Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers

[Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l]

I prefer to let WMF sort this one out. Whether you are correct or not, my block 
has an intolerable odour about it. Will someone please open a window?

---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/





- Original Message -
From: Risker 
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: 09/12/2020 01:06:18
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers



I'm sorry that you've chosen to hijack this thread, Rodhullandemu.  
Nonetheless, I will point out that it was *me* who indefinitely blocked you in 
the middle of an arbitration case, for reasons that 
didn't actually have anything to do with the case, and for edits that met the 
requirements for suppression.  Those edits were also reported to the 
predecessor of the Trust & Safety department at the time. There was also 
nothing to do with Usenet - it was your own words that resulted in your block.  
I hope that the circumstances that led to your block have improved 
significantly since that time. Your block remains appealable to the current 
Arbitration Committee, and I am certain neither I nor Roger Davies (who 
subsequently reblocked you to remove email access) would object to the block 
being reviewed. 



Returning to the key subject of this thread, I thank Trust & Safety for making 
a statement, and also thank our colleagues for arranging translations into 
other languages.  



Risker/Anne



On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 19:07, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l 
 wrote:

Great news. Vulnerable contributors to Wikimedia projects should be owed a duty 
of care, not least because they make good, well-informed contributions, but 
also that those projects should not become the preserve of a socially and 
politically advantaged elite.

However, what he have here is only much less than half of the story. Those who 
are falsely accused of unacceptable, maybe criminal behaviour, when there is a 
significant lack of evidence to support that, have little or no comeback. Minds 
seem to be irretrievably poisoned against you.

I make no secret of the fact that I am User:Rodhullandemu on multiple Wikimedia 
projects. I was blocked or banned (it's 
not been made clear) on en:WP in 2011 on the basis of some fake Usenet posts 
that Roger Davies found, and for some reason gave credence to, despite the 
policy [[:en:WP:Usenet]]. There is no pretending that this is not the case, 
given 

---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/

the entry in my block log on en:WP. As an experienced user on Wikipedia, I know 
exactly what "Refer all enquiries to Arbitration Committee" means. 
It's a code which everybody understands, and as it stands, is a defamatory 
libel as an innuendo.

I have asked Roger to copy those Usenet posts to me, compete with headers. I 
have no doubt that he will be unable, or will refuse, to do so.

Meanwhile, I cannot trust ArbCom to understand their role in relation to due 
processs and the rules of natural justice, given the recent input into my 
desysop on Commons from two sitting arbs, one of whom was such in 2011, and one 
of their clerks. So I can't 
ask them to unblock me. They are irretrievably poisoned.

Meanwhile, WMF T&S refused to do anything to intervene when someone misguidedly 
complained about me to them. Shameful, as I said at the time. I deserve at 
least as much as those who are against me. Jimbo 
Wales's decision on my appeal against my block missed the point completely. He 
suggested that I shoud prove myself sane. That's 
both impossible and ridiculous, and mentioned in my RFA on Commons.

Time, perhaps, for the WMF to get its act together and say to people 
"That was the wrong thing to do, and we have no hesitation in correcting it". 
Fortunately I am no longer alone; I have people interested in exposing the 
arbitrariness of arbitration.

Phil Nash/Rodhullandemu









- Original Message -
From: Maggie Dennis 
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: 08/12/2020 15:24:15
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers



Hello. 


My name is Maggie Dennis. I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience and 
Sustainability at the Wikimedia Foundation.[1] I oversee the Foundation’s Trust 
and Safety teams (operations and policy), the Community Development team, and 
the upcoming Foundation Human Rights lead.


On December 2nd, I met with representatives of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 
along with several Trust and Safety personnel, including Global Head Jan 
Eißfeldt, to understand some of the challenges faced by the members of the 
group as volunteers in our international movement.[2] It is apparent that many 
volunteers openly identifying as LGBTQIA+ are targeted and attacked for their 
identities, with transgender, non-binary, queer, and queer feminist editors in 
particular at higher risk for such abuse. The 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers

[Risker]

I'm sorry that you've chosen to hijack this thread, Rodhullandemu.
Nonetheless, I will point out that it was *me* who indefinitely blocked you
in the middle of an arbitration case, for reasons that didn't actually have
anything to do with the case, and for edits that met the requirements for
suppression.  Those edits were also reported to the predecessor of the
Trust & Safety department at the time. There was also nothing to do with
Usenet - it was your own words that resulted in your block.  I hope that
the circumstances that led to your block have improved significantly since
that time. Your block remains appealable to the current Arbitration
Committee, and I am certain neither I nor Roger Davies (who subsequently
reblocked you to remove email access) would object to the block being
reviewed.

