User talk:GVarnum-WMF/Archive 1

Active discussions
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, GVarnum-WMF. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

MassMessage timestamp

Regarding Access to nonpublic information policy/MassMessages/Initial notice to volunteers,

(UTC) — like timezone abbreviation will be automatically put when you send it by MediaWiki message delivery as part of $timestamp, so it is better removed.

ps. In case you are not aware, {{YGM}} to your personal email. — regards, Revi 11:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea - thank you. And thank you for your work on the Korean translations! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: your message on confidentiality agreement

Hi Gregory, I've received your message regarding signing the new confidentiality agreement on the talk page of my English Wikipedia account (where I'm an oversighter). I would say that generally in the Wikimedian spirit of being direct, to-the-point, and non-fluffy, the message was at least 50% longer than it needed to be, if not more, with many repeated points, statements, sentences, etc. It was frustrating to read. I almost ignored it. I wanted to let you know for when (/if) you have cause to communicate with us again. :) Thanks! Julia\talk 21:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate the feedback. :) --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Identification noticeboard

Hi Greg. Can I suggest that WMF follows past practice on adding usernames one by one so we can get unique diffs for every user? If my meaning is unclear you can check the history of the old IN. Thanks for your work. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 20:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who told him that doing bulk additions was best for some of the initial drop ins. While I think that unique diffs is the best move with all things perfect I don't think the benefits are enough when we have a lot coming in at once. At that point it turns into busy work and the group diffs continue to show who added and when. At this point I think that if we have less then 5 to add at a time then adding individually makes sense, beyond that then I'd rather we just add them in bulk. Jalexander--WMF 20:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg and James. Yes, I also though that it may cause burden specially in this initial stage. I hope that when everything has "calmed" we can return to the old practice. Thanks both for your help. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Messages to account creators

Hi Greg, looking at this list I'm unsure why all account creators are being asked to sign? Most people listed there have no access to any sort of non-public information and likely never will. The name and the fact it is enwiki only currently makes me believe you're intending to get across to users of the English Wikipedia Account Creation team? If so, that list is not complete as some account creators aren't even account creators on the wiki.

If I am wrong, can you clarify exactly what private information is bringing these people under the new policy yet wasn't valid private information over the previous policy? Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That list is not ready for use yet and we haven't fully decided yet who to contact. It is just a starting point for us to work from. I will respond when I have more information, but right now, I do not have the final information myself yet. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Just also then wanted to add the list of account creators with access to non-public information as some there won't have the account creator status because they're new or CheckUsers.. :) John F. Lewis (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Any CheckUsers will already be asked to sign the agreement, but it is very helpful to have the others listed somewhere. :) --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@John F. Lewis: the list has been updated to reflect who needs to sign it (and has not already or is not already being asked to sign for other access reasons). Thank you for your help! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Welcome John F. Lewis (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Message about signing the new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

Hi Greg and thank you for this message. I am one of the oversighters on swedish Wikipedia but I do not wish to continue as this after my present term ends in october. I have notified the community about this and I hope a new oversighter will be selected soon, or at least before the end of october. In the message you asked to be notified if users do not wish to retain this access. Since my term as an oversigheter will end before 15 december, I guess this means I don´t need to sign the new confidentiality agreement? Otherwise, please let me know. Best regards, Höstblomma (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct, if you do not plan on retaining your access after 15 December 2015, you do not need to sign the new agreement. Thank you for your past help as an oversighter! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey, it's great to hear from you in your WMF capacity :) I am no longer an OTRS agent. Since it's been a while since I left (several weeks), I'm guessing the lists used to create a target list for [1] are outdated. Best, --Elitre (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I am making some updates to the MassMessage list and will make sure we do not pester you again. ;) Thanks! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Greg, I just signed the agreement. I am an admin on the Indonesian and Javanese Wikipedia. Please review whether everything is OK. Cheers. Meursault2004 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Meursault2004: Yes, you are all set. Thank you! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Greg. I just noticed that some of the ja OTRS members seem to have not received this message on their talk pages (info-ja:User talk:青子守歌, User talk:Vigorous action; commons-permission:User talk:Whym), though I myself have received one . Is there any reason or some mitake? --miya (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Miya: Most likely they were - for whatever reason - not on the list (I believe on Meta) that I used when creating the OTRS MassMessage list. However, the OTRS Admins are taking the lead on contacting OTRS people, and are primarily using email. We are also using email to contact the non-OTRS people required to sign the agreement. I am not yet sure if we are going to use MassMessage again for OTRS or not. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
For what it is worth - two of those people have already signed the agreement. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@GVarnum-WMF: You mean you used the list here:OTRS/Users? But that's strange...this list contains all three I mentioned. Anyway thank you for answering my question. --miya (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Miya: This list: OTRS/Personnel - that we have so many is probably a problem. In any case - the page you mentioned is being updated (probably later this week) based off a different list that comes from the OTRS system. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard update

