Theklan

Welcome to Meta!

Hello Theklan, and 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 (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing! --Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising translation feedback

Hey Theklan,

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

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

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

Many Thanks

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: eu.wiki coordinates and images

Hello, thanks for your update and question, I've replied at mw:Thread:Extension talk:PageImages/Maps and other images to exclude. Hopefully devs will be able to give you a more useful answer there. --Nemo 08:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Gràcies/Thank you

Viquimarató 35 hores a la Fundació Miró (abril 2013)
35-hour edit-a-thon at Miró Foundation (April 2013)

Hola, gràcies a la teva firma donant suport a la nostra associació. El passat dia 5 de juny Amical Wikimedia (Associació Amical Viquipèdia) va ser reconeguda pel Consell d'Administració de la Fundació Wikimedia com a Organització Temàtica. Pots veure el comunicat de l'associació en català aquí o el comunicat de la WMF en anglès aquí. Per a la nostra associació és una fita molt important, portàvem 5 anys demanant ésser un organisme oficial. Nosaltres continuarem la nostra tasca de promoció al carrer i a les institucions de la Viquipèdia i els seus projectes germans arreu dels territoris de parla catalana.

Hello, thanks for your signature giving support to our association. Last 5th of June Amical Wikimedia (Associació Amical Viquipèdia) was recognised by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees as a Thematic Organization. You can read the news bulletin of our association in Catalan here or the WMF's bulletin in English here. For our association, this is a very important achievement: we have been pursuing the official recognition for the last 5 years. We are going to continue the task of promoting Wikipedia and its sister projects all around the Catalan-speaking regions.

Moltes gràcies, Thank you --Davidpar (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Superprotect status

Dear Theklan, since you are an administrator on a wiki from which no user participated in this discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of some recent events which may alter what the Wikimedia Foundation lets you do on your wiki: Superprotect.

• Request for comment: Requests for comment/Superprotect rights
• An open letter about its implementation: Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer

Peteforsyth 09:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Hi,

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)

Translation request

Hello, I understand you speak Basque/Euskara. I was wondering if you can translate "Village in China", "Commune in Morocco", and "village in Indonesia". It is for updating Wikidata. Thanks in advance. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall)

@Artix Kreiger: Of course! Txinako herria, Marokoko udalerria and Indonesiako herria. -Theklan (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Commond deletion bot requirements

I'm contacting you because you supported the Commons Deletion Bot proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist. The Wishlist team has finalized the draft specifications for how the bot will work, and are seeking review in confirming or discussing the plans for the bot. If you have some time, please take a look and leave a comment. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons deletion notification bot

Greetings,

You are receiving this message because you supported the Commons deletion notification bot in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey.

Commons deletion notification bot is ready to be deployed to any Wikimedia wiki that wishes to use it. If your community is interested in the bot, you can leave a request on the project page on meta-wiki. The bot messages are available for translation on translatewiki.net, as part of preparing the bot for release.

Thank you for your participation in the Wishlist. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

SVG Translate Community wishlist survey project

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 Survey

Hi,

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)

Your Wishlist proposals

Thanks for participating in this year's survey! Unfortunately, you can make no more than three proposals. Please let us know what three you you'd like to keep, and we will Archive the others. From there, you can seek others to adopt your proposals, if you want. Sorry you weren't aware of this rule! And thanks for your understanding :) MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MusikAnimal (WMF)! I will change some of them and limit to the most interesting ones! -Theklan (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for narrowing down your proposals. You've got just one more to archive to be at the three-proposal limit. You can either let me know which one you want to archive here, or do as you did before and add the withdrawn template. Thanks again, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

[Wikipedia & Education User Group] Updates: November 2018

Greetings,

Integrating Wikimedia with education is a powerful strategy for the outreach of Wikimedia projects. Realising this concept, a group of leaders promoted this and formed the Wikipedia Education Collaborative. After some time, this evolved to become a user group, officially recognised by the Affiliations Committee in June 2018. The user group had its first board elections earlier in September. In the process to formalise activities and give a shape the user group for long-term sustainability, we are now revamping our processes. Thanks for supporting us during incubation stages, we are now inviting you to formally join the user group by following the instructions on the members' page. Being a member will allow you to be a part of this wonderful collaboration and also do interesting stuff.

