Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2016 Ombudsman Committee

That could indeed happen, James. :) Apropos, thanks to everyone currently or formerly at WMF who worked with (and for ;) ) us during that time! It was a pleasure. And, of course, congrats to the new and remaining members of the OC! Th. 2016-02-01 20:13 GMT+01:00 James Alexander

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman : > > Our board made the decision to give Lila a > second chance in the face of staff mistrust. > Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this? Th. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

First of all, a happy new year to everyone! Thank you, James, for bringing at least some light into this blurriness. For some more light, all board members, please do me a favor and explain briefly how you see the relationship between transparency and our movement, especially in your work as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

@Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural. The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos : > It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context. And > for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we should > also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or in the >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Dear Patricio, as James is (or was) a community-elected member, it would have been nice to include reasons why the Board took this decision in the announcement. It gives (at least me) the impression of deliberate non-openness, and I don't like it. Th. 2015-12-29 0:52 GMT+01:00 Risker

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Pine, the resolution was published, and it does not provide any information. https://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_Removal Matt, why would FL law apply to Board decisions? WMF is based in Cali. Are they still officially a Florida entity? Best, Th. 2015-12-29 1:39

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

Why not make it a bit more difficult for them to do their foul play? Maybe enwiki needs a stricter rule enforcement system for sources in articles about promotion-worthy entities like living people, existing businesses/organizations, etc. Just allow only external, reliable, and confirmable sources

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

I really wonder why it's anyone (except Russavia)'s business why Russavia was banned. Or in other words, why don't you guys just ask Russavia about it? If they want to tell you, fine, if not, fine as well... And no, that's not a speech against openness and transparency. The rules are transparent.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Anders, the problem is the strong US/EN-centric way the projects are handled by WMF. That drives people away (especially the more critical/touchy communities like DE), and it didn't start with the superprotect mess. There were other serious affronts by WMF (image filter, etc.) to the community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

Hello, just a few remarks from the OC about this case. 2014-08-01 22:19 GMT+02:00 Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com: Hi all, On 27 May 2014 I received an email back from the OC which basically said that because no personal information was divulged, there was no breach of the WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

In fact, a simple note that Sarah has left the WMF would, of course, have been enough from the WMF side. BUT, the obvious questions would then have been directed to Sarah in any possible way, most probably. And I guess, she just doesn't wish to answer those questions right now and I can fully

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

and clicks randomly. 2013/5/13 Thomas Goldammer tho...@gmail.com 2013/5/13 Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Lets

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

but will circle back when I return to work next Monday. (Gayle) Wait for that. Whatever time it actually means. :) Th. 2013/5/13 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com Thomas, She is on holiday, she will not be in the office today? Huib ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Wow, this was definitely a huge brick they dropped there... It seems, the WMF needs to hire someone (a diplomat) to counsel them about actions towards the volunteers. (Seriously!) Well, and when we are at it, the volunteer community might need a diplomat, too, one who counsels them about actions

[Wikimedia-l] RFC about the scope of the Ombudsman Commission

Dear all, the Ombudsman Commission has started a request for comments on Meta about its scope: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Scope_of_Ombudsman_Commission We invite everyone to comment on this proposal (preferably on the page linked above in order to have all discussions at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New proposal for a wiki Project!

Hi. Could you explain in more detail (on the wiki page you linked) what the content would look like and how it would differ from the Incubator wiki? For example, would original research be allowed? Best regards, Thomas. 2013/2/18 Kevin Behrens kevin_behr...@hotmail.de: Hello! I have started

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

* How many cases were brought to your attention? around 30, give or take * How many of those did you consider serious enough to warrant investigation beyond direct dismissal? around 10, I'd say * How many cases did you take on *proactively* (without a solid complaint)? none that I would

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012/4/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: Transparency and privacy are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, the actual content of complaints is usually going to be confidential, but that doesn't preclude the process being transparent. That's why I answered to Lodewijk's questions. I guess

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

It was not meant passive-aggressive. ;) I know that his suggestion is a good one and I wanted to push him to just do it on Meta. Sorry if you misunderstood that. ^^ Th. I thought Thomas's requests and suggestions in this case were quite valid and reasonable, and they did not deserve such a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012/4/23 Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com: Touché. I believe that if the process is going to be put on Meta we do need actual numbers as opposed to your guesstimations. Hopefully this shouldn't be too difficult to sort out, if you do some searches on Gmail for all the emails that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Ok, for the number fans, I did a filter search on my email archive and I found 660 emails archived that were sent to the OC email address since we were appointed (I don't think I deleted any, so this should probably be it). This includes emails sent from within the committee as well as those sent

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012/4/23 Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com: This might be a digression, but I'm fairly new to this list and would like a clarification.  What's the decision-making process within the WMF on issues such as this (a request from the community to document a WMF process)?  I understand how

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

about before. Cheers, Delphine On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Goldammer tho...@googlemail.com wrote: 2012/4/23 Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com: This might be a digression, but I'm fairly new to this list and would like a clarification.  What's the decision-making process