Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta!Edit

Hello, Sänger. 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!

--Muzammil (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

About the consultation formatEdit

This discussion - thought I'd perhaps encourage you in thinking how to design this properly in Flow. Some thoughts here; in my personal view, leaving the discussion on the same page, but downvoting it, would suffice. This is what helps Reddit to structure its discussions. This would also keep all discussions pertaining to a subject on its talk page, where interested people can find them instead of ugly "/Other" subpages. --Gryllida 22:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

I just wanted to say thank you. :) You've been really helpful with keeping the consultation functional for people (including adding translations, I see), and this morning (well, morning for me, if not everyone) I followed your example with moving a section header into the section to which it applied. I thought that was a good approach. I know you aren't happy with everything the WMF does and has done, but I'm personally really hopeful that this consultation will bring out some suggestion that will help us pull together better as a team. I think we need that, to keep our projects great. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I second what Maggie wrote, and meant to write here earlier. I greatly appreciate the cleanup edits, and the translations, and just having more editors be interested enough to read the wide variety of comments we're getting at Talk:2015 Strategy/Community consultation. Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  The Strategy Barnstar
The Strategy Barnstar for work related to the 2015 Strategy Consultation - specifically for work with keeping the page organized and working with those who comment to ensure that their voice is heard. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mdennis (WMF):@Quiddity (WMF):@Philippe (WMF):
Thanks for all this, but a bit more cooperation, and a clear apology towards deWP would have helped more. Superputsch, i.e. the declaration of war by the WMF against deWP, still stands, as well as the non-compliance with the clear MB out of pure vain.
Since a week now nobody of the millionaires in Frisco could provide useful information about the conception process of the completely useless "feature" Special:UserProfile, or even show some better discussion place but the imho completely wrong talk page of Lila. I don't think Lila was there at that time, and afaik even Maryana wasn't, bit are you really so completely disorganized, that nobody in your millionaires-club can find the origins of this piece of software, and the vast discussions with the communities about this community-centric "feature", that have to be somewhere? ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 19:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Sänger, I've been thinking about your comments (here and elsewhere over the last few months) a lot, and will try to collect a few of those thoughts here.

Wikimedia needs people like you who can challenge assumptions and actions and make sure that differing opinions are heard. I appreciate your criticism and concerns, and I hope you will keep it up, but I'd like to ask you to try to make it less negative, and less about the people. As this thread shows, that negativity can discourage everyone, not only the few staff with whom you're angry.

More than that, I think the way you're describing all the staff is unfair. I regularly work between 9 and 11 hours a day, as do the majority of the people I work closely with at the WMF. (I interact daily with about a dozen people.) Many of us consistently spend a few hours over the weekend working as well. I've only taken about 5 days off in the 18 months since I joined. There are dozens of staff who are also editors or volunteer developers, many from before they were ever hired, and who continue to contribute as volunteers outside of their employed roles. Around 40% of the staff don't live in California, but are scattered all over the world. The staff that do live in or near San Francisco almost all have 20-60 minute train rides to get to work, because they can't afford to live closer. Salaries are reportedly aimed at 50% of the range for non-profits, and many are working for less money than they could get at other jobs. We're normal people, working as hard as we possibly can, because these projects and mission inspire us the most in all the world. I really encourage you to continue to share criticism and suggestions and requests, but I don't think any staff deserve to have their motivations doubted or insulted.

Of course, you're not always going to agree with something the Foundation does (whether a specific decision, or a software team's many small decisions in each feature, or the timing of something, or etc). I don't always agree with things the Foundation does. There are thousands of small and large disagreements (and personality differences, and mistakes, and successes) throughout the Foundation, just as there are in the communities and the rest of humanity. Of the many decisions, edits, and software-features made (by all of us) every day, it's only natural that I (or anyone) will consider some great, some normal, and some terrible, on a scale that differs for every individual. The more complicated an issue is, and the more important, the more disagreements there will be. The terrible danger of over-simplifying these disagreements, is that the details get lost, and extremism can form ("black or white", "with us or against us"), and it can result in de-personalizing people (the removal of empathy) which makes it easier to casually insult them.

We need critics who can challenge the WMF and make sure everyone remains aware of the diverse needs and opinions of users, and of problems with software or anything else. It's obvious how much you care about the projects and how hard you work towards them. I would never want that to change. But I would really like to ask you to try to help keep the focus on the issues and the problems, and more on improving them, so that we don't divide into extremes and thereby find it even harder to come together to find solutions. Collecting and curating and making-available the sum of all human knowledge is one of the greatest and most complicated projects our global civilization has, and it's never going to be easy or simple or perfect.

Sincerely and exhaustedly, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): The WMF is a multi-million-dollar enterprise that has taken over the community-run Wikiverse in a hostile way. Of course not all people at the WMF behave this way, but the general direction is such. They are more interested in fancy software projects than in supporting the core of the Wikiverse, which is the content provided by the community. In an ideal world the WMF would lend their professional support to projects asked for by the communities. It would do it's work as the supporting agency of the communities, and never ever act in a way that suggests any superiority about the real bosses: the communities.
Unfortunately they have proven otherwise, especially with big projects.
  • The VE was forced on the communities in a destructive way far too early, just to make timetables by the developers look fine, without any regard for the consequences for the project. They had to be forced to retract from this enormous error, they probably would not have seen it themselves in their blindness.
  • The MV was forced against the explicit will of deWP and enWP with aggressive methods, even though it was definitely not ready for prime time, they only engaged the communities afterwards, they locked the stable door after the horse has bolted. They even invented some new superputsch-device to smother any dissent. They never apologized for their repulsive behaviour, there was absolutely no reaction to the 1000 subscribers to the page in my sig, nothing. The WMF just sat it out and hoped for time to calm the water and the communities to forget that aggression towards them.
  • Superputsch itself, a clear vote of distrust towards the unwashed masses, that should bow to those highnesses in SF and not dare to have opposing views. It was followed by Superban, where prolific editors where completely banned under a shroud of secrecy that would make any dictatorship envious. Of course many would never trust the WMF just because of their nice blue eyes, at least the stewards must have a look into this, or it's just absolutism.
  • Now some futile, half-baked, forum-impersonation called Flow is in development and is treated like the new redeemer. It doesn't sever any purpose but the unwanted further facebookisation of WP. It's not even remotely anything like a proper talk page. There are some fan-boys who promise the blue from the sky about this, but nothing useful has come to the light up to now. But resources are stuffed there instead of for example implement automatic signing in the proper talk pages, implement automatic indentation in the proper talk pages, make threads on proper talk pages somehow watchable... No, that would be maintaining and developing existing software, that's not sexy, that's too bothersome.
  • The WMF acts against net-neutrality with WP0, that's just a marketing stunt by orange. It sounds like a good idea to give WP for free to mobile users, but the downside is the massive push against the far more important net neutrality. WP0 is not access to the knowledge of the world for free, it's just access to one selected provider for free, and if you look at some language WPs in dictatorships, where the state has practically taken over the WP. WP0 is paving the way to walled gardens, the very opposite of a free internet.
  • The millions of dollars that are every year begged from users, readers and editors alike, under the false pretence of needing it to survive, go more and more to a self-propagating bureaucracy, just look at the escalating staff numbers. There's more than enough money in the coffers to survive for at least one decade, if the money will not go to useless pet-projects like MV and Flow but just to the core operation and maintenance of the servers.
  • There are, of course, probably a lot good people in-between those escalating staff numbers, but methinks (gut feeling, no "metrics") minimum 95% of the work is done by unpaid volunteers, the communities. They should have the ultimate say about anything that's not strictly legal.
In short: Lot of trust has been lost by the WMF, they will have to work hard to regain it. They have to start rebuilding their reputation, as it was their fault, not the communities to spill the trust. As long as nothing happens in this regard (and no, this half-baked community consultation was, if at all, only a small first step, no great leap forward), nothing can be expected. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 10:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Edith says:
One more thing, that got me banned from phabricator: Sometime in the past someone in mobile decided to implement so-called UserProfiles, that are anything but user profiles, just some random collection of data. It was something that had to be discussed with the communities extensively, as it's by definition a community feature. I discussed it on phab, and was told, that phab is no place for discussion, but was not told, despite asking there and @Lila's, where the proper place should be. The programmers must know, as they must have discussed it beforehand. If not, they simply didn't act in a proper way. Up to now this completely rubbish software stands, no discussion in proper places (that's anywhere but phabricator, gerrit, mailing lists and other back-room venues, or CEOs talk pages) seem to have taken place. The only place someone showed me is vacated since 2013. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The comments you revertedEdit

