User talk:John Vandenberg

Welcome to Meta!

Hello John Vandenberg, 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 (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!

Hallo, John Vandenberg, und Willkommen bei Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Diese Seite ist für die Koordination und Diskussion aller Wikimedia Projekte. Vielleicht findest du es nützlich, unsere Regelseite zu lesen. Wenn du daran interessiert bist, etwas zu übersetzen, besuche Meta:Babylon. Du kannst auch eine Notiz auf Meta:Babel hinterlassen (bitte lies die Anleitung am Anfang der Seite, bevor du schreibst). Wenn du willst, kannst du mir auf meiner Diskussionseite eine Frage stellen. Fröhliches bearbeiten.

Bonjour John Vandenberg, et bienvenue sur le Meta-Wiki de Wikimédia ! Ce site a pour but de coordonner et discuter de l’ensemble des projets Wikimédia. Il vous sera utile de consulter notre page sur les règles de Wikimédia. Si vous êtes intéressé par des projets de traduction, visitez Meta:Babylon. Vous pouvez aussi laisser un message sur Meta:Babel (mais veuillez d’abord lire les instructions en haut de cette page avant d’y poster votre message). Si vous le voulez, vous pouvez me poser vos questions sur ma page de discussion. À bientôt !

Olá John Vandenberg! Seja bem-vindo ao Meta! Este site/sítio é dedicado à discussão e à coordenação de todos os demais projetos da Fundação Wikimedia. Talvez lhe seja útil ler a página contendo a nossa política (em inglês) antes de começar a editar. Se tiver dúvidas, sinta-se à vontade para me fazer perguntas em minha página de discussão, ou deixe uma mensagem para toda a comunidade na Babel, a versão do Meta da Esplanada. Boa sorte!

Hola John Vandenberg! Bienvenido a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundación Wikimedia! Este sitio es para coordinar y discutir todos los proyectos de la Fundación Wikimedia. Tal vez le sea útil leer nuestra página de políticas (en inglés). Si le interesan las traducciones, visite Meta:Babylon. También puede dejar un mensaje en Meta:Babel (pero antes de hacerlo, por favor lea las instrucciones situadas en lo alto de la página). No dude en preguntar si tiene cualquiera duda, o pregunte en mi página de discusión. Buena suerte!

Ciao John Vandenberg! Benvenuto sulla Meta-Wiki della Wikimedia Foundation! Questo sito serve a coordinare e discutere di tutti i progetti della Wikimedia Foundation. Potrebbe esserti utile leggere le nostre policy (in inglese). Se sei interessato a fare traduzioni, visita Meta:Babylon. Puoi anche lasciare un messaggio su Meta:Babel (ma per favore, leggi le istruzioni che si trovano all'inizio della pagina prima di scrivere). Se vuoi, puoi lasciarmi un messagio nella mia pagina di discussione. Buona fortuna!

Ciao John Vandenberg, şi bine aţi venit la Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Acest website este pentru coordonarea şi discuţiile tuturor proiectelor Wikimedia. Este folositor să citiţi pagina despre politica noastră.. Dacă sunteţi interesaţi de traducere, vizita-ţi Meta:Babylon. De asemenea puteţi lasa o notă pe Meta:Babel (vă rugăm citiţi instrucţiunile de la începutul paginii înainte de a posta acolo). Dacă ai întrebări, nu ezita să mă întrebi pe pagina mea de discuţii talk page. Editare cu succes!

Hej John Vandenberg, och välkommen till Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Den här sidan är till för att diskutera och samordna alla Wikimedias projekt. Vill du veta mer om sidan, kan vår policy-sida komma väl till pass. Är du intresserad av att hjälpa till med översättningar, besök Meta:Babylon. Du kan också lämna ett meddelande på Meta:Babel (vänligen läs instruktionerna överst på sidan innan du skriver något där). Om du vill, är du välkommen att ställa frågor på min diskussionssida. Lycka till med redigerandet!

Helló John Vandenberg, és üdv a Wikimedia Meta-Wikijén! Ez a weboldal az összes Wikimedia projektet érintő ügyek megtárgyalására és koordinálására szolgál. Hasznosnak találhatod elolvasni az irányelveinket (angolul). Ha szeretnél fordításokat végezni, látogasd meg a Meta:Babylon-t, vagy a Meta:Babel oldalon hagyhatsz üzenetet (mielőtt ide írsz kérlek olvasd el a lap tetején található utasításokat). Ha szeretnél, nyugodtan kérdezz tőlem a vitalapomon. Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást! Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást!

Здравствуйте, John Vandenberg, и добро пожаловать на Meta-Wiki Фонда Викимедиа! Этот сайт предназначен для координации и обсуждения вопросов, связанных со всеми проектами фонда. Для начала Вы можете ознакомиться с нашими правилами. Если Вы заинтересованы в работе над переводами, посетите Meta:Babylon. Вы также можете обсудить различные вопросы на странице Meta:Babel (пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с инструкцией сверху, прежде чем писать). Если возникнут вопросы, не бойтесь задавать их мне на моей странице обсуждения. Удачи!

Hola John Vandenberg! Benvingut a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundació Wikimedia! Aquest lloc està fet per a coordinar i discutir tots els projectes de la Fundació Wikimedia. Potser us serà útil llegir la nostra pàgina de polítiques (en anglès). Si us interessen les traduccions, visiteu Meta:Babylon. També podeu deixar un missatge a Meta:Babel (però abans de fer-ho, llegiu les instruccions situades al principi de la pàgina). No dubteu en preguntar si teniu qualsevol dubte. Si cal ho podeu fer en la meva pàgina de discussió. Bona sort!

John Vandenberg, 你好！歡迎光臨維基媒體元維基！這個網站是為協調和討論所有維基媒體項目而設。我們的政策頁可能對您有用。如果您有興趣協助翻譯工作, 請參觀Meta:Babylon。你可在 Meta:Babel 留下口訊 (張貼之前請先讀該頁上指示)。若有問題, 請在我的討論頁問我 。祝
編安!