If at all possible, could the Access to nonpublic information policy/Noticeboard be updated. I'm trying to re-activate my ACC account and my signature needs to be verified. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 00:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, we had a flood of signatures in the last couple of days. :) I have made the update with your username. Thank you for signing! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not RL

I signed the agreement with my username, it it okay? Thanks Supdiop (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Supdiop: Yes - that is fine. Thank you for checking! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I want to become Account creator on English wikipedia.Is there any way to solve this problem? Supdiop (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Supdiop: The deadline is for people that already have the rights. Anyone who would like to obtain those rights in the future will sign the document as a part of the new process we are implementing. The document will not go away after the December deadline. If you are just looking for the Account Creator rights on English Wikipedia (for use at an event as an example), that is not connected to this document. However, if you are looking to become a part of the Account Creation team on English Wikipedia (which handles requests from the general public), you are required to be 18. So once you turn 18 and are eligible for that role, you will then be asked to sign this document. If you signed the document before then, you would be lying on the agreement, which makes the whole thing void, and you would still need to sign it again later anyway. However, it is possible that lying to WMF might be enough of a concern that those approving the rights may opt to deny them. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Supdiop (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hay, I signed the agreement, but i didn't found my name on Noticeboard. Please can you add me? Thnx.--Ex13 (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, yes, I have confirmed your signature and added your name to the Noticeboard. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Rename request in Access to nonpublic information policy/Noticeboard

Hi. I've signed the legal pad and have my name on the Access to nonpublic information policy noticeboard, this diff. I had a rename recently from User:JAaron95 to User:UY Scuti. Can you please change my name on the noticeboard to reflect this change? Thanks and regards—UY Scuti Talk(pka,JAaron95) 09:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I have updated the noticeboard to reflect the change. If you get a chance to log back into Phabricator using the MediaWiki SUL login and let me know, that would be great. I am curious if it updates the linked username in the Phabricator interface on our end. If not, no worries. Thank you! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I logged in to my Phabricator account and no, my old username wasn't updated. Is that something I should worry about that? Regards—UY Scuti Talk(pka,JAaron95) 13:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to worry about - I was just curious what would happen. Thank you! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Initial notice to OTRS volunteers

Hi! Is this page (and similar for non-OTRS) is still needed for translations? If this was already sent and won't be sent anymore, I'd rather remove them from _High priority - Access to nonpublic information policy aggregated group. Thanks for reply. -- Ата (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully by now, everyone who it was sent to has reviewed it - so removing it from active translations seems reasonable. I will do so now. Thank you for reaching out. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


Shouldn't the check-disclosure e-mail be listed on Legal#Legal_Team_Email_Contacts? Savhñ 23:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Good idea - I have gone ahead and added it. Thank you for the suggestion! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


What exactly is the difference between the current policy of nonpublic data access and the older one? -- Mentifisto 13:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Bump. I checked User talk:Mentifisto briefly, but didn't see a reply to this question there either. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting you an answer here @Mentifisto: it looks like it fell off our radar (my fault, not Greg's). In the end the core reason for both the old and the new policy has been to say who is allowed to get access to certain types of private information and what requirements they have to go through from the WMF side (with the community election requirements etc being separate). The biggest differences in the new one was a switch from requiring that users send their identification to the Wikimedia Foundation to be verified to digitally signing a confidentiality agreement that affirms they meet the requirements and talks about the policies at play (such as the Privacy Policy). It also added the OTRS agents as covered (previously they were explicitly separated by the policy. If you're interested in some of the history there was extensive consultation and discussion when the policies were being rewritten. For example you can see the discussion about the Access Policy specifically the 2013 archives (and a bit in 2014) as well as in the archives of the Privacy policy discussion which happened at the same time. Jalexander--WMF 05:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Re new confidentiality agreement for non=-public info

