User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 2

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Rschen7754 in topic Bot policy


I plan to write a guide this year. --Rschen7754 04:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That last section, are you doing an open campaign for the candidates?--AldNonymousBicara? 17:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I plan to express my opinions about their candidacies, since that is what a voters guide is for. --Rschen7754 01:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Question to board candidates

Hi Rschen!

Thanks for submitting a question for the board candidates. I wanted to let you know that I added a header for your question to make it easier to link directly too from the table of contents etc. Are you ok with what I put? ("WMF role in disputes") obviously feel free to tweak if that doesn't get your message across or let me know if you want me to do so. Jalexander--WMF 08:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. Thanks! --Rschen7754 15:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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 OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. 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 (gvarnum Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. 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 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)TranslateGet help

Have you thought about being a steward?

I've posted some of my own thoughts on the role here. Nominations start in January. --Rschen7754 23:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you thought about being a steward? [repost]

I've posted some of my own thoughts on the role here. Nominations have started and run until January 28. --Rschen7754 20:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting and instructive. Thanks.--Syum90 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for third party closure of RfC

Hi Rschen, I hope that you are well!

I'd be very grateful if you would be able to close this "meta" RfC: Requests for comment/Closure of old RFCs. As the proposer, I really can't.

Once that is closed we can go about closing some of the old RfCs that are lingering.

Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I commented in it, so unfortunately I can't close it either. --Rschen7754 17:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh great. Is there another user who you could recommend? I really don't have any idea who to ask up here. I've already posted at the Stewards' noticeboard (to no avail). --LT910001 (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You could try asking at RFH too. --Rschen7754 02:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no "formal" standard that says who can close it; I closed a few after I resigned my Meta adminship. If it could be controversial, it should be left to an admin, but (my opinion anyway) I think it's fine. --Rschen7754 21:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've thought from time to time about requesting adminship on Meta primarily for the purpose of closing discussions, but I think that I need to be an admin on a content wiki first, and Outreach doesn't count.--Pine 21:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
(Also a TPS) it's a clearcut case, shouldn't matter who closes it. Go for it Pine :) Ajraddatz (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:) Thanks. --LT910001 (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Steward votes

Except for 2 cases where I'm still deciding, I do intend to vote keep on all the confirmations I have not supported, just ran out of time. --15:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Rschen7754, I have replied at Stewards/Confirm/2016/Taketa. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Taketa: I was looking for comments about the OS/homewiki matter the most, as that's what baffled me. --Rschen7754 01:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That was the first time I encountered a request from Wikidata. As I mentioned in my text, I was still getting to know SRP in August. Even though I am an admin on Wikidata, I have never been that active in the community. I did not notice it was a home wiki until I had already granted the right. I did notice after I had granted the right, and did not repeat this during the next 6 months. This confirmation is the first time this incident is mentioned to me. I knew it though and I was more careful afterwards. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems my message is read as being I don't know where I am when granting rights... This is not what I tried to convey. I will add further context. Ofcourse I know what wiki it was being granted on. I did all checks as I always do, and as I have always done during my 6 years as bureaucrat granting rights. I did not realise it was my homewiki. I had never before had to take a homewiki into consideration. This is a steward only limit, that I had never experienced before. Even though I know that I should not act on a homewiki, I am only highly active on Wikidata in content and never was active in the community disussions. If it had been a Dutch project I would have realised, but on Wikidata I simply didn't realise. I made a mistake not noticing the homewiki guideline applied. This happened 1 time, and never after. No complaints were noted during the 6 months since. The user who noticed, did not think it necessary to inform me at the time or anytime after to prevent repeats. And I have also never repeated. If you think that I will repeat a homewiki action, after a single incident and no repeat in 6 months, vote against me for sure.
You mentioned that I make more mistakes than other stewards. I dont think it is true, and people notice me probably due to the type of actions. I answered about 100 individual requests on SRP. For example in the history you can see out of the last 1000 edits, my name is mentioned the most of all, namely 119 times. Considering 70% of the edits there are from non-stewards, I did about 30-40% of the steward edits out of 35 stewards. Yet I am seen as inactive because I dont fight vandals. Many stewards mostly give userrights to themselves to fight vandalism [1], or remove rights that expire, or work on AAR. Notice in my example that all actions were the ones I described. Not removing bureaucrat rights is something I fix [2]. But since it is a one time thing it is not mentioned now. I did more then 10x more SRP actions, and I did not do 10x more mistakes. Saying I make more mistakes then other stewards, I think is simply not true. Because I do more, it simply adds up and you notice it. None of the mistakes were harmful. All actions lead to good results. All users I helped were helped. Many of them voted just now, or thanked me. Please check my talk page. None of the incidents mentioned lead to bad results. No incident was repeated. You say I should be active in AAR. No AAR occured during my time. The current AAR is being organised and I am not a bot user to help with the current informing of people. I helped with global bots [3]. I helped with global permissions [4]. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

pl take note

I was a global sysop from October 2014 to February 2014, and a steward from February 2014 to March 2015.  ? This is what you had written about you. Pl correct it. Wellwisher--Drcenjary (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Global list of pages for deletion

Hey Rschen7754,

A while ago, you had a tool that listed all pages nominated for speedy deletion on small wikis. Do you still have that somewhere? The link is now broken :(

Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Matiia has given me a link. Problem solved :) Ajraddatz (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I think MarcoAurelio is working to fix it up, see phabricator:T128743. --Rschen7754 01:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your administrator status on my.wikipedia