வணக்கம் John Vandenberg, விக்கிமீடியா மேல்விக்கி! இற்கு நல்வரவு. இவ்விணையத்தளமானது கூட்டாகச் சேர்ந்து விடயங்களை விவாதிப்பதற்கென உருவாக்கப் பட்டது. விக்கித்திட்டங்கள். நீங்கள் எங்களின் பாலிசிகளையும் பாலிசி பக்கம் படித்தறியலாம். நீங்கள் மொழிபெயர்பில் ஆர்வமுடையவராகின், Meta:Babylon ஐப் பார்வையிடவும். நீங்கள் Meta:Babel இல் குறிப்பொன்றையும் விட்டுச் செல்லலாம். (பக்கத்தின் மேலேயிருக்கும் அறிவுறுத்தல்களை வாசித்தபின்னரே அங்கே செய்திகளை இடவும்). நீங்கள் விரும்பினால் எனது பக்கத்தில் செய்தியொன்றை விடவும் talk page. உங்கள் ஆக்கங்களை வரவேற்கின்றோம்!

Cbrown1023 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am jayvdb on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Jayvdb. Thanks. --John Vandenberg 00:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My steward election

Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%.--Jusjih 23:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource Venetian

Hi, please note that I posted an answer to your last question on Requests for new languages/Wikisource Venetian. If there's anything else that I can do to have my request approved sooner or later, please let me know. Thanks, Candalua 09:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Zh.wikinews 文章标记

Are these pages needed on meta: Zh.wikinews 文章标记 ? The templates appear in zh:news:Category:维基整理模板. If you want to retain the history, we could request that zh.wikinews can import the history from meta. John Vandenberg 06:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

these pages no needed --Shizhao 06:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Zh. and Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Zh. no needed--Shizhao 12:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very classy

Thanks for the welcome message John. Take care -- Samir 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question on Stewards/elections 2009/Questions#Jredmond

Hi - not sure if you've noticed, but I answered your question on Stewards/elections 2009/Questions#Jredmond the other day. (There has been a lot of other traffic on that page, so my answer may have gotten lost in the shuffle.) You can read my answer in this diff. Thanks! - jredmond 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

global rename confirmation

This edit is to confirm that I would like my username changed from "Jayvdb" to "John Vandenberg" on all accounts. John Vandenberg 05:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• DONE on en.wikinews. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

so in ar.wiki--OsamaK 09:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Done at de.wp — YourEyesOnly 09:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Done at it.wp & it.source --Frieda 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, all. John Vandenberg 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done @eswiki. —Dferg (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Done es.wikisource, --LadyInGrey 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done at fiwiki, the requested username is already taken. — str4nd ⇌ 07:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Done at fiwiki. — str4nd ⇌ 11:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Done at cs.wikisource --Milda 05:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at cs.wikipedia --Faigl.ladislav 07:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at nl.wikibooks Pjetter 07:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at lb.wikipedia --Robby 07:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at no.wikipedia Haros 08:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also done at sv.wikisource. /EnDumEn 08:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Same Done @ uk.wikisource. --pavlosh 10:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done @ja.wikisource. --kahusi (會話) 11:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done @uk.wikipedia --Yakudza 23:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done mk.wiki --Бојан

Done on pt.wikisource. 555 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at cy.wikipedia. Anatiomaros = 88.104.160.221 22:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done @fa.wikipedia --Mardetanha ^talk 01:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done th.wiki --Lerdsuwa 04:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done @vi.wiki. DHN 06:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done no.wiktionary Mewasul 08:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done sk.wikipedia --85.248.47.75 09:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done @pl.wikisource Sp5uhe 21:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done on tl.wp --Bluemask 07:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done on sk.wikisource --AtonX 08:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done on jv. wp - Meursault2004 09:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at az.wikipedia - --Sortilegus 11:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at vo.wikipedia. --Malafaya 13:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at sco.wikipedia. Mendor 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at he.wikipedia. Magister 08:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at fr.wiktionary. Stephane8888 23:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at simple.wikipedia -Djsasso 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Done at ca.source -Aleator (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Done at el.wv --ZaDiak 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• done for betawikiversity:. Hillgentleman 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Déanta at ga.wikipedia - Alison ^❤ 05:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sudan

I deleted the page, you're right, it made no sense to keep. notafish }<';> 07:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Global sysops/vote

Hey John, hope all's well. I noticed that you posted several {{sidebox}}s to comments by users on the Global sysops/Vote page, but only those in the oppose section. I think they're informative, actually, and I can see them helping voters come to a conclusion. But I was wondering if there's any way to do the same for the supporters? I realize that will take endless effort, but as it is, I think it's a bit undue, and has the appearance of trying to sway potential participants. Of course, trying to persuade people is a healthy goal, but I think it would be more fair if both sides had access to these notes. If you have sufficient technical knowledge, maybe you'd be able to program a bot for automatically adding such notes? Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did my research by hand in order that I could exclude people who only created a userpage, or did other "non-productive" edits.

I look forward to seeing similar annotations to the support column; it will be interesting to see. My gut feeling is that affected users are more likely to vote oppose, so annotating the support column is on my todo list ;-)

If nobody else does it, I will get started on it tomorrow.

John Vandenberg 03:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Global sysop - vote

Hello! Request to an administrator – please remove the windows with information about hoe will be affected if the proposal about global sysop won't be accepted. It is an ordinary propaganda and spam. --LidiaFourdraine 11:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is intended to be information, rather than propaganda.

If you look at the talk page in section Talk:Global_sysops/Vote#Who_decides?, you will see that my concern is that people who are not affected should not be allowed to vote. Many of the voters have never even visited the affected wikis.

John Vandenberg 11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

my vote on global sysops

search the page for my username and it says that Someone was ineligible to vote are you referring to my vote or to the one directly above your comment? Andyzweb 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the vote by user:Alex norway123.

You are eligible.

John Vandenberg 01:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod the cardboard cutout

Hope that things are well in your part of the continent. You have been hiding wery wery quietly, hunting wabbits? billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I'm drowning in paperwork at the office. John Vandenberg 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Do not blank other people's statements as you did here. It is inappropriate conduct and not acceptable on Meta. This is an RfC/Proposal, and you do not have the right to remove statements you do not agree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it again. Your comment is about other peoples actions in this affair, which is orthogonal to the issue at hand. If you disagree with the petition, state why you disagree with the petition, as written. John Vandenberg 13:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) p.s. I do not have an opinion on your statement which I removed - I don't doubt that there is some truth in your statement that there have been inappropriate actions by others. I just consider it irrelevant, and that page is a petition.

