Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling us
that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What is
thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped in
the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep
others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess
Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive
arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a
problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends
and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution that
involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider,
in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was
not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was threatened
that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).

English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people
when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It
is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently
does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".

Keeping things as they were is not an option.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan  wrote:

> >
> >
> >  Also, I believe that the
> > near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and
> > that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > 
>
>
>
> I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument
> can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a modern
> Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
> humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering achievements,
> it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released from
> the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let that
> toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including Wikipedia.
> The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
> problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
>
> Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has survived
> and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction. So
> maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the forces
> that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community of
> the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical realization
> that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Robert Fernandez]

Thankfully the gamut of human nature is far wider than just 4chan and
Reddit.


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:31 PM Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true,
> and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier
> place? It isn't going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with
> the critical mass of human participants that this project needs. Have you
> been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national
> election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute
> some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human
> nature?
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Nathan]

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

>
>
> It is well known that English Wikipedia is considered a toxic environment
> This has been known by all for a very long time. The fact of the matter is
> that the arbitration committee is not able to do something about it. There
> are many considerations possible but it is not this committee that is at
> fault it is the community itself. Many people are indignant that they are
> told that it has to stop. FRAM may be the "victim" in this but hey why not
> him? A point is being made.



Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true,
and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier
place? It isn't going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with
the critical mass of human participants that this project needs. Have you
been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national
election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute
some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human
nature?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Nathan]

>
>
>  Also, I believe that the
> near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and
> that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> 



I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument
can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a modern
Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering achievements,
it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released from
the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let that
toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including Wikipedia.
The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.

Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has survived
and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction. So
maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the forces
that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community of
the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical realization
that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Pine W]

Hi Peter,

My view is that accountability should start at the top of an organization.

I was trying to think of a better word than "supervising" for the concept
that I had in mind. After further consideration, I think that "governing"
would have been a better choice.

I am disappointed by the WMF Board's tone and its lack of apology. In the
Board's words, "The Board views this as part of a much-needed community
debate on toxic behavior. In spite of the considerable disruption this has
caused for many, we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move
forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities." In
other words, the Board thinks that the "considerable disruption" is
acceptable, perhaps even good in the big picture. Also, the Board
apologizes for nothing.

I believe that community members are not servants, and are not okay to
ignore, mistreat, or throw away casually. Also, I believe that the
near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and
that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 00:32 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen.
> People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
>  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
>
> I hope that your day is going well.
>
> There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this
> thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
>
> As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
> and self-governance."
>
> * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
> Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
> arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
>
> * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
> least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> resign."
>
> The following are more recent updates.
>
> * The WMF Board has made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569
> >
>
> * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)=904607134=904605950
> >
> .
>
> My personal comments follow.
>
> I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
> statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
> staff and the community, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Let me be simple. A friend of mine was banned for life by the WMF, there
was no room for discussion so the notion that this is a first is not
accurate.

It is well known that English Wikipedia is considered a toxic environment
This has been known by all for a very long time. The fact of the matter is
that the arbitration committee is not able to do something about it. There
are many considerations possible but it is not this committee that is at
fault it is the community itself. Many people are indignant that they are
told that it has to stop. FRAM may be the "victim" in this but hey why not
him? A point is being made.

Your notion of toxic behaviour of the WMF is problematic. The point is that
English Wikipedia behaviour is to change. It did not help that you all were
told to mend your ways, now reflect and come up with what you consider will
make for a more friendly environment. The good news is, you are not in a
position that you can ignore this. The notion that the WMF has to bring you
new rules is imho wrong. Roll your own.
Thanks,
   GerardMM



On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 15:39, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>
> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> z"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>to blocks.
>2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> > the
> > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > en.wp
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes to Rapid Grants - Effective August 1, 2019

[Aboubacar Keïta]

Merci pour l'information

Aboubacar keita

Le jeu. 4 juil. 2019 à 14:13, Mohammed Bachounda  a
écrit :

