Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Tilman Bayer wrote: >thanks for correcting your earlier claim in the main thread that you >were never notified about this kind of thing (although unfortunately >this correction comes only after your claim already contributed to >leaving MZ "a little speechless" and feeling "more and more ... >dista

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Russavia wrote: > > That list is for 5 star hotels; something that I hope that donor money > is never put towards covering the cost of; regardlessofwho itis. > I don't see any indication that list is for 5 star hotels. Also, I'm not sure you'd be happy hearing th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

To get a better picture, the hotels listed in the google maps linked here ( http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Accommodation) ranged from 110 dollars to 170 dollars per night and room and If you place 2 people in the same room the price is 55 to 85 dollars per person (that without the discount

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

Hi Andrew et al On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Andrew Lih wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Michael Peel wrote: > >> ...Paris and London are both more expensive cities that Hong Kong, so I'd >> expect the daily rate here to be closer to $130/night, and ideally less >> than that where b

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

On 13 May 2013 17:15, Michael Peel wrote: > > On 13 May 2013, at 22:03, Andrew Lih wrote: > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Michael Peel > wrote: > > > >> ...Paris and London are both more expensive cities that Hong Kong, so > I'd > >> expect the daily rate here to be closer to $130/night,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

On 13 May 2013, at 22:03, Andrew Lih wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Michael Peel wrote: > >> ...Paris and London are both more expensive cities that Hong Kong, so I'd >> expect the daily rate here to be closer to $130/night, and ideally less >> than that where bookings are made suff

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Michael Peel wrote: > ...Paris and London are both more expensive cities that Hong Kong, so I'd > expect the daily rate here to be closer to $130/night, and ideally less > than that where bookings are made sufficiently in advance. Not to be a nit, but I wanted t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

Hi Tomasz, On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski < tom...@twkozlowski.net> wrote: > Gregory Varnum wrote: > > I am not sure what you mean by none of the members being willing to >> comment. >> > > Our chair has responded several times on Meta and many others have > responded >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

In such resolutions, one always budget for the maximum plausible cost and then underspend. It is rather unhelpful to look at the budgeted amount and shout at it as if it's the actual amount spent. PS. Jealous? Run for the forthcoming elections. Winners of those elections also get to travel to Hong

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

It applies equally well to GS11s traveling on business where prestige is not a factor. Even domestically, I've seen travel costs approximately in line with $200 per night paid by not-for-profits. Can it be cheaper? Sure. Is it cause for outrage and opprobrium in public? I doubt it. I'm more interes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

I'm not sure that the maximum rate is the best comparison to make here. I can understand that for senior representatives of the US government on official business, since prestige seems to be an issue there, but for individuals on charity business? I'm not saying outrageous, but I am saying unre

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

The US federal government maximum rate for lodging Hong Kong is $358 per night.[1] I'm not saying $200 is frugal, it's just not outrageous. [1]:http://aoprals.state.gov/web920/per_diem_action.asp?MenuHide=1&PostCode=10261 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

Gregory Varnum wrote: I am not sure what you mean by none of the members being willing to comment. > Our chair has responded several times on Meta and many others have responded > to Odder via email about this. Let me just straighten this, Greg. Nobody has ever contacted me via e-mail about

[Wikimedia-l] [wca] Announcing WCA/Journal

Hi everyone, I am happy to announce we started WCA/Journal this week: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Journal WCA/Journal is one big piece in the mosaic of tools and communication spaces we provide in order to start and grow the exchange of ideas, solutions and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

From my reasonably extensive experience of international travel, $200/night is actually quite a lot. That's €154 or £130. In contrast, I've stayed in the centre of Paris at short notice for €116/night, and in the centre of London for ~£80/night, both at fairly decent hotels. Paris and London are

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

right; wrong thread. But yes,beta is good,as with the virtual editor. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:56 AM, David Goodman wrote: > > Basically, you (in the plural) thought you could do better than the > > consensus, and therefore simply with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

I should start by saying I am NOT the official spokesperson for AffCom on this, I would look to Bence for that. But I do have some personal thoughts I'll share..since you asked. I am not sure what you mean by none of the members being willing to comment. Our chair has responded several times

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

$200 per person per night for international travel is not outrageous. It's actually quite reasonable, in my opinion, for business travel. I don't think it reasonable to expect people who don't know eachother or even work together to room together for a week in a foreign country. The question you sh

[Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

Hi all, It recently came to my attention by way of this blog by Odder (http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/) that the AffCom approved a $40,000 budget to send 9 of their members to HKG in August (the 10th member lives in HKG). The issue was raised at http://meta.wikimedia.o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Tilman, But with that said there is still no answer in why did you wait untill 3 months after the RFC when I was deblocked before you removed the rights? And did you talked with you're co-workers or even ur boss (Jay) about it? Huib ___ Wikimedia-l mail

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

On 5/13/13 6:39 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: hi Florence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry sockpuppeting is using more than one account in the same time. There are legitimate situations when users have a new account set up (e.g. after forgetting a password). Also, some user

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

Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: If I read the e-mails correctly, 1 and 2 were covered. 1 is Gayle, and 2 is that "it was on her to do list for a long time", so apparently she decided to perform this on Friday afternoon since it was not pleasant and had to be done anyway. I'm not so sure about thi

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

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:56 AM, David Goodman wrote: > Basically, you (in the plural) thought you could do better than the > consensus, and therefore simply without rejecting it , did not implement it > while you tried other things first. All these trials would have been > good, ''had they be

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

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > I think I'm quite neutral to the decision itself. If it is a WMF wiki, and > if indeed there were some problems with staff being overridden by > volunteers, I think it may perhaps make some sense to leave it to WMF. > However, the way t

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

Theo, I know who Florence is and was, and quite honestly her suggestion that Philippe was sockpuppeting in my view only called for this short reminder. And if she joked, I'm sure she appreciated it, too. :) PS You forgot the tag! dj On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > On Mon

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

Employees have a separate wiki specifically for employee things. The foundationwiki is different from that, serving as a forefront to the movement itself, something which we are all a part of - and that admin access should be reflecting people's specific type of association with the movement do

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

Basically, you (in the plural) thought you could do better than the consensus, and therefore simply without rejecting it , did not implement it while you tried other things first. All these trials would have been good, ''had they been done before implementation.'' I am waiting for someone from t

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

On 13 May 2013 18:01, Oliver Keyes wrote: >.You bring > up Echo; yes, we didn't bring the Orange Bar back. But we spent a lot of > cycles coming up with alternatives, running them past people, with many > editors and many staffers actively engaged in the process. We had > designers, developers, p

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

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > hi Florence, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry > > sockpuppeting is using more than one account in the same time. There are > legitimate situations when users have a new account set up (e.g. after > forgetting a p

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

Todd Thanks for your thoughtful post :). I've been thinking over it for a bit; this is probably going to be a bit TL;DR, and doesn't address the original point of the thread (if you're here for foundationwiki discussion, look away now!) So: after ACTRIAL, we said we communicated poorly. We /did/

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

hi Florence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry sockpuppeting is using more than one account in the same time. There are legitimate situations when users have a new account set up (e.g. after forgetting a password). Also, some users have multiple accounts for privacy reasons. Fi

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

Philippe, Thank you for a thoughtful reply. I have especially taken seriously your advice to moderate the tone, something I have been guilty of in the past. We expect editors to treat one another respectfully even when they disagree, and I think staff should receive the same courtesy. That aside,

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

Wading into the water here. I hope we can separate the blog issue out a bit from the Foundation wiki issue, at least in terms of the user rights part. I was the one who changed a whole slew of user rights from "Editor" to "Contributor," which in our WordPress setup limits some of their abilities,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

On 13 May 2013 15:40, Matthew Roth wrote: > I'm not the right person to say it categorically, but as far as I'm aware, > there haven't been any non-staff "Admin" level users on the blog, at least > for some time (again, I've only been at the Foundation for two years and > I'm qualifying this stat

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

On 13.05.2013 14:07, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote: This isn't a comment aimed at anyone in particular, so I'm not going to quote anybody, but can we please stop hijacking this thread, and posting about how Wikimedia Foundation staff are also humans and how the WMF was badly organised X years ago — w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

wow, what a weekend to go camping :) I'll also reply to Casey and Alex on the other thread, but I was the one who changed their user rights from "Editor" to "Contributor," which in our WordPress setup limits some of their abilities, like approving comments, uploading files and editing posts writte

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

Philippe Beaudette wrote: >At the expense of sounding trite, I think I can safely say "Mistakes were >made." Gayle was trying to solve a real problem, and she got a lot of >advice on how to do that. At every introductory wiki workshop, new users are taught to be bold, as any mistake they make can

[Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

While we are waiting, if Matthew could also check whether I still have my access rights to the blog, if I do I would appreciate them being removed as I do not need them. On Monday, May 13, 2013, Thehelpfulone wrote: > On 13 May 2013 13:02, Thehelpfulone wrote: > > > Thanks for clarifying why Hui

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Hello, A strange thing about the conversation that was going on before it escalated isn't addressed at all. Something is happening on Meta. The community takes action and then a few months later everything is passed and the user is unblocked and working happily again. But then *BOOM* a Wikimedi

[Wikimedia-l] Updates from WM-IL

Greetings to everyone, I would like to share with you two important events that will soon occurin our Israeli Chapter: == Hackathon Tel Aviv == WMIL's first developers' meeting, at Google campus in Tel Aviv. Wikimedia Israel has already held a number of national and international conferences on

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

This isn't a comment aimed at anyone in particular, so I'm not going to quote anybody, but can we please stop hijacking this thread, and posting about how Wikimedia Foundation staff are also humans and how the WMF was badly organised X years ago — which are valid discussion for a different time

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

On 13 May 2013 13:02, Thehelpfulone wrote: > Thanks for clarifying why Huib had his blog access revoked Tilman. Please > could you clarify why Casey and Alex (who haven't been socking, at least > not to my knowledge!) had their access revoked without notification? Ah I sent this just before you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

On 13 May 2013 12:00, Tilman Bayer wrote: > Actually, you were the only volunteer removed at that point in 2011 - > there were at least four volunteers who I think are still on the list. > As indicated in the part of my email that you chose to quietly > suppress, a main reason to handle your case

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Thehelpfulone wrote: > What I struggle to understand is that the Foundation was consulting about > methods of making the blog more open which was intended, from what I > understand, to allow more community members to manage it. I'm not familiar with plans to ad

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

On 13 May 2013 12:54, Craig Franklin wrote: > All other things aside, misspelling the person's name and then calling them > an "asshole" is hardly likely to lead to an amicable solution, peace, love, > or understanding, is it? That's correct. However I think we all recognize, that if you call som

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Given that the deadline for the list moderators passed several days ago, may be could voluntarily stop at this point with the thread and not really try to figure out whether moderators are needed? Cheers Yaroslav On 13.05.2013 13:57, Huib Laurens wrote: I take the asshole back. Sorry for that.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

I take the asshole back. Sorry for that... Again, if I feel attacked I will attack back. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Craig Franklin wrote: > All other things aside, misspelling the person's name and then calling them > an "asshole" is hardly likely to lead to an amicable solution, peace, l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

I see I do have the timeframe wrong with the e-mails. Sorry for that, that means I need to look up to other e-mails and send with Jay also. So far I will stand by my claim. I just had the wrong e-mails. But now you are saying you removed me 4 months after the RFC you removed me from the blog and th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

All other things aside, misspelling the person's name and then calling them an "asshole" is hardly likely to lead to an amicable solution, peace, love, or understanding, is it? On 13 May 2013 21:09, Huib Laurens wrote: > Tillman, > > For the record, the time between your e-mail and my request w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

On 13 May 2013 12:42, Tilman Bayer wrote: >> By the way, I am unclear, was the email you are quoting extensively >> from, rather than summarizing, a public correspondence, or are you >> choosing to publish it now, on a permanently and publicly archived >> email list, two year later? >> >> Fae > >

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

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: > omg, he just admitted sockpupetting !!! ePitchforks, $2ea or 3 for $5, step right up. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mail

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

omg, he just admitted sockpupetting !!! On 5/13/13 12:35 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: Previous account, Nemo. :) — Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc On May 13, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote: Philippe Beaudette, 13/05/2013

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Fae wrote: > On 13 May 2013 12:00, Tilman Bayer wrote: > ... >> Curiously, here you left out one sentence from my 2011 email: >> >> "And while I don't want to pass judgment over your work on the >> projects, the fact that you are currently blocked on Meta etc. mak

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Huib Laurens wrote: > Tillman, > > For the record, the time between your e-mail and my request why the rights > where removed is FOUR days. That's a completely wrong statement. I emailed you as soon as I removed you from the wikimedia-blog list. > So yes. I stay

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

On 13 May 2013 12:00, Tilman Bayer wrote: ... > Curiously, here you left out one sentence from my 2011 email: > > "And while I don't want to pass judgment over your work on the > projects, the fact that you are currently blocked on Meta etc. makes > it difficult to justify keeping your access at t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Tillman, For the record, the time between your e-mail and my request why the rights where removed is FOUR days. So yes. I stay by my claim I had to find information myself. And showing the mails its visible that Jay didn't know about the fact you removed me either. So NO you didn't leave me a note

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Hi Huib, thanks for correcting your earlier claim in the main thread that you were never notified about this kind of thing (although unfortunately this correction comes only after your claim already contributed to leaving MZ "a little speechless" and feeling "more and more ... distanced from" Wiki

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

Previous account, Nemo. :) — Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc On May 13, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote: > Philippe Beaudette, 13/05/2013 11:21: >> I actually was, Florence :-) > > Let's see...

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

On May 13, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: On 5/13/13 9:27 AM, Heather Ford wrote: On May 13, 2013, at 6:57 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: You know, it's kind of the ultimate Wikimedian tempest: arguing over who gets to add users and delete pages on what is quite possibly the world's most bor

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

Philippe Beaudette, 13/05/2013 11:21: I actually was, Florence :-) Let's see... First (registered user, non deleted) edit 28 May... so not 7 years yet? ;-) And of course answering on day counts is a very constructive way to address Florence'

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

It was the explanation for both, I have some more communication: -- Forwarded message -- From: Philippe Beaudette Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:32 AM Subject: Re: Error on Blog while moderating To: Huib Laurens I can, but I'll be honest, it's about number 19 on my list and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Huib: Was that the blog mailing list? I'm not actually sure that's in use at all anymore (I was never on it, I just assumed the discussions basically just moved to comcom). James Alexander Manager, Merchandise Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:47 AM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

Hi Huib, we are currently reorganizing the internal communication about the Foundation's blog, and in the process have just removed your subscription. The list is going to see more confidential information in the future, and we want to focus membership more on people who need to know it. I want to

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

I actually was, Florence :-) — Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc On May 13, 2013, at 12:52 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: > Philippe... early 2006... 7 years ago... you were still not even an editor. > How can you comment on the WMF "paralysis" b

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

On 5/13/13 9:27 AM, Heather Ford wrote: On May 13, 2013, at 6:57 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: You know, it's kind of the ultimate Wikimedian tempest: arguing over who gets to add users and delete pages on what is quite possibly the world's most boring wiki[1]... I would take a stab and stay that it'

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

Upon reading Gayle's response, and reflecting on some of the comments I made on Saturday night, I have come to the conclusion that some of the things I said may have come across as a little harsh and condescending. While that was my intention (my point was that "sometimes the community can bite, s

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

That was actually my point. Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: "James Alexander" To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.sou

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

On 13 May 2013 08:18, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, James Alexander wrote: > That's a bit relative, James. The active folk on this mailing list make > for a pretty good cross section of thoughts/feelings/opinions of the > movement. I've refrained from this discussion

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

You realise that this is going to continue until an actual explanation of the desysopping comes out? Some of us are waiting for the reasons before posting opinions. The weekend is now over and maybe now some reasons can emerge. Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: "James Alexander"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

What I struggle to understand is that the Foundation was consulting about methods of making the blog more open which was intended, from what I understand, to allow more community members to manage it. James, Tilman please can you explain the situation with the blog and why you removed the volu

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

On 5/13/13 8:54 AM, Theo10011 wrote: Hi Casey First, I miss seeing you around, in case you are not omnipresent anymore. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Casey Brown wrote: On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Theo10011 wrote: Try and be a bit nicer please. Gayle is still relatively new and th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

It had volunteer administrators untill 6 months ago. Huib On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, rupert THURNER wrote: > While i fully understand that contents on a domain called > wikimediafoundation should be foundation managed (i see your point though > that a notification would have been nice), i

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

While i fully understand that contents on a domain called wikimediafoundation should be foundation managed (i see your point though that a notification would have been nice), i do not appreciate that a blog on wikimedia.org has no volunteer administrators. The project domains are core to the wikime

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

I've been watching this unfold over the weekend. And am sorely disapointed with the rudeness from ALL sides (not from everyone, it should be said) The action of removing admin access with little warning, and last thing on a Friday is obnoxious and rude. I'd expect the foundation to review policies

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 > Thomas, > > She is on holiday, she will not be in the office today? > > Huib > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing

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

On May 13, 2013, at 6:57 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: You know, it's kind of the ultimate Wikimedian tempest: arguing over who gets to add users and delete pages on what is quite possibly the world's most boring wiki[1]... I would take a stab and stay that it's not about who gets access but about how

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

Thomas, She is on holiday, she will not be in the office today? Huib On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Thomas Goldammer wrote: > Just a general note, could you please all wait for Gayle to get back to her > office? ^^ I think she wanted to address some of the things discussed here > on Monday,

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

Hi, The Wikimedia Foundation site says the following: The Wikimedia Foundation is proud to be one of the most transparent non-profit organizations in the world. But the decission to remove administrator rights is made internaly, thats not transparent?

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

Just a general note, could you please all wait for Gayle to get back to her office? ^^ I think she wanted to address some of the things discussed here on Monday, which is by San Francisco time. So maybe let it rest for a few hours now? :) Th. p.s. sorry about the empty email, my mouse is broken an

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

2013/5/13 Keegan Peterzell > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, James Alexander >wrote: > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > > Lets get a few things in perspective: > > > 1. How many community members were abusive/unreasonable/w

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

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, James Alexander wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood < > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > Lets get a few things in perspective: > > 1. How many community members were abusive/unreasonable/whatever beyond > > what might be considered

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

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Lets get a few things in perspective: > 1. How many community members were abusive/unreasonable/whatever beyond > what might be considered a startle reaction to an apparent attack without > warning? > 2 How

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

Lets get a few things in perspective: 1. How many community members were abusive/unreasonable/whatever beyond what might be considered a startle reaction to an apparent attack without warning? 2 How many people constitute this community Divide answer 1 by answer 2 Consider how much of the resp