Kind regards
On behalf of Wikipedia and Education UG, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia+Education Programme?

Hello @Theklan:, We met at Maynooth last year. Hope you are well. Just wondering if you know when the conference submission will be reviewed. If accepted I will need time to apply for travel funds. Best, AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Auguste Blanqui: We are working on that. I hope to have an answer for the next week. Neverthless, most of the applications will be accepted in one way or another. -Theklan (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Lightning talks for Wikipedia+Education Conference

Hi Theklan

I see there are some spaces left for lightning talks in the programme, how do I submit one? Do I just add it to the programme or write it out here or something else?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Simply add it. Are you registered for the Conference? -Theklan (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no registration link on the website, I assumed that it was open to everyone? Or has it closed? John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It was closed a month ago. There is a notice about applications closure and how to proceed. If you are planning to attend and have everything ready, I would suggest you to write ASAP there. -Theklan (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the miss-understanding, I assumed the notice was about submissions not attendance. Thanks for your help, John Cummings (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please translate the Editing newsletter

Would you please translate VisualEditor/Newsletter/2019/July into your favorite language for me? I'd really appreciate it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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

		Wikimedia 2030
		Thank you very much for everything you did to help create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations! I am especially grateful for the enormous amount of work you did in the Diversity working group and all the care and commitment you brought to the process. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Global Conversations registration reminder

Hi Theklan,

This is a reminder that if you have not yet registered for the Global Conversations on Nov. 21 and 22, please do so! Register here. Registration closes by Nov. 20. We will email you the login information for Zoom prior to the call. Thank you. Looking forward to welcoming you this weekend.

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@MPourzaki (WMF): Hello! I registered like a week ago. I even have an appointment in my agenda for Sunday at 17:00UTC. -Theklan (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021: Invitation

The 2021 Community Wishlist Survey is now open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 30 November, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 8 December and 21 December.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021

We invite all registered users to vote on the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. You can vote from now until 21 December for as many different wishes as you want.

In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will start with the most popular ones.

We, the Community Tech, are one of the Wikimedia Foundation teams. We create and improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer developers or other teams.

We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata Lexemes on eu Wiktionary?

Hi Theklan! If I remember correctly, you have expressed interest in the name of the Basque Wiktionary community to use Lexicographic data from Wikidata? I am checking if you would like to start a conversation on eu.wikt to see if there is opposition to have eu.wiktionary be one of the early test Wiktionaries for that feature? If you do, let us know on phabricator:T294159. --denny (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Leadership Development Working Group: Reminder to apply by 10 April 2022

Hello, I'm reaching out to you today as you've previously expressed interest in Movement Strategy and Governance-related topics. I was hoping to share the below message with you and your talk page guests, as the call for applications for this working group ends soon.

---

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

The Community Development team at the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting the creation of a global, community-driven Leadership Development Working Group. The purpose of the working group is to advise leadership development work. Feedback was collected in February 2022 and a summary of the feedback is on Meta-wiki. The application period to join the Working Group is now open and is closing soon on April 10, 2022. Please review the information about the working group, share with community members who might be interested, and apply if you are interested.

---

Thank you in advance for your consideration =) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thans Xeno. What's the point of developing leadership if the WMF is not accountable for anything those "leaders" are asking? Theklan (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for running a workshop at the Celtic Knot Conference 2022!

Workshop speaker at the Celtic Knot Conference 2022

A huge thank you from the Celtic Knot organizing team (Richard, Daria and myself) for running a workshop at the conference! We truly appreciate the work and dedication you put in the preparation phase as well as in delivering the workshop.

To show our appreciation, we would like to give you this barnstar - feel free to use it anywhere you want, for example on your userpage.