Hi Rschen7754, Rschen I still want to keep my rights in my.wkipedia. I am dealing with Myanmar government and Myanmar Ministry of Education about Myanmar fonts. Myanmar has dispute about Unicode and ZawGyi fonts. Wiki is using Unicode but most of the myanmar companies like and facebook using ZawGyi fonts but all sites need to be used Unicode is my fight. Thanks for understanding. kyawgyi

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:


RFC of SPcom

@Rschen7754: Good afternoon, I changed the RFC of SPcom: Ñow I propose and elected comittee. Archi38 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Srhat's admin status on Turkish Wikinews

Hello Rschen7754,

I have seen your message so I'd like to ask a question about Srhat because of it's a admin on Turkish Wikinews but he didn't work since 2013 and inactive for 2 years but Turkish Wikinews has just a admin. What we should do? --Merhabaviki (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Since then, I stepped down from being a steward. I do know that there is another round of AAR running, so you will need to wait for the current stewards to approach that user about their inactivity. --Rschen7754 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.--Merhabaviki (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That RfC

Hey Rschen7754, I deleted that RfC you commented on. It was created by some LTA (Boxtools I think?). I must've missed it a month ago. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Designated space for editors to give and seek advice about topic bans and other sanctions

You are being contacted because you commented on the proposal for a designated space in which users, including topic-banned and other sanctioned users, could ask questions and seek information about topic bans and other sanctions, "IdeaLab/Area for topic banned editors to talk freely about their ban, e.g. to ask questions of experienced wikipedians." There is now an RfC in progress concerning this proposal. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin activity review/Notice to communities

Hi, just FYI, it was reported to me, that you didn't use the latest Finnish translation (Admin_activity_review/Notice_to_communities/fi) of the notice when you posted your message on wikis. --Stryn (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going off the saved copies I had from early 2015 since I was short on time and we were already six months behind in sending out the notices. If I wind up being involved next year I'll try and pull fresher copies. --Rschen7754 07:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Close Wikinews Norway

Link : [[5]] --Pitpisit (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Not protecting CU/OS list pages

Point taken. :P – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey


You’re getting this message because you participated in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey and we want to make sure you don't miss it this year – or at least can make the conscious choice to ignore if it you want to. The 2015 survey decided what the Community Tech team should work on during 2016. It was also the focus of Wikimedia hackathons and work by other developers. You can see the status of wishes from the 2015 wishlist at 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results.

The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is now open for wishes. You can create proposals until November 20. You will be able to vote on which wishes you think are best or most important between November 28 and December 12. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Managers who have not been editing for 2 years

Hello dear Rschen7754 I am Doruk455 I have the right to patrol in Turkish Wikipedia and I am a member of the Turkish language There are administrators who have not been editing in Turkish Wikipedia for 2 years I do not know if they should be sent a warning to them I want help from you while I use translation for english I do not know much 1 2 this is the link good whiskey --Doruk455 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doruk455: They will remain administrators until the next round of AAR (probably in 2017). --Rschen7754 15:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for informing and helping you in the next round of what will be warned after 1 month will be taken to the authority of the bide will be asked a month after the stimulus good whiskey --Doruk455 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies and Best Wishes !!

Best Wishes, Rschen7754!
Hi Rschen7754, I apologies and really sorry for my past activities. Also, I wish you and your loved ones Happy New Year 2017. Dear, Have a great time !!  TBhagat (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you thought about being a steward?

I've posted some of my own thoughts on the role here. Nominations have started. --Rschen7754 00:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rschen, I've got two questions for you:
First of all, are there existing other pages about the steward role (or what stewards do or should not do or the like) other than the policy and your page? If those exist and you know that, it would be great to link on your subpage also to similar pages (maybe also to the steward policy or the like), so they can be found easily.
Second, what do you think about translations of your thoughts into other languages? Maybe m:User:Rschen7754/SE2015/de for German or the like (without the translation feature). Or do you plan to update that page regularly, so that translations maybe would become inactual?
Thanks also for your thoughts on the candidate/confirmation pages. Normally, users don't notice much of that, what stewards do or don't do, and don't know many of the stewards at all, so it's not easy with those elections or new candidates.
I've got another question about stewards and CU at Meta, hope you don't mind asking here: Is it right that stewards can check users without even telling them or the community and without posting onwiki at Meta that there has been a CU? I think it's very strange, what has been written at Stewards/Elections 2017/Questions#Defender that there could be a check after a mail request without even posting any results of that request onwiki, but only giving it to the local CU who maybe also doesn't post anything onwiki. But nobody seems to mind about it. Is that a normal procedure for CU here at Meta? I don't know that at all from dewiki, where all CU results have to be posted onwiki and I'm wondering that nobody wonders about this. So there can be a CU about anyone (certainly with a reason for doing that) without even telling the checked users (at that time or maybe later for some reason) and without posting the fact and result anywhere publicly? This is very strange for me. Are there some good practices for that? I don't want to ask any candidate, because it's a basic question. Or have there been discussions about this before anywhere at Meta which you might know and could point me to? Kind regards, --Bjarlin (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I can certainly look into adding links to the main policies. I would be reluctant to have translations, largely due to the possibility of my essay changing, but also because that might give it official status that I don't want to give it. There are parts of it that are certainly not endorsed by some stewards. For what it's worth, all current stewards understand English (at least enough to be able to converse), and 90%+ of CheckUsers across Wikimedia do as well (at least, from the impression I got reading checkuser-l) - any steward who didn't understand English at least on some level would have significant difficulties working with the current team. It may not be ideal for an international group, but it is reality. For de, I'm sure DerHexer has written similar thoughts elsewhere.
As far as your other question, we have to take a step back and look at dewiki. I'm no longer a steward, so I can be more blunt than I would be if I still was in the role. dewiki is quite unique in how it uses (or often, does not use) CU. The vast majority of the major projects (including enwiki, commons, meta, frwiki, nlwiki...) do not require any public logging of the use of the CU tool: see CheckUser policy/Local policies. However, there is a private log of all CU actions which can be viewed by all stewards, local CheckUsers, some WMF staff, and ombudsmen. On English Wikipedia, this is around 70-80 people who can view the log; in my opinion, this is sufficient to prevent abuse, even though people complain about the ~1000 checks a month run there. (Why all those checks? We have an unrelenting supply of vandals and trolls, just take a look at w:en:WP:SPI). I worry more about the project with only 1-2 active CheckUsers on a medium-sized project that probably shouldn't have CheckUsers and that nobody really pays attention to; I can name a few such projects but it would probably not be appropriate to do so on a public wiki.
But for what it's worth, stewards aren't really CheckUsers in the same sense as a local CU is. Any granting of CU is logged at Special:Log/rights; they have to give it to themselves before using it and return it when done. They generally cannot/do not use it on wikis with CUs. This includes Meta, which has its own elected CUs (most CU actions here are spam-related). There are sometimes CU actions done on what is known as loginwiki, but this is technically limited to new account creations (great for spam-related checks and some cross-wiki vandals but not that useful for much else). So a steward abusing CU would be more difficult to get away with and would be more likely to be noticed, especially since stewards can view all CU logs now. (Such reasons are why I never really learned how to use the CU tool well as a steward). --Rschen7754 02:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bjarlin: I'm afraid I have not written many essays about stewards besides my notes in the Kurier. My presentations in German and English can still be found, though. Further, I collected some desirable skills for become a steward for this election that I could share. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WMF Board elections

