User talk:Mkdw/Archive 9

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC
A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Saturday Sept 7: Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Double bind
The concerns you express here seem reasonable. You don't want to do nothing and make it look like we, as a community, don't take reasonable concerns seriously. But what if you desysop Fram and he gets the bit right back via RFA? Wouldn't that be even worse, from this standpoint?

Is there some third way that could avoid this? Maybe if you worked out some sort of probation or restrictions for Fram? That would show that you (or we as a community) have taken this seriously and isn't something that could be quickly voided with a new RFA. Avoiding a new RFA might also save us from fighting yet another round of this civil war. Haukur (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I tried to address a few of these similar concerns at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision. It is possible that Fram could immediately request the tools back and the community would support their RFA. I suppose the circumstances would be very telling. I do not think anyone on the committee would be opposed to a hypothetical scenario where Fram made a genuine commitment to improving their general conduct and sought to become an admin again. In contrast, an opposite hypothetical scenario where Fram commits to not improving their general conduct or even backslides further and the community endorses their RFA would signal a wider problem. That is something I do not think ArbCom could change; at that point it would be a decision the whole community has to make for itself. In that (let's say) worst case hypothetical scenario, people may see that and anyone who has felt they have been the victim of harassment and abuse would bypass the community/ArbCom and keep going directly to the Wikimedia Foundation. If enough complaints are received, at a certain point the Foundation will be exposed to such a degree where they will have to intervene. A mandatory conduct and zero tolerance policy will be imposed from a liability standpoint. The community will be stripped of any involvement in harassment and abuse matters. If Fram being allowed to keep editing but without a certain permission (one which they can request back) is seen as unacceptable, then I expect losing self-governance will be intolerable for a huge portion of the community. Mkdw  talk 20:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes!
You were brilliant when you said  Could you please put forward such FOF? As the case stands now there's a remedy (desysop) that appears to contradict the FOF that you opposed, which said that Fram hasn't abused admin tools. Second, could you add a FOF that Fram was not unblocked to participate in the case, contrary to our usual customs. This is very important context that needs to be highlighted for future observers. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks
Mkdw, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --valereee (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sept 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hmmm
Does this ring a bell? Did you save CU information? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have left a reply at User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 31. Cheers, Mkdw  talk 17:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview
Hi Mkdw. I was following the discussion at User talk:Ritchie333 over the block that your fellow arbitrator PMC enacted. Like xeno, who commented here, I am concerned that what you said ("It may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview") will have a large chilling effect. This is exactly the sort of thing that people who were concerned about the actions the WMF took in relation to Fram thought would happen (vague references to the WMF being used to justify actions being taken here). I am making a formal request for you (under WP:ADMINACCT) to explain what you meant by what you said there. Were you explicitly stating that you were taking these actions because the matter might get escalated to the Trust and Safety section of the Wikimedia Foundation? Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am saying if things continue to occur off-wiki then there is only so much we can do on the English Wikipedia and that is where our jurisdiction ends. When things occur off-wiki, it becomes much less clear whether the matter will still be allowed to be managed by ArbCom. It is my understanding that the situation has already been repeatedly reported to T&S by multiple editors in the community. It is not a matter of whether we would escalate it or not. We are obviously trying to resolve the matter locally using options available to us on the English Wikipedia, but the IBAN has not prevented Ritchie from continuing to discuss and criticize Praxidicae on off-wiki forums. Some editors are incorrectly distilling the situation to merely the removal of CSD tags or article improvement when the problem is more serious. I doubt anyone on the committee would have had a problem with a one off mistake had it not been for these other factors. ADMINACCT is about explaining the use of administrative tools and "unexplained actions". Mkdw  talk 07:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. It does make things a lot clearer (I asked because there was a chance you were referring not to the WMF but to civil authorities becoming involved, which is far more serious and indeed beyond ArbCom's purview). I specifically brought up the administrator policy because not all arbitrators (I don't count you among them) respond when asked to clarify their actions. Given the emphasis on ADMINCOND in recent arbitration decisions, when interacting with arbitrators it feels right to hold them to the same standards they are holding administrators to. If that is not the purpose of the policy, maybe there is a need for WP:ARBACCT? As an aside, it is amazing what you find when you dig around. While seeing if that redirect had ever existed, I found (via a redirect and a histmerge) this! If you look at the edit summaries here and here you will see that even though that was 4 years ago (I have no idea what prompted that essay back then), there have been concerns over the years about how accountable arbitrators are (and to answer the obvious question, yes, I will bring this up at the question pages for election candidates this year if I have the time to do that properly). I will courtesy ping Ched as he is active, but not KV as they are, um, banned (I must have missed that). I'm left feeling that going down that rabbit hole wasn't particularly productive, but I have been considering for a while if arbitrator accountability is properly incorporated in WP:ARBPOL. I see it is at WP:ARBCOND. A final question if you have time (I appreciate that it is a bit of a difficult question): as an arbitrator who is in the third of four years on the committee, do you think that in your time on ArbCom that the arbitration committee has collectively and as individuals abided by WP:ARBCOND? If not, could the other members of the committee have done more about it? Carcharoth (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping . I don't recall the exact reason for my "ARBACCT" essay, and I'm not even sure of the exact title or place (I can look if it's important).  I do recall feeling very frustrated and perhaps even angry by the end of 2015/16, enough to turn in my admin bits and log out.  I still edited as an IP (ce, typo, etc), but I digress.  The only reason I returned was the horrendously poor judgment of T&S/WMF in the Fram matter.  But since the head of T&S can't even hold the trust of his home wiki (he was deadmined on the German wiki) - it's hardly surprising that wp:fram happened.  The more that happens off-wiki, the further down that slippery slope we fall. (see the recent Fram stuff, the recent choice of Arbcom to do the Eric Corbett ban off wiki, and the choice to IBAN Ritchie333 off-wiki).   I don't know particulars in any of these cases because it all was done away from our eyes.  Since my return a couple months ago, I'm trying very hard to stick to "content", but it's difficult when I see such poor judgment in places that should be the best we have to offer.  As in my original essay that KV copied (I believe I gave it to him before I deleted it, or at least gave him permission), I fault the "body", not any individuals.
 * I will say this much though, and I believe Carcharoth has seen some of the info, there's compelling evidence off wiki (since we seem to enjoy going there so much), that there's been some very poor judgment shown by some very high ranking people in the WMF. IMO - if something happens OFF WIKI then it's none of our damn business.  If editor A insulted editor B on Facebook or IRC - we have no right to say anything other than to notify the folks in charge of those venues.  Of course we need to adhere to various legal issues, (child endangerment etc.).  We have, if nothing else a moral obligation, to report such things.  But one of two things happened in the Fram case

The upper echelons of wiki started to use "privacy" as a crutch - and now we truly ARE handicapped in our administrative abilities. If the spotlight were shined on the little birds whispering by email to ... (whoever), then you'd likely see where the real problems are - and it's not pretty.
 * 1) Something happened off wiki - in which case someone lied.
 * 2) Nothing happened off wiki - in which case someone lied - and ALL OF IT could have and should have been posted on wiki for review.
 * Case in point:

That not only smells of entrapment, but it outright reeks some really nasty collusion. But I suppose I'm delving into things I'm not supposed to. I will add this however: If "admins" are supposed to be more WP:ACCT accountable than standard editors, than Arbs sure as hell should be even MORE WP:ARBACCT (that should NOT be a redlink) - they should be more accountable than even admins. Just IMO. Thanks for the opportunity to vent - and certainly nothing I've typed is in any way meant to lecture or demean you personally Mkdw. I apologize if it comes across that way. — Ched (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) A CSD tag is posted on an article.
 * 2) An editor doesn't delete the article, but rescues it by finding sources, removing copyvio, etc., etc., etc.
 * 3) SOMEONE emails Arbcom that editor B has violated some IBAN enacted OFF WIKI
 * 4) editor B is blocked (and do note, the 24 hour period, the 48 hour period, and the 72 hour period have all been skipped over in these block escalations.  Which likely doesn't matter much as it appears to be a measured "chain of evidence" for banning someone.  At least that's what it looks like to some folks)
 * I am currently traveling so it is difficult for my to adequately respond. I will note that the IBAN is only enforceable on wiki. ArbCom's jurisdiction is only on-wiki, which is why I pointed the possibility that when off-wiki complaints are received, it is often referred elsewhere. We obviously did not sanction Ritchie for continuing to discuss Praxidicae off-wiki, but we are taking it into consideration when the IBAN has been violated for the second time. Obviously, we sometimes need to take action on-wiki for off-wiki actions, such as in another case where death threats were being made off-wiki but there was no direct sanctionable on-wiki actions. So while it may appear like entrapment or collusion, especially for those who could not see the private evidence, it was a situation for which I believe the Arbitration Committee was expressly formed to handle. Otherwise, these matters could simply be referred to the community and where standard approaches like a 48 hour block would be issued as a second block for merely an on-wiki action. As for ARBCOND, as a committee I feel it has been adhered to within reasonable expectations. On an individual level, certainly not. We have in fact even removed someone on the committee for failing to do so. I know the last few months have been relatively unsatisfying and frustrating for many people, including myself. I appreciate you coming here without insults or personal attacks so we can have these productive conversations. Mkdw  talk 20:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I see you replied. I'll read for comprehension in the next day or two.  (maybe respond? .. IDK) — Ched (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Mkdw, sorry for the delay. The "death threats" issues I agree 100% on, although I didn't mention that particular in "Of course we need to adhere to various legal issues, (child endangerment etc.)., but I do consider them all serious issues which need to be dealt with often by unconventional means.  I also agree that the Arbitration Committee was formed to handle issues like we've both mentioned, but especially as "appearance" has become the hot topic of the day, I'm, not sure we agree on the "How" it was handled.  I haven't seen any reason for the "privacy" of many of the recent problems, beyond personal preference.  IMO, If someone feels uncomfortable in dealing with problems publicly, then maybe they should have thought about that before causing said problems to begin with.  I could go into specifics here, but I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that.  I wasn't really seeking to point any fingers at individuals, but I can respect how difficult ... umm ... the additional difficulties that needed to be dealt with in removing anyone from any position of power must have been.  I personally try to avoid "personal attacks" and insults.  I'm sure we all feel the urge when confronted at times, but I do try to exercise restraint. (not that I've always been successful, but I do try).  I'm not really sure there's much more to say here.  I likely wouldn't have even posted on your talk had I not been pinged (although I really do appreciate that).  I am content in your responses here (even if we don't fully agree on some things), so unless there's something particular you'd like me to respond further to - I thank you for your time and reply. — Ched (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * see the recent Fram stuff, the recent choice of Arbcom to do the Eric Corbett ban off wiki, and the choice to IBAN Ritchie333 off-wiki – what do you mean by "off wiki" here? Both Eric Corbett and Ritchie were banned by motions posted publicly to the ARBCOM noticeboard. What more do you think we should have done on-wiki? (Honest question, I think we're all sensitive to the need to be as transparent as possible.) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , noting that I've seen this, and I'll try to get back to you in 24 to 48 hours. — Ched (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe. I apologize for any ambiguity, but I basically meant making those decisions off-wiki rather than what used to be a typical "case request" where evidence is presented, then counter-points and various diffs are offered.  I'm guessing any evidence and FoF was done by using the Arbcom mailing list?  I've never been part of Arbcom's private decision making process, so I'm not sure how exactly it's done.  My understanding is that in the Eric Corbett situation, even he was not allowed to see any evidence, so I'm really not able to specify how that was handled.  IMO, I think there should have been a standard case presented in all 3 of my examples.  (While the Fram situation came close to a case - the secrecy of the evidence made it difficult to judge the situation fairly, and present any counter-points such as any WP:CIR issues in claims of "harassment or hounding".  We as a community have always said that extraordinary claims (especially in BLP matters) must be accompanied by supportive diffs and evidence.  Note that I don't fault Arbcom in the creation of the Fram matter, but rather I decline to support any notion that the T&S group has ANY jurisdiction over standard matters of governance on en-wp.  So we either had a situation of extraordinary circumstances requiring extraordinary evidence, or we didn't.  In the Ritchie and Eric matters: no case, no evidence, no FoF, no nothing but a statement.  In the Eric situation, we went from what was headed toward a declined case (or at best a deadlocked case), to a weekend ... ??? ... discussion via email that Arbcom would indeed pass judgment, but the case would be bypassed for some reason.  I am very troubled by this increased use of "privacy" as a method of bypassing standard operating procedures.
 * Since none of these cases involved illegal activity, outing, or "off-wiki" (meaning on Facebook, Twitter, etc.) activity - the whole "privacy" issue appears to lose it's validity.  I think if any person or collective (Arbcom) wish to adhere to a practice of "Transparency", then the actions need to match the words.  Having a discussion between 5 or 10 people via some private email list, and then posting some sort of "motion passed" is hardly a model of transparency to most people.
 * I hope that explains my thinking when I said "off wiki", and offers my views on what can be done in order for Arbcom to appear more transparent. Thank you for your question and giving me an opportunity to explain what I meant. — Ched (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we haven't done a full case with FoFs etc. on the mailing list or arbwiki in my term – maybe not ever. The Fram case was an extraordinary situation that will hopefully never be repeated. I think we did the best we could given there was never an option of a fully public case (that was the condition on which ArbCom was able to get T&S to relinquish it) and the guidelines for private cases were pretty much non-existent, but it's easy to see the problems with the result. It's less easy to see how these problems could be solved whilst still providing a safe way for targets of harassment to make reports. I hope the upcoming RfC will be able to make some progress on that.
 * With Eric Corbett, the case was actually accepted and was about to be opened when we found out about EC's sockpuppetry. The motion was essentially a CheckUser block placed by ArbCom. Obviously it's long-standing policy that CU evidence should not be discussed on-wiki, and the most you would see at e.g. an SPI is ✅, which is what the motion says. I've been recused on Ritchie since the beginning, so my insight is limited, but it was a relatively straightforward dispute that we thought could be resolved by motion, and neither party was keen on a public case.
 * Could we have moved some of our mailing discussions on-wiki? Maybe. But we couldn't openly discuss the T&S evidence in Fram's case, or the CU evidence in Eric's case, or the emails sent to us in confidence by Prax and Ritchie. We couldn't be as frank as we can be on the mailing list because we would have a hostile audience waiting to jump on mistakes or use disagreements between arbs to undermine the decision. I understand why people are uncomfortable when they hear about private discussions they're not party to, but in reality they happen all the time: editors talk by email, on lists, on IRC, on OTRS, at meet-ups. It shouldn't come as a surprise that ArbCom, the only enwiki institution expected to function as a collective body, does it too. Transparency can be valuable but shouldn't be pursued for its own sake. It should be subordinate to achieving our main job of resolving disputes with the minimum amount of disruption, so we can all get back to writing an encyclopaedia. Nine times out of ten, I don't think seeing our internal discussions would give any more "light" (as opposed to "heat") than seeing the list of arbs supporting and opposing. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Oct 23: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Out of interest
I spotted a comment you'd made on a community banned editor's page, marking an ARBCOM (and also a global) block had been placed in addition.

While I would imagine most editors to have picked up 3 out of 4 ways to be removed from editing Wikipedia probably don't find their way back, would they be required to individually appeal each one in turn, or do we have a combined appeal mechanism? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately each sanction from a different group would need to be appealed. In the case of someone with a globally locked account, they must appeal to the Stewards and WMF first. If someone has an ArbCom or CU block as well as a community block, sometimes the Arbitration Committee has decided to facilitate an appeal to the community if we feel there are no further CU or ArbCom related concerns. Mkdw  talk 21:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Batbash
Hi, I noticed you blocked them for block evasion. Did I understand it correctly that that account is a sockpuppet? I am not sure I know current rules, but doesn't it mean that the message should contain an explanation of who is a sockmaster? Is there any possibility of a mistake here, because that user seems to sincerely not understand what he was blocked for?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul, we have strong evidence that indicates this editor is abusively using multiple accounts. Unfortunately, "playing dumb" is one of the most common ways to appeal by individuals found to have been engaging in sock puppetry -- perhaps second only to my brother or roommate did it "explanations". The account has been intentionally attempting to avoid detection by using proxies. Along with the fact that they began editing with an expert level understanding of Wikipedia and intensively edited everyday in a controversial area, engaged in edit wars, and other unexplained removal of large amounts of content. Additionally, their narrow interest in the Antisemitism in Poland conflict area led us to believe this person was not a new account. Despite having only 71 edits within four days, they targeted some of the most controversial articles in the topic area. Other behavioral evidence was also taken under consideration such as editing a collection of related articles with very low traffic or editing history. We have identified two potential blocked accounts, who have also both engaged in sock puppetry, where they had over 90% overlap in articles or more (including these out-of-the-way articles). It should be noted that these two blocked accounts are also suspected of being related. Following the block, the account went inactive for days. It was not coincidence that this account edited everyday, sometimes multiple times a day, and then abruptly ceased being active the moment it was blocked. It comes following additional other accounts having been recently blocked. I see also from today that another admin and checkuser has declined their block after having independently reached the same conclusion as other administrators and checkusers who routinely work in the area. The reason why we do not regularly detail all the ways in which we detect sock puppetry with certain cases is because it merely provides the individual the ways in which the avoid the same behaviour again. All we have accomplished is blocking one of their socks, not implemented a permanent way to prevent them from continuing to evade their block. Mkdw  talk  20:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, understood. I myself was surprised to see that that new user demonstrated some skills that are the sign of an experienced user. I only didn't know it is possible to block a sock without knowing a master.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify this?
If Arbcom is just a glorified consensus-assesser that implements what the community wants, why have Arbcom at all? Banedon (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not a dictatorship and community consultation should play an extremely important role when considering an easement of sanctions that will ultimately affect the community the most. Appeals of existing sanctions are not necessarily how we handle all activities we look at; one action cherry-picked from one particular situation cannot be taken out of context and applied to everything we do or used plainly to justify or not justify the reason as to why ArbCom exists. In this particular case, the community made it abundantly clear that lifting the sanctions would be ill-advised and destabilizing to the topic area. We must reasonably take this under consideration, including it being a critical deciding factor in any final decision, so as to prevent another intractable dispute for which ArbCom was involved in the first place. Mkdw  talk  00:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Saturday Nov 16: Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

A general question about sourcing restrictions
Hi Mkdw, I am curious what was the reason to introduce the "Sourcing expectation" clause into the "Holocaust in Poland" final decision? By no means I find this restriction unreasonable, it definitely leads to improvement of Wikipedia, but what makes this topic so different from other EE areas that Arbcom decided to apply that restriction specifically to that area?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. Unfortunately I was not active when that case occurred so it would probably be best to ask one of the drafting arbitrators for a more nuanced and detailed explanation about all the considerations into why it was put forward as a remedy. Mkdw  talk 19:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Nov 20: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Dec 18: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

follow-up
Hi Mkdw. First thank you for responding; I appreciate it. The 'period' after 'admin' was meant as an abbreviation rather than an end of sentence, so I was trying to say: "... we'll look at behavior, but if it's an administrator then we'll only look at their behavior with administrative tools, and not other behavior." Either way though - your follow-up pretty much resolves my concerns with you comment ADMINCOND requires all administrators to adhere to behavioural policies which would include BITE.. I do apologize if it seems I didn't AGF with your original post, and for my poor punctuation and syntax. My first reading of your original post gave me the impression that you were saying you would not be looking at "BITE" issues. Either way, I appreciate you're responding - and while I'm here:

I'd like to wish you a wonderful Holiday Season in whatever wording fits your own beliefs. Cheers and best. — Ched (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; " class="plainlinks"> 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはMkdwたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 03:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Mkdw!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Mkdw, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

