen. In theory it exists as a body, without however having any current functions, in practice it's as if it had been disbanded and needs to be re-formed. Nemo 10:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mr., I thank you for your efforts. I contacted you during Wikimania 2019 concerning my research project. In fact, I am working on Medical applications of Wikidata. When we were in City Hall, I told you that I am beginning a work about developing the guidelines for the validation of medical information in Wikidata and for the use of medical information of Wikidata in Clinical Decision Support Systems. Currently, I began writing a paper about the use of SPARQL for the validation of the use of medical properties in Wikidata. I ask if you are interested to contribute to this work. In fact, we only need you to write the literature review for the work. As you are specialized in Information Management, you can do that in a limited period of time. The literature review will be involved in Related Works part and can be about SPARQL, Ontology Evaluation, Medical Wikidata and architecture of Wikidata. --Csisc (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Csisc: thanks for your message! Sure, I'm generally interested, let's switch to email (darekj @ kozminski.edu.pl). Pundit (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I will send you a detailed email tomorrow. --Csisc (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry for being late. I will send the short communication tomorrow morning as I am solving several issues in it. Csisc (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Email sent. I send you the method we developed and its results. Please confirm receipt of the manuscript. --Csisc (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Pundit,

I contact you since you are marked among the "People who are interested" in Advanced technology page. As you might already know, the EU is working about a regulation of the AI environment, in order to promote its potential and at the same time to protect the citizens from unwanted uses. It is going to be an important moment for achieving the most empowering, safe and clear definition of the rights and duties related to the AI, affecting also Wikimedia's opportunities, not only inside EU. I kindly invite you to participate to the discussion, firstly by commenting the page that is dedicated to it, in order to draft Wikimedia's answers to this legislative initiative of the EU.

The linked page contains the questions from the public consultation by the European Commission on its Artificial Intelligence White Paper.

The EU's survey will remain open until 14 June 2020, but we will take input into account until 31 May 2020.

Thanks, --sNappy(talk) 21:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pundit, you were one of the board members who approved the Brand Project last month. You did this despite significant opposition by the community. Do you as community selected board member endorse the new survey which does not provide the status quo as an option and which doesn't take the result of the RfC into account? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@AFBorchert: Hi, thanks for reaching out. I definitely support us exploring the options. I believe that the survey is meant to find out which of the NEW pathways are most desirable, and not to make a final decision about the outcome, and as such it makes sense that it does not include the status quo (as it is not an alternative). Pundit (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

If that's the case, and it's just some non-binding brainstorming about vague ideas, the communication skills of those who present this are extremely substandard. They give the impression, that these are really the only three future possibilities for a rebranding, and the survey will tell which one will be selected against the clear and overwhelming community expression in the RfC. Nobody in the smal group of renamers seems to vcare even a little bit about the community, only about their private preferences. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response, Pundit. Given that the resolution asks the foundation “to complete this work by Wikipedia's 20th birthday” this appears to be more than just exploring the options. Instead, I get the impression that the current branding scheme (Wikimedia / Wikipedia / etc.) will be replaced by one which refers to Wikipedia. Quote from the survey: “The 2030 Movement Brand Project is creating a proposal for movement names and designs based on our best-known brand, Wikipedia.” As you are a board member elected by the community I am asking you how the concerns of the community are taken into consideration in this process? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@AFBorchert: The quote is correct. The Brand Project is basing on our best-known brand, Wikipedia. Whether this proposal will go through is a different story. Once there is a solid proposal it'll make sense to discuss if it is better than the existing naming convention, AFAIK. The community, IMHO, should have an opportunity to weigh in, but the community should not be required to do research, heavy-lifting, etc. - so for the final consultations there has to be a material that is prepared. One of the things that are really interesting to know is whether there is an alternative, new naming convention that has some clear support from the community at large. Pundit (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