I do not plan to write a guide this year. I feel that past guides I wrote for these particular elections were near-useless. I may ask a few relevant questions that reflect current issues on Wikimedia. --Rschen7754 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Admin activity review at Cantonese Wikipedia (yue)

Hi Rschen7754, just noticed you had posted the message regarding to the Admin Activity review and the Messages had been translated into Cantonese. Please use the actual Cantonese message instead of the Simplified Chinese message as the translated message is already there. (Notice to communities, Notice to inactive right holders) If there's any messages are outdated and needs to be updated please let me know about this one. Thanks! :) Shinjiman (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, there wasn't one in past years so I didn't pick up on this new one. --Rschen7754 04:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It's okay for that, I've helped you to update the message there. For the next time (probably on next year) you can use and publish the translated message in Cantonese. :) Shinjiman (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably "no-go area"-like needless "oppose"

Hi sir, I've looked your comment under Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Albanian Wikinews, so I'm rather wondering that, is "Oppose Inactivity not a reason for closing the project under policy. --Rschen7754 05:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)" really needed? And that's happened after a much more needless enwiki notice from George Ho? This pcp is already judged as unlikely to be happen, your "oppose" could only drop more salts on wounds. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not intend to reply on behalf of Rschen7754, but I do not see any problems in voicing an opinion when we're called to give it, and when his vote is a faithful reproduction of what the closing projects policy said. Apologies for the instrusion. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. FWIW, I did not see the notice on enwiki (and think it was completely unnecessary). If you wish to withdraw your proposal, that is an option. --Rschen7754 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi Rschen, thank you for being the first on my GS request. I was getting worried about anyone giving an opinion. Thanks again. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers...

My Meta watchlist has been broken since I returned from vacation. No changes are displayed even though I know there have been changes to those pages. This is only happening on Meta. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 03:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Now resolved. --Rschen7754 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


I will admit that I wasn't fond of the condescending words he used but Billinghurst is more than qualified to be a Bureaucrat here on Meta, just see the way he conducts himself in deletion discussions here and he's always one of the most objective admins on he Meta-Wiki, though I can't say that I like the way he expresses himself sometimes, he is always objective and all of his actions are always in the benefit of Wikimedia projects in general as well as preserving local autonomy and being for the community to be able to make up their own minds. I hope that the next time he requests Bureaucratic status that you would go through all the finer things he's done here on Meta, he really deserves an endorsement (and believe me, I don't have much kind words for his condescending behaviour but he's one of the best and most helpful admins on this project and usually resorts to discussion rather than imposing his opinion.). Just go through all the archives of the deletion discussions on Meta. (well, except for his recent conduct with User:abd , but in general he's almost always very objective), I hope that the next time you could endorse him. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to form my own opinions about users, thanks. --Rschen7754 18:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe You haven't seen

You mentioned this Requests for comment/Hard line nationalism on the Croatian Wikipedia.
Started by user VS6507 [6][7], at first signed as "Alex".
He complained about being "harassed because of his nationality".
Rschen, have You read the answer?
That user on May 16, 2009, [8] wrote to our female contributor "come to my place to suck my c..k", in Cyrillic. National-chauvinist sexist escapade.
After all he dared to complain. Kubura (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, maybe not everything said about the Croatian Wikipedia is to be believed, but can you explain to me why there seem to be a disproportionate number of complaints from that wiki compared to say, English Wikipedia or even some of the other larger wikis? --Rschen7754 00:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you thought about being a steward?