I’m looking forward to work with you on future events and projects! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh! So cute! Thanks Lea... I hope to see you soon. Theklan (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wishlist

Hi, I noticed your posts on Talk:Community Wishlist Survey. Since the process from 2021 is different, as you were told, there is no top 10 to evaluate. However, imho, the ones that WMF can't process (due to various reasons) shouldn't be put among the "not done" ones, as those yet to be done. I agree that we should discuss it, but in my opinion, also in order not to make the discussion very dispersive, it's better to discuss it in one single place, preferably here. So I would kindly ask you to report this last discussion on Talk:Community Wishlist Survey, so that it can be reached by the greatest number of interested people, but to avoid inserting tables there, which in the end don't reflect the real situation at the moment from the point of view of WMF, and make the talk page very heavy and difficult to read (but you of course can summarize the tables - or perhaps collapse them - here), so anyone can discuss in that page. Thanks for your understanding and best regards! Superpes15 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. The problem here is that the WMF staff was trying to archive the proposal and suggested to move the discussion to the talk page. I did it, and provided evidence of the problem. I would like to follow on at the proposal itself, but I want to close also the always present argument of you should open a discussion at the talk page.

Also, not having a Top 10 is a great point of the nonsense of this wishlist, as we can't even vote for wishes in a democratic way. I would accept putting "declined" instead of "not done", but I don't know if they have been actually declined. Sincerely... Theklan (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Uhm, seems to me that WMF says it cannot guarantee to execute the suggestion that will come out of that thread (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but other users have also supports the existence of the discussion, so I don't think it will be closed given that a constructive proposal could come out. Yes, the wishlist - like imho everything in any area of our life - have many points that can be upgraded, but I'm also sure that such a discussion would be very long. For this too, I suggest you to use only one page and to wait before editing the tables! As I can see, however, the unprocessable proposals can be currently seen on the result pages, so they aren't currently hidden, there is no danger that they will disappear ;) Best regards Superpes15 (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The situation is serious, and the change made at Template:Community Wishlist Survey/Larger suggestions/Disclaimer reflects the current situation. Voting is no longer the way to decide what wish is going to be made, and this should be reflected on this template. Theklan (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that a disclaimer changed by you will reflect WMF's though. Since that disclaimer reflects the opinion of WMF, I don't see what advantage you would have in changing it (since it's not even marked for translation). This is not a private wiki, obviously, but it's a coordination project, and there are some spaces where it's better to wait for those who are competent to edit. It's like I start modifying the privacy policy or the checkuser policy, or UCoC, according to my preferences and saying that we are on metawiki so I can do it. I fully understand your point but, as I said, please continue to discuss it in the right place with the community, so that a serious proposal can come out to be submitted to WMF, that can improve wishlists, and don't conflict the pages where WMF is working, doing edit warring. So I kindly ask you to revert your last edit in the disclaimer (I don't want to generate another edit war). Thanks again for your understanding! Superpes15 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but accuracy is important. I have edited it to reflect current situation, and then I have opened an issue in the talk page. If the change is not accurate, I should revert it, but wording is important. I would make the same if I find a typo in the UCoC or in the Checkuser policy. I would change the content of those pages because they are policies or text to vote as they are. I don't see how those realities can be the same. Theklan (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have seen now the second revert. There is a dispute on the accuracy of the content of that page. WMF is presenting something that is not accurate, and there's a discussion happening on the talk page. This should be noted to the readers somehow, as the WMF is stubborn presenting fabricated facts in order to change the reality of what is being discussed. How can wikimedians know that the information is disputed? Theklan (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a typo, you changed the meaning of the content. You can't say "but voting is not relevant to adopt an idea", because if an idea is not voted, they surely will not implemented, so how this can reflect a WMF's (or community's) though? This is a personal opinion imho. Superpes15 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Because @MusikAnimal (WMF) (the WMF reflects an official account) said it, literally: "Since 2021, we expressly do not commit to the top 10. Instead, we use a prioritization framework to help us ascertain what we can afford to do annually. It's far from perfect, but we believe it's a step up from the old "top 10" commitment that we used to have, which left a lot of wishes undone."

