Formulating proposalsEdit

I am very disappointed by the proposal on interlinking of accounts. Many of the concerns of opposing users should have been obvious and taken into account when formulating the proposal, and such a proposal should have a discussion explaining why the specific wording was chosen and what concerns are handled by it and what concerns remain. It is very frustrating to have a long discussion on issues that could have been handled by a little more work put down in the proposal itself: hundreds or thousands of lines instead of a few paragraphs. --LPfi (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC

User:LPfi The proposal will help a great deal with with undisclosed paid editing. If we at Wikipedia wish to maintain our independence from the subject mater we write about this is a critical step we need to take. We are currently being over run on EN WP by undisclosed paid promotional editors (with problems less severe in other languages). We have lots of people pretending to be Wikipedians in good standing when they are permanently banned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This might be true. But then it is even more important that the proposal is well though out so that it fulfils its object, and that is accompanied by a thorough enough discussion from the start. It is no reason to word the proposal carelessly, so that it has bad side effects or so that we get 100k discussion about possible side effects. --LPfi (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
User:LPfi I am not sure what you are requesting? We have had multiple discussions about the issue of paid editing across multiple projects including EN WP and Meta and what potential solutions there are. The wording of this proposal was run by the legal team at the WMF and the safety team plus a few people on EN Arbcom before the RfC started.
I am not seeing any potential side effects and neither did they. One often only get people weighting in once the RfC officially launches. Do you believe there is wording that would garner greater support? And what wording would you prefer to see? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way added details of a case in which this would help[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

But to summarize IMO our readers deserve an indepedent and advertisement free Wikipedia. We need to take measures to achieve this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Links we discussedEdit

Project closures

A couple of members have commented on each of these, but without anything resembling a consensus discussion. See the two discussion threads, such as they are, at this page.

In neither case are there any comments supporting project closure, and in neither case would closure be consistent with policy. Historically, plenty of project closure proposals have stayed open months and even years. But the tone of these is such that I think the proposals should be closed promptly (as unsuccessful, of course).
Project approvals

In both cases, the tests have met requirements for content, activity of community and interface translation. (Frankly, I haven't checked activity levels for October. But there's only so much patience that test communities can have while waiting for LangCom to act, too.)

Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There is clear consensus here[2] not to close it.
I will send this to the rest of langcomm. They are actively discussing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Some of these should be dealt with in the next week or so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the nudge. As a practical matter, I know there is not consensus to close either project. But I needed a statement of that in LangCom and a formal start of the seven-day clock. Now I have those.
I'm going to see if the Gorontalo project has a reasonably disinterested language expert with solid credentials who can verify the language for that project. As for LFN, we'll have to see how that plays out. But maybe at least they will start discussing now. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Pop-up showing authorship info on every article in mainspaceEdit

As per your suggestion, I added the idea to the 2017 wishlist here. Do you have any further recommendations? SashiRolls (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


Reading Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation/Votes I wonder why you go after people that oppose your RfC? This isn't just a few clarifying remarks, this is a very clear trend. — Jeblad 11:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

So User:Bluerasberry appear to state that I have not addressed the concerns raised and you are here to state I am not to address the concerns raised regarding the proposal?
Those who oppose the idea already get at least twice the vote as those who support it (and some are claiming those opposed deserve four times the vote as those who support it).
Meh Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Kurdish WikipediaEdit

Hello Doc James,
As you know, Wikipedia is blocked in Turkey, therefore ku.wikipedia is also directly affected. How can we make the connection easier for some users who request it, such as ku:User:Mohajeer (VPN doesn't seem to work very well). Best regards--Ghybu (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ghybu there are mirrors that one can use. Apps can be used aswell.
Further details here Response_to_2017_ban_in_Turkey Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Re:Translation of three sentences into YoEdit

  Done. See: here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikitext editor syntax highlightingEdit

Regarding your Wikitext editor syntax highlighting request, are you happy with the font-weight, font-size and bolding, and just want the colors changed to be like WikED colors, or do you want the appearance including weight, size and bolding to match WikED as much as possible? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Wbm1058 to match WikEd as much as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Global preferences ready for testingEdit


I am contacting you because of your support for Global settings in the 2016 Community Tech Wishlist. Global preferences are now available for beta testing, and need your help before being released to the wikis.