OTOH, I have no intention of removing anything you say from Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag, even though I disagree with you there. That is an RFC, and room should be given there for discussion, in whatever form it takes.

John Vandenberg 14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, you are now vandalising. You do not have the right to blank said section. I have the right to give my reasons however I want in the disagreeing of the petition. You do not have the right to blank other people's comments. Restore it back yourself or, when it is restored back, you will most likely be blocked for repeated vandalism if you try to remove it again. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would you even think you had the right to blank other people's statements? You know that is the very definition of vandalism. What are you trying to do here? Have a melt down and get blocked for whatever reason? If you feel so strongly, turn in your bits and retire. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but I am not the melting type. I've explained myself above, and will leave it at that. John Vandenberg 14:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested your block for repeated vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over Petition to Jimbo

Please, stop. Another time you remove that section, you will be blocked. vvv^t 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima and my desysop

[1] Thanks for your comment. Ottava misled the stewards about routine procedure, actual WV policy clearly provides for a 48 hour period to find a new mentor after a withdrawal (or rejection), there is no "routine desysop" based on mentor rejection or expiration of the period, it's been fairly common for actual decision to extend way beyond the "four week period" Ottava cites as if it were a deadline, absolving him of any responsibility for his request, "just routine!." However, until and unless I have a new mentor, it's really moot, and the 'crat can resysop me if he so chooses without steward action. The stewards were correct to request that the request not be discussed there, they really don't want to get deeply into controversy. That Ottava misled them is part of the filing at the custodian feedback report I have filed. This is really Wikiversity business, I'm sure stewards will do whatever we decide (particularly with a 'crat closing). Ottava has also threatened Jtneill, our most active 'crat, with a policy violation report on meta if he does his job.... That's part of the feedback report too. I find Ottava's behavior almost unbelievable, if I hadn't seen him tangling with people elsewhere. Like maybe, above? I've also seen him be right, but he doesn't seem to be able to detach so that he could figure out which is which. --Abd 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Temp

Hi there! I've granted you temp access to the tool. Have fun working on the fundraiser banners. -Barras 09:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be glad to hand back the tools when it is over! ;-) John Vandenberg 10:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Progress bar banner

Just saw that you were makign one, there is actually one I just put up after Moushira asked :) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Centralnotice-shared-2010-fundraising-value-AU is where the amount you've raised is set (the amount left autoupdates). Sadly the bar looks pretty full since 7k is small compared to the total. You can see the banner http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=20110103_JA058_AU here and the campaign http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice&method=listNoticeDetail&notice=Fundraiser-AU Jalexander 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks great. I have added a note on the Central Log. John Vandenberg 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated thank you! Jalexander 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Temporary permissions expired

Hello John. The temporary adminship that you requested here has expired. Best regards, --dferg ^{☎ talk} 18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

John :) On behalf of WMF I would like to thank you for your cooperation during the last fundraiser and we look forward for more fruitful and successful fundraisers over the next years. Thanks again : --Melamrawy (WMF) 12:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oi! I should be thanking you. Now I feel guilty ;-) You did a wonderful job. John Vandenberg 00:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Quillercouch edit

Hi John,

Quillercouch was blocked during the Poetlister/Cato rfc, then unblocked in case he wanted to participate in it, and the subject was dropped. You could certainly make the argument that he should be blocked, as per the current f-l thread, but he's not at the moment. I think the relevant question is whether there should be a cross-project ban for the user, more than a local block for that account. I've reverted your update for clarity; feel free to retag the page if the user's status changes.

–SJ talk | translate   04:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

They should be blocked here at meta and I've requested it at Meta:Babel#Poetlister_on_Meta --John Vandenberg 04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Fundraising 2010/Chapters

Thank you very much for updating Wikimedia Australia's row! I have to say, I was quite surprised to see that it made $180K AUD and has no staff. There's only the Board, then? Hmmmm. --MZMcBride 23:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the fundraiser, we had almost no money in the bank, other than relatively grants from the WMF which were for specific purposes. There were talks before the fundraiser about how to employ staff, including sharing staff with similar organisations at a similar level of maturity, like Linux Victoria. After the fundraiser we've been talking a lot about employing people, however one constant problem is that the fundraiser agreement is only a 12 month agreement, which expired June 30, 2011, so we didnt have the financial security needed to employ someone. I'd rather have an imperfect three year contract rather than a 12-month constantly evolving contract, esp. when there is a gorilla in the room and he isn't shy about forcing new terms and conditions down my throat. John Vandenberg 23:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Logical contradiction

[2] You cannot remove that while leaving in "and maintained by non-Wikisource contributors". You cannot claim that it is not right for an against to discuss Wikisource community and allow for a for that is based solely on the Wikisource community. You made it clear that your opinion is on one side so it is unseemly for you to remove comments on the opposing side especially in such a contradictory manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've revised the argument that I made. I want an informative poll. Both sides need to keep the others arguments in check to ensure they are FUD, misleading or unclear, whether intentional or unintentional. John Vandenberg 03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your attention is needed

Hi, As a member of the English Arbcom, I want to alert you to a group of users who are, at minimum, biting newbies incessantly. I could, have, and will describe their conduct in more frank terms in other venues. Suffice to say, they need to be looked at-- they appear to be collaborating to perform bot-style deletions of any fair use image they can justify, even "keeping score" as it were. Along the way, they won't issue warnings or have discussions. In years here, two people have manage to piss me off more in one day than others have in years.. If the matter concerns you, you'll know how to find the people I'm talking about. If you've moved beyond wikipedia, I must confess, so have I. If you want this to be a happy place, somebody has to deal with these kids. --Randomcommenter 06:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

question

Hello, I could not understand what did you mean under "If there is a problem with the Arbitration Committee on a project, *that* is a valid topic for a meta RFC ". Does it mean that if I have evidences that arbcom acted improperly at my request I could open RFC on meta, concerning arbcom, or you meant something different? Thanks.--Mbz1 05:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, if you arn't happy with a decision of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, you can appeal to Jimmy. (see w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal_of_decisions) That is your next appeal venue for an English Wikipedia problem, and you should use it before coming to Meta.

Secondly, you've tried to sell the story on Wikipedia Review and not managed to pique anyones interest. That alone should tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree.

Finally, if you really believe that there is a systemic problem with the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, rather than merely that you disagree with a decision they made about yourself, and you believe that the English Wikipedia community cant effectively deal with it, then a Meta RFC would be appropriate. Before exploring that option, I suggest that you consider the following:

1. English Wikipedia frequently has RFCs about their Arbitration Committee, and the community is generally very capable of ripping the ArbCom to shreds. So why do you think the Meta community would be better able to hold an RFC? I have categorised a few of the RFCs at w:Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee archives. There is one right now at w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3)
2. English Wikipedia has secret elections for the ArbCom, every year, so it would be hard for you to demonstrate to the Meta community that the English Wikipedia community isn't getting the committee that they want.
3. Your situation has been going on for a while, and the committee decision regarding yourself appears to be the consistent despite the members of the committee changing over the years due to the regular turnover of the committee.

To be honest, I don't think you have sufficient grounds to be using the Meta project to review your situation at English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg 08:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

Jimbo does not respond to me.

WR is irrelevant, and proves nothing.

I have at least one evidence that arbcom has never examined at least the latest evidences I presented in RFC.

Besides I see absolutely no confirmation that any of my evidences were looked at ever. Because in none of the emails I have ever got from arbcom there were any specifics about any of the evidences.

I see no reason why arbcom deliberation on my situation should be kept private.

I cannot file RFC on English wikipedia, I am banned there.

Yesterday, one of members of arbcom posted this. So he basically agrees that imposing blocks when involved is misusing the tools. I documented quite a few cases of Gwen Gale misusing the tools while involved. The latest case happened, in the beginning of February. Nobody ever said anything in particular about any of the situations presented in RFC, including,but not limited, to my own.

The only thing I have ever wanted is that somebody looked at my evidences in at least 2 sections of my RFC, and told me where I am getting these wrong not in general phrases, but in particular. Is this so much to ask for? Thanks.--Mbz1 12:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have received a response from Arbcom. It may not be as detailed as you would like, but you have one. Have you ever received a response from Jimmy? John Vandenberg 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

John, The RFC I submitted on Meta has about 90%+ of new evidences that were never submitted to arbcom because I was told not to write to them anymore. A few times I posted messages and links to RFC to Jimbo's talk at commons, but he's never responded.

The bottom line: nobody ever looked at new evidences I presented in RFC.--Mbz1 02:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also I was blocked by arbcom for "harassment" against Gwen Gale. I begged them on wiki and off wiki to specify what parts of my RFC they consider to be harassment. I told them I will remove these parts. There was no response.--Mbz1 02:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You should have presented the evidence during your appeal to arbcom. Arbitration policy expressly allows the arbitration committee to tell you to bugger off for a minimum period of time, after which you can appeal again. w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions They typically require that you wait 12 months, which ensures that the committee has a new set of people involved in reviewing the decision.

Is commons:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Bullying_on_wikipedia your appeal to Jimbo? Have you emailed him? John Vandenberg 02:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I could not present the evidences before because it took some time to make a research. Arbcom says to wait for 12 months, but this situation is different. There are new evidences that have never been looked at.

I emailed Jimbo the link to RFC on January 20,2012. He's never responded.

The most important part for me is that every arbcom case that contains no private info for anybody involved should be done on wiki. If a user is banned from English wikipedia, it should be done on Meta. Arbcom proceedings should be open, and should be fair. If my request is declined I should be told why. If I am blocked for harassment I should be given specifics and differences. I asked, how many arbitrators,if any voted against my block, but was refused even in this info. --Mbz1 02:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not the first person to have new evidences. You are not special. ArbCom tells lots of people to bugger off for 12 months; they have limited time, and need to hear lots of appeals per year.

The arbitration policy disagrees with your opinion regarding ban appeals being done onwiki. Sorry, the community does not agree with you.

Now back to Wikipedia Review. It isn't irrelevant. As a good friend of mine recently said "people do need a space to go and sound off and to get the conspiracy theories out on the table. and I believe that it is called Wikipedia-Review."

That place certainly isnt Meta. Given how many appeals are rejected by En.WP arbcom, even if only a fraction appeal at Meta, this place would be overrun by nutcases complaining about situations which are not meta - they are English Wikipedia centric problem, much like your one.

If you believe there is a fundamental problem with the ban appeals system, you should be able to convince someone at en.WP that an RFC is needed. Of course you can't submit the RFC yourself because you are banned from English Wikipedia, however if your concerns and recommendations are sensible, you should be able to convince people who arn't banned to instigate an RFC, and credit you if appropriate. WR is a great venue for banned people to connect to WP people on an even playing field. If you cant get WR people to listen to you, you are a nutcase beyond saving. John Vandenberg 03:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

John, I am not going to appeal my ban. I am trying to do something about bullying on Wikipedia. The RFC I submitted was started before the ban, and even before the block by arbcom. This case is not about me. I could wait for 12 months. The users who are getting blocked (bullied) by an involved admin cannot.--Mbz1 03:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Encourage the other banned people to appeal, or encourage someone in good standing to start an enwp RFCU on the bullies. Or find something else to do with your time. I recommend Wikisource :P John Vandenberg 03:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no communications with any banned people.

I am more than 100% sure, that if somebody is silly enough to start RFC/U concerning Gwen Gale on English wiki, he would end up blocked. While I was doing my research I saw many evinces that Gwen Gale is "a protected admin".The way I am being treated now is the best demonstration what will happen to anybody who dares to speak up against Gwen Gale.

I have to finish up what I started. There's is only one more step to go. I will file RFC concerning arbcom and Jimbo, and then I will probably end up globally blocked, but I will know I've done everything I could. I have to do it. I own it to the victims of bullying.

You explained to me why you do not believe Meta is a good place for arbitration cases. Maybe you could explain to me why cases that are decided via email cannot be cc to the subjects of these cases. Thanks.--Mbz1 03:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2011

Hi John.