Voting is not relevant anymore, not only for "larger proposals". The current wording suggest that this only happens within the "larger proposals" category, but is not true. Is relevant to ANY category, and this should be stated clearly. Theklan (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The process is explained here, that's why I suggested that you continue a discussion, in order to suggest improvements to the WMF procedure. Probably they realized that they didn't have the time and technical resources to be able to manage all the first 10 wishes that came out every year. But I don't see why you should continue to edit the pages where WMF is working. I would therefore ask you, again, to revert your edit in the disclaimer and not to modify the pages in which WMF is working. Thanks Superpes15 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I will do it because I don't want an edit war, but I disagree completely with the idea. I would suggest @MusikAnimal (WMF) to make the changes to reflect the current process in Community_Wishlist_Survey_2023, where it can't be found. Theklan (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, thank you for understanding, but, trust me, I get your point completely! We'll just wait for the outcome of the discussion and see, I already see several people who have intervened, and this is interesting because it means that the process has many ways to improve. We simply shouldn't interfere with the work of WMF, the rest is absolutely correct to discuss as much as possible, in order to represent any suggestions from the community to WMF. Thanks again and wish you the best :) Superpes15 (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Is not going to happen. The process is completely broken and they don't even mind. The only solution they found for solving it was breaking the concept of democracy and tweaking the results so it seems that they are actually doing something. They don't even try anymore. And we can discuss things, but the fact is that they even tried to archive the discussion before it happened. Theklan (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well imho if the community makes a larger proposal to WMF, which is approved by the majority of the community and it's technically and financially reasonable, there is no reason why WMF could not approve it. For the community, myself included, it's very nice to vote in the community wishlist survey! I admit that I've never made proposals, and I have only voted them, but I understand that it isn't pleasant to see one's proposal, with more votes than another, being rejected wile the other one processed! Probably the process was broken even before and they tried this way but, if it doesn't work and the larger community doesn't like it, why not change this too to improve it? Superpes15 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

there is no reason why WMF could not approve it. Well, there's one: no one is accountable at the WMF for this. If there was someone accountable, the wishes would be done. What they will do is this: they will try to get to the end of the wishlist survey, then try to make 1 or 2 of the most voted, hope that the tide goes down, and return the next year with exactly the same proposal, but with a bigger lie in their hands. Theklan (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Uhm tbh I was referring to the ongoing discussion and not to the wishlist itself, which can surely be improved, but I'll follow the discussion more closely in order to get a better idea of the situation! Thanks and sorry for intruding on your talk :) Superpes15 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for your time! Theklan (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Block

Hello Theklan, your conduct as of late has not been constructive and has necessitated a temporary block, until March 1, after the Community Wishlist Survey has concluded.

As I understand it, your argument is that only the top 10 community-voted wishes are "wishes", and on that basis you have argued and edit warred (and threatened to continue edit warring) with the Community Tech team to try and get the relevant pages to reflect that the team has relatively rarely completed the top 10 wishes. It's clear from reading the wishlist pages that feasibility is a factor in what wishes they work on, that there is a public results leaderboard and detailed explanation of their prioritization process that anyone can read. Instead of discussing the prioritization process, or seeking more funding for the team, or other things that have a possibility of ending well, you have chosen a path that is far more confrontational and assumptive of bad faith.

It is absolutely fine to provide constructive feedback on projects. Let's go over the more problematic aspects of this timeline. You have...