> Thank you for the information!
>
> Le mar. 2 juil. 2019 à 00:35, Woubzena Jifar  a
> écrit :
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Hope this email finds you well. We are sending this message to select
> > community mailing lists and all previous recipients of Wikimedia
> Foundation
> > Rapid Grants.
> >
> > As you know the Rapid Grants Program
> >  [1] has played an
> > important role in helping our communities to grow. The number of grants
> we
> > have given out grew by 30% between FY16 -17 to this fiscal year, and they
> > grew by 55% when measured by the total amount disbursed. (See the
> spending
> > analysis
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_spending_analysis
> >
> > [2] for reference.*)
> >
> > While communities have valued these flexible funding opportunities, on
> our
> > part, it hasn’t been easy to measure and track their impact. We therefore
> > will be implementing a number of changes in Fiscal Year 19/20, starting
> *August
> > 1 2019*, to sharpen the focus and impact of rapid grants, whilst at the
> > same time maintaining the quick and flexible funding options for
> community:
> >
> > 1) In the months specified below, we will prioritize support to *contests
> > and campaigns* which have been an exciting source of growth in
> > editorship, innovative participation and content generation by
> communities.
> > These months will be solely dedicated to different contests and campaigns
> > throughout the year:
> >
> >- *August*: only receiving proposals for *Wiki Loves Monuments*
> >- *September*: only receiving proposals for *Awareness Grants*
> >(campaign)
> >- *December*: only receiving proposals for *Wiki Loves Africa *
> >- *January*: only receiving proposals for *Art + Feminism* (campaign)
> >- *March*: only receiving proposals for *Wiki Loves Earth*
> >
> > 2) Outside the months specified above, proposals are welcomed in all
> > other categories: edit-a-thons, contests, photowalks, general promotion
> > campaigns, and video campaigns. For added flexibility, we will also
> > consider proposals outside of these categories, such as software
> > development. However, we will no longer be providing rapid grants for
> > travel support, equipment purchase or meetups.
> >
> > 3) We will evaluate each batch of grants once a month and accept the best
> > proposals in alignment with the Wikimedia Foundation’s medium-term goals.
> >
> > We will share the evaluation for the Rapid Grants Program that led us to
> > sharpen the focus for the program once the evaluation is completed by
> > September 30, 2019. In addition to these changes, we’ve also considered
> > comments around Wikimedia Foundation Rapid Grants eligibility criteria
> and
> > have clarified these criteria. Please take the time to re-familiarize
> > yourselves with the Wikimedia Foundation Rapid Grants Guidelines and
> > Criteria 
> [4]
> > page.
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation’s Medium-term
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
> >
> > [3] plan goals are set out here for information.
> >
> > If you have any questions, please email us at  >.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Woubzena
> >
> > *Please note that we have not yet put out the final FY 2018-19 numbers
> and
> > we’re basing this calculation based on up to date internal numbers of 184
> > grants and $270,194.
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid
> >
> > [2]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_spending_analysis
> >
> > [3]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
> >
> >
> > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Learn
> >
> > Woubzena Jifar (pronouns - she/her/hers)
> >
> > Program Officer, Rapid Grants
> >
> > User: WJifar (WMF)
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation 
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Armenia NGO Assembly

[Rajeeb Dutta]

Congratulations to all the elected members and looking forward to witness 
wonderful work of the organisation.

Best Regards,
Rajeeb Dutta.
(U: Marajozkee)
Sent from my iPhone 

> On 03-Jul-2019, at 6:59 PM, Wikimedia Armenia Board 
>  wrote:
> 
> I am writing to inform you that Wikimedia Armenia Scientific-Educational
> Non-Governmental Organization’s regular Assembly took place on the 24th of
> June during which the members of the organization elected the vital bodies
> of the organization, that is the Board, the Supervisory Committee and the
> President of the organization in a close, secret ballot.
> The General Assembly was organized according to the legislation of the
> Republic of Armenia and in the atmosphere of healthy and constructive
> debate. The Assembly elected Marsela Khurshudyan, Tigran Azizbekyanand
> Vahagn Piliposyan as Board members, David Poghosyan, Narek Avetisyan and
> Vardan Mnatsakanyan as Supervisory Committee members, and Susanna Mkrtchyan
> as the President of the organization.
> During the first session, Vahagn Piliposyan was elected as the chair of the
> Board and Tigran Azizbekyan was elected as the secretary of the Board.
> All the results of the Assembly were notified to the members of the
> organization, the staff, and other stakeholders.
> I am happy to inform you that the new Board has adopted a new working style
> of transparency and publicity․
> All the protocols
> 
> of the Board and all the information
> 
> about work meetings will be available on the website (soon in English too).
> 
> P.S. I am attaching two documents concerning this matter; one of them is
> the original Armenian version of the protocol and the other one is the
> short English version of it.
> 
> Wikimedia Armenia NGO’s Chair of the Board
> Vahagn Piliposyan
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes to Rapid Grants - Effective August 1, 2019

[Mohammed Bachounda]

Thank you for the information!

Le mar. 2 juil. 2019 à 00:35, Woubzena Jifar  a
écrit :

> Hello all,
>
> Hope this email finds you well. We are sending this message to select
> community mailing lists and all previous recipients of Wikimedia Foundation
> Rapid Grants.
>
> As you know the Rapid Grants Program
>  [1] has played an
> important role in helping our communities to grow. The number of grants we
> have given out grew by 30% between FY16 -17 to this fiscal year, and they
> grew by 55% when measured by the total amount disbursed. (See the spending
> analysis
> 
> [2] for reference.*)
>
> While communities have valued these flexible funding opportunities, on our
> part, it hasn’t been easy to measure and track their impact. We therefore
> will be implementing a number of changes in Fiscal Year 19/20, starting 
> *August
> 1 2019*, to sharpen the focus and impact of rapid grants, whilst at the
> same time maintaining the quick and flexible funding options for community:
>
> 1) In the months specified below, we will prioritize support to *contests
> and campaigns* which have been an exciting source of growth in
> editorship, innovative participation and content generation by communities.
> These months will be solely dedicated to different contests and campaigns
> throughout the year:
>
>- *August*: only receiving proposals for *Wiki Loves Monuments*
>- *September*: only receiving proposals for *Awareness Grants*
>(campaign)
>- *December*: only receiving proposals for *Wiki Loves Africa *
>- *January*: only receiving proposals for *Art + Feminism* (campaign)
>- *March*: only receiving proposals for *Wiki Loves Earth*
>
> 2) Outside the months specified above, proposals are welcomed in all
> other categories: edit-a-thons, contests, photowalks, general promotion
> campaigns, and video campaigns. For added flexibility, we will also
> consider proposals outside of these categories, such as software
> development. However, we will no longer be providing rapid grants for
> travel support, equipment purchase or meetups.
>
> 3) We will evaluate each batch of grants once a month and accept the best
> proposals in alignment with the Wikimedia Foundation’s medium-term goals.
>
> We will share the evaluation for the Rapid Grants Program that led us to
> sharpen the focus for the program once the evaluation is completed by
> September 30, 2019. In addition to these changes, we’ve also considered
> comments around Wikimedia Foundation Rapid Grants eligibility criteria and
> have clarified these criteria. Please take the time to re-familiarize
> yourselves with the Wikimedia Foundation Rapid Grants Guidelines and
> Criteria  [4]
> page.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Medium-term
> 
> [3] plan goals are set out here for information.
>
> If you have any questions, please email us at .
>
>
> Best regards,
> Woubzena
>
> *Please note that we have not yet put out the final FY 2018-19 numbers and
> we’re basing this calculation based on up to date internal numbers of 184
> grants and $270,194.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_spending_analysis
>
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
>
>
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Learn
>
> Woubzena Jifar (pronouns - she/her/hers)
>
> Program Officer, Rapid Grants
>
> User: WJifar (WMF)
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banning real identities

[Alphos OGame]

I was doxxed by someone in the movement a few years ago, and I cannot stress 
this enough : WE MUST NOT DOXX PEOPLE.
It doesn't matter how good our intentions are.
It doesn't matter how bad these people are.
We as a community choose to block, ban, lock, whether or not globally, the 
accounts of people we deem unable to contribute.
We must not disclose unilaterally after the fact the identity of a contributor. 
And not only because we may well have no clue about it. It may get them jailed 
for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their genuine contributions.
That MUST NOT (rfc2119 [1]) be how we handle things.
Once again, I cannot stress this enough.

Do not do this. This is a bad idea on so many levels. Pretty much all of them, 
really.

Alphos

[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Le 2 juil. 2019 à 08:17, Thomas Townsend  a écrit :

>> Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you think this
>> will serve?
> 
> A good question.  The stated object of global bans is "to help assure
> the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects and/or assist in
> preventing prohibited behavior that hinders dialogue, project
> development and expansion".  Identifying those persons banned as fully
> as possible helps to achieve that assurance and protect the community.
> 
> The Turnip.
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Armenia NGO Assembly

[Wikimedia Armenia Board]

I am writing to inform you that Wikimedia Armenia Scientific-Educational
Non-Governmental Organization’s regular Assembly took place on the 24th of
June during which the members of the organization elected the vital bodies
of the organization, that is the Board, the Supervisory Committee and the
President of the organization in a close, secret ballot.
The General Assembly was organized according to the legislation of the
Republic of Armenia and in the atmosphere of healthy and constructive
debate. The Assembly elected Marsela Khurshudyan, Tigran Azizbekyanand
Vahagn Piliposyan as Board members, David Poghosyan, Narek Avetisyan and
Vardan Mnatsakanyan as Supervisory Committee members, and Susanna Mkrtchyan
as the President of the organization.
During the first session, Vahagn Piliposyan was elected as the chair of the
Board and Tigran Azizbekyan was elected as the secretary of the Board.
All the results of the Assembly were notified to the members of the
organization, the staff, and other stakeholders.
I am happy to inform you that the new Board has adopted a new working style
of transparency and publicity․
All the protocols

of the Board and all the information

about work meetings will be available on the website (soon in English too).

P.S. I am attaching two documents concerning this matter; one of them is
the original Armenian version of the protocol and the other one is the
short English version of it.

Wikimedia Armenia NGO’s Chair of the Board
Vahagn Piliposyan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Adrian Raddatz]

Defining the problem and solutions is easy too. Getting the core editing
community to agree to any change is the difficult part.

Problems:
- Discussions favour the loudest voice and the people who refuse to walk
away. Wiki people often say that there are no barriers to participation,
but if you have anything better to do with your time, arguing over mundane
article details while being attacked/insulted by the other side becomes
undesirable very quickly.
- Admins are often some of the worst offenders.
- ANI follows none of the best practices for dispute resolution.

For solutions:
- Hold people accountable for their behaviour regardless of whether or not
they are correct.
- And ultimately just try other approaches. It's an internet website, we
can change or amend things if they don't work.

Adrian Raddatz


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>
> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> z"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>to blocks.
>2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> > the
> > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > en.wp
> > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[WereSpielChequers]

Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.

On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
would have voted to accept cases , and  and
these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
z"

Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
for, among other things:


   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
   to blocks.
   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.


None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.

My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
nuanced and diplomatic.

Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.

Jonathan


> > Hoi,
> > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> the
> > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> en.wp
> > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard,
Did you read and understand my first comment in this thread?
You may be surprised to find that the board has indicated that WMF (or parts 
thereof, we should not tar everyone there with the same brush) was indeed at 
fault in their handling of this issue. I am inclined to accept this finding. I 
do not at any point claim that the English Wikipedia community is without 
fault, which seems to be your implication. 
Cheers,
Peter


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 04 July 2019 11:11
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Hoi,
I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my
> statement? If so please clarify.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> Hoi,
> The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged
> that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not
> taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection
> point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
> Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
> show reflection that give hope for a better future.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood  >
> wrote:
>
> > The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> > does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to
> happen.
> > People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> > others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is
> fixed
> > and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
> recurrence.
> > Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> > Cheers, Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Pine W
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> >  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
> >
> > I hope that your day is going well.
> >
> > There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in
> this
> > thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
> >
> > As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> > open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> > >.
> > I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> > updates, and finally making some personal comments.
> >
> > I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
> >
> > * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
> and
> > a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
> from
> > Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
> >
> > * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> > community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> > harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> > misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
> consensus,
> > and self-governance."
> >
> > * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> > pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
> processes.*
> > Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> > Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> > WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> > of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in
> the
> > arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> > referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> > Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> > should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> > equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> > appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> > harassment and hostility on 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

What exactly has the English Wikipedia accepted? As far as I know we don't
known on what the WMF thinks they failed. It is just speculation and
personal opinions.