The comments you reverted that I removed have nothing to do with my ego. They are an obvious attempt to derail the discussions by introducing comments and links that have nothing to do with them in the slightest. Further, Guy Macon has asked me to not post on his talk page which infers an interaction ban and as such it is not appropriate for them to continue to leave personal attacks on discussion I participate in with the obvious attempts to discredit me. Reguyla (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You came to his discussion thread with some off-topic remarks and wonder about his reaction? You're quite detached from reality methinks. You're whole whining about being mistreated by some admins because of your massive sockpuppeteering doesn't help you the slightest, and links to the real history instead of your sanitized version are always helpful, as well as those hints about you to finally start some self-reflection. You spammed two discussions with your whining, and you proclaim to be some victim and not the spammer? Ridiculous! Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden)superputsch must go 14:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I commented on multiple discussions about multiple things. He chose to spam identical insults directed at me on multiple pages. He could have asked me on my talk page to remove them, he could have chosen to make a comment that he felt they were off topic and could have chosen to do a lot of other things. He chose instead to post personal attacks. And you clearly do not understand my situation in the slightest. I wasn't banned or blocked for socking. I created the alternate accounts (and clearly identified they were from me when I posted) because I did not and do not recognize the ban that was repeatedly submitted and passed by less than a dozen people after they were told multiple times previously there was no consensus. So they just kept submitting until they got what they wanted. I am not whining nor am I claiming to be a victim, however I am clearly the target of retaliation by some on the English Wikipedia for my comments that admins should have to actually follow the rules. In fact the ENWP community already had a ban review and stated I should have been unlocked in February 2015 and some admins won't allow it. Reguyla (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see, you're a damsel in distress, and are waiting for the white knight (or was it right night?) to save you. Please don't try me, I'm no knight at all ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden)superputsch must go 17:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I am hardly a damsel in distress and I don't need any knights, white or other wise, to save me. I'm just not a sheep and I don't back down to bullies. When I am bullied I fight back and the ENWP wiki culture expects people to either put up with abuse or leave, which is why we are seeing the numbers of editors dwindling. I certainly don't think admins are the only ones being abusive and in fact its only a minority of admins. Really only about a dozen out of the 1300 or so admins, the problem is they are some of the most active and no one has the morale courage to stand up to them because they saw what happened to me when I did. Anyways, Cheers and see you around. Reguyla (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
yes. That looks fitting to the behaviour of this sockpuppettier. I don't think any remark is necessary. It's self-evident. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden)superputsch must go 06:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, had the admins on ENWP done their jobs and dimissed my original block none of the extra accounts I created would have been done. Had the admins respected the community decision I be unblocked in February of 2015, I would not have created anymore. Its not my fault that neither the admins on ENWP nor the WMF have any respect for the community or their decisions. That's been shown time and time again and not my "behavior". My behavior was to not walk away from an obvious bully and I pushed back. That is my only crime. Caring more about the project than some admin with an ego bigger than their desire to improve the project. If you want to make snide comments about behavior then direct them at the ones that are the problem like the Arbitration committee on ENWP or the half dozen bullies that have abused their way to the top of the admin latter over at ENWP and the WMF that force everyone else to do what they want rather than whats best for the know, like Superprotect, Visual editor, Media Viewer, etc. If you don't like me standing up for myself and the other editors that are getting plowed under the boot of a very small minority of individuals at ENWP that have no respect for the community then that's your problem, not mine. But your comments indicating I am some kind of vandal are insulting and unnecessarily provocative. Reguyla (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your translation help!Edit

  The Translation Barnstar
Thank you very much for your help translating the 2016 Strategy Consultation pages! I am so grateful for the energy you and others have put into helping the consultation reach speakers of as many languages as possible. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your "comment" on the steward confirmationsEdit

Hi, was it intentional that you only added your signature here without any comments? --Stryn (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stryn: No, it wasn't. THX for the hint ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Should FuzzyBot remove all potentially outdated translations?Edit

Hello, thanks for adding multiple new translations in your language here at Meta-Wiki in recent years. Please join the discussion with your opinion: Should FuzzyBot automatically remove all potentially outdated translations?. Nemo (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your behavior at Flow_satisfaction_survey/translationsEdit

Hi Sänger, about Bias on German translations and other comments by you in that page. Distorting translations to introduce a personal agenda is unacceptable behavior. So it is calling dishonest to anyone who might contribute accurate translations. Your derogatory comments to Trizek (WMF) and his work with this survey are also completely out of place. If you dislike a product or a survey, that is no excuse to skip basic principles of expected behavior (and it is not the first time that you show this hostility and I bring it to your attention). Please do your part making Meta a friendly space. Cordially,--Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the right thing to do with such a survey, that is completely biased, inherently dishonest and is propagating wrong facts? I asked questions about the wrong connection between visual editing and Flow, and got answers, that clearly showed, that this was either deliberate misleading or plain not understanding simple facts. I could translate this questions verbatim, thus keep those wrong assumptions in there, and render the whole enterprise of this survey invalid because of misleading question, or I could change them towards the correct meaning in German, and ask to do so as well in the original language. I chose the second option, I won't do the first one. I think I simply replace my translations with the correct content to the original English text with all the mentioned faults in it, so that somebody else could do the deception. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist SurveyEdit


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)

speedy deletionEdit

Dear Sänger, could you explain why do you keep a "political message" on your user page which has nothing to do with Meta-Wiki ? I'm really interested if we can use Meta-Wiki to promote political agenda. Thanks in advance --Mskyrider (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If campaingning for free speech against the destruction of a free press, like what’s happening in Turkey ATM, is something against the values of the Wikiverse, could you please tell me the rule that forbids standing up for free speech and against censorship? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
sure I can tell you what I think, personally I support your message and think it is really a disruptive case which we witness though at the same time I think this "political standing" has no place in Meta-Wiki, if Meta-Wiki has not become a place to advertise "political standing" instead of promoting the project's aims. Could you please remove it from your user page? --Mskyrider (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
So the project aims is not to support free speech, but to pamper censorship? I tend to disagree. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the aim of the project is free speech but to show targets as you do in your user page is not the real aim. What happened to neutral standing, we are trying to promote free speech, not to judge. --Mskyrider (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you please use proper indentation? This is about free speech, nothing else, full stop. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't think so, it is about your political standing, nothing more. --Mskyrider (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
One question: If I change your missionary SD to normal RFD, will the template do all the work, as I'm used to from my home wiki, or do I have to write those pages in there by hand? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No idea, but I'm not against that you change to RfD instead, I already requested the review at administrator's board. --Mskyrider (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Here I tried to open an rfc, if you would like to comment. --Mskyrider (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

My post has been deleted for no reason!Edit

I just found my post, Could be used as an advertisement for a person or a company, has been deleted without any reason! Or in other words, he fund the per year and for years? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:07, 11. Mai 2017

Mine was deleted as well, and your's was plain BS. It was nothing but baseless slander, and had nothing to do here on meta. STFU here on my talk page, if you have complaints, go to the talk pages of the articles and disuss it in a non-personal manner. And sign your stuff, for fuck sake! Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I know it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:25, 11. Mai 2017

SVG Translate Community wishlist survey projectEdit

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

The Community Wishlist SurveyEdit


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

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


Hey, I read the discussion at Danny's talk page, and I thought I'd say that you're in the wrong place. Danny is no longer the Product Manager of Community Tech. This was not that team's project, but, even if it were, Danny would be the wrong person to talk to now.

By the way, I ran a quick search on the project page, to make sure that it was easy enough to find. It appears that there are links to the project page on about 85 pages here at Meta, and about 25 pages on the German Wikipedia. The page view counts report about 500 page views in the week before the change, which suggests that at least some people were aware of this before the change. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's at MW, even farther away from normal editors than here. No, you should have gone active to the communities with such a massive change for very productive authors, it's definitely not acceptable to expect them to go to such nerdy venues and see if they can extract some sense from the usual in-talk. And even there the summary at the top ewas plain wrong, as it effected far more people, because other old and well-used gadgets depended on this, like the special character lines beneath the plain window. You simply ditched all tools completely, you did not just change the coloured buttons for the colourless. It should have been clear, that some buttons should be there in any case, and that was the duty of the programmers to guaranty this. That's why we, the communities, pay them and don't rely just on volunteer programmers and their hobby. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can see that it'd be a problem for you, since you're still blocked there. But putting the central venue on is standard practice. The point of spamming links to it all over the other wikis is to help them find it.
It's true that the German Wikipedia's gadget depended on it, which was unfortunate. I understand that the new one is going to be much better.
BTW, I see that you said that someone recommended the 2017WTE as a replacement. Where was that? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Schnark said something along this lines here @09:38, 3. Nov. 2018 (CET). MusicalAnimal linked this page about the VE in the archived wishlist entry @20:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC). That page is only interesting for VE users, so nobody without any VE interest will ever go there, and it implies that VE, i.e. the extension 2017 with the fake text editor, will be a future replacement. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That newsletter covers a lot of editing subjects, not just VisualEditor. The most recent version includes information about ContentTranslation and a Reading project, as well as the more typical editing tools. Moving translated pages is so unbelievably, unnecessarily painful that I haven't changed the page title on Meta, but it is delivered on the wikis under the name "Editing newsletter", which I assume will interest most editors.
The 2017WTE is an option for editors, of course, but when I talked about this last year, it appeared that most editors using the 2006WTE weren't using the buttons anyway. That's why we defaulted to the 2003, rather than "upgrading" them to the 2010WTE. Rational people don't usually think that a slower system is an "upgrade". I kind of wish that we'd done the opposite for people at a few languages, though. If your keyboard doesn't have a ~ or the [] characters on it, then wikitext is hard. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found that particular newsletter anywhere @deWP, but I've found this one from november, it's as well in a part of the deWP where content editors probably rarely go. And especially those without any interst in the VE will avoid it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
What page would you recommend for it? I only send it ~twice a year, so it has low potential for spam. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If it's what it's in the title, the place is fine. But you seem to have had the imagination to reach out not just to the very small in-group of volunteer programmers but some kind of general public, and then there are just few wider used venues: der kurier or Fragen zur Wikipedia or Technikwerkstatt, at least the hierarchy one level up to now in de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Technik/Text/Edit, but that's probably not on many watch lists, too far down the hierarchy. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
We did a spammy delivery to many pages, including FZW, in 2014, but nobody at FZW decided to subscribe that page. Perhaps it's time to do another round of those.
I also wonder if we should set general rules for MassMessages to inactive users. There are a lot of editors on the English Wikipedia's delivery list that haven't edited for a long time. A year might be (a little) too short, but if you haven't edited for two years, it's probably fair to assume that you likely won't be back. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You may consider emailing to Aklapper if you want to be unblocked on -- 08:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
As if I haven't asked about that already ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


Vielen Dank, dass Sie mir den Link zur Diskussion geben. Der Banner war mit sehr wenig Verkehr (20% und nur für eingeloggte Benutzer) fehlerhaft. Ich werde es reparieren. --Ilario (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Request to keep discussions civilEdit

Hi Sänger,

Following the recommendation at Meta:Civility, I'm reaching out to you to express a concern about some of your behavior affecting Wikimedia Foundation staff, and see whether we can find an amicable agreement.

In our opinion, many of your interactions with Foundation programs and staff in Meta in the past weeks do not contribute to a civil atmosphere, to a welcoming and collegial environment.

We understand that some aspects of our work may be frustrating you, but disagreement can be expressed without being rude and judgmental. As far as I can see, we have responded to your concerns, and still we seem to be in disagreement. In these cases one can try to move the conversation forward constructively, or seek other opinions, and see whether we can find a point of minimum agreement. Sometimes people can also agree to disagree. Escalation through incivility usually cuts any discussion and ultimately harms community collaboration.

Also, when you keep insisting on the same points using rude language in User Talk pages of Foundation staff, this causes additional distress. We work in projects as teams, and the most effective way to discuss these projects is to do it in the project Talk pages and any other project channels. Escalation through user Talk pages is likely to result in disengagement (silence) from these people.

We invite you to keep participating in Foundation-related projects and conversations at Meta, following the principles of respect and civility that Meta requires to everyone. If you have any concern about a Foundation program or staff member, I can help find the best path available to resolve those concerns. Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it is civil to operate with fake numbers to boost your pet project?
Do you think it's civil to present the branding as a fait acclompi, while nothing is decided yet and write grossly misleading stuff in the FAQ?
Do you think it's civil to avoid the only valid place Meta for such discussions, but to to useless venues like Facebook or closed shops like this Snöhätta-page?
Do you see any respect from those, who try to push the soundly rejected renaming project despite it's overwhelming opposition?
If those, who try to push their personal agenda here, will start to behave in a civil way, one that shows respect to the highest entity in the Wikiverse, the community, I'll do the same. Up too now I dobn#t se much respect from the service agency towards their superiors. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The Brand team is being civil in all their work and all their interactions, and they are organizing the project in ways that can provide safe, welcoming and creative spaces for everyone. If someone disagrees with the project or any aspect of it, there are ways to express this disagreement without animosity and disrespect.
Your reply (above) to our invitation to find an amicable agreement is another example of animosity and disrespect here in Meta. If you have genuine questions (o points you want to make) and you are genuinely seeking a response or a proper discussion, I invite you to share your thoughts with civility at the related project Talk page. As you have written your comments above, I see a repeat attempt to shut down constructive conversations.
I'm saying repeat because in the past weeks you have been commenting in different topics and venues with what is essentially the same message, expressed in essentially the same biased and confrontational terms. There have been many instances and I can compile them if needed. As an illustration, these are the ones you have posted in Meta after we sent you this invitation to find an amicable agreement: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
If you claim that Meta is a better place to discuss than invitation-only groups elsewhere, then it only makes sense that you contribute to keep Meta friendly and welcoming to everyone. It is a fact that most people won't open up and share their thoughts in a channel incapable of keeping a civil atmosphere. Every time a comment charged with animosity and disrespect lands in a topic, someone walks away to a safer space, and the conversation suffers or it directly dies.
As I mentioned yesterday in the project talk page, we are committed to keeping these project pages in Meta as friendly and welcoming as the other venues where this project is being discussed. This is my second time asking. Please participate in the Brand project in a respectful way. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
And again: The non-civil behaviour of those with an (WMF) behind their user names is discarded by you, while you paint constructie critic by me as uncivil. I'll change to German, because I can better play with the language in my own native tongue.
Das ist imho ein sehr typisches Abwimmeln, etwas, was ich persönlich als übergriffig gegenüber der Community.
Es finden andauernd irgendwelche Absprachen im nichtöffentlichen Raum, wie z.B. auf Facebook, in der geschlossenen Space-Gruppe oder gar auf der komischen brandingwikipedia-Seite statt, während die tatsächliche Partizipation der Community mittels des RfC augenscheinlich keine Beachtung findet.
Auf den Zusammenfassungsseiten wird noch immer so getan, als sei eine Umbenennung von Wikimedia nach Wikipedia schon beschlossen, das ist aber nicht mal ansatzweise so. Es gibt bislang keinen validen Beschluss, der diesbezüglich irgendwas präjudizieren würde.
Die völlig absurden KPI werden aufrecht erhalten, obwohl sie völlig absurd sind, und es wird auch möglichst wenig unternommen, die Absurdität der vermeintlich fehlenden Ablehnung seitens der Community zu korrigieren.
Jedes mal, wenn mal wieder ein Einwand seitens der Community abgebügelt wird und ohne Rücksicht auf die eindeutig negativen Rückmeldungen einfach weiter gemacht wird, entsteht der Eindruck, dass die da oben sowieso machen, was sie wollen, und sie hier nur widerwillig mitmachen. Jedes Mal, wenn etwas nicht offen, transparent und im Wiki behandelt wird, und diejenigen, die Teil der Serviceagentur für die Community sind, augenscheinlich nicht an den Hauptplatz der Interaktion kommen wollen, nämlich in ein Wiki, entsteht ein Eindruck der Entfremdung zwischen denjenigen, die das Ganze hier tatsächlich betreibe, nämlich den abertausend AutorInnen, FotografInnen, AdministratorInnen, KorrektorInnen etc., und denjenigen, die nur zu deren Unterstützung da sind, nämlich der WMF etc. Der einzige Sinn und Zweck der WMF ist es, die Community zu unterstützen und dieser zuzuarbeiten. Server betreiben und warten, Software entwickeln, Rechtsstreitigkeiten fern halten, Geld im Auftrag der Community verwalten, Treffen organisieren. Die WMF soll und darf keinerlei Macht über die Community ausüben, das ist weder ihre Aufgabe noch wäre das ethisch vertretbar.
Konkret zu den Diffs:
  • Der erste Diff (on-wiki vs. off-wiki Kommunikation) ist imho selbstverständlich. Wir sind hier im Wikiversum, das ist unsere Plattform, hier hat alle Kommunikation stattzufinden. Diese Selbstverständlichkeit sollte auch von den Angestellten so gelebt werden.
  • Der zweite Diff geht um die faktisch falsche FAQ: Es ist alles andere als beschlossene Sache, dass der Name geändert wird, aber dieser falsche Eindruck wird auf der FAQ vermittelt, und Versuche der Änderung hin zu einem eher dem tatsächlichen Beratungsstand entsprechenden Text wurden wieder auf den falschen Stand revertiert.
  • Das gleiche noch mal: Es gibt keinen validen Beschluss, dass das tatsächlich geändert wird, im Gegenteil.
  • Was ist daran jetzt schon wieder falsch? Das RfC ist nun mal eine valide Communitybefragung, die 97 sind nie repräsentativ von der Community bestimmt worden, sondern undurchsichtig handverlesen.
  • Es ist mir unverständlich, warum dieser Teil von Space ein verstecktes Hinterzimmer und kein normales offenes und transparentes Forum sein soll.