Yes. The workshop was held although I didn’t attend because of a serious personal problem. You can find more info here: [3] It is in Catalan but you have a good Catalan English translator here: [4].--Gomà 10:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment on activity of RfC creation (as per your suggestion)

FYI:

• Here is my comment

• Here is my comment being removed
• Here is my null edit documenting removal of comment

No comment. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

question

Hi John,

Here it states that I was community banned "for repeated harrassment and defamation of administrators over a period of several years". I am not even saying that there was not a single difference to prove claims of "harrassment and defamation", but I cannot understand "several years".

Here's a timeline:

1. 23 December 2010 Gwen Gale blocks me.
2. 29 December 2010 I am awarding Gwen a barnstar for kindness.
3. 19 March 2011 Gwen Gale gives cookies to me.
4. 20 March 2011 I am awarding Gwen a barnstar for good sense of humor
5. 20 March 2011 I am giving Gwen Gale a wikilove message.
6. 5 April 2011 votes to topic ban me while heavily involved with the content covered by ARBPIA. I have never seen any other admin who made even small edits to the articles under ARBPIA commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators. Most of the time the really uninvolved administrators even will not revert either clear vandalism or BLP violations.
7. 4 January 2012‎ I started working on RFC.

OK, let's even assume I started "defaming" Gwen right after March 20,2011 (there's no single evidence to support this, but let's assume). I was banned on February 13,2012. Where are several years? Were these "several years" added to legitimize the ban that cannot be legitimized? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Still counting? D=--Mbz1 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will respond later today. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I havent responded yet. Thank goodness it is Friday! John Vandenberg (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries John. You are not alone. Neither members of arbcom nor WMF employee were able to solve this problem either. Is there a requirement that before one runs for arbcom one has to prove he does not know arithmetic :-) When I asked arbcom the same question they emailed me back, and told me they will not alter lies in my record, and, if I dare to email them again they will never respond, and, if I email them earlier than in a year, they will not respond to me for another year and so on, and so on :-) I felt really sorry for them, when I was reading this eamil. It was like this email was written by spoiled children. Anyway... --Mbz1 (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But listen, now I know that at last some members of arbcom are honest and unafraid: [5] --Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for "copy-paste". See I thought that, if you have difficulties in counting, you might have difficulties in reading the differences too. I am relieved it is not the case :-) Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I needed to review everything to be sure, to be sure. With regards to your concerns about the wording, I concur. I think this has been addressed by subsequent edits by Tarc & ASCIIn2Bme, and I have made a further edit.[6]

Arbcom's role is to review ban appeals; not fix up summaries placed all over the project. You should feel sorry for Arbcom; they need to put in about 20+ hours per week just reading emails sent to "arbcom-l" and email addressed to them directly while being primarily related to ArbCom activities. Overworked and underpaid. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for response:

I am afraid I cannot feel sorry for arbcom because nobody forces anybody to run for arbcom. If one likes what one is doing, the time spent doing this does not count as work, and there's no need to mention this time. If one does not like what one is doing, there's always a choice to resign. I mean sometimes one needs to make money, and has no choice, but members of arbcom have a choice. They are doing what they are doing not for money.

Also, I'd like to ask you, John Vandenberg, as a former member of arbcom, do you believe that arbcom had any merits to block me. I mean blocks should not be punitive, and I was under a self-requested block on English wiki since July of 2011. So what exactly they wanted to prevent? Did they want to punish me, or they wanted to scare me? In any case that block without even a warning violates the blocking policy.

Could you please give me a good reason or a few why I was not included in email exchange between members of arbcom, concerning me? I believe such communications, except only the cases, where user privacy is involved, should be done in a special place on Wiki or at least the subject of the case should be cc each and every email between members of arbcom concerning his case. Otherwise these closed proceedings look much more than closed tribunals.

And the last question. Some users told me I was harassing Gwen Gale, but I kept asking what particular statements of mine could have been read as harassment, nobody ever provided any specifics. Maybe you will be kind enough to help me with this? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about your block or ban appeal on English Wikipedia. Arbcom's decision is that you can appeal the ban next year. Arbcom's process for ban appeals is defined at w:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Ban_appeals - the English Wikipedia community can propose improvements to that if they feel it is necessary. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is what I thought.

members of arbocm are delusional, if they believe I will ever appeal the ban. Persecution by a closed inquisition's tribunals, and a lynch mob's execution are not something I am going to recognize as a legitimate actions, and not something I am going to appeal ever.

Bye.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

question

Hi John,

I said a few times in a few places I wish both my user page and my talk page to be replaced with "banned user" template, and it is what I meant. So far my request was not acted upon, but Rd232 changed my editnotice http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1/Editnotice&oldid=478334801 I repeatedly asked him to change it back, but he refused. The only messages I get at my talk now are from IPs, who have questions about my pictures. They know nothing about wikipedia. It is not the right thing to do to send them to a different place to post. They may never get here. I could read my talk page, and most of the times these IP leave enough info for me to find them and to contact them.

May I please ask you to change my editnotice as it used to be, or act on my other request about redirecting my talk to my user page, leaving only the template there, that IP would not be able to find it.

Thanks,--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am more than sure that, if somebody redirected my talk to my user page, and I asked you to undo this redirect, the response would have been "no" too, which proves yet another time that you are a great representative of the tyranny of the ignorant. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

BGC edits

Hello John,

We're in a Board meeting at the moment, and reviewing open resolutions including the approval of the board Governance Committee charter. That was Matt reverting your change to the page about the BGC -- the committee is permanent now, not interim. The three current board committees (BGC, HR Committee, Elections Committee) were confirmed as permanent in our July 2010 meeting (that shows up in the meeting minutes, but didn't rise to the level of a resolution).

While your additions seem accurate, they give an unbalanced view of the committee's current structure and work; could you comment on the updates you'd like to see on the talk page, and why you think that level of detail is appropriate for the first months of the committee's work? Do you want to see all committees publish similar quarterly summaries?

Regards, –SJ talk  15:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I was documenting the part of the history that I was researching at the time, which was the replacement of NomCom. The April-June BGC made some very important recommendations, which influenced the BoT structure going forward. Sorry I went to bed before writing the entire history of the BGC ;-) Of course additional information is needed for the activities and structure of these committees after the June 2010 WMF board meeting. Whether or not three monthly reports are useful depends on the level of activity of the various committees, however changes to the membership and activities of these committees should always been recorded, preferably on meta, and ideally without reverting members of the community who 'seem' to be helping by adding accurate information where previously there was nothing. ;-) John Vandenberg (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Global bans policy discussion

At Requests for comment/Global bans, where you have commented in support of Option 2, a third option has recently been implemented. The first two options did not prove a way for respondents to indicate that they oppose global bans entirely, i.e., that it is not possible to write a meaningful global bans policy that would attract their support. Option 3 is intended to provide that opportunity, and to aid in distinguishing between people who oppose the proposed policy because it requires improvements and those who oppose the proposed policy because no policy permitting global bans should be adopted.