- <b style="color: White;">Nahal</b> (T) 23:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Question
Hi. Which part of my statement was misinterpreted? I am confused. I do not intend to make any cosmetic edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Jan 22: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday Jan 25: Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon
Hi. The The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, we have over 44,000 stubs! A good opportunity to improve stubs for your area!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Feb 19: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thank you
That's quite a picture. I just wanted to thank you for the kind email, since I think Kevin has unsubscribed me from clerks-l at my request. I'm no genius but I'm no dummy either, and the PD page knocked me for a loop. As a clerk, I developed a lot of respect for ArbCom; it's a thankless job, and I saw firsthand how much easier it is to throw brickbats than resolve disputes for the good of the encyclopedia. Solomon would tear out his hair. Stay sane, see you around and all the best,  Mini  apolis  20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

March 18: First ever ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hey
Would you be as kind as to recover the source for the deleted hoax article "Alphabet Soup (film)"? I made that a very long time ago, and considering JohnCD died in 2016, I can't ask him to do it. I find the page pretty funny (from what I remember of it.) Now I&#39;ve gotta play them all. (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your thoughtful and eloquent rationale at the Proposed decision. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

April 22: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sat May 9: Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

May 20: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 15:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

June 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I am not sure if you are awarding me this barnstar ironically since I nominated the article for deletion in December 2012. At the time the article looked very different and I raised the question about whether it was serving as a definition article or an article about a YouTube group. In re-reading the deletion discussion, I was not entirely sure about the nomination and noted that I had "no prejudice to withdrawing [the AFD nomination] if further support" for keeping the article was brought forward. In hindsight, the subject is clearly a notable and important cultural article. During that time I nominated hundreds or possibly thousands of articles for deletion and took a very clinical approach and strict interpretation of the guidelines and policies. Doing so certainly contributed to systemic racism and bias on Wikipedia. It was not until 2014 when I joined the gender gap task force and the Women in Red project that I started to address my own biases and privileges even as someone from a visible equity seeking community.
 * As for the picture on my user page, it is a photo of Marina Bay, Singapore taken by . I have not lived in the United States, but I have visited many times. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 21:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was definitely not being ironic. Perhaps I misread your contribution but the details of that process and of your response are valuable insights. Thanks for sharing!

Sun Aug 16: Great American Wiknic NYC & Beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 22:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please help with usability testing
Hello! The Anti-Harassment Tools team is running a usability test to find out how and where IP addresses are used when patrolling wikis, particularly when patrolling RecentChanges. This could include New Pages or RecentChanges patrol. We want to see your patrolling process and get your views on some prototypes. Getting your perspective would be really helpful to us at this stage of the process. If you’d like to help, and have 30 minutes to spare, please fill out this Google form with your details: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfjYyRNGMkO4_TdNOgG4qmK9cp9YOKzM4GFO5pTd_bEcu23YQ/viewform

For the purpose of the tests we’ll be using Google Forms for recruitment, and UserTesting.com to conduct the actual tests. Please review the privacy statement and release form in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ijmwrIoNO0W1p_zfFU1LBf3_6mFF53kUUFy1L_DCUKc (Google docs link)

Thank you,

NKohli (WMF) (talk) and PSaxena (WMF) (talk)  19:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sat Sep 26: Met Fashion Virtual Edit Meet-up
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

October 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Justin Picard
Hi there. I don't mean to be a pain, but would you be willing to take the time to review this draft? It's been pending for over 2 months now and the backlog hasn't seemed to diminish significantly in that time. I thought you could help since the draft is of interest to WP:Quebec. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 05:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

October 18: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC (plus weekend editathons)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