  1. Read over the help page, it is brief and has screenshots
  2. Login or register an account on Beta English Wikipedia
  3. Visit Global Preferences and try enabling and disabling some settings
  4. Visit some other language and project test wikis such as English Wikivoyage, German Wiktionary, the Hebrew Wikipedia and test the settings
  5. Report your findings, experience, bugs, and other observations

Once the team has feedback on design issues, bugs, and other things that might need worked out, the problems will be addressed and global preferences will be sent to the wikis.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing on your CVEdit has a question about whether/how people list editing Wikipedia on their résumés. Do you (or any of your talk-page stalkers) know of any useful pages describing this, or a discussion that might be useful to them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Commond deletion bot requirementsEdit

I'm contacting you because you supported the Commons Deletion Bot proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist. The Wishlist team has finalized the draft specifications for how the bot will work, and are seeking review in confirming or discussing the plans for the bot. If you have some time, please take a look and leave a comment. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Keegan (WMF) thanks will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

SVG Translate Community wishlist survey projectEdit

Hello! Thank you for voting for the SVG Translate project that was proposed in the 2017 Wishlist survey. The Community Tech team in the Wikimedia Foundation is beginning to start their work on the project. We're currently looking for feedback on some open questions which will allow us to come up with preliminary designs for the tool. If you are interested in being involved, you can watch the project page and join in the discussions on the talk page. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and learning from your experiences. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF), Product Manager, Community Tech (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sign-up for Whose Knowledge? on-line newsletterEdit

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)

Tuskegee StudyEdit

You may wish to revisit your claim that it "is debated" that the Tuskegee Study did not offer penicillin to the men in the study (here). This is not what the source says. I've written about this misleading edit (at Wikipediocracy) and will be happy to provide a correction or update, as needed. Best, SashiRolls (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls source says "Finally, penicillin therapy was available in the later stages of the TSUS. By 1952, 28% of the syphilitic patients examined in the TSUS had received penicillin therapy. Ironically, only 33% of the controls received it.26"
So yes compared to the controls many of the people in the TSUS appear to have received penicillin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
On re reading the penicillin may have been given for alternate reasons (not necessarily the syphilis). Adjusted the wording. to match this[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for improving this a bit. In fact, after looking through some comments from the same author on a different article in his bibliography, I think what he's suggesting is that some of the subjects received treatment through other sources (specifically because of the mandatory testing and treatment of early-stage syphilis in Alabama at the time). As you note, others may have received penicillin for reasons unrelated to the disease. I wrote up my post at WPO before commenting here in large part because the misleading text had been on the page for 7 years. I still feel like "many of" is quite strong when we're speaking of only 28% of one cohort, when previous cohorts had percentages of less than 3% receiving penicillin according to the same article. I would have just fixed it myself if I could (adding the crucial element about the lack of "informed consent"), but I can't -- as you probably know -- because of the Cirt/Sagecandor affair. It's really surprising how often I find these sorts of misreadings / one-sided presentations. I could flatter myself and think I just have a nose for it; but in fact, I'm afraid it's more that these sorts of misrepresentations are simply quite common on English Wikipedia. SashiRolls (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree "many" is a little unclear User:SashiRolls. Have clarified with the exact numbers.[4]
Appreciate you bringing these concerns here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Well then, I'll ask one more time that greater emphasis be placed on the established scholarship rather than on the critical / revisionist retrospective which snipes at details along the way. The fact is that all along the way those in the study were deliberately discouraged from getting therapy elsewhere, not only by the perks of being involved in the study, but also by the illusion that they were being treated. Consider the notice sent round for the completely free "special treatment" spinal tap, mentioned in the article by Allan M. Brandt that White is responding to.