Hi. Regarding the new NDA. I don't really want to be an oversighter on enwikinews anymore. I'm assuming I don't have to sign the new agreement then? (I should note, I have access to non-public info as a developer (e.g. security bugs), and I definitely want to retain that access [I had access via a volunteer-nda, and currently I'm a contractor]. I'm assuming all the dev related NDA stuff is totally separate). Bawolff (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bawolff: you're correct, the developer NDAs are indeed separate and so if you don't want to continue holding oversight past the deadline you don't need to sign. Assuming you continue to think that thank you for your service. :) Jalexander--WMF 00:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool. I havent been active on enwikinews for years at this point. Quite frankly I'm surprised that I still manage to even have oversight. Bawolff (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop putting messages on my talk page. I have made it very clear that I am not going to sign the present 8,000 words or so of vague stuff. It is my considered, professional opinion that the request is an abuse by WMF of its volunteers and if WMF is going to bludgeon volunteers into signing such a thing, I don't want to be one of them..

To reiterate -- over the course of my career, I have both written and signed many such agreements -- none of them longer than about 800 words. This collection of documents is at least ten times that long and contains links and references which I have not bothered to count, but which may extend it well beyond that.

It also does not contain an important exception that is present in every competent confidentiality agreement -- it should not be possible under the agreement to sanction me for revealing non-public information unless I came into possession it through the use of one of the covered tools. As the present document stands, a user whose user name is a pseudonym could be sanction for revealing his own real name and I could be sanctioned for revealing the real name of any of my colleagues who have given them to me in e-mails. Why does WMF think that it should be able to sanction me for an act that would be sanction-free if done by most of our colleagues?

Several people, including, I think, you, have promised to fix this -- or at least discuss it, but nothing has happened.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I will remove you from the MassMessage list. I do know that it has been discussed. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gregory! I am also receiving the notifications, although I resigned from the checkuser role on, since 25 October 2015. Please remove me from the list. Thanks, Rsocol (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I will remove you from the notifications list. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)



On November 21, you deleted the local version of the message that contains the target of the "Privacy policy" link on, but it probably did not work as intended, because the link is now broken (it points to [2], which does not exist). Could you please take a look at this?


Orlodrim (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. An update was made a little over a week ago to the MediaWiki extension which manages that, we are just waiting for that update to aggregate to the wikis. That update should solve the problem. In the meantime, I have setup a redirect. Again, thank you for letting me know about the issue. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Propagate or perhaps even promulgate, but not aggregate, surely. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry - yes that was a typo - I meant propagate. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?

Hi there,

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

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


Hello, thank you for your reminder. I have just signed the Confidentiality agreement. Kind regards, Mimihitam Mimihitam (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Great - thank you! --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Confidentiality agreement

Hi. I don't intend to continue with my OTRS and checkuser activities (and I haven't done them for quite a while), so the transition to the new confidentiality agreement is a good time for me to end my contribution formally. Sorry for the late notification. — AdiJapan 14:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I have updated the lists accordingly. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Confidentiality agreement

Hi. I keep getting dire warnings that I've not signed the confidentiality agreement. But I did it at the end of October and it does seem to have worked. Kind of worried that there's a glitch here and that it might be affecting other users, too. --Dweller (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: I apologize for any confusion. It is not a glitch. There are actually two agreements, and you have signed one, but not the other. You signed the general agreement for functionaries. There is a separate agreement for OTRS access which also needs to be signed. There is more information on the how-to page, and here is the link to the OTRS agreement. I will add a line explaining that to the MassMessage in case to help clear that up. Again, apologies for the confusion. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious about this as well. Why are users being spammed with irrelevant notices? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: The MassMessage that I suspect you are referring to is notifying people that if they do not take action, they will lose certain user rights. Given that possible outcome, we feel it is necessary to make numerous efforts to reach them. I am coordinating the MassMessages, and the OTRS admins are sending emails. Once people sign the new agreement, we work to prevent them from receiving future notices, and people that do not want to receive them anymore can request to be taken off the notice lists (something a couple people have done). There have been a very limited number of times when a message was accidentally sent to someone who signed, and a few issues have arisen where people had questions about why they received the notices. Both have provided us with opportunities to improve the process and messages sent. If you believe we should make less effort to reach people before user rights are taken away, I would be interested in hearing more on why. I am also open to ideas on better methods to contact hundreds of specific volunteers about an action they need to take to retain rights. However, I believe using email and MassMessage has been effective for this process. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize there were two separate agreements. It's surprising to me that a single document couldn't cover both use-cases.
The text at OTRS/Confidentiality agreement is a bit confusing, as it almost suggests to me that there's a single confidentiality agreement, but in reality it looks like there's both phabricator:L4 (for functionaries) and phabricator:L32 (for OTRS), with a potential third agreement in the future. Creeping bureaucracy is creeping. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have tried several times to fix the OTRS thing. Apparently there is a problem with my LDAP code. I will have to except that by next year to create a new account. Wish You all the best for 2016.--Barbara Fischer (WMDE) (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Barbara Fischer (WMDE): Sorry to hear that you are having problems. I might be able to help if you would like to email me: gvarnum --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, for better or worse, pinging a user only works if the edit also contains a timestamp, as I recall. So an edit such as this will not result in an Echo notification being sent. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. As I've always found OTRS to be rather clunky and have not used it for some time. Furthermore, Phabricator was frankly a nightmare for this techno-no-savvy the first time round, so I've decided I'm not going to sign this additional form. I'm sure if I find I need OTRS access once more in the future, a well-reasoned request will be granted. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. I believe the rights will be removed soon, if they have not already. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Confidentiality agreement