December 16: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Friday Jan 15: ONLINE Wikipedia Day NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for undeletion
Hey, I am just writing in regards to the article Glaico França. They won't let me undelete the article on the request page so I am just writing you here. I am well versed with the MMA notability requirements and this subject fits the current criteria for notability. Thanks in advance HeinzMaster (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If Glaico França now clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NMMA, you can simply recreate the article. You do not need to request 'un-deletion' as the article was appropriately deleted at the time . If you are specifically asking for the deleted content be userfied so you can work on it as a draft, I don't think that was abundantly clear to or the other reviewers. In any case, five years is a long time and I expect any restored content would be long out of date and starting a new article that meets our guidelines would accomplish the same thing for the same amount of work. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  19:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Archiving of Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous
Hey Mkdw, hope you're well! I saw you archived Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous, and from your recent contribs it looks like you were maybe just archiving a whole slew of SPIs that had been actioned. But there was still pretty active discussion on that SPI report about whether or not the block was warranted. Would you mind unarchiving it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Opps, I noticed a clerk had marked it 'closed' and when I looked over the admin section and saw the accounts had been blocked, but I didn't realize some additional comments were being made above. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! I figured as much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Mkdw, I'm really sorry if the comment I left on the SPI was hurtful or disrespectful. I meant you no disrespect. That comment came out wrong, what meant to say was "I don't think this SPI should have been opened again" or "I disagree with the re-opening of the SPI". I wasn't trying to start something, and my comment wasn't directed toward or specifically about you, I just noticed the case had been turned back from closed to open. The SPI case was getting way more unwieldy than it needed to be, so seeing it closed and then re-opened, I felt a little frustrated. Sometimes I come across more abrasive than I intend. But given how contentious it was, I understand why you switched it back open. Thank you for being diligent. Sro23 (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I appreciate the clarification. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 23:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

February 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Good article drive notice
This message has been sent to users signed up for the Good articles newsletter. Add or remove your name from the list to subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. -- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thursday Feb 25: ONLINE Black Wiki History Month at the Schomburg Center
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 07:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sat Mar 6: Met Women's History Month Virtual Edit Meet-up
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

== Sat Mar 13: Asia Art Archive in America: Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 00:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with Wikimedia Community Ireland for St Patrick's Day
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with with Environmental focus
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 00:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Also from my site
CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

May 19: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 03:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021
Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback Request
Hi there! I have recently made a request for an assessment of the article Puppetry of the Penis on WikiProject Theatre. I have been editing this article for over a month, adding almost 3000 words, new sections, an infobox, media and more references for verifiability. I noticed you were a very active (and helpful) editor of WikiProject Theatre, and was wondering if you had the time if you could have a look at the article and provide me any feedback. Any general feedback would be much appreciated and possibly an assessment of the article for importance and quality. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

June 16: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 16:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#98FB98; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

July 14: Virtual Coney Island Meetup + NYC monthly collaboration
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sat Aug 14: Wikimania Wiknic NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

August 25: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

September 29: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon + Annual Members' Meeting NYC
Upcoming events:
 * Prospect Park photo contest, ongoing
 * Latinx Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, October 6
 * Wiki-Pavilion Picnic NYC in Prospect Park (with WikiProject Craft + WikiConference North America), October 10

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sunday: Wiki-Pavilion Picnic NYC (part of WikiConference NA, Oct 8-10)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1986 Cover of Newsweek.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:1986 Cover of Newsweek.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Dec 15: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:WPV banner at templates for discussion
Template:WPV banner has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Saturday Feb 5: ONLINE Met Afrofuturist edit-a-thon (and monthlong campaign)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 05:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC: Strategic Planning Survey for our community
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Feb 23: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 19:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:User browser:Mozilla Firefox
Template:User browser:Mozilla Firefox, 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 Miscellany for deletion/Unused Migrated Userboxes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Template:User browser:Mozilla Firefox 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. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Mar 27: Wiki-Tent Brunch in Brooklyn
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiWednesday tonight + Sunday Wiki-Tent Brunch
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 13:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Apr 24: Wiki-Picnic and WikiSeder in Brooklyn
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Apr 27: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 02:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 22: Wiki-Picnic and Hackathon in Brooklyn
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 02:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

May 25: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 00:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

NYC Wiknic, June 26
Hold the date. Meetup/NYC Wiknic in Crotona Park, Sunday June 26.

Watch Meetup/NYC/Wiknic June 2022 for further details as they become available.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

June 22: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sun June 26: Bronx Wiki-Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging