User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

This is my archive for threads from 2023 that don't belong in my themed archives.

Happy New Year, WereSpielChequers!

Happy New Year!

WereSpielChequers,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello WereSpielChequers: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat - invitation to participate

The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. Please join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but as a voter in that one I have recused. ϢereSpielChequers 20:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

[1]

I've rolled back, but revdel & a block are needed, Cheers Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing this out. ϢereSpielChequers 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Normalising not giving

Hi WSC, in the RfC, you mentioned that it seems counterproductive to normalise not giving in a fundraising message. There is an interview that sheds light on that – apparently, that banner feature was based on empirical data, and "telling people they’re exceptional, that they’re one of the 8 million that give, actually encourages more people to give than telling them that everybody’s doing it, and you should, too. And that goes against a lot of conventional wisdom." Regards, --Andreas JN466 17:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. Being one of 8 million is in itself normalising, providing you identify with the relatively wealthy. I suspect this takes two steps, firstly you want to exclude the people who can't give, then you normalise giving among the small percentage who can afford to give. My bigger fear is that they are scaring poor people into giving something, rather than just fundraising from the wealthy. Of course India and many other countries that are majority poor have a minority of relatively rich people who can afford to pay. If it was up to me I'd be selective and only show the ads to people whose operating system and other IP info indicates that they are relatively wealthy.

I love the idea of an egalitarian fundraiser that treats the $15 donor the same as the million dollar donor. Given that the WMF do special data feeds for million dollar tech company donors I'm not sure I'd make that egalitarian claim. Especially not in public where the press might notice.

As for the rest of that interview, if I were the WMF I would find ways to show the active editors some of the fanmail that the WMF receives on behalf of Wikipedia. I appreciate there are privacy issues, but they could do things such as posting thanks on talkpages and maybe even handing out barnstars to people whose specific work has resulted in fanmail coming in to the office.

I'm not sure I follow the idea of our fundraising costing 9 cents on the dollar and that being 12% of the budget. Either this is part of a plan for 33% annual growth, or the 9 cents on the dollar is for one part of our fundraising and the 12% includes more than that. I did note that they are moving into legacy and I'm glad to see that. It is an area where you have to invest on a long long timescale - some of the people writing us into their wills this year will not die for half a century. Somehow I doubt if the legacy program is the difference between 12% of the budget and 9 cents per dollar of money raised.

There is also the issue that this assumes zero cost for the disruption to Wikipedia of taking up part of the screen with a fundraising message. It's an internal cost, but a real and ignored one. Even if you are going to have ads, there is the question of whether to advertise for donations of money or donations of time. English Wikipedia is arguably stable and currently back up at levels of activity similar to 2011/2012. Clearly above the late 2014 nadir. I understand several other projects are less healthy, but even those that are have huge imbalances. If the WMF cares about diversity, I'd expect to see it using ads to recruit donors in wealthy areas/IT varieties, and editors in areas where we most lack editors. There are entry level tasks such as "would one of these twenty images be suitable to illustrate this article?" ϢereSpielChequers 19:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, WSC. Re India, the WMF's Julia Brungs has provided some salient details here.

The discrepancy between the 9% and the 12% is likely due to the fact that the WMF always spends less than it takes. So I believe Lisa meant the fundraising cost is 9% of revenue but 12% of expenses.

Thanks for the link illustrating levels of Wikipedia activity. As for WMF page views, I don't know whether you have seen the interesting comment from HaeB here – the WMF default display shows a (gently) rising trend in page views masking a (gently) falling trend among actual human users, the reason being that the default display includes automated traffic, which is rising faster than human traffic is falling. Best, Andreas JN466 14:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll look at that India response later.

If the WMF is spending 12% of its budget on fundraising at a cost of 9% then that means raising a third more than it spends, annually, compound.....

I'm aware that the WMF strategy of not encouraging reusers to provide attribution is putting more and more of a barrier between our sites and our readers. I'm assuming that when it starts to damage their fundraising model they will start treating it as a problem.

As for investment funds rising and falling in value, I spent a decade as a trustee of a charity that had a $100 million dollar endowment. Yes investments can go down as well as up, but leaving money in the bank will generally do worse than putting it into a tracker fund - spreading your investment across the fortune 500 or some similar index. I'm not worried if the endowment has a bad year when the market falls. ϢereSpielChequers 15:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If the WMF is spending 12% of its budget on fundraising at a cost of 9% then that means raising a third more than it spends, annually, compound..... Exactly. From 2016 to 2021, the WMF raised $608 million in revenue, but spent only $466 million. Its net assets rose by about $140 million. See the table at Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_development.

It also built a $100 million Endowment over almost exactly the same time period (January 2016 to June 2021), on top of that $140-million increase in net assets.

As for the Endowment, we know nothing about its performance. All that's been reported is that $13.5 million was donated in the last financial year; as for its earnings or losses, we've not ever been given detailed figures as far as I am aware.

What we do know is that the WMF lost about $12 million on its own investments (which are totally separate from the Endowment) in 2021–2022. But we don't know which part of the portfolio (which includes an increasing proportion of long-term investments in stocks) is responsible for this unprecedented loss. The WMF is not answering questions about it. Andreas JN466 16:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker checking in). Andreas I also have many questions and a few concerns about how the WMF raises its money and what it spends it on, but I don't think the $12 million investment loss is really a problem or a mystery. During financial reporting period (June 30 2021 - 2022) global stock markets and corporate bond markets[2] both went down significantly. The S&P 1500 index, which WMF uses as its benchmark for stocks and shares investments, went down about 13%[3]. Corporate bonds were down about 12%. WMF had (AFTER the losses) around $180 million invested in a mix of equities, corporate bonds and government notes, so it was certainly exposed to those losses and may actually have outperformed the market. In any case there is nothing unreasonable or suspicious here; this kind of investment is good stewardship, despite occasionally having to report "paper" losses as the markets fluctuate. On this particular point I think your persistence is probably not worthwhile, and may distract from your credibility as a critic in some people's eyes. Thparkth (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thparkth, thanks for your comment. I thought it was odd that the WMF still had a very strong, positive investment income in 2020, even though the markets nosedived badly in the first half of that year (this was the pandemic at its worst); its 2020 investment income was actually better than its 2021 result. So for some reason the portfolio seemed to have been more robust to adverse market developments then. But I take your point that the WMF was bound to get hit in 2021–2022, given that everyone else was, and will reflect on the fact that it may actually have weathered the situation relatively well, based on the figures you mention. Regards, Andreas JN466 00:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Thparkth, agree re investments. As someone who for a decade was a trustee for a fund that was worth $100 million by the time my tenure finished I would not describe a drop in value of circa $12 million as unprecedented. During the financial crash of 14 years ago there were some imprudent charities and not for profits who were badly damaged by the Icelandic banking crash. I would be concerned if the WMF were taking such a high risk strategy, my own preference would be for a tracker fund. Yes you lose a small part of that fund each time a major company in that fund goes bust. But charges are low, you have your nest egg in many different moderate risk baskets and the overall strategy is quite cautious. But still subject to the occasional bad year. Over the next hundred years, if human civilisation continues, I've no doubt there will be ten or so when the endowment loses a lot of value, and another ninety that will more than make up for that. My interest in the endowment is much more along the lines of what it will be used for. In particular from my GLAM interests, I want the WMF to announce that it has a sufficient endowment to assure the existence of WikiSource and WikiMedia Commons for the foreseeable future. In the past I've taken part in discussions with museums and similar institutions about digital donations, and I see such a commitment as potentially very interesting for that sector, and a good reason for lots of institutions to let us have copies of some very useful stuff. NB the WMF could of course give such an assurance and continue to grow the endowment. ϢereSpielChequers 18:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for reference – we have to distinguish clearly between the WMF's investment portfolio and the Endowment. As Thparkth says, the WMF investment portfolio comprises about $180 million in short-term and long-term investments and is summarised in the WMF's financial statements.

The assets held in the Endowment are not summarised in the WMF's financial statements, as the Endowment is organisationally completely separate: it only ever appears in the WMF financial statements as an expense (grants made to the Tides Foundation). The Endowment reached $100 million in June 2021 and some $13.5 million have been donated to it since then, but I guess it too may have lost some of its value due to the economic downturn. Andreas JN466 00:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point. It is just possible that this is a smart move to make the movement a less inviting legal target. I.E. if you are going to sue the WMF for damages, is the money in the endowment safely out of reach? Or perhaps there is another reason for the divide. But the charity I was on the board controlled its own endowment, or at least what it's yield could be spent on and what the investment strategy was. ϢereSpielChequers 23:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

My feeling was the WMF simply realised it could raise far more money off Wikipedia than it could meaningfully spend. So building an endowment was an obvious choice -- providing increased security in the long term, with the added benefit that money held by Tides would not show as a WMF asset. This allows the WMF to present a somewhat slimmer balance sheet to the public than is arguably the case.

Having just increased the budget to $175M, for example, they can now carry on saying, as they have for years, that (despite a record $240M in WMF assets) they have less than 18 months of expenses in hand; had the $110M+ Endowment money stayed with the WMF, they would now have had to raise the budget to $250M or so to be able to make the same argument. That's not to say that liability and other considerations couldn't have played a role as well, of course. Andreas JN466 01:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally I have more respect for longterm thinkers than short term thinkers; especially when it comes to roles like charity trustees. So for me, the WMF building an endowment was an obvious thing to do, though I have concerns about how they are doing it. But I do have concerns about what the money can be spent on - and I'm broadminded here - if we put some money into the internet archive or creative commons or even put a few grand into the geograph I'd be relaxed about that. Though I suspect not as broadminded as they are. If the endowment is invested in tracker funds that track the stock market and include shares in say all the fortune 500 companies, then you'd expect over time the fund should maintain itself and also yield 3%. Which raises the obvious questions of how much money does the movement need every year, and what do we do when a 3% yield of the endowment is enough to maintain the project? In my view we should suspend fundraising when the endowment is big enough to maintain the organisation, and that's an organisation shorn of the 12% currently spent on fundraising. Since we might as well continue to charge big tech companies for their special high volume access, the point when we can suspend fundraising ads comes well before a 3% yield on the endowment is enough to keep the movement afloat. There is also the wider issue of where the movement should be based. I'm not convinced that San Francisco is the best place to host a global charity. There are cheaper and safer places on Earth, far cheaper. ϢereSpielChequers 16:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The endowment was originally envisaged to cover annual expenses of "$10M+/year" (see 2013 mailing list post from Erik Möller). Ten years ago, this was what was thought to be the minimum amount needed "to ensure not only bare survival, but actual sustainability of Wikimedia's mission". At 3% a year, the WMF would need a $333 million endowment to cover that (the WMF currently has about $115 million in the Endowment with Tides and $240 million in WMF assets).

But of course the WMF nowadays has a completely different idea of its money requirements. Its expenses budget has more than doubled every five years, and has increased from $112 million spent in 2020–2021 to a planned expenditure of $175 million in the current, 2022–2023 financial year. This is by no means the limit.

As a WMF exec put it on the mailing list last year (my emphases): Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement". [3] People who attended the meeting of strategy working groups in Berlin in early 2018 might remember a thought exercise led by the Revenue Streams group. In it, we estimated that coming closer to our vision would probably require an annual budget for the movement in the vicinity of a billion dollars. There is nothing intrinsically outrageous about that amount, as long as the money advances the mission efficiently and equitably. The International Committee of the Red Cross had a global budget of $1.6 billion in 2016.

You would need an endowment of $33 billion to cover that! So I don't foresee the WMF ever suspending fundraising.

This idea of wanting to have an endowment that covers all expenses in perpetuity should also be seen in the context of the current economic climate. In the UK, nurses, postal workers and many others are currently on strike because they can't both heat their houses and put food on the table this winter, never mind having enough savings to cover their expenses in perpetuity just from the interest. And even so the UK is far better off than many other places where the WMF has been fundraising. (The comments here were well put.)

I agree that there are far cheaper places than San Francisco where a global charity could be based but I see little WMF appetite for moving. Andreas JN466 15:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, inflation over the last decade works out at 27%, so 10 million a year ten years ago is 12.7 million today. There is a lot of difference between 12.7 million and a thousand million, some of that difference will be "nice to haves" - things that I might support as helpful to our mission, but which I'd accept could be postponed or missed out if we were working on a "lean" basis. I suspect that much that would be involved in a thousand million annual budget would be stuff I'd question if I were the budget holder or a WMF trustee - but I'm unlikely to stand in the next four years.

There is a difference between interest and yield. Interest rates in the medium to long term will usually give you less than the yield from stocks - though of course with stocks you have to accept that there will be good and bad years. But over the longterm a 3% yield from a diverse stock portfolio such as a tracker fund that tracks the whole market is a reasonably safe strategy for an endowment, and is very very likely to outperform just leaving the money in the bank and receiving interest.

As for comparing WMF expenditure to heating homes and feeding the hungry, different donors will have different priorities; but charity donation is a tiny proportion of global consumer spend. So yes the WMF is competing for charity donations with charities that warm people who are cold and feed the hungry. But it also competes with charities such as the donkey sanctuary, as well as cosmetic tattoos, luxury cigars, exotic sports cars, fine wines and pet rabbits. If the fundraising rubric was honest and not alarmist then I would be much more comfortable with the whole process. Though I'd probably still sit in the camp of people who are happy to donate time to the project, but who wouldn't give money to the WMF.

I agree that the WMF is unlikely to move from San Francisco unless it comes under financial pressure. But I think such a move away from silicon valley would help. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy 2023! We were speaking of the Endowment. Earlier this week, an Italian TV program about Wikimedia and Wikipedia aired. On their website, they also link to answers (1, 2) they were given by the WMF's User:NGunasena_(WMF) and another colleague in response to various questions the programme makers asked.

One of these questions concerned the Endowment. The exchange (document 1, page 2) went like this:

Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides Foundation. According to SignPost (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion) on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations?

A: Your information is incorrect. The Wikimedia Endowment was established as a separate entity and received its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in 2022 following a 2021 board resolution. The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as on the Wikimedia Foundation website.

This answer was given to Rai in November 2022. Now I've read what the Rai people said multiple times. I can't see what was incorrect about it. Even today, two months after Nadee gave this answer last year, the Endowment page on Meta says that the money is "currently managed by the Tides Foundation". It merely mentions that plans have been announced to move the money.

We both remember of course the October 2022 blog post from the WMF (copied in the Signpost) that the WMF's application for a 501(c)(3) non-profit had been approved and that the WMF was "in the process of setting up the Endowment's strategic and operational policies and systems", so these plans do exist. But there has been no announcement that the money has actually been moved, which is what the Rai journalists were asking about. The Endowment website itself also says (archive), as it always has, that the money is still with Tides – which means zero transparency, with no financial statements published.

The $113-odd million (we don't actually know how much it is exactly) can only be in one place. But given these conflicting statements, we don't have any idea where that is, because either Meta and the Endowment website are wrong, or the statement given to the journalists is wrong. I can't see a way how both can be right, can you? Pinging long-suffering User:JBrungs (WMF) as well; perhaps she can clarify. Regards --Andreas JN466 16:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andreas, the money may be in one place, but several entities can be involved. So the 501c board is responsible for the money given to it, how it is invested and what is done with it and responsible for compliance with any conditions that applied to that money when it was received. It can hire someone else to invest it, and someone to disburse it. As for transparency, that's a question to put to the board of the 501c. They are the customer for Tides et al and they get to decide what level of reporting their suppliers have to give re what they are doing for them. All that said there are a couple of areas where we might not want transparency. If we want to invest in stocks while maintaining strict neutrality one way is a blind trust. Charity X commissions investment company Y to invest their endowment in a blind trust. So Charity X can make decisions about their coverage of Companies Z and W without knowing how much of their endowment Company Y has invested in those companies. ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. As far as I can tell, it was never envisaged that the independent 501c3 would work with Tides. See e.g.[4] where the move was postponed (my emphases): "the Endowment should stay with Tides for present, with the continued understanding that there might come a point when it was advisable for the Endowment to be moved to an independent structure ... at present it is neither necessary nor desirable to designate any particular funding level as a trigger for moving the Endowment out of Tides."

So according to those wordings, the establishment of this "independent structure" always implied moving the Endowment out of Tides. When the more recent board resolution (which cited the earlier postponements, or course changes) said the WMF would now after all "take the necessary steps to establish a stand-alone 501(c)(3) public charity to serve as the future corporate home for the Wikimedia Endowment" this implied, for my understanding, once again "moving the Endowment out of Tides". (If the 501c3 were to work with Tides, just like the WMF is working with Tides now, then this would not increase transparency one jot. The 501c3's main expenditure would be multimillion dollar grants to Tides, whose total would be pretty much equal to the org's revenue, and we would be no wiser than we are now about how much Tides charges and what other expenses Tides incurs on the Endowment's behalf. Tides would continue to be a black box.)

At any rate we can observe a proliferation of Wikimedia organisations: the Foundation, the Delaware LLC, the new Endowment org, the Tides and Tides Advocacy funds ...

Speaking of Wikimedia LLC, did you know that Delaware LLCs can have anonymous members? "The legal instrument that releases the LLC to the initial member(s) is called the Statement of the Authorized Person. This statement is prepared and signed by the Authorized person and is not provided to the state of Delaware. It is not required to be filed in Delaware public records." We were told that the Delaware LLC had only one member, the WMF, but the thing with Delaware LLCs is that new members can be added at any time, without having to notify the public: "Typically, the names of LLC members are not filed with the State of Delaware, therefore there is no amendment that needs to be filed with the Delaware Division of Corporations or your Registered Agent to add or remove members from a Delaware LLC." So much for transparency! Andreas JN466 16:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Note the following clause in the Wikimedia, LLC Operating Agreement:

• 5.1 Additional Members. The Sole Member may admit additional members to the Company.
• 5.2 Transfers. A Member may transfer all or any part of its interest in the Company to an assignee only upon the written consent of the Sole Member.

So while the Wikimedia Foundation was the sole member of Wikimedia LLC, the for-profit entity that runs Wikimedia Enterprise, upon formation, there is a specific provision in the Operating Agreement that additional members may be admitted. Per Delaware rules, such a change would not be reflected in the public record.

The Wikimedia Enterprise website does describe the LLC as a single-member LLC, and admitting additional members would I believe affect its status as a "disregarded entity" for tax purposes. Then again, it seems any new member admitted could (have) replace(d) the WMF as the sole member, and we wouldn't be any wiser.

I am not saying any of this has happened, just trying to research – as a layperson – what can happen with a Delaware LLC, which is what the WMF chose to incorporate Wikimedia Enterprise as. As always, if I am mistaken on any of these implications, I'll be grateful to anyone more knowledgeable than me who'll point out my errors! Andreas JN466 15:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Andreas, I'm not sure I would describe Tides or Tides Advocacy as Wikimedia organisations, more organisations funded at least in part by the Wikimedia movement. My interest is in what the money can be used for. I would like to see the Endowment used to make commitments to museums, archives and other potential content donors that the Wikimedia sites will be up for the foreseeable future. Starting with Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata and WikiSource as these are the ones that we want institutions to donate data to. I was hoping by now that the Endowment would be big enough for such a commitment. Assuming that income holds up and the endowment doesn't need to be tapped to honour those commitments, in the longterm I'd like to see the endowment grow to the point where the fundraiser can be switched off or scaled back, and the movement can run indefinitely off the yield from the endowment. I suspect the WMF has very different plans for the endowment, though I'm not sure what those plans really are. But I have a suspicion that one of their objectives is to make the endowment sufficiently separate that it would not be touched if the WMF lost a billion dollar lawsuit, or at least to have enough legal difference between the endowment and the WMF that people contemplating suing the WMF won't assume they could win that money. That wouldn't be a bad move to make, the grants made by Tides are a different kettle of fish. There is huge potential for the WMF to use its grants for good. We could reduce the movement's geographical bias by funding the digitisation of some newspaper and magazine archives in the global south. ϢereSpielChequers 15:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't really mean to describe Tides or Tides Advocacy as Wikimedia organisations; I just added them as an afterthought, as two additional "pots" where millions of dollars' worth of WMF assets have ended up.

I understand your point about reassuring potential data donors about the long-term viability of Commons, Wikisource etc. Unfortunately, the ability of the Endowment to act as a sort of guarantor in this context is undermined by the continuous rise in WMF spending. The budget has gone up from $112 million to $175 million in the space of two years. In other words, WMF expenses appear to be rising faster than the amount of money in the Endowment. :/

Even assuming an optimistic annual yield of 5%, the WMF would need a $3.5 billion endowment to pay its current annual expenditure from that yield alone. I don't think it very likely that we shall ever see the Endowment growing to twenty times the size of WMF annual expenses in our lifetimes. (It would need to grow by $3.4 billion, the equivalent of twenty years' worth of donations income.)

As for spending in the global south, I agree with you that much more should be spent there. :/ As I worked out for the Signpost some months back, based on the Form 990, the percentage of WMF revenue spent in the Global South right now is tiny (but growing). Andreas JN466 21:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan. Just wondered

I curate a page called List of stories set in a future now in the past, and since there is literally no end to the list, we have a number of strict inclusion criteria, one of which is, to establish notability, the entry must have its own Wikipedia article. But this has led to the exclusion of a number of potentially interesting subjects due to a lack of articles, and I was wondering if you felt any of them were worthy of an article of their own.

• Revelations of the Dead Alive (also published as London and Its Eccentricities in the Year 2023) by John Banim; a series of essays written in 1824 about life in 2023
• Pirates of 1920 (an a short film from 1911 about air pirates)
• Choosers of the Slain (1997 novel)
• The Millenium: A Comedy of the Year 2000 (1907 novel by Upton Sinclair)
• "2002": Childlife One Hundred Years from Now (A French novel from 1902)
• A History of the Future (1829 novel set in the year 2000)
• White or Yellow? A Story of the Race War of AD 1908 (1888 novel set in 1908)

Serendi^podous 09:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, due to some real life issues I have been taking custody of carloads of books recently and have a huge backlog of reading material. So though those look fascinating I can't see me reading them for a while. But you might be interested to read this essay which I first circulated in early April 2010. ϢereSpielChequers 23:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary!

Thanks Captain Raju, nice to be remembered ϢereSpielChequers 23:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks Captain Raju. ϢereSpielChequers 10:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

cat(trademark)

Ballads2110 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes

Spicy

• Ale jrb
• Dbachmann
• DGG (deceased)
• Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes

Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes

Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hi. You pc-ed Tra Holder back in 2018 but it seems to have not expired? Also, there seems to be not much activity in the page, even if IPs could edit it, so I think the PC protection is not needed anymore. Thanks! ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Engr. Smitty, the semi protection would have stopped IPs from editing, but that lapsed several years ago as I only set that for thirty days. The Pending changes protection doesn't stop IPs from editing, but it does bring some extra attention to such edits, and given that this chap has continued to be a target for years after I set that protection, I don't see much benefit in removing the scrutiny of Pending Changes from that article. ϢereSpielChequers 09:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes

Ingenuity

• Ddstretch
• Prodego
• Resolute

CheckUser changes

Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TRAPPIST-1/archive3. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jo Jo, Hope to get back to that discussion over this weekend. ϢereSpielChequers 12:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Bumping for input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Supported, though one of my queries is still open. ϢereSpielChequers 07:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I always appreciate your updates to Wikipedia:Time Between Edits. It's one of my favourite statistics-related pages on Wikipedia and while I've beat you to updating it every once and awhile, your dedication is undeniable. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Clovermoss, much obliged. One thing I really appreciate about Wikipedia:Time Between Edits is that it is such a raw statistic. ϢereSpielChequers 17:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

ConvoWizard study now active

Hi WereSpielChequers,

I'm reaching out because you previously expressed interest in our ConvoWizard study over at its Village Pump discussion. I just wanted to give a heads up that the study is now live, and if you are interested in participating you can sign up here: https://cornell.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dm4TiyTZkTfIICO

And of course, if you have any questions or comments about ConvoWizard and/or the study, feel free to reach out!

-- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Citation Archive

Wikipedia:Citation Archive, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Citation Archive and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Citation Archive during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. YRhyre (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Has been kept. ϢereSpielChequers 06:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, well,

Hello, WereSpielChequers,

Your efficient copyediting prevented tomorrow's CSD G13 deletion of Draft:Raymat. So, we have a draft article about a 12 year old rapper for another 6 months. I'll see you in January 2024! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, Yes it is a shame that A7 doesn't apply in draftspace. I'm conscious that many of the typos I fix in draftspace will ultimately add to my deleted edits count. But having criticised the whole concept of draftspace for its lack of collaborative editing, it wouldn't feel right to exclude drafts when I go typo hunting. I like to think that somewhere out there is a potential future editor who might have thought that everyone ignored their article util it got deleted for being ignored for 6 months, and now they know that someone read at least part of it and maybe they've learned something from my typo fixing. As for the 12 year old aspect, I've reported loads of articles for oversight where children have put DOB, school names etc. This one had the nouse not to do that. ϢereSpielChequers 06:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Polar bear peer review

Hi, would you be able to peer review the article? Or copyedit it? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Commented at Wikipedia:Peer review/Polar bear/archive2. ϢereSpielChequers 17:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Frank Morano

Hi WereSpielChequers,

I changed your protection on Frank Morano to extended-confirmed salting – just a friendly reminder that WP:ACPERM renders semi-salting obsolete in mainspace. Thanks for stepping in, though. ^Complex/_Rational 21:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi ComplexRational and thanks for making that change. It is a while since I salted anything. I was thinking about extended confirmed until I reread "The extended confirmed (30/500) protection level may be applied to a page only after semi-protection has shown to be ineffective, or with authorization from the Arbitration Committee." I assume that was an edit notice or similar and we need it not to be displayed when salting a deleted article. ϢereSpielChequers 06:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, happened to randomly find your account while falling into the abyss that is Wikipedia. Never found an account that is still active, so I hope you have a good day :D 194.193.184.154 (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi to you too. After 22 years we do have lot of currently inactive accounts, and quite a few Wikipedians, including several I have known on this site, have died. But new people come in and some come back after long gaps. The site is still busier than it was during the late 2014 minima. Places where the currently active can be found include pages and processes such as WP:FAC. What sorts of Wikipedia activity were you looking for? ϢereSpielChequers 09:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

upon checking my search history, I found your account from '2008 czech summer olympics' or something like that. 194.193.184.154 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

yes, i can see that just before i opened your talk page, 'czech republic at the 2008 summer olympics'.

Anyway, have a nice day 194.193.184.154 (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat

 Done

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat and join the discussion when you have an opportunity. Maxim (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Responded. ϢereSpielChequers 09:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Vera de Backker moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Vera de Backker. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I just categorised the page, no comment re notability. ϢereSpielChequers 18:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Replied to your email

Not sure if you saw my email, or if it got eaten by a spam filter, so just wanted to check. Best, -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Just found in the spam filter. Off to bed now, will reply tomorrow. ϢereSpielChequers 23:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, now I'm really glad I messaged you here. Sounds good. Have a great night! -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about your reply. I am going to respond to you soon, I'm just really busy at the moment (I'm two semesters away from getting my PhD, and am working on my written dissertation proposal at the moment). --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No hurry. Happy to pick this up again in a couple of semesters. ϢereSpielChequers 10:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for reduction in protection

Hi. You PC-protected Tra Holder way back in 2018, but from its page history, I believe that PC protection is not needed anymore, let alone an indef one. Thus, I'm requesting you to remove the page protection. Thanks! ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 19:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Engr. Smitty, I'm tempted to leave it up until a year or so after he retires from sport. But I can't see much of a problem in the last 18 months, so I've unprotected it. ϢereSpielChequers 20:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

RD2 request

Hi, I saw you were active recently. Would you mind giving this an RD2? See edit summary. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, tis gone. ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Could I ask for a rev/del please.

 Done

Accuracy1985 has added edits to Jay Blades that I think should be deleted. There are a few of the edits so it would be easier to look at the article history (I'm not being lazy!). Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

They appear to have moved to an IP now as well. Knitsey (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted those revisions and also put pending changes on the article. Hope that does the trick. ϢereSpielChequers 07:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks so much. I tried on their talk page and mine to explain the issue. Knitsey (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the dialogue, and that's why I didn't go for semi protection. At this stage we should still be open to the possibility that the allegations are true and will in future be substantiated. ϢereSpielChequers 07:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's why I was hoping they would understand about reliable sources. Knitsey (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

{{You've got mail}}

Answered by email. ϢereSpielChequers 07:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Amund Sjølie Sveen moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Amund Sjølie Sveen. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Not written like a Wikipedia article.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie, I just categorised that article, it is user Browmote who you need to inform if you draftify it. ϢereSpielChequers 05:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You were notified automatically. I'll notify them too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You might want to check the tool you are using, or your preferences in it. I can understand getting such notifications when I've moved a page. But categorisation? If I was getting notified every time an article I categorised or did a minor edit on got deleted or draftified my talkpage would become near unusable. ϢereSpielChequers 06:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wut?

Elbonia? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ah, I didn't know it was originally Dilbert, I came across it from elsewhere. But a small fictional country made sense for a hypothetical question. Though maybe next time I need a hypothetical country I will avoid something Dilbert related. Erehwon is presumably out of copyright. ϢereSpielChequers 10:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi WereSpielChequers :) I'm looking to interview people here, feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss, questions answered at User:Clovermoss/Editor_reflections#WereSpielChequers_December_6_2023. What are you planning to do with the interviews? I sense a signpost article in the making. ϢereSpielChequers 10:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have any specific plans for the interviews, I just thought it would be useful to have open-ended answers from experienced Wikipedians. It's a lot more interesting than a yes/no survey and all the details in the whys are fascinating. I was somewhat inspired by attending WikiConference North America... I wanted to recreate that offline feeling of meeting other Wikipedians. I also thought it'd be useful if any particular issues were recurring in the thriving newbies so we could be more welcoming to newcomers and at least know what worked for the people who stayed. I'm not sure it'd be the best idea for a Signpost piece because I'd want anyone new reading it to add their own reflection :) JPxG, thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be a shame not to do some sort of summary article now, but also this is a baseline we could come back to. I have done a few exercises over the years to try and understand our editor retention issues. It would be good to go back to this in a couple of years and check how many of these people are still with us and for those who've left whether there is an obvious pattern. Aside from age of course.... ϢereSpielChequers 12:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I could try to summarize it but I'm not sure what the best approach to that would be. Any suggestions? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Read them all, then try looking for patterns. I have skimmed through it, and the obvious thing for me would be to look at what would have helped newbies, what tempted people to start, what helped them and try to read it by recency of account creation. It is in your userspace so you have some latitude to reorganise. ϢereSpielChequers 17:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Always a pleasure to see you at work. ―Buster7 ☎

Happy Holidays!

Hello WereSpielChequers: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Patient Zero^talk 05:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holiday!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello WereSpielChequers, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi WereSpielChequers! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Best wishes with all your 'crat work! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!

Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

Solstice Celebration for WereSpielChequers, 2023, DALL·E 3.

(View full series)

Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

User:A.S. Brown^{User talk:A.S. Brown} is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Season's greetings

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello WereSpielChequers: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use {{subst:User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas1}} to send this message.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2024!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello WereSpielChequers: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39