But how do you want to measure the support of the community for an alternative proposal if there is no option to express support for the status quo? The proper way to do this would be a discussion and eventually a poll on-wiki here at Meta with all options including the status quo on the table, not just those prefered by those involved in the rebranding project. The current survey appears to be the wrong path for multiple reasons. It appears biased, it is not done openly, and without discussion. We are all used to wikis and open discussion, looking for a consensus. Why isn't a consensual path chosen for this process? --AFBorchert (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@AFBorchert:The way the questionnaire works is that it helps select the strongest contender, instead of polling the general interest in the change or status quo. I expect that the strongest contender will be discussed with the community and that a discussion about change or the lack thereof can only happen if we know what our BATNA is. Using a questionnaire, according to my understanding, allows for reaching also Wikipedia users and creators who are not as active in our internal discussions. Pundit (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your time, Pundit, this is very appreciated but I do not really see here how the community is taken on board in this process as it should be done. At the RfC many of the participants took their time and didn't just dropped a support or oppose vote but added lengthy and insightful rationales for their opinion. This is the approach we use on the Wikimedia projects. It is done openly and the results find wide acceptance. This off-wiki survey is the opposite of how we do find a consensus. And if the whole brand project is not intended to be consensus-oriented, this will widen the rift between the WMF and the community with unforseeable consequences for the future of the Wikimedia movement. I find this most unfortunate. Others have voiced similar concerns. See, for example, Yair rand and Sj. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Pundit. Seeing that Heather (WMF) (talk · contribs) wrote "We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board. The place where we seek consultation and input is on what an optimal rebrand looks like, and what the path to get there will be. [...] In the end, the Board, Brand team, and Legal team agreed that Wikipedia was the change which supported the goals of the change while also meeting practical legal and financial constraints." [14], do you still stand by the characterization that this process is exploratory? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  My understanding is that it is exploratory. The Board has definitely supported the rebranding project (which includes checking the possibilities). My understanding is that a "rebranding" is a much wider notion than just "renaming". For instance, I would not be surprised if there was a new graphic identity for the WMF in the works for 2020 (but I have to also emphasize that I am not aware of any specific project in this regard, it is just a clarifying example). Pundit (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  BTW, to add to the topic: I think the changes of the names of the projects should also be differentiated from the changes of the names of organizations (the Foundation and the affiliates). I personally think that we should aim at optimization - if e.g. it is easier for some chapter to do a fundraiser relying on "Wikipedia" brand recognition, I can't see why they shouldn't do so. However, I'd be very very cautious about any project name changes without a very wide support from the communities. Pundit (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

		Wikimedia 2030
		Thank you very much for everything you did to help create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations! I am especially grateful for the enormous amount of work you did in the Capacity Building working group and all the care and commitment you brought to the process. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ahoj, Dariuszu

As per your current GMeet comment, let me ask now lest I forget:

"... endorsements from affiliates HEAVILY promote activists over regular community members"

- can we talk later how it happens? Is it by design or due to group dynamics or smth else: the dreaded word "agenda" springing to mind?

See also my FEB Kawiarenka comments for some context.

Zezen (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think that for natural reasons if the affiliates are asked to endorse someone, they endorse someone they know - an activist. This is a super useful skilset, but I also think we need people from the editing community, so I'd be reluctant if it was only the affiliates who could endorse regional candidates. Pundit (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I am reaching out about your decision to be a candidate in the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. The Board of Trustees decided there would be outreach available for the 2021 Board of Trustees election. There is a team of facilitators supporting this election through outreach activities.

The facilitators have some activities planned during the campaign period. Be sure to check out Candidate Resources to learn more about the trustee role.

The first thing facilitators plan to do during the campaign period is host a Conversation Chat for candidates. We will talk about the campaign timeline, activities, and answer questions you have. This is currently scheduled for July 3 at 15:00 UTC. This time might change.

Facilitators are reaching out to all candidates with this message. We can offer support to make sure your message is clear. This could be reviewing your candidate page for clarity. We can also clarify community questions that candidates answer during the campaign. Please let us know if you would like this support and we can schedule a time to chat. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:JKoerner (WMF)Dear Jackie, many thanks for reaching out. I'd sure love an opportunity to have the candidate page reviewed for clarity. A candidate chat is also a great idea - although if the time is still being discussed, some earlier hours (1-2 earlier) would be better for me personally (I realize they may not be for other candidates, and ultimately it is impossible to accommodate everyone). If you have other events planned, it'd be awesome to know it ahead of time, as same week scheduling is always tougher :) Pundit (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pundit, Great! Glad to hear you are interested in support. I'll check out your candidate statement for clarify on Wednesday and get back to you. The meeting for candidates might be changed slightly. We now have quite a few candidates in South Asia. We might need to provide two times. I will let everyone know about this soon. If neither time works, the facilitation team will make sure you get the information. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I want to let you know the Candidate Briefing will be July 3 at 15:00 UTC via Google Meet. If this time does not work for you, it is not a problem. We can plan another time or way to get the information to you. Please just let me know what works for you. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

JKoerner (WMF) many thanks, sure - I'll gladly join for one hour at that time. Can you also, please, confirm, that we are awaiting the collated list of questions before we start answering? Pundit (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Pundit, Yes, the facilitation team will post the questions once the Elections Committee makes their final decisions today. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Candidate,

I am writing to you about several things:

1. On 20 July the facilitation team will begin translating the candidate answers to questions selected by the Elections Committee. Please try to finish your answers by that date if possible.

2. There is a list of Campaign Activities planned by the facilitation team. We have heard feedback about Campaign Activities. Thank you for your patience as we are trying new things and learning. The facilitation team will discuss solutions to these frustrations on 21 July. Look for updates on the Campaign Activities list.