Hi, I am unsure whether I completed all needed steps. I'm not sure which roles would require it; I'm an OTRS member, a bureaucrat on the Outreach Wiki, and I have access (not as admin) to the WMF wiki. Anything I need to do to retain those permissions? Sorry for the late question -- if I need to get knocked off for a little while to sort it out, I understand. -Pete F (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pete - you have indeed completed all the steps for OTRS (as indicated here) and were not required to sign it for your other roles. Thank you! --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Confiabilidad OTRS

Hola, disculpa no hablo ingles, me ha sido retirado el permiso como agente OTRS por no firmar documento de confiabilidad, pienso que hay un error ya que firmé junto con el documento de checkuser. ¿Podrías ayudarme a saber si está o no firmado el documento de OTRS?. Un abrazo Edmenb ( Mensajes ) Wikipedia en Español 22:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Acabo de mirar en phabricator y al colocar mi nick me dice: "Acuerdo de confidencialidad para la información No Pública para usuarios de OTRS (Español) Updated 113 Days Ago" ¿Estaré yo equivocado? Edmenb ( Mensajes ) Wikipedia en Español 22:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Lo siento por mi mal español. Se firmó el documento incorrecto. Después de su comentario aquí, el documento correcto ha sido firmado. Así que usted está al día con la nueva política. ¡Gracias! --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Gracias Gregory, ¿tu te ocupas de devolver los permisos?, ¿Tu me vuelves a suscribir en la lista de correo? ¿tengo que dirigirme al tablón?. Un abrazo Edmenb ( Mensajes ) Wikipedia en Español 13:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Los administradores OTRS pueden ayudar con eso. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, reactivated my account. Hug Edmenb ( Mensajes ) Wikipedia en Español 12:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia 15 discussion

Hello, as you can see from any localized version of Talk:Wikipedia 15 (es, for example), the discussion isn't being updated. That could be solved using something like {{:Talk:Wikipedia 15}} in every version but the original one, but we're running out of time (3 days until Wikipedia 15) for doing any unplanned changes, so I'm asking if you could delete all localized versions of Talk:Wikipedia 15 and only let the English one. Thanks, Eduardogobi (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC) :)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results

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

With great thanks,

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

Pedantry; Translate extension

Hi. Regarding this edit, technically a null edit doesn't leave a revision. Edits that make a small change typically called dummy edits. w:en:Wikipedia:Purge discusses the distinction. But more to the point: what's wrong with the Translate extension? Is there a Phabricator Maniphest task about whatever you're seemingly working around? Null and dummy edits being part of the workflow indicate a bug to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: Good point. There is a bug for this problem: phab:T48716. The reason that I use "null edit" is that this bug has always been referred to in conversations with me as the "null edit bug" - so I've just adopted that terminology so people familiar with the bug would see those edits. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. The large majority of dummy edits working around the bug are correctly called "dummy edit" in the respective summary, according to my last SQL query. Nemo 22:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Honestly - this is not something I feel very strongly about. I was asked to do it by some developers - so I did it. If you prefer I change, that's fine with me. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't care about the edit summary text, I care about the need to do a workaround. Thanks for the Phabricator link. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation of signature