Because the third section was added late by a respondent, it is possible that some people who responded early in the RFC have commented at option 2, but would really prefer to support option 3, or support both. If so, you may voluntarily choose to move your original comment or to or strikethrough your original comment and add new comments. This is a courtesy notice of the change, and there is no requirement that you take any action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Resolutions/2012_SG_recruitment#Alternatives

I am not always free these days, and since I am not a WCA member I usualy prioritize it lower than other activities I have to do. Nevertheless, I answered your question in this page. I try to follow but it anything is needed from me it is usually better to send me an email (which I check regularily), write on my user talk page on he.wiki (which I check few times a week) or my talk page here (which I check once every full moon). Tomer A. -- Talk 13:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for filling in a response on the Scholarships talk page! I (obviously) missed that request for more information! Jwild (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

FDC proposal

Hi JV, I hope you are well. Can you say a bit more about this? Not needed this half-year? –SJ talk  04:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Candidacy statement needs to be shortened

Hi John, your candidacy statement is about 400 characters too long, and will be abridged by the Election Committee at the 1200-character mark if you don't make these changes promptly. By promptly, I mean before I finish reviewing that all candidates for all roles meet criteria, so about half an hour. Thanks for your attention to this. Risker (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed that. Thanks Risker. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost

Dear John,

I've emailed you on a Signpost matter.

Kind regards, Tony (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Done John Vandenberg (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Important announcement: Election delayed by one week

The Election Committee regrets to advise that it is necessary to delay the start of voting in the WMF Elections 2013 for one week. This delay is being implemented for three reasons:

• We have been unable to verify that the list of eligible voters is complete and that all voters meet the published criteria
• We have been unable to verify that the SecurePoll setups for the election are properly functioning
• The voter interfaces have not been translated and are not currently available in any language other than English, thus disadvantaging Wikimedians who do not read English.

The following changes are now made to the Election timeline:

• 8-22 June 2013: elections
• 23-25 June 2013: vote-checking
• 25-28 June: publication of results.

For the Election Committee, Risker (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Risker. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal ideas and plan

Hello JV, thank you for writing out your thoughts and dreams long-form. I was worried when you didn't respond to the questions at first, but really appreciate your thoughtful comments and ideas. I am glad you decided to take part in the election, and hope we can sort all of our ideas into something constructive beyond just this process. –SJ talk  13:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit slow starting. I was also a bit worried, as I needed to work offline a lot of the time. :)

Are you thinking of the candidates doing that sorting of ideas now, or after the election? If we did it now, could it run into trouble wrt "[running] on a slate with other candidates", which does seems anti-collaborative. ;-)

Anyway, now or later, count me in. It would be good to take the nuggets from these election pages (and some of the questions are the real nugget) and put them into a better format for collaborative editing so those concepts can be polished and have more community engagement, and maybe picked up by some of the board members, whoever they are, and put into effect. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thinking about your comment, I was conflicted; better after (or a half-year before?), even though the energy to participate is so much greater during.

In the short term, a compilation/synthesis like phoebe's suggestion here would be great.

In the medium term, I would be honored if you would join me on the strategy committee page. So that we can all develop a map of goals and priorities, for next year, within which the WMF and each chapter and org focus on only part of the whole. I'd like this to be a movement-wide group, not membership-restricted; focused on curating the good work that already happens, translating it, and adding a few cross-organization lessons to share. Also advising on how to channel resources to creative planners/editors in each community: to help them find mentors, take classes, learn visualization techniques, improve their art and data analysis skills.

Finally, for one or both of these ideas, it would be useful to later go through past election discussions; past "Future of Wikimedia" discussions on mailing lists and blogs and fora; and past strategy discussions for individual chapters, the wmf, and the global strategy process.

Warmly, –SJ talk  07:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My energy in the immediate future is going towards end of fin year duties for work and WMAU. I've already collated my ideas at User:John Vandenberg/WMF BoT candidature notes; feel free to integrate them into a central page, if you dare :P :-), until I've got spare cycles to join in. I wont be absent half a year. ;-) John Vandenberg (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you weren't elected

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your answers and tell you that I wished you were elected since it seemed to me you had very fresh, clear and innovative ideas about giving fresh air and a deep breath to the movement... I hope you are not too disappointed and will keep on doing your good job even if you aren't on top of the structures. Take care, Claudi Balaguer/Capsot 82.251.41.143 20:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to comment. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group

Hi! Thanks for your interest in the Wikisource User Group, to get things moving, Aubrey and me we were thinking of doing these tasks and hopefully you can give us a hand too :)

• Translate this WsUG invitation (thanks to Aarti for writing it!) into the languages you know
• The invitation is meant to be delivered to this list of wikisourcerors, check if we should add someone else!
• Read the new version of the WsUG page, and, if you feel like, add your thoughts about what should we do as a group on the talk page.

What do you think it's the first priority as a group of wikisource users, and what would you like to see accomplished? We'd very much like to understand what wikisourcerors want :-) --Micru (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage/Logo 2013

This change comes weeks too late. There are translations in about 20 languages and marking the current version for translation would mean destroying the about 20 language versions. If you would have just moved the full sentence including <!--T:7--> to the top, it would have been possible to preserve them. c.f. mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation administration#Changing the source text. -- Rillke (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my edit.

