Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:17 AM, James Heilman wrote: > This case partly pertains to how we see as the Wikimedia Movement see > the interactions between Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia community and > Arbcom. It would be interesting to get the perspectives of other > language versions of Wikipedia.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread K. Peachey
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Peter Southwood wrote: > Is there a policy that requires that he do so? Mailing list wise, No. But it is considered good ettique to do so. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: h

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Peter Southwood
Is there a policy that requires that he do so? - Original Message - From: "Risker" To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight On 23 March 2013 20:45, James Heilman wrote: Have star

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread James Heilman
This case partly pertains to how we see as the Wikimedia Movement see the interactions between Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia community and Arbcom. It would be interesting to get the perspectives of other language versions of Wikipedia. James Heilman On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:54 PM, James Heilman wr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Risker
On 23 March 2013 22:54, James Heilman wrote: > So why did I not notify the arbcom list? I am sure all the arbcoms are > watching this one so I did not see it as necessary. > James, I did not say you should have emailed the Arbitration Committee. There are multiple ways of notifying the Arbitrati

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread James Heilman
So why did I not notify the arbcom list? I am sure all the arbcoms are watching this one so I did not see it as necessary. I am also not appealing arbcom's decision to arbcom. I am appealing arbcom's decision to the editing community at large. I guess I lack faith in the functioning of arbcom as a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Risker
On 23 March 2013 21:21, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote: > On 24 March 2013 02:19, Risker wrote: > > > James, can you please explain why you have decided this is a > Wikimedia-wide > > issue (and thus posted to this list), while not bothering to notify the > > Committee whose decision you are questioni

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Tomasz W . Kozłowski
On 24 March 2013 02:19, Risker wrote: > James, can you please explain why you have decided this is a Wikimedia-wide > issue (and thus posted to this list), while not bothering to notify the > Committee whose decision you are questioning that you are doing so? Since when does discussing the Arbitr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Risker
On 23 March 2013 20:45, James Heilman wrote: > Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will > Beback a return to editing > here. > I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was > made w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Nathan
For years, the ArbCom has been the focal point for far more controversy than they have resolved. In recent times, that's become even more true - despite all the heat generated by their interventions on the project, they hear fewer cases and effectively arbitrate less even than that. Maybe it's time

[Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread James Heilman
Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will Beback a return to editing here. I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidenc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hour inside out (program evaluation)

2013-03-23 Thread Isarra Yos
On 23/03/13 21:49, Everton Zanella Alvarenga wrote: The India Education Program was really useful for my learnings before I started coordinating the education program in Brazil. Without them, I could have made similar mistakes. And this is one really important thing about the nature of Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hour inside out (program evaluation)

2013-03-23 Thread Everton Zanella Alvarenga
The India Education Program was really useful for my learnings before I started coordinating the education program in Brazil. Without them, I could have made similar mistakes. And this is one really important thing about the nature of Wikimedia projects, they are not predictable as a simple physics

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-03-23 Thread Steven Walling
On Saturday, March 23, 2013, ENWP Pine wrote: > Tilman, > > Thanks, it's great to see the momentum here in Mobile Contributions. > > Was there any discussion about how to convert the "selfies" uploaders and > people who sign up for the watchlist > feature into more active contributors? This seems

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-03-23 Thread ENWP Pine
Tilman, Thanks, it's great to see the momentum here in Mobile Contributions. Was there any discussion about how to convert the "selfies" uploaders and people who sign up for the watchlist feature into more active contributors? This seems like an opportunity to make progress on what I think shou

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hour inside out (program evaluation)

2013-03-23 Thread ENWP Pine
I agree that the general ideas about IEP and AFT5 were worth considering, but I get the impression that there were preventable shortcomings in their designs and planning, and it bothers me a lot that I think I see *similar* flaws in the two programs. I get the impression that lessons from the IEP