Hi Greg. Can you please check here? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 14:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Greg, can you or someone tasked with the Phabricator thing reply to @Floquenbeam: why his/her signature is not being processed? James and you seems to be ignoring our calls, and that'd be very unfortunate. —MarcoAurelio 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Apologies for the delay. User:Jalexander-WMF is now the lead on this as I am now in the Communications department. However, I have gone ahead and checked this one and added Floquenbeam to the list. Again, my apologies for the delay. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the reply. I didn't know you were not tasked anymore with this. Do you foresee any problem if I grant Floquenbeam the requested permissions, given that it needs apparently Jalexander's approval? —MarcoAurelio 19:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't anticipate any problems - I was able to verify that he's signed. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Greg, no issues on my side as long as it's someone on the top of Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy/Noticeboard did it (and I left Greg there on purpose in order to shanghai him into more work, obviously]. Jalexander--WMF 00:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't delete redirects

Nemo 22:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Okay - I don't recall deleting one recently. Can you please be more specific? Thank you. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you using your suppressredirect permission without even realising? That would be worrying. Nemo 21:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Again - can you please provide an example or be more specific? Perhaps I can help answer your questions if I know what you are referring to. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi Greg, thanks for putting this on the wiki. I note that Patricio's signature links to his meta user page, which is a soft redirect to his Spanish Wikipedia page. Do you think, since this is a very official message, that maybe his official board bio might be a better link? (I'm not sure if those exist in languages other than English, so maybe that's not ideal either.)

The reason I'm asking -- it seems plausible that this page might attract interest from people not very familiar with Wikimedia governance. Even if you follow the soft redirect, and (if needed) translate the Spanish, still you have to get to part way through the third paragraph before you learn that he is a member of the Board of Trustees, and then to the last sentence of that paragraph to learn he is the chair. This seems less than ideal for an important message. -Pete F (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point - I have updated the first link which mentions his name. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants

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

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


Hi Greg. I know you previously handled Access to nonpublic data stuff at Phabricator. There's a push request for having a farsi translation of the NDA at phab:T142907 which is sitting there without anyone caring about it. I wonder if you're still allowed to handle this kind of stuff (I see you're still in the access policy - approvers project) and if so, if you could add it to Legalpad. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 14:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

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

Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization, or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement.

In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from Wikimedia Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable to return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those agreements.

If you have questions about what this means for community members in the affected affiliates’ region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. The FAQ talk page is available for additional questions and comments, and the Affiliations Committee is happy to answer questions directly.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet helpSubscribe or unsubscribe.

Annual report

Sorry, is the version on Meta not for editing? Should I revert the rest of my edits to it? --Yair rand (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yair rand: It is meant to be a Meta-Wiki version of the website - in part for translation. So, we should try to keep the two versions consistent or it will get very confusing for people coming here for a translation of the main report site. I think it is fine to suggest changes on the talk pages - but I would wait until a decision is made on making a change in the actual report before changing the Meta-Wiki version. Out of necessity, we have to post it in a few different places - but each one being different would be problematic. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
So, which one's the primary version? Is that one editable? If there are still changes to be made, it might make sense to hold off on requesting translations so that the translators don't have to do some parts twice. --Yair rand (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yair rand: The primary online version is, as is the case every year, the dedicated website version hosted at Since this is a Wikimedia Foundation report and therefore not a community effort, there is not an editable version. We are keeping the Meta-Wiki version marked as draft until the planned changes to the site that Zack mentioned on the Wikimedia-l are made. However, that will be done soon and before we start actively linking to the Meta-Wiki page. The process for next year may be different, but the process for this year is already set and very near final completion. --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the information. --Yair rand (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Absolutely! Thank you for checking. :) --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Target for mass messages

Hi GVarnum-WMF. Why did you change targets for mass messages on this list, e. g. this one? Best regards. --Holder (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Holder: Because of past uses, it had a lot of technical village pumps - vs. general village pumps. Since then, those have been moved to other lists and this one is primarily used now for general (and not always technical) announcements. However, if we accidentally got the wrong village pump - please let me know. Thank you! --Gregory Varnum (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

04:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Board of Trustees translation

Hi, when you have a chance, could you re-tag the candidates page? I updated "online" section yesterday, but it hasn't been updated yet. Thanks! --Yurik (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

こちらをクリックして投票してください]。 候補者と選挙についての詳しい情報は、メタの2017年理事選挙のページでご覧いただけます。

ウィキメディア財団コミュニティ代弁者ジョー・サザランド Joe Sutherland

MediaWiki送信機能にて送信 • 翻訳ヘルプ 17:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

18:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

18:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

18:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)

19:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections

20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Return to the user page of "GVarnum-WMF/Archive 1".