I have also responded at Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo 2013#Page overhaul. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

destroying sounds rude, but this is actually what we are doing. Thanks for your reply. -- Rillke (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Participation Support Program survey

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on the Participation Support Program! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you submitted or commented on Participation Support requests in the past.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the Participation Support Program again soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Haitham, Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group and Community Poll

Hi John. You receive this message because you signed the Wikisource User Group page: the User Group, as you probably know, is being evaluated by the AffCom, and they asked some questions that involve all interested users (as you are :-). Could you please take a moment to read these questions and answers for yourself? It is very important. Moreover, make sure you read and review the Wikisource community poll: we would like it to be filled in by as many users as possible, and we need really your help for that. If you want and can translate it, please write it here. Please contact us if you want to help: Wikisource is an amazing project, and it can be much more amazing if we all work together :-) Thanks! --Aubrey (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

More about collective membership marks

Hi. You mentioned that you would like to see more information about collective membership marks and the WMF's thoughts about them in your comment at Community Logo/Request for consultation. I just wanted to let you know that Yana has responded with more information at Talk:Community Logo/Request for consultation#More information about the collective membership mark. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Please visit this page if you wish to contribute to a centralized discussion about a Wikimedia genealogy project. Thank you! --Another Believer (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheers

...for your help with the c: project. I was just about to head over and give the Portuguese a nudge when I saw that you'd already done it better than I would have.

This has been a sprawling process, I can't wait for it to get wrapped up. Given that you were involved 2½ years ago when it was proposed the first time, I bet you can't either.

Best, — Scott • talk 15:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ya, it has been a long time coming. Hopefully this time there is enough momentum to get it across the line. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What project is this?  :-) –SJ talk  05:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

c:. --John Vandenberg (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Gathering hard questions and strategic issues

I've started working on category:Issues as a collection of hard questions, both those with a plan of record and those without.

Perhaps this can serve as a place to point {{sofixit}} suggestions when people with lots of energy and interest in tackling such questions want to start poking around and offering new perspective. Your thoughts & input would be welcome. –SJ talk  05:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Related: perhaps we can use this work to inspire a new round of strategy discussions, separate from / feeding into whatever process the WMF sets up later this year. Starting from all of the strategy work that has happened over the past couple of years on dozens of Projects and at almost every affiliate. –SJ talk 

User:Sj, my immediate focus is to assist where I can over at User talk:Wllm. We dont see many people like Wil arrive on the scene too often, so a tailored crash course is required. I sense he doesnt mind a bit of noise, but meta is too messy and jargon-laden to be comfortable for someone who is just starting to scratch beneath the skin of the movement. I expect some interesting discussions to happen on his talk page, so please put it on your watchlist and help out as the need arises.

On the issues front, has anyone done a high level overview of the issues since inception? What were the high level movement wide issues for each year? What have we solved? Really high level - suitable for an infographic to give a newbie a crash course on 'Wikimedia'.

On strategy, I believe the most pressing issue is merging the strategy wiki into meta before the next strategy round. Not doing that would be the cause of much wasted volunteer time and head-space.

It would be good to identify all of the existing strategy documents out there, make them also available on meta, and then create an index of the contents of them all.

IMO the biggest problem last time is that the strategy was actually a WMF strategic plan. Going forward we need a medium term movement wide strategy (covering at least 10 years), and it needs to have broad acceptance from all movement entities. From that, movement entities should develop shorter term strategy and operational plans. If the next 10 years are as rough as the previous 10 years, WMF will have been superseded, and 'Wikimedia' may also have been. And the successor may not have values we share. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

RFC statement amendment

Hi John Vandenberg, I think this fragment: "The first use of 'superprotect' was to prevent German Wikipedia sysops from using Common.js to deactivate the mw:MediaViewer." would be better when presented as "The first use of 'superprotect' was to prevent the German Wikipedia sysops from engaging in their conflict with the WMF over the deactivation of the mw:MediaViewer, by the means of MediaWiki:Common.js". It's perhaps difficult to separate this two problems for some people, but the one truly is a consequence of the latter. If we are speaking about super protect as a right/protection level, we should not mix that with the problem of WMF not accepting de.wp's community request about feature disablement. TheDJ (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont see why you believe it is important to highlight that the community was 'engaging in their conflict with the WMF'. I tried to summarise the actual facts in the Background, not inject a POV of who is right and wrong. If you think the background is not good enough, edit it ;-) John Vandenberg (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.

• Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer
• Letter on change.org

I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -Pete F (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Superprotect letter update

Hi John Vandenberg,

Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.

Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.

I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.

Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.

Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Superprotect status

Dear John Vandenberg, 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 09:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Role of Wikisource

As you said you were looking for it, and as I really liked Lars' reply as well, I've copied it here so that you don't lose is ever again. :) --Nemo 10:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out our Inspire campaign survey

Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!

Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.

Many thanks,

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk), on behalf of the IdeaLab team.

23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This message was delivered automatically to Inspire campaign participants. To unsubscribe from any future IdeaLab reminders, remove your name from this list

User:Nemo bis/User rights process

Hi, could you help polish this proposed resolution for the WMF board? I'd like to table it this week. --Nemo 20:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Mass content adding

Related to your question, I don't know of past experiences to mass-create prose articles with the help of Wikidata statements, but I always add information on the topic to this category as I find it. Millosh of course is pioneering something as usual, but I think there is no page describing his project yet, just a few hints on Talk:Names of Wikimedia languages; more traditional and recent cases are ELIP (biology articles) and vi.wiki (machine translation). --Nemo 08:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell us about Minangkabau Wikipedia

I've added a mention of what you told me, but I found no confirmation in the statistics about activity. --Nemo 08:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?

Hi! The Wikimedia Foundation would like your input on how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project.

After reading the Reimagining WMF grants idea, we ask you to complete this survey to help us improve the idea and learn more about your experience. When you complete the survey, you can enter to win one of five Wikimedia globe sweatshirts!

In addition to taking the the survey, you are welcome to participate in these ways:

• Respond to questions on the discussion page of the idea.
• Join a small group conversation.
• Learn more about this consultation.

This survey is in English, but feedback on the discussion page is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Last call for WMF grants feedback!

Hi, this is a reminder that the consultation about Reimagining WMF grants is closing on 8 September (0:00 UTC). We encourage you to complete the survey now, if you haven't yet done so, so that we can include your ideas.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?

Hi there,

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

Here’s how to participate:

• Learn more about this consultation
• Vote on and submit new campaign topics in the AllOurIdeas Survey
• Discuss campaign topics and ask questions on the IdeaLab talk page

Take care,

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

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results

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

With great thanks,

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

Inspire Campaign on content curation & review

I've recently launched an Inspire Campaign to encourage new ideas focusing on content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia volunteers collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge, and we’re looking for your ideas about how to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible. We invite you to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is welcome - your skills and experience can help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign to improve review and curation tasks so that we can make our content more meaningful and accessible! I JethroBT (WMF) 05:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery.

Should FuzzyBot remove all potentially outdated translations?

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) 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Blue Jeans

FYI: [7]. This company is in the business of lying. Nemo 07:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ya, I saw https://www.bluejeans.com/video-collaboration/open-source-video-conferencing and felt it wasnt truthful. I'd love to be proven wrong here, as it is a bit scary to think that WMF technical people cant spot fake open source. Hopefully WMF can open up their procurement documentation which should have indicated whether there was an analysis of its "open source"-iness. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

« fix duplicated 'link' variable »

Hi,

I noticed this diff. As far as I’m aware, there is no duplication if the links are in different translation units (which is the case here).

Jean-Fred (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok Jean-Fred. I wasnt aware of that. Another reason to change the link name is so that the translation unit is reusable across pages if it is repeated. I found that many of the endorsements are very simple text and are mostly re-usable, and in some cases the endorsing affiliate has used the exact same endorsement text for two candidates. Anyway, as it isnt breaking anything, I wont proactively 'fix' any others. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants

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

• Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
• Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: wikipedia.or.ke

Clear trademark abuse, did you write legal-tm-vio@wikimedia.org ? Nemo 17:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

legal@ was cc:d . John Vandenberg (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource Baluchi

Hi Mr John Vandenberg!
Can help us for approval and getting site of baluchi wikisource , it's my native language and I can work for this language. best regard.--Ibrahim khashrowdi (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ibrahim, before seeking approval, you need to build a set of works in Baluchi language on https://wikisource.org .

Do you have w:digitial scans of w:public domain works in Baluchi language? Once you have some, let me know and we'll start a transcription project on https://wikisource.org . John Vandenberg (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your information and reply, I created main page for baluchi wikisource and here some books of Baluchi Language, Literature & Culture and also I contacted with one of Baluchi langauge scholars he also can help.--Ibrahim khashrowdi (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Any public domain published works should be scanned and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as PDF or DjVu files, so they can be used for Wikisource transcription projects. --John Vandenberg (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Participate in the Inspire Campaign and help address harassment!

Through June, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas focusing on addressing harassment toward Wikimedia contributors. The 2015 Harassment Survey has shown evidence that harassment in various forms - name calling, threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation, among others - is pervasive. Available methods and systems to deal with harassment are also considered to be ineffective. These behaviors are clearly harmful, and in addition, many individuals who experience or witness harassment participate less in Wikimedia projects or stop contributing entirely.

Proposals in any language are welcome during the campaign - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign so that we can work together to develop ideas around this important and difficult issue. With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Opt-out instructions)

IRC office hour for Wikimedia Foundation copyright strategy

Hi there - thank you for your participation in the copyright strategy discussion so far! In addition to contributing on-wiki, you may be interested in an upcoming IRC office hour the Wikimedia Foundation legal team is holding to discuss the copyright strategy. It will be on September 15 at 14:00 UTC. More information is available on Meta-Wiki. Thanks! Joe Sutherland (WMF) 00:48, 8 September 2016 (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)

wikimedia-l

Congratulations, or condolences. Is the admin/moderator team going to review certain mistakes of the past, such as the moderation of the list without transparency and the moderation of Odder for which I quit two years ago? --Nemo 17:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember at the moment whether my e-mail address is still moderated or not, however I do notice that @Austin is still an administrator at Wikimedia-l. Given that he was part of the team who made the unjust decision to put me on moderation without so much as a warning in August 2014, and then outright abused his power as a list administrator—without providing any rational explanation or apology for almost two years now—I, for one, will not be subscribing to the mailing list until he is well and truly gone (or apologises for abusing his power). odder (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

odder, I can't find your email address in the list member list. If you are subscribed, can you email me the email address that is subscribed, if you want me to check if you are currently on moderation.

I am not sure that there are archives of the discussions between list moderators, so we'd need to see if any of the old list admins have copies.

Currently I am doing a few mostly-technical audits, so discussions or reviews of any old decisions will need to wait at least a month.

I think the expanded corp of list admins is wanting to better outline how moderation will work in practise, aiming for it to be done evenly. After we've done that, and communicated it, I hope that we can bring back previously moderated users who are happy to participate under the new moderation regime. This will also take a little while. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg: Thank you for your kind words. I don't think that the moderation list for Wikimedia-l is very long, so it shouldn't be hard to check whether I'm in there or not, but even so, it's not the point. I'm not subscribing again until @Austin is gone or apologises for having me moderated for 10 months (yes, ten months) without good reason. odder (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building a Per user page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking vote.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Help us design granular blocks!

Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T190350

We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:

• Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
• We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
• Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
• Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
• Block logs should display information about the granular block
• When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
• If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
• If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.

We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:

1. What do you think of the proposed implementation?
2. We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
3. Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
4. Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?

We appreciate your feedback on this project's talk page or by email. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The Affiliate-selected Board seats process welcomes your support

Hello. You are receiving this message because you kindly helped with affiliates-related translations in the past. The movement needs you again! The Nominations phase has started for the ongoing selection process of two Board members, and the timeline is quite tight.

A Translation Central is available to help keen translators like you figure out what's been covered and what's left to do. Over the course of the next few weeks, your attention on candidates' profiles is particularly welcome. While there are four languages that are especially relevant for multiple affiliates (namely Arabic, French, Russian and Spanish), you can also add others. If you can't help: please see if you know anyone in your circle who could, and spread the word :)

Thank you! Elitre (WMF) and Facilitators of ASBS 2019, 13:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Journal hosting sister project proposal

Hello, I'm leaving a note on the talkpages of those on the old SPCom list to ensure that you have seen this proposal discussion for a journal hosting sister project. I realise that the process these days is slightly different, but I'm keen to make sure that we get as broad feedback as possible, so please consider to adding a note to comment/support/oppose. We hope to submit a cover letter to the WMF trustees in the coming month. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 03:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sister Projects Committee

Hi John Vandenberg! You previously expressed interest in the Sister Projects Committee. This is to notify you of the currently open request for comment regarding the project. Please let me know if you have any questions! Best, Frostly (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)