3. The Community Affairs Committee meeting with candidates is on 21 July. You may email questions to askcacwikimedia.org if that works better for you than writing on Meta. If you have not already received a calendar invitation, please email me at jkoerner-ctrwikimedia.org so a calendar invitation for the CAC meeting can be sent to you.

Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for answering the community questions. I just wanted to point out you have 63 numbered answers to 61 questions, which is a bit confusing. TomDotGov (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

TomDotGov many thanks for alerting me to that - I added the questions with numbers for clarity. Pundit (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dariusz, I hope that you are doing fine. I wanted to tell you that I asked you two questions about your candidacy at the Catalan Viquipèdia. Thanks in advance for your answers! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Dariusz,

On behalf of the Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2022 programme committee, I am pleased to inform you that your submission "Board Session at CEE Meeting 2022 – Chat with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees" has been accepted as a panel. Considering that the conference will have language interpretation from English into Russian and vice versa, you have the choice between English and Russian as a language that you will use in your session. If you have not yet registered for the conference, please fill in the registration form. In case you have any additional requests or questions, do not hesitate to contact me or any other committee member.

Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dariusz,

We have posted an open letter to the Foundation and Board of Trustees. It concerns the development of MediaWiki extensions and needs the personal attention of all concerned developers and managers. Please see it at:

meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_letter_from_English_Wikipedia_New_Page_Reviewers and en.Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination/2022_WMF_letter

Your comments are welcome. Many thanks.

Kind regards, On behalf of the English Wikipedia Community MB (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm contacting you as one of the participants in the Wikimedia Summit 2022, to kindly ask for your feedback through a 5-10 minute survey to evaluate 'Baserow' (note: the survey is on a Google form).

Baserow was a tool through which participants in the Summit co-created a database of Movement Strategy activities. We hope to learn from you how useful it may be to keep using it in the future to help document and connect on Movement Strategy work.

You are welcome and encouraged to fill out the survey in any language. Your feedback would be very appreciated --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC).Reply

Cześć

Uprzejmie Cię proszę abyś usunął nieaktualne informacje na temat twoich funkcji na plwiki. Chodzi o CU oraz biurokratę. SkrzydlatyMuflon (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

dzięki za reminder Pundit (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dzięki serdeczne za zmianę. Jeszcze o tu [15] ;). SkrzydlatyMuflon (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

English Dear Pundit,

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

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

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

Spanish Hola Pundit,

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

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

Puedes encontrar toda la información en la página del concurso.

Portuguese Olá Pundit,

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

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

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

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

Hi, you're getting this message as you've signed up as interested in the topic at the Artificial intelligence page.

You might already be aware of this, but in case you had missed other announcements I wanted to send out a reminder about the Wikimedia AI call which is happening tomorrow, 16 May, at 14:00 UTC. There will be presentations from various parts of the movement, with space for questions and discussion. The call will be recorded, if one prefers to watch if afterwards.

See Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2024-2025/Collaboration/AI call for agenda and sign-up. Johan (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Dear Wikimedian,

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

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

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

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 15:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Pundit - I came across your page and noticed you started ambitiously reporting on your plans and activities, but then stopped many years ago (2019) and I wonder what is the reason + what is the good way to follow the work of individuals who are on/or candidates on WMF Board? (Board reports are very very limited use for this) Also where can one learn about your work in, studying open collaboration communities? (especially interested in comparative differences of Wikimedia to others) -- Zblace (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're absolutely right that I'm lagging behind in reporting! I've been quite busy with the governance work (it may not be visible, but we have introduced robust internal training schemes, and I'm hopeful we're going to launch WALDO - a Wikimedia Academy of Leadership and Development), an initiative aimed at the Wikimedia movement at large. I worked on the elections design (and failed on some accounts, I wasn't able to persuade everyone that we need to up our game in terms of skills / experience). I was involved a little in the movement charter discussions. In regards to my academic work, my Google Scholar page lists all of my works, many of which relate to Wikimedia: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rqW2VUsAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Pundit (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Dariusz, I'm contacting you as one of the WMF's community trustees in the hopes that you might be able to help resolve concerns the English Wikisource community have about technical issues that would be caused by the planned deployment of the Vector 2022 skin there next week. This is one of the last Wikis not using the new skin, because of unfixed bugs that were raised months ago and are still not addressed.

I've posted the details to the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard, and understand that the WMF's web team are likely to have many other priorities at the moment, but hope that there's a way to ensure that the Wikisource community's voice is not ignored, and ideally some guarantees that the web team can be given the resources they need to be able to fix the technical issues the community has raised, before Vector 2022 is deployed.

Sorry if this is not the right way to go about this, and any help or advice you and the other community trustees can give would be much appreciated! Many thanks! --Yodin^T 23:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply