Re: [Wikimedia-l] ¿Qué te hace feliz esta semana? / What's making you happy this week?

What’s making me happy is also sad (how can one separate hapiness from sadness as you obviously need one to measure the other). My mom is in hospital, her breath cancer spreaded again with metastasis. Yep, looks bad. But I discovered a thread which was shared on twitter by francophone

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ¿Qué te hace feliz esta semana? / What's making you happy this week?

Hoi, What makes me happy is that a public discussion is happening about the performance and the future performance of the query engine of the Wikidata query engine. Not only are things in the open but it has triggered responses from knowledgeable people making it plain that there is room for

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

Martian, While it’s not something I could conjure up today, my time at WMF exposed me to enough things that I could not have imagined prior to seeing them for myself that I am unwilling to discount that such a situation could exist. Philippe On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:25 PM Martijn Hoekstra

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

Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T would not lie about their reasons for something like this. ‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת ‪Philippe Beaudette‬‏ <‪ phili...@beaudette.me‬‏>:‬ > Nathan writes: > >

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

I think we should probably reflect on the fact we've got to the point where arguments along the lines of "This guy shouldn't be blocked, he was only telling people to fuck themselves" are sort of normal. This kind of behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in any other movement or community or

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

It seems the English Wikipedia community is concern with whether WMF has jurisdiction to ban a user in a single project with active arbitration committee and if they may do so without any obligation to notify the project Arbitration committee or the community. Well, I don't know the specifics of

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

As a housekeeping note, discussion has moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:37 Robert Fernandez wrote: > Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances > of a number of

[Wikimedia-l] Seeking feedback on the initial design of the Contraband tool

Hello folks, I am Rammanoj, a Google Summer of Code 2019 student for Wikimedia. As part of the program, I am developing a tool to track developer activity on three different platforms: Gerrit, Phabricator and Github. Potential users of this tool will be event organizers, especially scholarship

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

I would like to reserve the right to say "fuck arbcom", "fuck the WMF", or "fuck the admins", just like I deserve the right to say "fuck the police" or "fuck the judiciary system". Regardless whether you think so or not, I dont think that's within WMFs remit to police and enforce. On Wed, Jun

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

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 07:43, Yair Rand wrote: > Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was > triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T would not lie about their > reasons for something like this. I haven't seen this email. Have you? If so, where? -- Andy

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

I don’t think that is the point at all. For justice to be accepted as justice, it must be comprehensible. The process was badly flawed, and instead of sending a message that T was looking after our trust and safety, it sent a message that anyone could be blocked without reference to our

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

There are some non-controversial facts that apply: * The WMF was created to operationally support the projects, by design it is not a police force for social conduct, even though it may have a duty to remove unlawful content * There is no consensus with the English Wikipedia community for WMF

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

George, There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers do not: responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise, the money and the people to do so. So that's ten assertions. You claim that some of those are unwarranted. There are over a thousand

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

The board, including its community representatives. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > > If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due process > is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start being > issued by them? > >

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

The board does not even has a proper contact or way to get to them. Only way seems to try to reach the few members of the board who disclosed their personal emails. And even if we manage to reach them, it is not an appeal in the least, as it continues not following any proper procedure, and is

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

I have read several threads on this incident including Fram and T statement on the English Wikipedia but I find it difficult to draw any reasonable conclusion as WMF has not officially says that Fram was banned for the fuck ArbCom comment. I really do not think we'll be fair to WMF if we conclude

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

Because the English Wikipedia community is a garbage fire, and is hellbent on demonstrating that this week. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > > And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on > community issues related to the English Wikipedia?

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

Peter You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us". You are mistaken. In so far as it belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation. Thrapostibongles On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > "We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to

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

Todd They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular > participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial > back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in > the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to

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

Is posting 'fuck random' "behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial working environment"? I think not. In many work environments frank expressions of anger are a consequence of high levels of engagement in the work. It may be that in order to encourage participation by those who are very

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

Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF. It belongs to everyone, and that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to except the WMF. I am not aware of the circumstances of this office action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing involving the star chamber

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2017-2018 now on-wiki

All, Here is the correct link to the FAQ for our FY 17-18 Form 990 . Apologies for the error. Best, Tony On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:14 PM Jaime Villagomez wrote: > Hello

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

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen wrote: > > Robert, > > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. > Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone > who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2017-2018 now on-wiki (w/updated FAQ link)

Hello everyone, The Wikimedia Foundation has submitted our annual Form 990 to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and posted on-wiki[1]. The Form 990 is the annual financial reporting, known as an “information return,” which the federal

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

Robert, These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to

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

Peter Thank you for raising that issue. Since user Peter Southwood has just one recorded edit on English Wikipedia, from 2012, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peter_Southwood) I'm puzzled by your speaking on behalf of the volunteer community. ("we do not generally

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

If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due process is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start being issued by them? To who /what can we appeal? Paulo A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez escreveu: > Of course it doesn't

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

I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic. If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get reviewed privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation of anyone's privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they supposedly did. If they did in fact do

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

That one I'll give you. I suppose we could all turn it down a couple notches. Todd On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Robert Fernandez wrote: > But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic? > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen wrote: > > > > I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic. >

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

But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic? On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen wrote: > > I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic. > > If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get reviewed > privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation of

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

Yaroslav, I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for the volunteer workers. For example, they have consistently

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

"We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it belongs to "us" as well. It seems that Fram who was one of us has just been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that this should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude people