Paulo

A quinta, 4 de jul de 2019, 10:11, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hoi,
> I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost the
> community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp
> practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood  >
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my
> > statement? If so please clarify.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> > Hoi,
> > The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged
> > that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not
> > taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an
> inflection
> > point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
> > Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
> > show reflection that give hope for a better future.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> > > does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to
> > happen.
> > > People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> > > others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is
> > fixed
> > > and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
> > recurrence.
> > > Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or
> micromanagement.
> > > Cheers, Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > >
> > >  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
> > >
> > > I hope that your day is going well.
> > >
> > > There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in
> > this
> > > thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
> > >
> > > As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> > > open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> > > >.
> > > I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> > > updates, and finally making some personal comments.
> > >
> > > I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
> > >
> > > * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
> > and
> > > a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
> > from
> > > Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
> > >
> > > * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> > > community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing
> with
> > > harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> > > misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
> > consensus,
> > > and self-governance."
> > >
> > > * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> > > pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
> > processes.*
> > > Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> > > Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and
> the
> > > WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential
> allegations
> > > of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in
> > the
> > > arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> > > referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> > > Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases,
> they
> > > should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> > > equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> > > appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> > > harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
> > >
> > > * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the
> Arbitration
> > > Committee to continue to perform the role it 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my
> statement? If so please clarify.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> Hoi,
> The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged
> that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not
> taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection
> point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
> Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
> show reflection that give hope for a better future.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood  >
> wrote:
>
> > The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> > does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to
> happen.
> > People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> > others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is
> fixed
> > and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
> recurrence.
> > Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> > Cheers, Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Pine W
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> >  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
> >
> > I hope that your day is going well.
> >
> > There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in
> this
> > thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
> >
> > As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> > open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> > >.
> > I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> > updates, and finally making some personal comments.
> >
> > I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
> >
> > * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
> and
> > a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
> from
> > Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
> >
> > * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> > community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> > harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> > misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
> consensus,
> > and self-governance."
> >
> > * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> > pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
> processes.*
> > Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> > Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> > WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> > of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in
> the
> > arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> > referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> > Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> > should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> > equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> > appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> > harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
> >
> > * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> > Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> > Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution,
> at
> > least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> > resign."
> >
> > The following are more recent updates.
> >
> > * The WMF Board has made a statement
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569
> > >
> >
> > * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> > <

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard,
Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my statement? If 
so please clarify. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Hoi,
The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged
that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not
taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection
point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
show reflection that give hope for a better future.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen.
> People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
>  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
>
> I hope that your day is going well.
>
> There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this
> thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
>
> As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
> and self-governance."
>
> * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
> Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
> arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
>
> * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
> least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> resign."
>
> The following are more recent updates.
>
> * The WMF Board has made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569
> >
>
> * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)=904607134=904605950
> >
> .
>
> My personal comments follow.
>
> I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
> statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
> staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
>
> I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and
> apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the
> community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of
> volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged
that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not
taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection
point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
show reflection that give hope for a better future.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen.
> People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
>  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
>
> I hope that your day is going well.
>
> There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this
> thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
>
> As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
> and self-governance."
>
> * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
> Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
> arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
>
> * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
> least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> resign."
>
> The following are more recent updates.
>
> * The WMF Board has made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569
> >
>
> * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)=904607134=904605950
> >
> .
>
> My personal comments follow.
>
> I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
> statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
> staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
>
> I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and
> apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the
> community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of
> volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the
> words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from
> the WMF Board.
>
> In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on
> supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
>
> I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the
> communities should be able to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Peter Southwood]

The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does 
something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen. People 
who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not.  
The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed and taking 
reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence. Due diligence 
is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. 
Cheers, Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

 Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,

I hope that your day is going well.

There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this
thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.

As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
updates, and finally making some personal comments.

I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.

* "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."

* "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
and self-governance."

* "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia

* "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
resign."

The following are more recent updates.

* The WMF Board has made a statement


* The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement

.

My personal comments follow.

I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.

I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and
apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the
community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of
volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the
words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from
the WMF Board.

In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on
supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.

I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the
communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and
should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to
deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the
communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating
unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down
social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain
from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities
in our efforts to improve ourselves.

I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from
WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.