Some time ago you were given a thorough examination and since that time we hope you have gotten a great deal of treatment for bad blood. You will now be given your last chance to to get a special treatment if it is believed you are in a condition to stand it. ...Remember This is Your Last Chance For Special Free Treatment. Be Sure To Meet The Nurse.

cited in: Allan M. Brandt (December 1978). "Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study" (PDF). The Hastings Center Report 8 (6): 24. PMID 721302. doi:10.2307/3561468. Retrieved September 30, 2018. 

It is no accident that one of the primary sources treated in White's revisionist piece is the Harvard historian's 1978 paper; I believe it's a mistake/distortion of the record to present one without the other.
The focus on "femmes fatales" in the literature section is troublingly narrow. What is to be said about the fact that Rabelais dedicated Gargantua to "Vous Vérolez très précieux" (most likely referring to François Ier who granted the royal privilege or right to publish and whose mistress, La Belle Ferronière, was so blamed for his infection that even her epitaph made reference to this transmission)? Why is there no mention of Shakespeare's obsession with the disease, or of the admonition on his tombstone that his bones should never be worried? Did the Bard know that one day the "substantific marrow" of his bones would give away his games? ^^
In the Arts section, it's also worth noting that the reference to does not at all support the claims being made about the choice of Jan van der Straet. It's too bad, because the story of bringing back Guyaco from Hispaniola is an interesting treatment story not mentioned in the article. (Cf. G. Barraud, Le traitement héroïque du mal vénérien, Revue d'Histoire de la Pharmacie, 1953)
Please accept these comments in the spirit of an periodic 7-year GA-review, in which the less medical sources are checked. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane messEdit

One of our best allies in Cochrane has resigned over the handling of the recent mess: I suspect it's better to avoid any Wikimedia (official) communication related to Cochrane until they elect a new board, so that nobody can suspect we're taking sides. --Nemo 16:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I have no official opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist SurveyEdit


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

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

Proposal "Improve Wikipedia Watchlist Handling of Wikidata"Edit

Hello Doc James,

I have a feeling that my pings didn't work again (which might have to do something with my usual signature), but I intended to notify you about additional remarks/questions I wrote in the Discussion section of your (already great!) proposal.

With kind regards — Mar(c). [T] 21:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Mar(c) yes looks like the ping did not work. Will check it out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
(At least I can receive pings, yay!) Thanks, I'm looking forward to the seeing this becoming reality. Unfortunately the whole Wishlish Survey thing is fairly new to me; I discovered the tracking page and the "reasonable amount of canvassing is acceptable" advice just today... With kind regards — Mar(c). [T] 22:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:Mar(c). Currently travelling. If you wish to promote would appreciate that :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, yesterday was the last day to vote, unfortunately. :'-} I was pointed to your proposal in a discussion about the use of Wikidata on nl-wiki, after a crosswiki sockpuppeteer (not involved with nl-wiki) stirred things up there by his unsolicited "help" (the same funny guy who copied my vote comment btw). Anyway, in my opinion large scale use of Wikidata in the articles isn't a wise thing to do until your proposal is reality. Using it for links to IMDb is fine, but not for birth and death data. That is, in my opinion... — Mar(c). [T] 00:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup I am with you on that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Project Medicine Foundation MembershipEdit

Membership renewal

Dear Wiki Project Med Supporter, you are receiving this message as you have shown interest in supporting Wiki Project Med in the past. As our organization grows and evolves, we want to be able to verify peoples ongoing desire of to be involved. To that end, the board has decided to require renew of membership every two years. So -- whether you are a current member or not, please fill out our updated membership form, to ensure your membership till the end of 2020. Please note -- We ask that you fill out the form by Feb 3rd, as we are close to elections and only members can nominate themselves for the board and vote!

Best, Shani & Doc James. 01:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Implementation of closed RfCEdit

Where are we with the implementation of Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation ? It was closed in favor and an year has passed without any close-challenge. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get this idea. There wasn't sufficient consensus for any specific outcome and the closure only identified three things for which maybe a future discussion could outline proposals and find consensus. Nemo 11:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nemo bis:That's wrong and by a mile or so. We were not voting on multiple options (so,any specific outcome is meaningless) and the closure explicitly noted:-- I find that some of the oppose arguments to be sufficiently weak that, based on strength of argument, there is a consensus in favour of the proposal. Some fine-tuning needed to be done and thus, the 3 points of mention. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Point 3 can be clarified, at-ease and point 2 is basically common-sense as a subset of en:WP:Casting aspersions, meta:Urbanity et al. If you want, I can set up another RFC for defining the time-span of link-mention.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
We have had this policy for some time Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts User:Winged Blades of Godric Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Brilliant. And, I did not know of that! But, most-importantly, what's the status with the Upwork guys? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Will email you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"Who Wrote That" project updateEdit

Hello. I'm reaching out to you as you participated in the 2017 Community Wishlist proposal for "Who Wrote That" project (previously known as "Blame Tool"). The Community Tech team is kicking things off on the project and we have an early-stage mockup available for you to look at. I invite you to follow that project page, where I will be posting periodic status updates for the project. You are also welcome to provide your thoughts on the talk page. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:NKohli (WMF) have you seen [5]? It is amazing. Does not work within references unfortunately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Never mind see it is already linked :-) So yes improvements of that are good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Elections for 5 seats on the board of WPMEDF & Annual MeetingEdit

Dear WikiProject Medicine member, the election for 5 seats on the board is underway and voting is now open till March 24th. We encourage you to use your right to vote by supporting the candidates you prefer HERE. Please also note that on Monday, March 25, between 1900-2000 UTC we will be holding our open annual meeting online. A link will be sent via the mailing list / Facebook group so stay tuned. We hope you can join us! Best, James & Shani. 14:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of a commentEdit

Hi Doc James, you have removed a comment without giving any rationale. Was this intentional? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:AFBorchert thanks was indeed an error on my part. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Journal hosting sister project proposalEdit

Hello, I'm leaving a note on the talkpages of those on the old SPCom list to ensure that you have seen this proposal discussion for a journal hosting sister project. I realise that the process these days is slightly different, but I'm keen to make sure that we get as broad feedback as possible, so please consider to adding a note to comment/support/oppose. We hope to submit a cover letter to the WMF trustees in the coming month. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Asking for a letter of support to create a research unit in TunisiaEdit

Dear Sir,

I thank you for your efforts. We are managing to create a research unit called "Data Engineering and Semantics" in the University of Sfax, Tunisia. The purpose of this research unit is to gather Wikiresearchers from University of Sfax into a recognized research structure and have funding from Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education. In order to do that, we need to have a letter of support from institutions all over the world. I ask if you or the director of your research department can write a letter of support for us so that we can have our application approved. This will be acknowledged. --Csisc (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Csisc I can do so when I get home in mid November. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I will send a reminder in mid November. --Csisc (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Unanimous approval?Edit

I note that the summary here notes that "The Board unanimously endorses a Universal Code of Conduct...", despite the overwhelming rejection of such an idea. I would think better of you than to think you would approve such an idea despite a rejection like that. Could you please confirm whether you were asked for your opinion, and if so whether it was an endorsement? Seraphimblade (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade I do not think a movement developed Universal Code of Conduct is unreasonable. So yes I support / endorse the recommendation. For example do we not all agree that threatening to harm another editor is not appropriate? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, sure, and if that's all it is, we already have that. My understanding, however, was that the proposed UCoC was intended to be rather more comprehensive than "Don't threaten people". Seraphimblade (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
We will also have "Don't release private information that people have not already disclosed on Wikipedia." Our guidelines already contain much of what a code of conduct should contain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't even like that as a "universal" metric. Some communities might decide such disclosure is acceptable in exposing undisclosed paid editors, and if they do, I would consider that a valid community decision. Seraphimblade (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes of course. And we will need to include those exceptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I see. What do you think of the support for a "Code of Conduct" for the WMF? That wasn't flippant, many people do want that too, as is clear from even the highly informal thread in overwhelming support of that. Seraphimblade (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes certainly they will be included. And we supported a Movement Charter aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
(I suspect that Seraphimblade was talking about this, regarding a CoC for the WMF, but I'm not certain.)
I'm pretty sure almost everyone in the community disagrees with the WMF deciding what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, or enforcing it, or having any involvement in development of the relevant policies. There are several reasons why the WMF might want to develop a UCoC, and none of them are good:
  1. The WMF disagrees with the community on key policy points, and wants to enforce its own version of things to override community decisions.
  2. The WMF is concerned about conduct enforcement in the very small communities that don't have decent policies of their own, and dislikes the informal way in which the local sysops, global sysops and stewards currently handle things. (If anyone wanted to start an RfC on clarifying the scope of when global sysops' blocks are acceptable (within the bounds of the small communities they work with), I think it would be received quite nicely. But this isn't something which would at all benefit from WMF involvement, which indicates that it's not what they intend. It would also be inconsistent with much of the language currently coming out of the relevant T&S people.)
  3. The WMF wants authority to block people it dislikes, in situations where the disliked user hasn't done anything anywhere near the scope of T&S's current work.
  4. The WMF wants to be seen as more directly involved in conduct issues, for its own reasons that are not related to Wikimedia's goals.
  5. The WMF wants to have a very public document include wording that indicates affiliation with a particular cultural grouping, in order to both alienate certain groups they dislike and to bring in more people from the WMF's favored culture.
  6. The WMF wants to justify its donations, even though the areas donors want improved are areas ordinarily outside WMF influence.
I suspect that it's some combination of these points, rather than just one. --Yair rand (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
If the actual issue is that the small wikis don't have sufficient clarity on the "default" conduct assumptions, I'd volunteer to start an RfC myself, if you think that it would stop the WMF from what it's doing. (It wouldn't be the first time I started a major community discussion just so that the WMF didn't mess things up.) I'm thinking something like a amalgamation of the most widely agreed upon conduct policies from major projects, working as a set of default policies on small (global-sysop-level) wikis and on those wikis which adopt it by consensus. It could be overwritten (and/or overridden) by local community decisions with more precise and relevant policies as necessary, and become part of the global sysop/steward policy set, and translated for small wikis that would use it as they're starting up. And of course, it would be completely irrelevant to all the large established projects with their own conduct policies. I suspect plenty of the relevant people in the SMWT would be willing to help out on setting this up.
...But unfortunately it's probably too late for this. The WMF appointed twelve UCoC "facilitators" within the past hour, so we're probably in for another major conflict where any actual work gets put on hold while everyone does their best to stop another disaster. --Yair rand (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "if you think that it would stop the WMF from what it's doing" User:Yair rand? You are proposing taking the lead on a UCoC? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure, if it will stop the WMF from trying to impose an unwanted policy on Wikimedia, and if by "universal" we mean "applying to wikis that approve it, and small wikis that don't reject it in favor of their own conduct policies". --Yair rand (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2019 - Section Name in DiffEdit


The Community Tech team (WMF) has officially started the project for Section Name in Diff, the #9 wish from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey!

You previously voted for this wish, so we are now contacting you. We invite you to visit the project page, where you can read a project analysis and share your feedback.

We hope to see you on the project talk page, and thank you in advance!

-- IFried (WMF), 14:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

AI legislationEdit

Dear AI DocJames,

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, --Mattia Luigi Nappi (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you gone from en:wiki?Edit


People are worried that you will not edit after that Arbcom. I hope this is not true, as you have done so much for medical topics. Maybe you are just taking a break. I cannot express how sorry I am to see you go, if this is the case. My best wishes to you. --Kalbbes (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes am taking a break and simple cleaning up some lose ends. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Ha, thank you! Kalbbes (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Brand ProjectEdit

Hi Doc James, you were one of the board members who approved the Brand Project last month. You did this despite significant opposition by the community. Do you as community selected board member endorse the new survey which does not provide the status quo as an option and which doesn't take the result of the RfC into account? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not see the harm in offering greater flexibility / more option around naming to affiliates / the WMF.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Does that include the flexibility of asking that the Wikimedia Foundation keeps operating under the name Wikimedia Foundation in an affiliate's area, even if Wikimedia Foundation decides to use another name? (For instance, a chapter's country, a user group's project etc.) Nemo 13:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
We have not been presented a final proposal to vote on. With respect to the WMF operating under various names in various places, I would need to review the various positions on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

  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 Community Health working group and all the care and commitment you brought to the process.

--Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Translators Without BordersEdit

Hi Doc James. I remember the medical project you coordinated had some translations made by TWB. Do we still collaborate with them? Would it be possible to request other kinds of translations? If so, what are the general requirements? Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Strainu from what I understand they are still interested in collaborating. We would need someone to coordinate the process (which we have not had for a few years). What sort of content were you thinking? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
What exactly is involved in coordination? We are looking into translating B+ articles from Romanian into English and other European languages and I remembered about TWB. Turbojet, is professional translation something that would help your project?--Strainu (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. This is a way to make it easier to get donations for WMF.
Strainu and I work on the Romanian Wikipedia. People in Romania earn little. As a retired university professor, I receive less than $ 8,000 a year. Others receive a quarter of this amount. No matter how much goodwill they have, they can't afford to make donations. However, Timișoara will be the European Capital of Culture in 2021 or 2022. Timisoara has many heritage sites and Strainu and I take care of them. I wrote many articles, but in Romanian. I think many will look for information on Wikipedia, but in English, not in Romanian. If they find it, they may be encouraged to donate. But my English is not good enough for me to translate the articles. If anyone was willing to translate, it would be a win-win for WMF. --Turbojet (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay have reached out. Generally we just translate 3 to 4 paragraph leads of a topic to make it easier for the translators. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any news Doc James? Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Strainu unfortunately not. Will email you and maybe you can connect with them directly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021: InvitationEdit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021Edit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


Hello there, I noticed you have a typo on your userpage. Under About Me you write "I am an editor most active on the English Wikipedia were I go by the name User:Doc James", but it should be 'where' not 'were', right? Zupotachyon (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

K thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of TrusteesEdit

Dear Board of Trustees,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Signing members of the cswiki-arbcomEdit

Signing on behalf of the dewiki-arbcomEdit

For the enwiki-arbcomEdit

Signing members of the frwiki-arbcomEdit

For the plwiki-arbcomEdit

Signing members of the ruwiki-arbcomEdit

Signing members of the ukwiki-arbcomEdit

Signing members of the pswiki-arbcomEdit

Thanks for reaching out with these suggestions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested edit to your userpageEdit

"This is my personal account. Though I am also a Wikimedia Foundatation Trustee (Community Selected Member)" -- shouldn't it be "Foundation"? MEisSCAMMER (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks spelling mistake. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Final Call for Candidates for AffCom - June 2021Edit

Want to help translate? Translate the missing messages.

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

This is a final Call for Candidates for the June 2021 Affiliations Committee election.

If you are interested in running, please post your application and follow all four steps on the nomination page by 30 June 2021 23:59 hours UTC.

If you know somebody you think may be interested, please share this with them and encourage them to consider it. If you have any questions about this process or the requirements, please email before the application deadline or reach out to any of the current members.

On behalf of the AffCom elections committee,

--- FULBERT (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC) [[Category:AffCom Elections June 2021|]]