Thanks Abhinav for your email. I'm having a hard time splitting the email
out in a) what is the exact and complete set of reasons that Affcom put the
chapter on suspension. b) what additional complaints are part of the big
picture. c) what is the response from WMIN.
I realize it is really hard
Hi Amir,
Thanks. I agree with your assessment.
Probably asking for the obvious: is there someone on the committee that
knows the real world identity (and the other way around, the online
pseudonym) of each member, and could flag a COI/suggest to abstain if need
be? (aside from people refraining
Gerard, I think your comment is highly inappropriate. I don't generally
like to pile on, but this needs calling out. When discussing these
sensitive topics, the very least we can expect, is a careful approach to
the matter.
I don't know the underlying situation well enough to establish who's
The landscape has changed quite a bit since 2012, and there are a number of
players that could offer a service like this by now. It may be worthwhile
exploring them briefly (including but not limited to Google), if we believe
this is important enough to invest time in (and I agree that there is a
(forking the discussion to allow a focus on more general line, rather than
the specifics of who wrote what, why and when)
My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a
neutral review option for actions by the T team (or the WMF in general),
such as an ombudsperson.
A
in favor of a
>unilateral preferred action.
>- Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation.
>- *Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions>.*
>
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
>
>
Great, now we have a wheelwar going on (
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram ). I
have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.
A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody
really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to
Refreshing to see some positive development here again, after all the
complications, setbacks etc - welcome to your new status WMKR! It was
always a joy to see you at work in activities, looking forward to hearing
even more from you again :)
Lodewijk
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:11 PM María
As for process.. While I appreciate that this time, the change was at least
announced before the vote, and that some board members at least engaged in
some conversation - I have yet to see how this was taken into consideration
by the board as a whole. It feels like the board already made up its
I have always enjoyed Erik's insightful input - especially the insights
that people don't like to hear at first. I trust that much more of that is
to come in the future, so I'm not ready to say farewells :). I wouldn't be
able to accurately summarize it anyway.
Erik, I hope that you'll find a lot
Hi Gonçalo,
Thanks for sharing. I share most of your concerns, reading your explanation
- and they seem reasonable. I find it particularly odd that such major
changes are forced upon the chapter in this situation. If these changes are
necessary, it would be better to discuss them in a global
he
> project that is most abused, sometimes in ways that I'd be hesitant to
> publicly describe.
>
>
> Risker/Anne
> (English Wikipedia oversighter)
>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 12:29, effe iets anders
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is one of thes
Hi all,
This is one of these things that seems particularly hard to find, so I'd
like to pick your collective brains on this:
What are the various policies across our little universe on using the 'hide
version' functionality to hide historical versions of articles? I would
especially appreciate
Wow congratulations :)
I'm guessing this is the link you wanted to include:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Chicago_User_Group/2018_Annual_Report
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:51 PM Brian Choo wrote:
> Fellow Wikimedians,
>
> Wikimedians of Chicago User Group has put together their
Perhaps stating the obvious, but please remember there were some
significant flaws with the consultation by the WMF that you refer to
(especially with regards to the way questions were phrased and options were
limited beforehand, if I recall correctly).
Wikimania's purpose is mostly pluriform and
Hi Cornelius,
a quick sanity check (sorry if this was already discussed): in your
overview, you don't mention any WMF staff members as such. Is that because
they won't be invited in that capacity (i.e. not including staff members
that happen to be in affcom, that are affiliate representatives or
Hi Kirill,
(changing the topic to reflect better the more abstract case: this is no
longer about WMPT, as I don't know enough about that specific instance)
I appreciate your concerns for embarrassing situations. This may be the
least painful approach in many of the cases. I also appreciate that
Thanks for picking this challenge up with such enthusiasm!
Lodewijk
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:58 AM Alex Stinson wrote:
> Thank you Farhard for sharing out the progress that you have been making as
> a benefit of the Wikipedian of the Year! I look forward to continuing to
> support these
Thanks for sharing, Greg.
As it proves to be quite hard to filter out this kind of companies, it must
be even harder for affiliates that don't have the WMF infrastructure at
hand. I can imagine there exists some kind of 'blacklist' of companies that
the WMF doesn't want to work with for this kind
it seems my email was rejected, trying to send again:
Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use
would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100%
certain this is the kind of rule
101 - 120 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