Ich hätte hier auch gerne ein freundliche und inklusive Atmosphäre, leider wird das durch solche unbegründeten Rundumschläge, die augenscheinlich primär Dissens unterdrücken sollen, verhindert. Solange die Diskussionen über den noch lange nicht beschlossenen Marketingkram hier teilweise an unzugänglichen Stellen und augenscheinlich unter völlig falschen Prämissen geführt wird, ist das eine alles andere als willkommen erzeugende Arbeitsatmosphäre hier. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
About your explanation on the five edits I linked, the problem is not to understand what you mean. This is clear. The problem is how you choose to express your points in ways that in my opinion keep disrupting the project and violate Meta:Civility. I have explained why your last comment in the project Talk page is problematic (here) and I have requested others to share their thoughts. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Ich sehe einen sehr großen Mangel an Respekt seitens etlicher Leute mit einem (WMF) hinter dem Namen gegenüber dem Souverän dieses Unternehmens hier, der Community. Es zeugt von großem Mangel an Respekt, Diskussionen in einem versteckten, limitierten, Hinterzimmer auszukungeln, statt, wie dies angemessen wäre, in größtmöglicher Offenheit und Transparenz. Es zeugt von einem großen Mangel an Respekt, offensichtliche Fehlinformationen auf wichtigen Seiten stehen zu lassen, obwohl vielfach darauf aufmerksam gemacht wurde. Es zeugt von einem großen Mangel an Respekt, das eindeutige RfC bislang augenscheinlich in dem Prozess komplett zu ignorieren, und einfach unbeeindruckt weiter zu machen, als sei nichts geschehen. Es zeugt von einem großen Mangel an Respekt, überhaupt nur zu erwägen, auf einer aus Datenschutzgründen indiskutablen Plattform wie Facebook irgendwas zu diskutieren. Wenn meine Worte in der englischen Spreche ggf. zu harsch waren, so bitte ich das zu entschuldigen, dass seitens der WMF der Community (und das sind die, die aktiv an den Projekten mitarbeiten, nicht irgendwelche Funktionäre und Affiliates) gegenüber wenig Respekt entgegengebracht wird, ist für mich allerdings ein Fakt. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sänger, today you have posted a comment twice that is partly misleading and doesn't contribute to a constructive discussion ([6] and [7]). While the point about translations is perfectly valid and I ill respond to it, your considerations about who is "verantwortlich" for what are misleading, and directing accusations to specific individuals is rarely helpful (especially when it isn't true). The 2030 Movement Brand Project is a project approved by the Wikimedia Foundation executive team and the Board. Its budget is approved as part of the Wikimedia Foundation's annual plan. The team members involved are working according to these plans. Please remove these misleading accusations to individuals. They really don't contribute to the discussion about the project, even less to the discussion about translations. Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, aber dieses gesamte Unterfangen der Umbenennung ist ejne Kopfgebrt der WMF im weitesten Sinne, die Community hat niemals ein Interesse an diesem Unterfangen bekundet, und die abertausend Dollar, die für dieses imho komplett sinnlose Unterfangen ausgegeben werden, sind verschwendetes Geld, das dem Zweck des Wikiversums entzogen, und stattdessen in die Kassen irgendwelcher privater Werbefirmen gespült wird. Das gesamte Unterfangen ist eine Top-Down-Sache, also ist auch allein der Top dafür verantwortlich, dass ordentliche Kommunikation stattfindet, und im Bezug auf Markenrechte ist dies nun mal Zachary.
Dieses Privatprojekt einiger weniger Leute bei der WMF, dass sich leider aus unerfindlichen Gründen verselbständigt hat und nun massenweise Geld verschlingt, ist auch deren alleinige Verantwortung. Das ist keine Anschuldigung, das ist eine schlichte Feststellung. Wenn dieses Umbenennungsprojekt von der Community ausgegangen wäre, dann wäre auch diese dafür verantwortlich, dem ist aber nicht so.
Top-Down bedeutet Top hat die alleinige Verantwortung für das Projekt. Das hier ist Top-Down, mit ein wenig handverlesener "Communitybeteiligung" als Windowdressing. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Qgil-WMF: There is nothing wrong with the edit by Sanger about which you are complaining. Metawiki exists partly to see that Foundation funds are usefully employed. Volunteers can ask questions about whether delegated financial authority is being put to good use by the staff members holding the authority. Sanger has obviously heeded your warning about avoiding unnecessary personalisation. Let's answer his questions and issue further warnings only when they are called for. AGK ■ 10:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sänger: thank you for your edits in your comments.
  • @AGK: Of course volunteers can and should ask and discuss as they see fit. We are here precisely to foster questions and discussion. My observation to Sänger is about the personalization you are referring to, which was accusatory, misleading and unnecessary. I have clarified above who is responsible for the costs and the execution of this project, which is an answer valid for basically all projects run by Foundation teams. Also, this entire section should be seen under the perspective of Sänger's continued comments in this project. The content, the choice of words, the frequency, the repetition of points... all this sets a disruptive and confrontational tone on the majority of discussions this project has had since it started. It is perfectly possible to question and oppose keeping conversations civil, and others are doing so. Issuing warnings is a task for administrators and I am not one of them. I wish there would be an assessment or at least opinions about this behavior from Meta administrators impartial about this project. I personally wonder whether this same behavior would be accepted in other circumstances. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Dies muss in dem Kontext gelesen werden, dass es (WMF)er nicht gerne haben, kritisiert zu werden. Schon gar nicht, wenn ihre Lieblingsprojekte durch valide Kritik gefährdet werden, die sie selber bislang vernachlässigt oder weggewischt haben. Dieses Umbenennungsprojekt ist ein Projekt, das von Oben gestartet wurde, mit teils fadenscheinigen, teils irreführenden, teils auch mal validen Begründungen, und es hat sich irgenwie trotz Gegenwind aus der Community verselbständigt, und es hängen augenscheinlich Existenzen an der Fortführung dieses eigentlich längst abgewatschten Projektes. Bis vor ganz kurzem standen in den zum Projekt gehörenden FAQ noch eindeutige Falschaussagen, die von einigen (WMF)ern trotz erwiesener Unsinnigkeit und Falschaussage vehement verteidigt wurden.
In diesem Kontext der Aversion einiger (WMF)er gegen die Community im Allgemeinen und Kritik an konkreten Vorhaben im Speziellen ist dieses vorgeschobene "Civility" zu verstehen. Selber werden die hanebüchensten Falschaussagen verteidigt, aber die, die dies aufdecken, werden wegen Verstoßes gegen irgendwelche Civility-Regeln kujoniert.
Solange es augenscheinlich als civil beurteilt wird, hier Falschaussagen zu verbreiten, kann ich solche Belehrungen nicht wirklich ernst nehmen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sänger, this comment posted in the section "Wikimedia Italia statement and requests on Wikimedia brand project" is not related to the discussion, neither contributes anything good to it. As everyone following the project can see, the Brand team has several members engaging and responding in different venues on a regular basis. This accusation of "Arbeitsverweigerung" and "weiter in den Elfenbeinturm zurückziehen" is simply wrong, as in not true and not contributing to a civil atmosphere in Meta.

About your comment above, Foundation staff dialogues and collaborates with critics as much as with supporters and anyone else. One observation: from all people involved in one year of conversations related to the Brand project, I am only aware of two persons that have been called for alleged incivility. One person was called once by other volunteers. The other person is you, with multiple occurrences related to replies to Foundation staff. The reports above are just the most notorious cases. It is perfectly possible to be critical and respectful. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

WTF? Ich habe bemerkt und geschrieben, dass sich Zachary fast gar nicht an den Diskussionen um das Branding beteiligt, zumindest nicht am wichtigsten Ort für solche Diskussionen, diesem Wiki hier. Sollte er unter einem anderen Namen teilgenommen haben, dann wäre das was anderes, aber ich wüsste nicht, welches seine Socke ohne (WMF) wäre. Solange er nicht aktiv an den Diskussionen teilnimmt (und nein, Facebook oder so ist kein valider Diskussionsort, das ist nur Gelaber), hat er sich augenscheinlich in sein stilles Kämmerlein zurückgezogen und scheut die Öffentlichkeit.
Was meinen Beitrag hier drüber angeht: Die ursprünglichen FAQ zu dem Umbenennungsvorhaben einiger weniger (WMF)er strotzen nur so von Falschaussagen und Fehlinformationen. Diese wurde vehement gegen Einwände seitens der Community verteidigt, augenscheinlich, um dieses aus mir unbekannten und in keinem Fall nachvollziehbaren Gründen unbedingt gewollte Vorhaben nicht zu gefährden. Die absurden KPI, die Folien, die eindeutig als Fakt eine schon beschlossene Umbenennung von Wikimedia zu Wikipedia postuliert hatten, das war ein roter Faden: Alle Leute mit (WMF) haben dieses Märchen der schon beschlossenen Umbenennung massiv verteidigt und die Fehlinformationen in den FAQ auch per Edit-War verteidigt. Erst nach dem vernichtenden RfC hat so etwas wie Realitätsbezug eingesetzt, und die FAQ wurden der tatsächlichen Faktenlage angepasst. Der gesamte Umgang seitens der (WMF)er in diesem Vorhaben zeugt von einem sehr großen Mangel an Respekt vor dem Souverän hier, der Community.
Und sobald diese schlichte Wahrheit ausgesprochen wird, kommt sofort einer wie Du daher, und droht mit Strohmännern wie "Civility", um die Leute mundtot zu machen. Das lautstarke Schweigen von Zachary hier auf dieser Seite ist eine extreme Form von Mangel an Civility, aber das will ja niemand hören. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S.: Ich erinnere mich an viele Gelegenheiten, an denen ich ein sehr non-civil Verhalten bei Dir festgestellt habe, aktuell schon wieder bei Deinem Versuch der Geschichtskliterung betreffs des RfC. Ich persönlich zähle auch Deinen Versuch, möglichst viel der Diskussionen über das Umbenennungsvorhaben möglichst schnell in der Versenkung eines Archives verschwinden zu lassen, zu den eher unfreundlichen Akten. Ohne das RfC hätten Leute wie Du die WMF längst ohne jede Rücksicht umbenannt, Leute wie Du haben lange auf den Folien bestanden, auf denen die Umbenennung als nicht zu diskutierender Fakt dargestellt wurde. Erst durch den Aufschlag der Realität in dem Wolkenkuckucksheim der Funktionäre wie Dir durch das RfC, und die nicht mehr bestreitbare Ablehnung Eures Vorhabens, habt Ihr endlich angefangen, auf die Community zu hören. Einige haben auch mit der Community geredet (wozu ich Dich ausdrücklich zählen würde, auch wenn es oft genug nicht wirklich konstruktiv und ehrlich war), Zachary hat das vermieden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Recently I had given up reporting more cases where Meta:Civility is allegedly infringed. One can understand a moment of frustration, a reaction while being upset... but aggressive and disrespectful comments keep being posted regularly at almost any opportunity to reply to Foundation staff posts. After messages like this one or this one (just a recent sample), it is very difficult to keep responding in Talk pages as if nothing happens. This is not how people have conversations. I have complained so many times, without receiving any apology or change of attitude or even a recognition that this behavior is not ok. Trying to elevate the discussion is very difficult when almost every comment posted is met with this kind of replies. If the objective is to undermine and boycott proper discussion, then I have no doubt that the tactics are effective. I have tried many times to re-establish a normal conversation in new sections and new pages, but I am being met systematically with the same type of responses. As far as I can see, it is the same for other Foundation staff participating in the Brand pages. If anyone has any advice, it is very welcome. Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is really frustrating, that nothing happens. That you do not seem to be intended to listen to the community and respect their decisions. You just re-iterate marketing blah-blah, that has no content at all. All three options are identical, at least at the core. The minor differences are irrelevant. They are just that, what the very small group of renaming enthusiasts was trying to push down the throats of the community from the very beginning, never got any positive feedback (just the doctored numbers from the KPI pretended any support, while in reality those survey was as well solidly against Wikipedia). You constantly spit the community in the face, you are extremely aggressive in your marketing spree for this unwanted renaming. You never ever engaged in any real discussion, as you constantly only discussed irrelevant stuff like the already discarded renaming to Wikipedia. That's a discussion, that nobody outside the small group of renaming enthusiast really wants any more, it's over. When will you begin to respect the decisions of the community? When will you finally ditch the outdated decision to use Wikipedia for anything else but Wikipedia? That's the clear consensus by the community. Those "workshops", where masses of marketing bods and (WMF)ers with a clear agenda indoctrinated a small group of handpicked alibi community members, doesn't count as real community involvement. Facebook doesn't count as well. And the private blog in the extreme aggressive and provocative name doesn't count as well as proper community involvement.
The current rewriting of history in the FAQ, that again only shows an extreme non-neutral way to answer, is the next step in your pushing ypour private agenda against the communities. The questions, that tomdotgov just asked on the talk page where there since nearly ever, but you failed again to give proper neutral answers, just a very one-sided version of the small group of renamers.
I think your whole behaviour towards the community is the very opposite iof Meta:Civility, perhaps not in the choice of words, but in the gist of what you do and write. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

About [8] [9], it is not the first time that you go on a tangent being judgemental with a Foundation staff member because of how much they post on-wiki. I already had explained that the Brand team has several members engaging and responding in different venues on a regular basis, this is how we distribute roles and work. If you miss some information about the Brand project somewhere, please ask for it without bypassing Meta:Civility one more time. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Ich gehe dann mal lieber wieder zurück auf Deutsch, damit Du hier nicht irgendwelche Flüchtigkeits- und Ausdruckfehler maximal negativ auslegen kannst.
Dieses Projekt behauptet auch z.B. durch die Benennung als Movement Brand Project, ein Teil dieses Onlinemovements zu sein, dessen Mittelpunkt nun mal per definitionem as den diversen Wikiprojekten besteht. Diese Projekte sind der Hauptort, an dem solche Diskussionen stattfindenden haben. Ja, es kann anlassbezogen auch mal vereinzelt was außerhalb gemacht werden, aber im Großen und Ganzen zählt, insbesondere bei wichtigen Entscheidungen, nur die On-Wiki-Aktivität. Ich weiß nicht, ob Zack noch ein Nebenkonto hat, in dem er eventuell tatsächlich Wikiaktivitäten tätigt, ads offizielle Konto ist jedenfalls ohne große Wikiaffinität, er sieht wie ein Außenseiter aus, der aber den Aktiven erzählen will, wo es lang geht.
Die Onlinecommunities sind aber nun mal das, was dieses gesamte Wikiversum primär ausmacht. Sie sind die oberste Instanz, gegen die nichts passieren darf. Wer gegen die Onlinecommunity agiert, verhält sich wikifeindlich. Wer an der onlinecommunity vorbei versucht wichtige Entscheidungen zu treffen, der darf sich nicht wundern, wenn er dafür abgewatscht wird.
Wenn ich mir das schöngefärbte Pamphlet ansehe, mit dem beim Board versucht wurde, lieb Kind für das tote Pferd Umbenennung zu machen, ein Vorhaben dass längst gegen das Vorhaben der winzigen Gruppe Umbenennenwoller entschieden wurde, in dem schon wieder versucht wurde, das eindeutige und klare RfC irgendwie zu verwischiwaschien, und aus dieser klaren und eindeutigen Ansage irgendwas nicht komplett gegen das unsinnige Umbenennen gerichtet herauslesen zu wollen, dann spricht ads erneut Bände über die Reflexionsfähigkeit und Communityverhaftung derer, die dieses tote Pferd versuchen weiter zu reiten.
This is an online-community, the interaction takes place on-wiki, everything off-wiki of of far less value, and of no value in important decisions. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2019 - Section Name in DiffEdit


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

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

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

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

Rebranding QuestionEdit

Thank you for the thanks! Apologies for writing in English, but your English is way better than my (nonexistent) German.

Just a random question for you, given your participation in the rebranding project - do you think "The Wikimedia Foundation" is a good name? I think I've come around to the idea that "Wikimedia" is a bad name, but that rebranding to "Wikipedia" is also bad. So I'm wondering if - at least for now, ignoring the cost associated with rebranding - do you think that a rebranding is necessarily a bad thing?

I ask because it was reading one of your replies that led me to suggest the name "Wikiverse Foundation". I sort of think that something like that would be better than Wikimedia, and respectful to the community's wishes. TomDotGov (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem for me, that you write in english, I'll do the same here. It's just that I don't trust those (WMF) guys, as they seem to just look for any excuse to ban people, who dissent. Imho that was the main reason for Fram being banned.
Regarding the branding: I still fail to see any reason to make any rebranding at all. Imho no valid reason was given so far, there were several (deliberate?) false reasons stated and completely bogus arguments given. Wikimedia ist just the name for the "holding", however such entities are called in proper english, that don't really have any intrinsic purpose beyond organising it's parts. They used the bogus comparison with Google, while it was clear for every thinking person, that the equivalent for Wikimedia was not Google, but Alphabet, and Wikipedia was Google, YouTube and so forth. As this is so completely clear, such comparison has to be made deliberately to obfuscate, as a strawman, to deceive. The only other possibility is utter stupidity, and I don't think they are stupid at the WMF.
So, why rebrand at all? What's the purpose of this? Why misuse the name of one project out of scope of this project? There is no compelling reason. Money can't be, as the WMF is awash in far more money then can be spent reasonably in the next years.
Wikiverse Foundation could be fine, it's at least far enough away from any particular single projects name to avoid usurpation of that single project. But what for? Wikimedia is the established name, like Alphabet, or Inbev (which isn't selling any beer with that name, and is as well not called Beck's or Budweiser), why waste money on plain naming stuff? That's just irrelevant marketing bling, and we don't sell anything, we are not even a company, we are an altruistic non-profit community, that gave itself some service organisation to do menial tasks.
So I don't care what's the name of the service organisation, a long as it defines itself as a service organisation with no rights above the community, and as long as it doesn't put money away from the communities to useless companies, like marketing people (You know the Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B?). And as long as it doesn't usurp any of the running an established project names for base motives.
Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
One more: Using Wikipedia as the central name for everything would of course create much confusion, as the project will be mistaken for the holding an vice versa. Wikipedia is not, I repeat not, the centre of the universe, not even the Wikiverse. And the central service organisation not, I repeat not, the service organisation just for Wikipedia. They are very distinct entities, and such clear distinctions should be made clear by the naming. It's fine now, using Wikiverse instead would be fine as well, bur why waste money on this change? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
With respect to the Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B - right now, the world could use a few more telephone sanitizers. :)
I guess from my perspective, "Wikimedia" is fundamentally a confusing name - it was originally meant for commons, and the Foundation just sort of inherited it, probably because they already had the domain at a time when money was precious. I guess from my perspective, I can sort of see why the Foundation wouldn't want a name that's actively confusing, and would want to be able to easily explain what they do. At the same time, I'm somewhat worried that this is a way of the foundation trying to raise money under the name 'wikipedia', and then divert it to pet projects - something that will likely bite everybody in the rear when the news media finds out.
I guess I feel that spending a small amount of money to give the foundation a more meaningful name seems reasonable to me, while spending a ton of money on meaningless branding exercises feels wasteful. I've come to position that by fighting the rebranding exercise entirely, we're endorsing 'wikimedia', and that hurts us more than simply saying 'okay, why not a name that works better than "wikipedia" or "wikimedia", discussed on-wiki for free' would. TomDotGov (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think using Wikimedia is such a bad decision. It's just the name of the holding entity (not this Holding Entity). Using Wikipedia instead would be severely confusing. I really can't fathom, why this completely confusing idea ever came up. It would create a not existing coherence between one single project and the whole movement, it would be kind of impersonation. Whether Wikiverse or Wikimedia or any other name would "work better" (define working better btw. In what aspect is a name relevant for working? It's just Schall und Rauch What's in a name?, to quote Goethe.) is imho at least secondary, if not further down the priority list. I think anything in the range of 4 figures in Dollars would be OK, anything with more figures ist a waste of ressources. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - in your recent post on the FAQ talk page, you wrote:

Leute, die um ihren unbelegten POV umseitig einen EW führen, sollten gesperrt werden, auch wenn sie ein (WMF) hinter ihrem Namen führen.

From context, I'm guessing EW means something like conflict of interest, but if you wrote it out fully it might make it a little easier for translator programs to translate. TomDotGov (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

EW means Edit-War, it's a german word in online contexts as well. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! TomDotGov (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


Hallo Sänger,

graag bewerkingssamenvattingen en opmerkingen zoals deze achterwege laten. Zie ook Meta:Civility.

Met vriendelijke groet:

Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ik praat niet zo goed nederlands, ik zou op engels en duits antwoorden.
It was an all.out-nuclear war by some completely detached WMFers out of pure and utter vanity, there was absolutely no real excuse for this declaration of war. The MV was simply far away from being ready for a beta-test, let alone production. But they desperately wanted their pet project deployed and used total violence and pure, unmitigated might to get their will. Jan was the one who deployed SuperProtect, so he was something at least like a pilot of the Elona Gay above Hiroshima.
I have not seen a single word of regret by him for this extreme anti-community, and thus anti-wikimedian, behaviour.
Das war ein kompletter Nuklearkrieg gegen die Communities von einigen abgedrehten und von der Community komplett entfremdeten WMFern, offensichtlich aus reiner Eitelkeit, es gab keine tatsächliche Entschuldigung für diese Kriegserklärung. Der MV war schlicht und ergreifend weit weg davon, auch nur als Betatest benutzt zu werden, geschweige denn in der Produktionsumgebung. Aber sie wollten um alles in der Welt ihr Lieblingsspielzeug ausgeliefert haben und haben brutale Gewalt und reine, ungezähmte Macht angewendet um ihren Willen durchzusetzen. Jan war derjenige, der SuperProtect implementiert hat, also war er so was wie ein Pilot der Elona Gay auf dem Weg nach Hiroschima.
Ich habe bislang kein Wort der Entschuldigung von ihm für dieses extreme antigemeinschaftliche, und somit antiwikimedianische, Verhalten gelesen.
Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

“the current renaming procedure [is one of the …] desasters”Edit

Im Gegensatz zu den anderen von dir genannten Dramen, die ich direkt so unterschreiben würde, habe ich bei der Umbenennungsprozedur gestutzt. Zum einen, weil ich nicht genau verstehe, welche gemeint ist: Global rename policy ist nicht von der WMF, sondern von Stewards und Bürokraten gemeinsam geschrieben worden, unter Berücksichtigung aller Probleme. Meinst du die teilweise Zwangsumbenennungen, die rund um die Single-User-Login/Finalisierung entstanden sind? Wenn dem so wäre, dann wäre (zum anderen) mir nicht klar, dass es, abgesehen von maximal einer Handvoll an Individuen, die tatsächlich Probleme damit hatten, die aber meines Wissens auch alle gelöst wurden, überhaupt eine grundsätzliche Debatte dort (über die WMF) gegeben hätte. Vielleicht meinst du ja aber auch einen anderen Prozess. Kritik rund um die aktuelle Umbenennungsprozedur auf w:de:WP:BÄ ist mir zudem auch noch nicht begegnet, erst recht keine, die sie in die Reihe von Superprotect oder Fram stellen würde. Ich würde mich daher freuen, das besser zu verstehen. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ich meinte die <Umbenennung der Wikimedia zu Wikipedia, die von einigen WMFern massiv betrieben wird. Bis zu dem RfC war für diejenigen, die diese Umbenennung pushen, klar, dass das ein beschlossener Fakt ist. Alle Veröffentlichungen seitens derer, die das so durchziehen wollten, und die möglichst wenig Communitybeteiligung wollten, jedenfalls keine, die nicht aus handverlesenen Grüppchen mit WMF-Mehrheit bestand, haben dieses Vorhaben deutlich dargestellt. Erst als die Community sich endlich selber eingemischt hat, und das Ergebnis sehr deutlich war (10:1 Ablehnung des Vorhabens der WMFer), hat so etwas wie ein Umdenken bei denen eingesetzt, und zumindest vordergründig wird so etwas wie Communitybeteiligung simuliert und in einer 180°-Wende eine Ergebnisoffenheit postuliert. Ich kann das bislang nicht wirklich glauben, lasse mich aber gerne positiv überraschen. Bislang gab es da jedenfalls keine echte Communitybeteiligung, das fand alles in geschlossenen Hinterzimmern statt, und es wurde streng darauf geachtet, dass die Umbenenner und die Werbefuzzies aus Norwegen in den vorgeschobenen Beteiligungsrunden (auf externen Plattformen, außerhalb des Wikiversums) ja die Mehrheit hatten, und somit den Ton angaben. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Nur für den Fall, das Du das nicht auf der Beo bemerkt hast, hier ein @DerHexer:. Es geht i.d.T. in keinster Weise um SUL, Benutzerumbenennung oder irgendwas in diesem Sinne, sondern dieses Unsinnsprojekt der norwegischen Werbefuzzies und dem Brandingteam. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Lach, okay, na klar. Gehirnblockade bei mir. Da kann ich ebenfalls ganz gut zustimmen. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


Did you delete my link to the enwiki discussion, rather than adding a link to the dewiki discussion? I generally think that more perspectives are better, and so if the German community is having a discussion, it should be added too. I would have added it myself, but I didn't know about it. TomDotGov (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I've stated my reasons in the comment, either the discussions in all projects should be linked, or none et all. Your enWP-VP-link reeked of the usual anglocentric bias in the whole wikiverse, which ist bad. IMHO links to anything in enWP should only be made on such pages after at least 2 links to other projects are there, to keep those anglocentric usurpers at bay. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If it helps, that wasn't my intent at all - I just found the discussion to be rather interesting, as it was rejecting some of the points the foundation was using to support its usurpation of the name. If you have a link to the dewiki discussion, then it might make sense to just have a single entry that links to the discussions at multiple village pump equivalents, so one isn't given more prominence than the others. TomDotGov (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the inflation of the news section by several hundred links to the projects Kurier/Kroeg/Village Pump/Whatever-discussion would be really something helpful. It could be done on the talk page in a special area at the top, and linked from the front. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't really see any reason to dispute this. TomDotGov (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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

  Wikimedia 2030
Thank you for taking part in the community conversations about the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy! The feedback and insights you shared helped shape the recommendations for our Movement's future. Vielleicht sehen wir uns ja mal persönlich. Viele Grüße --CJackel (WMF) (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Geschützte LeerzeichenEdit

...hier: das wirkt sehr mystisch. Was steckt dahinter? ;-) --MF-W 12:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ich habe nicht den blassesten Schimmer, ich habe das nicht aktiv eingefügt, das hat irgendein Helferlein oder sonstiges Gadget da automagisch gemacht, und das ist a) ziemlich nervig und b) von mir nicht beabsichtigt. Ich habe das allerdings schon ab und an mal geshen, nicht nur bei mir. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)