I've posted some of my own thoughts on the role here. Nominations have started. --Rschen7754 06:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, have you? :-) —MarcoAurelio (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm flattered, but I just don't know where it would fit into my schedule. I could do 10 actions a year, but I assume you don't want that, and I'm not that kind of a person anyway. Plus, while I take it things are better than they were during my term, it added a considerable amount of stress that I didn't/don't really need at this point. I'm happy to sit on the sidelines, point out a few things that might have been missed, and work on AAR once it gets months behind.   --Rschen7754 08:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi! Please see your email. Trijnsteltalk 00:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Global preferences ready for testing


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) 22:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Activity note

Now July or August. --Rschen7754 17:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Now August 26. --Rschen7754 05:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

request for test.wikidata

Hello, when you have a free time, see the second link on this request --Alaa :)..! 17:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Next steps for the wish “confirmation prompt for the rollback link”


Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey


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) 11:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

anon ip is blacking pages

how do we stop it?

--Heytherekings (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wait for an admin or steward to come online. --Rschen7754 18:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you thought about being a steward? Or voting for one?

As a former steward, I thought I would share my thoughts about the process, what makes a good steward, and what voters should look for. Those thoughts can be found at User:Rschen7754/SE2015. --Rschen7754 07:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


that Cekli had blocked me for a week and re-moved that genocide article to the previous article. His comment over the t/p thread (The sources are inaccurate and do not reflect the truth. A large part of the Azerbaijani community do not agree with those sources.) is par excellence. As I said, it's brazen POV pushing per the pro-government line :-)

On a side-note, he has the chutzpah to continue with his usual abuse of tools, despite the the stuff that's happening over Meta. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Sorry to hear about it. Just document it as best as you can at the RFC. (FWIW, I don't know that I would have made those changes myself, just because I worry that I would have made a mess of things, not knowing the language. Plus, it makes it easier to document their POV position). --Rschen7754 15:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought that they had the scope of saying that no user proposed to move the article; hence they did not bother any et al. So, I took the risk and his' blocking me coupled with moving the article back confirms the POV stance, even more. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
By the way, how much participation/time-span does these RFC require? RFCs over here tend to run for years and years......Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The average user just doesn't care about something that complicated and complex and that will probably never affect their editing career. With these RFCs, you have to fight tl;dr, and the RFC being archived for inactivity. I've got some ideas but I'm waiting on someone to get back to me via email with a second opinion first. --Rschen7754 16:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal musing

Taking it here because I think having it on the proposal itself would be distracting, but it might be worth toning down the WhatsApp/FB group issue on the front. I think we both know that this is to some degree a norm in many non-Western wikis (It has definitely been mentioned re:, and I'm less sure about, but I suspect it is there just from the sense I get being fairly involved with xwiki socking issues on that project.) I personally agree these type of things should likely be done on-wiki, but from a pure feasibility standpoint when your dealing with suggesting removing admins from a wiki, it might be worth leaving that bit out since many of the people who are going to be interested in the proposal likely have some version of that on their home wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That is one issue that I struggled with.
  • It does seem to be a common theme among some of these other wikis that go bad (Croatian Wikipedia had a lot of complaints like this). And I know one past steward who was a hard-liner in this respect.
  • However, on enwiki you could say that IRC tends to be abused in this regard or in other regards, especially -en-admins. (Or even arbcom-l, as some would say!) Personally, I do think that some form of strategy/brainstorming is fine, but when people are blocked based on comments they make in the Facebook group, that is completely something else. I guess I'm not very familiar with how arwiki and zhwiki run things, but my impression is that things aren't so bad that they need to have all their admins removed. --Rschen7754 03:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I highly doubt on either of those projects the FB/off-wiki stuff results in blocks on-wiki. I suppose my point is that to some extent, the use of commercial group chat tied to RL identities (or even specific social media profiles for WMF projects) is much more prevalent in non-Western wikis than it is on My point here was that from a political (for lack of better word) perspective, you're likely going to get people commenting from wikis where this is more common, and knowing how Wikimedia works, some people will latch onto one thing and ignore the larger point that you're making: that there is something seriously wrong going on at TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that's fair. I've clarified that point a bit to better convey what I was getting at (namely that they might be using that group to coordinate efforts to derail any critical discussions that locals might use to intervene). --Rschen7754 04:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of block tool in azwiki

Hello. I have also suffered from abuse of block tool by "nicat49". During my wikipedia life only he blocked my account and he did it several times. I am sure he keeps his eyes on my account, in every my edit he puts something, when i argue something he just block my account. I think it is unfair block your opponent as an administrator, but someone third person should decide. This is like, i have a conflict with police, after a while, the policeman does not listen my opinion and just shuts me in jail. This is unfair. Administrator should not be able to use their block rights in their own conflicts. And he finds some expressions from my answers, which he does not like and tells that i was rude. And he blocks my account as much as he wants..Totally unfair. And no-one reacts, almost other administrators do not interrump to solve the issue, becouse most of them know each other personally.

Rschen7754, if you are able to interrump and re-organize az-wiki, please do something. HulaguKaan (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@HulaguKaan: Please voice your concerns on the RFC, where they will be seen by more people. --Rschen7754 00:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


FYI, there are some copyright problems with the user over at You may want to keep an eye on this discussion.  — FR 18:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on it but I'm not exactly enthusiastic about doing anything about it at the moment. --Rschen7754 18:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User script to access other watchlists

Hi Rschen7754,

If you remember, you participated in the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey, including the discussion for reviving "Crosswatch" to allow for cross-wiki watchlists (Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Watchlists/Revive Crosswatch tool).

I sent you this MassMessage because I wanted to let you know that I have made a user script to make accessing your watchlists on different wikis easier, since for now that wishlist item has not been actioned.

The way it works is that, on any wiki, when you look at your watchlist, there is a button labeled "CA" that takes you to the CentralAuth page for you. There, when looking at your own information, each link to a wiki ("", "", "", etc.) is changed so that it links to your watchlist on that wiki.

If you are interested in using it, just add mw.loader.load('//'); to your global javascript page. This imports the code at m:User:DannyS712/Watchlist.js.

If you want to learn more, there is documentation for the script available at w:en:User:DannyS712/Watchlist. If you would like to discuss the script, talk to me at m:User talk:DannyS712.

Thanks, --05:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


[9]: I would recommend the former. --Vogone (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist Expiry project page


During the Community Whishlist survey 2019, you have voted for the Watchlist item Expiration wish.

Community Tech has created the Watchlist Expiry project page to work on this feature, and is looking for your feedback about the open questions they have.

Regards, IFried_(WMF), 15:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Template_talk: SWMT-Members

Hey Rschen7754, As you were previously involved in discussions on Template_talk: SWMT-Members, your input will be really helpful on a recent discussion about making single list of users instead experienced and new. Thank you! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup in copyrighted images

Hi! I was very active on moving files to Commons some years ago and doing that I came across some wikis that did not care much about cleaning up on copyvios. I tried and I had some success but also some cases where I decided to let it go. Then I took a break for some years but now I'm back again.

Today I found a link to this Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki. That makes me think if it is possible to get some support from meta if I once again find some wikis that do not want to delete copyvios and unlicensed images etc.?

I will not tell which wikis I had problems with in the past because things may have changed. Atm. I only wanted to know if I can get support if needed and if yes how. Don't worry I will not come crying the first time someone says no or ignore me. I do realize it may take a few months to get the cleanup started. --MGA73 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. If the wiki doesn't have local admins you can ask at SRM but there have been some controversies. What may help is that some inactive admins were removed, so you may have better chances of success in that regard. --Rschen7754 19:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! The wikis had local admins but they did not like to delete "good photos" just because they did not have a valid license or good source etc. In some of the better wikis they made me admin so I could clean up but in other places they just ignored me.
Perhaps it is better if I just go ahead and try. And if I again find me in a situation where I can get nowhere then I can return and ask for advice. --MGA73 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
And if you happen to know anyone who can fix templates like mentioned here Talk:File_metadata_cleanup_drive/ I would be happy to know. is one of the good ones. We have come a long way there :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


From your userpage: Rschen7754 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Meta August 25

Presumably you forgot to update this. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

removal of access

Dear Rschen7754,
I moved in another town and had not so much time. You asked for removal of my admin rights. My workspace for admin in Wikidata is cleaning up discussionpages of vandalism. I will continue this work, for me changed nothing. I always follow rules and live wikidata with my heart - how can I continue my work now? Regards, Conny (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC).

@Conny: The expectation that the Wikidata community has set is that administrators are supposed to make at least 5 admin actions every 6 months in order to retain the tools. If you feel that you are able to do this in the future, you are welcome to reapply at RFA. --Rschen7754 00:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

About Georgian Wikipedia

Dear Rschen7754, I am asking you to help us the users of Georgian Wikipedia as much as possible. I respect stewards and rules and realize that interfering with a local project is not normal. But I do not believe that the injustice that is going on in KaWiki is not visible from the outside. Any user who resists is either blocked or threatened. Unwanted discussions are closed and users are not allowed to comment. According to the rule introduced by David1010 and MIKHEIL with procedural violations, both of them should not be administrators for a long time. Many users have requested unblocking me and Zangala on Georgian Wikipedia and are still requesting it, but the discussion is either closed or deleted altogether. I can not believe that all this is legitimized by the whole Wikimedia, while users from KaWiki on the neutral field repeatedly express their opinion against the abuse of the admin rights (here, here, here, here). If direct interference is ruled out, can anyone in any way remind the Georgian Wikipedia admins that users have the right to express their opinion and that admins should not make individual decisions against the wiki community? Providing a free discussion space in Georgian Wikipedia would be the best solution in this situation. Deu. 07:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As just a FYI, I'm no longer a steward so I cannot directly intervene. I am still thinking as to what can be done in this situation. --Rschen7754 07:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
And just a thought, please try and whenever you comment, keep it simple and short. It is hard enough to motivate stewards to do anything in this sort of situation, and walls of text don't help. --Rschen7754 07:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Deu: I have started an essay at User:Rschen7754/Help, my wiki went rogue! It is still under construction but I hope this helps. --Rschen7754 18:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Many Thanks! it's really helpful. The case history is also reassuring. Deu. 05:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of quotation

At Requests for comment/Ombuds Commission inactivity, you wrote out the following: Recent months have seen no activity reports at all, as apparently that consumes too much time. As a supporting basis for your comment, you linked to a comment that I wrote, in which I said Summaries take quite a while to prepare, so we are waiting for a volunteer to become available. […] tackling [the case backlog] is taking up most of our time, alongside inducting the new members.

On any clear reading of my comment, I did not say that producing activity summaries would take up "too much time" in the normal course of events. However, readers will infer as much from your comment and its phrasing. Please strike and re-word your comment to make clear that summaries are only considered difficult to do right now because of the choice by past members to not participate, creating a backlog. --AGK ■ 07:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the problem, especially since this state of affairs has gone on for 2 years and has become the new normal. --Rschen7754 19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting re GS

Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2021-05  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Some people need to go and edit and be community participants rather than organisers and directors. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Your opposes

I want to be frustrated with you, but well I'm trying my best to be restrained. Advanced apologies if that does not go well.

So, you have successfully derailed two of my global rights applications, with the comment that I cannot communicate. The question I need to ask is: what do you want from me then? I still haven't understood why you're picking on that one error I made, and if that wasn't the case (as shown by "Certainly not..."), I don't know what it is. The only other thing that I see is a bunch of diffs regarding to my GS proposal, and a failed Meta adminship proposal that I've learned from. Not only have you not replied to my answer to your concerns there, you're saying that "... shows a disturbing pattern". Whether that "pattern" is with communication or the GS proposal, I don't know what I can do since you haven't provided anything meaningful for me to act on. TLDR; you've been opposing me for reasons that are weird to my end and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it so that I can apply appropriate bugfixes, emergency if needed. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It's simple and complex at the same time: you need to show that you are capable of working with people without all of these "incidents" and "controversies" happening. Sadly, there is no magic solution to learning how to work with other editors. It takes time and practice, both onwiki (maybe try working on content for a while?) and offwiki. As far as [10], I'm not really sure that you understand the "lesson" here: you were technically right in that the request was not very qualified, but if you were getting death threats against your family, would you want someone telling you If this is what you have to say, then I don't think you deserve any further tools.... In future, make sure to understand each person's ideas properly instead of insulting them? This is simply devoid of any emotional intelligence. Not to mention that you seem to do controversial actions with AbuseFilters and the like without asking or getting consensus first, which was what led to your first RFA downfall. As far as the GS stuff: you have to really be careful when dealing with other wikis - even stewards get in trouble when they are doing their roles because some wikis are very hostile. You can't argue a wiki into accepting global sysops. Yes, you can win the intellectual debate but you won't have won them over because people aren't just robots and logic; they are composed of emotion and personality too. And that is what sets us apart from the animals, so I would say that is a good thing. --Rschen7754 00:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response.
  • For Drmies' case, I appreciate that my use of the word "junk" was not correct and accept that I could have handled the first reply better. However, I don't think that my second response (which you have cited now) was inappropriate. Notice that he said that "I don't give a rat's ass for what else you have to say". Just as you penalised me for my inappropriate use of the word "junk", I noted that I would apply a penalty when scoring a future rights request from Drmies, because he appears to have a problem with handling tense situations. Understandably I was stronger than usual that time, but looking back, I don't know what mistake I made with that response.
  • As for "controversial actions with AbuseFilters and the like without asking or getting consensus", this was true in March 2019 (and was linked to the Meta RfA issue). I have learned from that and am much more careful working with filters, including dry runs and more. One of the mistakes I made then was not realising that while it was OK to unilaterally implement filter changes on en.wikibooks/, this is not the case on Meta. This issue has been fixed to my knowledge, just that I haven't reapplied for full RfA on Meta since then (and if I do, I've have people like you oppose me again and a circular loop will occur).
  • And for GS, as I've repeatedly been trying to tell you, there is a fine balance that is tricky to handle. I do have to "argue" to some extent. The reason is that, from my experience, some wikis are simply unaware of what global sysops are and how they work. Case in point, I had an admin think that abuse filters can only be modified by bureaucrats. Another thought that global sysops cannot block users. Quite a few others lack the crosswiki/patrolling experience to see the challenges global sysops face in these situations. I think it's reasonable for me to "argue" to a reasonable level as a result. Upon to a point that is. I have made it clear several times that it's the community's decision and when I don't see the consensus required, I close the request myself as unsuccessful - after all, while I would prefer to have every wiki under GS, I am bound by community consensus in the end and I respect that. I still haven't understood why you don't like it (citing your Meta PR comment which I did not understand), considering that I'm already seeing positive impact from my GS proposal.
Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I noted that I would apply a penalty when scoring a future rights request from Drmies, because he appears to have a problem with handling tense situations This is incredibly tone deaf. The proper response would be to give grace to someone under that kind of pressure. Having faced death threats towards myself I can certainly understand the emotions that someone feels in that situation, and w:empathy is the appropriate response here. Not to mention - "scoring a future rights request"? "penalty"? Wikimedia is composed of people and not robots.
And I was a steward and a global sysop at different points of my wikicareer, so I certainly get that, but you went too far. See the thread above this one. --Rschen7754 18:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I do not use any kind of quantitative scoring system while supporting/opposing someone on Wikimedia (though it won't be hard if needed to curve requests to the standardised 0-20 scale). But yes, I did mean a penalty. It should not be hard to understand that what I meant was that I would negatively consider his answer while deciding whether Drmies should get my support for a future role. Even if someone is in pressure, I thought the right thing would be to just take a (short) break, not do what Drmies did, no matter the circumstances, and/or report the incident through the established channels. I am not sure what your Wikipedia link on empathy has to do, but I supposedly have none of it (having just taken an online test upon your comment). Not sure if that contributes to the difference in opinions we have here. If you meant scoring up (qualitatively) an application of Drmies solely because of his situation, that's illogical because Wikimedia is merit-driven, not "empathy"-driven (whatever that is) as you seem to imply. There are very few cases where this is justified (such as Green Giant's SE2021 confirmation). Could be missing your point completely though...
  • I know the Wikisource case, but I addressed that in my third point in the previous reply. Is there something in that I "went too far"? As I said, I did not do anything differently to Wikisource than the others, and exited when it was clear that it wasn't going to pass. If you could explain further I'd appreciate (all I understood at the proposal was I was apparently bullying, which makes no sense).
  • Perhaps ironically, the Drmies case is one reason why I started this GS proposal that you seem to hate - to make the lives of those fighting crosswiki vandalism easier, and that includes doxing. Leaderboard (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
that's illogical because Wikimedia is merit-driven, not "empathy"-driven (whatever that is) - well, that just about sums this whole conversation up. Skills are important but they can only go so far. --Rschen7754 01:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Global bot approval request for InternetArchiveBot

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 2

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 2, July 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.

  • Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. (continue reading)
  • Targets of Harassment Research - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
  • Functionaries’ Consultation - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable Discussions - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. (continue reading)
  • Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. (continue reading)
  • New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. (continue reading)
  • Wikimania - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)

Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

#WPWPCampaign2021: Learning and evaluation

Hello Rschen7754,

Many thanks for participating in the WPWP campaign.

We are glad about the level of participation, this year and we are excited to inform you that over 900 volunteers around the world added photos to more than 250,000 articles in 298 languages Wikipedia. This year, we surpassed the 2020 edition's milestone by over 170%.

We are in the process of evaluating the WPWP campaign this year and we need your help. We'd love to get your feedback. Your feedback will allow us to better meet your expectations for the campaign in the next editions.

Please complete a brief survey so that we may learn about your participation in the campaign, strengths, challenges and your expectations. This information will enable us to improve the next editions of the Campaign.

Follow this link to the Survey:

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

Thank you in advance for taking this survey.  

Kind regards,
Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ]
Communication Manager, WPWP Campaign
-- Message sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 4

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 4, October 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the fourth issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.

  • Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review Wrap-up - The Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review will come to a close on 17 October 2021, after more than two months of extensive consultations. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable Discussions and Conversation Hours - Another successful roundtable session happened on September 18, 2021 to discuss the EDGR. One last conversation hour will be happening on October 15th, 2021. (continue reading)
  • Movement Charter Drafting Committee Elections - The Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection process has kicked off and will be open until October 25, 2021. Contributors to Wikimedia projects can elect their favorite candidates on to the committee. (continue reading)
  • New Direction for the Newsletter - As we round-up the consultation processes for the Universal Code of Conduct, the facilitation team is currently envisioning new directions for the newsletter. (continue reading)
  • Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2021

Your vote

Special:Diff/22513610. In my opinion it is much more meaningful to point out how the candidate is inactive (for example, how much the user used existed right, and how much the user engaged in community processes) instead of just oppose, as activity may change significantly in one year.--GZWDer (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've made my opinions known on the candidate on multiple occasions and I didn't feel like doing it again. --Rschen7754 19:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but as your previous vote on Lofty abyss on Meta is in February, it is possible for him to be more active this year (even if it is not the case).--GZWDer (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The vote is already over, and certainly as a former steward I know how that page is run. Why is this such a big deal to you? --Rschen7754 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 5

I'm sorry about the late delivery of this newsletter. Within the newsletter was material about an ongoing vote, which closes in under 20 hours.

Please share the information links with interested users: Project OverviewUniversal Code of ConductEnforcement guidelines (proposed) • VotingVoter informationVoting link

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 5, January 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the fifth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News (formerly known as Universal Code of Conduct News)! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board elections and other relevant MSG topics.

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly or bi-weekly to subscribers. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive these updates.

  • Call for Feedback about the Board elections - We invite you to give your feedback on the upcoming WMF Board of Trustees election. This call for feedback went live on 10th January 2022 and will be concluded on 16th February 2022. (continue reading)
  • Universal Code of Conduct Ratification - In 2021, the WMF asked communities about how to enforce the Universal Code of Conduct policy text. The revised draft of the enforcement guidelines should be ready for community vote in March. (continue reading)
  • Movement Strategy Implementation Grants - As we continue to review several interesting proposals, we encourage and welcome more proposals and ideas that target a specific initiative from the Movement Strategy recommendations. (continue reading)
  • The New Direction for the Newsletter - As the UCoC Newsletter transitions into MSG Newsletter, join the facilitation team in envisioning and deciding on the new directions for this newsletter. (continue reading)
  • Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about MSG on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 6

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 6, April 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the sixth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board of trustees elections and other relevant MSG topics.

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while the more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.

  • Leadership Development - A Working Group is Forming! - The application to join the Leadership Development Working Group closed on April 10th, 2022, and up to 12 community members will be selected to participate in the working group. (continue reading)
  • Universal Code of Conduct Ratification Results are out! - The global decision process on the enforcement of the UCoC via SecurePoll was held from 7 to 21 March. Over 2,300 eligible voters from at least 128 different home projects submitted their opinions and comments. (continue reading)
  • Movement Discussions on Hubs - The Global Conversation event on Regional and Thematic Hubs was held on Saturday, March 12, and was attended by 84 diverse Wikimedians from across the movement. (continue reading)
  • Movement Strategy Grants Remain Open! - Since the start of the year, six proposals with a total value of about $80,000 USD have been approved. Do you have a movement strategy project idea? Reach out to us! (continue reading)
  • The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is All Set! - The Committee of fifteen members which was elected in October 2021, has agreed on the essential values and methods for its work, and has started to create the outline of the Movement Charter draft. (continue reading)
  • Introducing Movement Strategy Weekly - Contribute and Subscribe! - The MSG team have just launched the updates portal, which is connected to the various Movement Strategy pages on Meta-wiki. Subscriber to get up-to-date news about the various ongoing projects. (continue reading)
  • Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

Thanks for reading. Xeno (WMF) 02:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Join Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2022

Hello Rschen7754,

Thank you for participating in the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos campaign last year.

We are glad to inform you that this year's edition started on 1 July, 2022. You are invited to participate in the campaign again to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles with photos and contextual images. For more information about the campaign and how to participate, please visit the campaign page here.

If you have any questions or query please feel free to contact the organizing team, leave a message at the campaign's talkpage or send an email to wpwpcampaign

Kind regards, --Ammarpad (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC) (On behalf of the Organizing Team, WPWP Campaign 2022).

Global bot approval request for Dušan Kreheľ (bot)

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 7

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 7, July-September 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the 7th issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! The newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the implementation of Wikimedia's Movement Strategy recommendations, other relevant topics regarding Movement governance, as well as different projects and activities supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) team of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The MSG Newsletter is delivered quarterly, while the more frequent Movement Strategy Weekly will be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.

  • Movement sustainability: Wikimedia Foundation's annual sustainability report has been published. (continue reading)
  • Improving user experience: recent improvements on the desktop interface for Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
  • Safety and inclusion: updates on the revision process of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines. (continue reading)
  • Equity in decisionmaking: reports from Hubs pilots conversations, recent progress from the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, and a new white paper for futures of participation in the Wikimedia movement. (continue reading)
  • Stakeholders coordination: launch of a helpdesk for Affiliates and volunteer communities working on content partnership. (continue reading)
  • Leadership development: updates on leadership projects by Wikimedia movement organizers in Brazil and Cape Verde. (continue reading)
  • Internal knowledge management: launch of a new portal for technical documentation and community resources. (continue reading)
  • Innovate in free knowledge: high-quality audiovisual resources for scientific experiments and a new toolkit to record oral transcripts. (continue reading)
  • Evaluate, iterate, and adapt: results from the Equity Landscape project pilot (continue reading)
  • Other news and updates: a new forum to discuss Movement Strategy implementation, upcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election, a new podcast to discuss Movement Strategy, and change of personnel for the Foundation's Movement Strategy and Governance team. (continue reading)

RamzyM (WMF) 01:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Movement Charter Drafting Committee's monthly newsletter

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee explains: what is the purpose of a 'movement charter'?
  • Wikimedia Summit 2022: The Drafting Committee will present three brief drafts of sections from the Movement Charter for discussion at the Wikimedia Summit on 10 September. The drafts will also be posted publicly on Meta.
  • Movement Charter video: The Committee and the MSG team created a short video (~8 minutes). The video briefly explains what the Movement Charter is, and introduces the Drafting Committee members. This video was streamed during Wikimania.
  • Learn about the Movement Charter Drafting Committee's work in August: The Committee released its regular monthly update from August 2022, including highlights about the Movement Charter drafting process and the upcoming Wikimedia Summit.

Subscribe to this newsletter on Meta wiki

11:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki bots


Related to what you wrote in the N'Ko Wikipedia: Where was the discussion of removing them from the bot policy? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Bot policy. As explained there, the issue isn't so much the interwiki bots (which would remain allowed under the global bot flag) but the ability for interwiki bot owners to automatically get a local flag, which was rarely used and confusing. --Rschen7754 05:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Movement Charter Drafting Committee's monthly newsletter

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee at the Wikimedia Summit in September.
  • Movement Charter Drafting Committee's participation at the Wikimedia Summit: The MCDC members presented initial drafts of the three chapters of the Movement Charter: Preamble, Values and Principles, and Roles and Responsibilities. The three chapters were prioritized to lay the groundwork for the rest of the Charter. MCDC members attended breakout rooms to discuss the progress with all attendees - both online and offline. The drafts received valuable feedback from the affiliates in many sessions. The Committee also launched a survey to gather feedback and suggestions on the Movement Charter development. Report for the Wikimedia Summit can be found here.
  • Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in September: The Committee released its regular monthly update from September 2022. It includes highlights about the Committee's progress in creating the Movement Charter content, results of the Wikimedia Summit, and an important announcement about membership.

Coming up:

  • Community consultations. In November the MCDC will be organizing events to hear your thoughts on the first three drafts. There will be onboarding sessions for community members to learn about Movement Charter and ask their questions to the Committee members. Community members will be able to share their thoughts and feedback via open and anonymous surveys, along with Meta pages, MS Forum and email. Details to be communicated by the MSG team.
  • Conference engagement. MCDC members will be attending the following conferences in October/November:
    • WikiArabia (28 - 30 October): Anass, Ravan, Reda will facilitate a discussion about the Movement Charter. Additional sessions include a conversation about the roles & responsibilities, and a conversation about hubs. .
    • WikiIndaba (4 - 6 November): Anasss will present a Movement Charter update.
    • WikiCon francophone (17 - 20 November): Anass, Georges and Reda will present a Movement Charter session.
    • WikiConNL (19 November): Ciell will present an Movement Charter update.
  • Movement Charter Ambassadors Package. Individuals and/or groups from various communities will be able to get resources and support to help increase the engagement of community members in the Movement Charter. The details to be shared by the MSG team.

--15:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC).

Bot policy

Hello. With the RFC closed now, I went ahead and did this change, but I'm not sure if it reads okay. Could you please take a look at it and tweak it accordingly needed? Thank you. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine. Thanks! --Rschen7754 03:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Rschen7754/Archive 2".