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

Phillipe, Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say, not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious enough to take direct action outside of the community? I sure can't, yet

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

Well, in my own case I can confirm the decision was completely secret, issued by some unstated entity inside the WMF, and when I knew about it by a third party , the reason presented was blatantly false. I have requested an appeal, with no success till the moment. So, at this point, I am not so

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

And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on community issues related to the English Wikipedia? Paulo A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:46, Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibong...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Yaroslav, > > I think it's reasonably clear that the English

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

Thrapostibongles, I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015. While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder

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

I agree that they look like a very aggressive community, but why should an entity so disconnected from everything there and immersed on a culture of obscurantism and secretiveness be the one appropriate to intervene? Especially skipping due process, with a very shady ban, as seems to have been the

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

I would guess that "expertise" is one of them. Cheers, P -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 12 June 2019 08:58 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

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

> I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that > you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015. This is part of the problem right here. This isn't our project and we shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community. Wikipedia belongs to

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

They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to be done on

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

Hi all, I'm torn on this issue. I'm not a fan of Fram. Having been attacked by them in the past, I'm somewhat relieved to hear that they have been banned from enwp. I’m also dismayed by the poor response from the enwp community about this issue, particularly the inflammatory remarks and

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

If you're suggesting we become in any way like Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr...then, please, gods help us no. Todd On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:34 PM Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen wrote: > > > It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything, > > but it

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

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ wrote: > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would not > be controversial for anyone. Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I

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

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen wrote: > It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything, > but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend > themself. Do they, really? If your local restaurant or supermarket decides to ban you, do you have that

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

Did WMF have to get involved because the complainant was part of ARBCOM? ___ 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] Odp: Re: Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Hi, just to clarify this particular off-topic: Dnia 12 czerwca 2019 21:35 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk napisał(a): On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything, but it is crucial for the accused

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

Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the majority of the en.wiki community: We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means

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

Hi Rebecca, These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me. Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating here, and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the minority regarding a certain discussion. I know that this can be

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

Hi Pine, While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the messages in the chain the fact that you are calling me out as assuming bad faith out of all the participants does not inspire me to take part at all. Thanks, but I feel that I might just go back to deleting these

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

It wasn't hostile Pine, but it wasn't a great idea to call out one of the few women on the chain for assuming bad faith given some of the other statements and assertions on the thread. I did not make any assumptions on the motivations of those who take part in the on wiki discussions, I just

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

> > So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to > participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people > to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't > get counted. > > Well, Maria Sefidari (Raystorm) showed up and ended up

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

Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate kind of stuff, what was she expecting, really. Paulo A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 22:39, Chris Keating < chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> escreveu: > > > > So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to > >

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

Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority

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

I don't believe we can presume everyone who hasn't participated in the discussion would like to disagree but is afraid to. Among all active contributors, I suspect non-participants are mostly a mix of unaware of the issue, don't have a strong opinion about the issue, don't understand what's

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

I think it would. I see many people in the discussions, myself included, who would not have any objections to a ban by ArbCom but who oppose the WMF ban. Having a PhD in math and physics, I can not theoretically exclude that there are active community members who are happy now and would object the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our movement. I thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked restlessly to

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

Nathan, Continuing on my theme of assuming good faith: I think that the assumption of good faith needs to go in all ways, which includes that WMF should assume good faith of ENWP and that ENWP should assume good faith of WMF. I had some very critical comments in mind earlier but I am trying to

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

Yaroslav, I understand the difference. I'm simply raising an objection to the claim that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the WMF who placed a ban. – Molly White (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM

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

Seconded. These pages appear to have a substantial population of raving obsessives I have no intention of bothering to deal with. - d. On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:10, Rebecca O'Neill wrote: > > Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against > this decision, I'm a

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

I didn't make any speculation as to the potential views of any non-participating editors. I didn't even proffer my own view. I do find it telling that the assumption was made as to what side I would fall on. My problem with how these discussions unfold is that there is a vocal minority that

[Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible to vote,

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

A lot of different issues are being conflated by commenters on-wiki and here, muddying the issue. The WMF responses and some others think that this is about policing conduct, and the perennial difficulty of doing that against people who have entrenched support and lots of positive contributions.

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

I'm sorry if my post sounded hostile. I wish that I knew what to say. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Rebecca O'Neill wrote: > Hi Pine, > > While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the > messages in the chain the fact that

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

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Nathan wrote: > Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of > everything - isn't going to work. I laughed. Thank you for this. But remember, I was in front of Arbcomm for a not too dissimilar case, being accused of overreaching and an

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

This seems like a mighty menacing line of discourse, coming from someone in a position to initiate a block. I don't think I should participate in any WP or WMF or Commons or WikiData discussions if such menace is the norm. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:05 PM Rebecca O'Neill wrote: > It wasn't

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

Thanks for the concern, Dennis, but I am not feeling threatened and I don't fully understand the source of your concern. I suggest that we not increase the tension any further, please. (I need to go do something else besides participate in this thread, but anyone is welcome to email me off list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board members who took the initiative and launched this process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election facilitators as well. Best Regards, Rajeeb Dutta. (U: Marajozkee). Sent from my iPhone > On 13-Jun-2019,

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

Check your facts. P -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:48 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block Peter You say

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

Not that Peter Southwood. Are you a different Thrapostibongles? I couldn’t find one. Cheers, Peter Southwood. -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 4:22 PM To: Wikimedia