• Accused the CommTech team of harassment for disqualifying the "Dismantling of the annual Wishlist Survey system" proposal (diff)
  • "I can't imagine nothing that representes better what harassment is" (diff)
• Accused the team of edit warring for archiving the proposal again (diff)
• Removed the "Does not require engineering resources" message on the proposal, which had been added by the CommTech team in declining it as out of scope (diff)
  • At this point it's pertinent to note that the team made it very clear that they wanted to hear criticism, but that a wishlist item isn't the way to do so
• Edited the team's list of current projects to include a variety of items the team did not commit to (diff, diff, diff, diff).
  • After doing this, added a message on the main wishlist page pointing people to the "real situation" as you have outlined it. (diff)
• Reverted MusikAnimal's undo of your changes to the list of projects page (diff)
  • It's pertinent to note that MusikAnimal's undo summary linked to the section where the topic was being discussed
  • An admin then undid your edit, also pointing you to the discussion space
• Edited the team's wishlist item disclaimer to say that voting is not relevant (diff, diff)
  • An admin undid the change, which you reverted (diff)
• Imported the "disputed" template to place it on CommTech's list of current/past projects. (diff, diff)
  • This was undone by an admin
  • "[T]he WMF is stubborn presenting fabricated facts in order to change the reality of what is being discussed" (diff)
  • Very shortly after that incendiary comment, you recognize that the WMF does not, in fact, commit to the top 10, i.e., has a different prioritization process than the one you want. (diff)
• After being asked multiple times by an admin, you agreed not to edit WMF's team pages, and to participate in discussions instead to avoid an edit war (diff)
• "The only solution they found for solving it was breaking the concept of democracy and tweaking the results so it seems that they are actually doing something." (diff)
• Upon being asked to stick to civil criticism, you started your reply with: "The first thing is sincerity. The team is not being sincere with the table of results, that is the discussion topic here. Once I see sincerity there, we can build a trusted discussion." (diff
• Two days after agreeing not to, you re-added the disputed template to the team's projects page. (diff)
• Commented that "there's need of a manager who will do their job" (diff)
• Again threatened to edit the team's pages, writing "will the inaccurate content of this page change or should I start editing it on my own?" (diff)
  • This is after repeating the IDHT argument that the team's task is the top 10 wishes, and claiming that the team did nothing. (diff)
• Delivered a second ultimatum of sorts to edit the team's pages, writing "Can this be reflected in the table, or should I proceed myself?" (diff)
• Delivered the team a deadline of Monday to make the change you want, or you will. (diff)

I understand that you are frustrated, and that you disagree with the prioritization process used in the Community Wishlist Survey. However, instead of constructively discussing the prioritization methods, you insulted various members of the team, edit warred, disruptively changed the team's templates and pages, intentionally ignored attempts to clarify language and points, backtracked on your agreement to stick to constructive discussion rather than editing the team's pages to fit your perspective, and a myriad of other unconstructive actions documented above and elsewhere in your recent edit history. There's being bold, and there's making controversial edits for the sake of controversy. There were many opportunities to engage in positive discourse here, none of which were taken, and there are many other volunteers (who share your perspective) who have constructively engaged in this dialogue.

To a large extent, I agree with your concerns about the wishlist's operations. However, it's also clear that the method you have been using to raise these concerns is disruptive to the project. There are constructive ways to raise concerns with the way the wishlist operates, which you were directed to on many occasions both by staff and other editors. You were even asked by another editor to disengage, from the intensity of your comments, and it just got more intense from there.

Your conduct over the last few weeks has unfortunately necessitated administrative action. As such, you have been blocked for the duration of the Community Wishlist Survey, until March 1.

This message and action was reviewed and endorsed by six admins other than myself: BRPever (who placed the block), Operator873, Hasley, Superpes15, Martin Urbanec, and Jusjih. Thank you for your understanding. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I am confirming my name was included with my consent. Operator873 ^connect 00:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I was going to comment to MusikAnimal (WMF) that his proposal to change the title and scope of the page was in the good direction and could be a good compromise, but I couldn't because I found that I have been blocked. I'm not going to argue the decission with you or other admins, is up to you to decide what is better. I have tried to claim that the emperor is naked, and found that this can't be said. Being blocked by rising this point is a real honor: the emperor is even more naked. I have voted yet in the Wishlist, and I'm not going to make any other vote. I'll be back as usual to Meta next month. Theklan (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment here, @MusikAnimal (WMF). I can't answer you directly, which is not fair [and somehow I don't see the thanks button in Meta... is it because I'm blocked?]. But I wanted to thank your long answer there. I disagree with some points, and it's a pity it took so long to have an answer that goes to the points. I only wanted to add one thing: the 50 wishes or the 1% were not symbolic, and not having an answer is the problem. That is the very core of the misunderstanding we have on this issue. We will discuss it in the future. See you. Theklan (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledging I'm happy to discuss here unless it gets too heated again (during these stressful times we need to protect our sanity!). Please keep this between us and do not ping other members of my team. I'd like to point out again that my team is extremely busy right now conducting a survey. This is why it took so long to have an answer to your points, as you say. I took a few hours out of my weekend to read through everything and formulate my reply to you. I should be out enjoying myself, but here we are. Our product manager told you upfront that everything you stated was added to our retrospective doc to be discussed later. Rules around the survey don't change while the survey is in session (though I realize many of your points aren't about the survey itself – regardless the point is that we're really busy right now…). We take every ounce of feedback into account for the next survey. As we've said, the very existence of the 2023 survey happened unexpectedly. We didn't have time to make changes, combined with everything else that has to go into a survey. The "50 wishes" and "1%" wish are indeed symbolic, and if you disagree then we can simply agree to disagree. As for an answer to those wishes, we did our part in sharing with leadership. We can't answer for them, but I sympathize with you that that is a problem. For all I know, the "1%" wish is actually already true. The proposer themselves even used the word "symbolic". Their intentions (and yours, we presume) was simply to get more resources to CommTech and/or get more wishes done, which is exactly what we want, too :) We as a team can't do anything about it, sadly, and I can't speak for leadership beyond what they've already said. Let me also make it clear that when we use the word "leadership", we're talking about above our team. Our PM has no power to magically give us more developers and money. If she did, I'm sure she would have a long time ago. I definitely think things will change for the better in 2023, though!

Noting again I'm using my volunteer account and will do so moving forward, as I don't want to stress out my team further. They may or may not agree with what I have said above.

Thanks, — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I really want to help with this, regardless of the block, and that's why I think that sincerity is an elemental issue. And I really think that there's a lack of sincerity in this process, which makes it even more frustrating. Bad communication could be blamed, instead, if you prefer. But I have to say that I have worked before in communications and I don't like when all the fault is bad communication. That's why I try to get away from that explanation.

Is true that since 2020 (2021?) there's not a fixed number of wishes granted, which creates even more scarcity. That's why I opened the "50 wishes" wish last year. It wasn't symbolic. It was a real wish, pointing where (I think) part of the problem is. Not commiting to any number or result because we don't now what can be done is not a cautionary principle: is admiting that the project itself is a failure. Or, worse, that the project is possible, but the team doesn't have the time to do it. I will come to this later [I need to make an schema, it will be easier].

Is also true that since 2022, voting is not relevant. Well, it is actually relevant in one part of the decision: the most voted proposals are assesed and scored to decide what to work on. Is to say, voting is relevant, but not in the way that a democratic voting should be expected. After all, the scoring system used to evaluate a proposal makes the popular vote itself a tiny part of the final scoring.

It may be unfair from my side to say that from the 10 most voted proposals, a total of zero were done. Is technically true, but you can argue that the "10 most voted proposals" is not a thing. And you are right: the system was changed in order to delete the idea of "10 most voted proposals" from the argumentation of system failure. You could say that the relevance and priorization of the proposals was made with another scoring method. But even with that scoring method, only 1 of the top priorized 10 proposals was made, it is a gadget only working experimentally in MediaWiki, and it wasn't either in the top 5 (8th in priority). I must say that I have doubts with this. I don't know if the priority is decided with the lower number or the higher one. If it is the opposite, and is decided with the hightest one... then also 1/10 are made: enabling negation filtering.

So, whatever the measure we use, being the democratic "most voted first" or the less obvious "more feasible first", the result doesn't change a lot. The failure is so evident, trying to hide it with "we made a Wishathon" and adding them to the done list feels strange to me. I like facts, and I think that's why I have this feeling.

I also want to challenge the idea that everything you stated was added to our retrospective doc to be discussed later. The proposal made by @Xavier Dengra (which I'm defending here, but is not mine) was archived and dismissed in some minutes. I recovered it and I'm blocked for that. There wouldn't be this discussion, nor Selena Deckelmann's statement if the proposal was archived. We are discussing this because me (and others) recovered this from the archive itself. This is the edit warring @Vermont is talking about. And edit war for the good of the community, it seems. So good, that we have an statement, we have the scores of the previous year's priorization (this didn't exist before some users discussed it) and all I'm saying is added for discussion. It seems strange to me that I have to make things that lead to a block in order to be heard and read about the real situation behind the Wishlist. Don't you think?

I'm ending. I have more things to do today. I was today visiting law students in the University to explain them how to edit Wikipedia [also why they can't edit together and other usual compexities when editing] and I had some time in the car coming back home to think about a flux diagram that would summarize my points. I'll do it know and paste it below.

I really hope to follow on with the conversation. Here, or wherever you and/or the team want. Indeed, we want the same thing: closing the technical debt. We can't agree on the better strategy. For me, it is funding a dedicated team that will work on the top wishes, will close the tech debt and will start to integrate all the tools created in the previous year into an unique selling-point. I'm blocked for defending that, but I will continue standing in the same point. Theklan (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

First off, if you want to work with us, you'll have to trust that we're being sincere. It is literally my team's job to serve the community. I'm not going to comment on why you were blocked as that's already outlined above by the admins.

I started to draft up a replies to your comments, but realized I'm either repeating myself to you, or saying things I wanted to say eventually over on the "Dismantle" wish anyway for higher visibility. Don't worry, I'm not going to call you out or anything, knowing you're blocked and won't be able to reply. I'm just saying I will touch on the points you've raised here, so keep an eye for my thoughts over there. I hope to post something by Friday. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I should reply to the things that are only relevant here, though. I get the hunch our documentation isn't being read.

• you can argue that the "10 most voted proposals" is not a thing – I wouldn't call it an argument, as it's something we informed everyone of, and did so well in advance of the 2021 survey. You can read the aforementioned linked documentation to learn more. For future reference, you can refer to Community Wishlist Survey/Updates to stay up-to-date with changes and announcements related to the survey (this is already transcluded on the main survey page, as you may know).
• The failure is so evident, trying to hide it with "we made a Wishathon"… – Please assume good faith. We weren't trying to hide any sort of "failure" (whether it is or isn't), but increase the number of wishes done by involving other teams who are experts in whatever the wish entails. Many wishes are doable within a hackathon time frame, so why not do them? It costs our team only one week and we got several wishes done, and more are on the way. Our updates page explains it further. We actually now make notes of Wishathon-able wishes when we do our reviews, and plan to conduct more Wishathons, in tandem with the bigger projects Community Tech works on that are ranked higher in the survey. Before you know it, your "50 wishes" wish might actually become true! (depending on availability and participation levels from other teams, and hackathon-sized wishes to pull from)
• we have the scores of the previous year's priorization (this didn't exist before some users discussed it) – Just making sure… are you implying we didn't expose the scores until recently? They were published as soon as we published the results on February 15, 2022, and they are still advertised at the top of the results page.

I mean, I guess I can see why you would think we're not sincere if you thought we were hiding these things from you! Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding you. Anyways, I need to get back to work :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are right in the last point, they were published on time and I misread the date they were published. Theklan (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar

To a staunch defender of minority rights & the rich diversity of languages, here's a much earned barnstar. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @Llywelyn2000! Theklan (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments on the annual plan

I have greatly appreciated your comments in recent years; thank you. –SJ talk  23:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Theklan (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter

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

Dear Wikimedian,

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

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

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

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 15:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)