Returning to the key subject of this thread, I thank Trust & Safety for
making a statement, and also thank our colleagues for arranging
translations into other languages.

Risker/Anne

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 19:07, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Great news. Vulnerable contributors to Wikimedia projects should be owed a
> duty of care, not least because they make good, well-informed
> contributions, but also that those projects should not become the preserve
> of a socially and politically advantaged elite.
>
> However, what he have here is only much less than half of the story. Those
> who are falsely accused of unacceptable, maybe criminal behaviour, when
> there is a significant lack of evidence to support that, have little or no
> comeback. Minds seem to be irretrievably poisoned against you.
>
> I make no secret of the fact that I am User:Rodhullandemu on multiple
> Wikimedia projects. I was blocked or banned (it's not been made clear) on
> en:WP in 2011 on the basis of some fake Usenet posts that Roger Davies
> found, and for some reason gave credence to, despite the policy
> [[:en:WP:Usenet]]. There is no pretending that this is not the case, given
>
> ---
> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>
> the entry in my block log on en:WP. As an experienced user on Wikipedia, I
> know exactly what "Refer all enquiries to Arbitration Committee" means.
> It's a code which everybody understands, and as it stands, is a defamatory
> libel as an innuendo.
>
> I have asked Roger to copy those Usenet posts to me, compete with headers.
> I have no doubt that he will be unable, or will refuse, to do so.
>
> Meanwhile, I cannot trust ArbCom to understand their role in relation to
> due processs and the rules of natural justice, given the recent input into
> my desysop on Commons from two sitting arbs, one of whom was such in 2011,
> and one of their clerks. So I can't ask them to unblock me. They are
> irretrievably poisoned.
>
> Meanwhile, WMF T&S refused to do anything to intervene when someone
> misguidedly complained about me to them. Shameful, as I said at the time. I
> deserve at least as much as those who are against me. Jimbo Wales's
> decision on my appeal against my block missed the point completely. He
> suggested that I shoud prove myself sane. That's both impossible and
> ridiculous, and mentioned in my RFA on Commons.
>
> Time, perhaps, for the WMF to get its act together and say to people "That
> was the wrong thing to do, and we have no hesitation in correcting it".
> Fortunately I am no longer alone; I have people interested in exposing the
> arbitrariness of arbitration.
>
> Phil Nash/Rodhullandemu
>
>
>
>
>
> *- Original Message -*
> *From:* Maggie Dennis 
> *Reply-To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Sent:* 08/12/2020 15:24:15
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+
> volunteers
> --
>
> Hello.
>
>
> My name is Maggie Dennis. I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience
> and Sustainability at the Wikimedia Foundation.[1] I oversee the
> Foundation’s Trust and Safety teams (operations and policy), the Community
> Development team, and the upcoming Foundation Human Rights lead.
>
> On December 2nd, I met with representatives of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User
> Group along with several Trust and Safety personnel, including Global Head
> Jan Eißfeldt, to understand some of the challenges faced by the members of
> the group as volunteers in our international movement.[2] It is apparent
> that many volunteers openly identifying as LGBTQIA+ are targeted and
> attacked for their identities, with transgender, non-binary, queer, and
> queer feminist editors in particular at higher risk for such abuse. The
> members of the group who met with us voiced concerns about the safety and
> wellbeing of other marginalized communities and groups as well.
>
> In my role, and speaking for the Foundation, I am writing today to
> restate, reinforce, and firmly assert our commitment to supporting the
> LGBTQIA+ volunteers in our movement, as we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers

[Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l]

Great news. Vulnerable contributors to Wikimedia projects should be owed a duty 
of care, not least because they make good, well-informed contributions, but 
also that those projects should not become the preserve of a socially and 
politically advantaged elite.

However, what he have here is only much less than half of the story. Those who 
are falsely accused of unacceptable, maybe criminal behaviour, when there is a 
significant lack of evidence to support that, have little or no comeback. Minds 
seem to be irretrievably poisoned against you.

I make no secret of the fact that I am User:Rodhullandemu on multiple Wikimedia 
projects. I was blocked or banned 
(it's not been made clear) on en:WP in 2011 on the basis of some fake Usenet 
posts that Roger Davies found, and for some reason gave credence to, despite 
the policy [[:en:WP:Usenet]]. There is no pretending that this is not the case, 
given 

---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/

the entry in my block log on en:WP. As an experienced user on Wikipedia, I know 
exactly what "Refer all enquiries to Arbitration Committee" means. It's 
a code which everybody understands, and as it stands, is a defamatory libel as 
an innuendo.

I have asked Roger to copy those Usenet posts to me, compete with headers. I 
have no doubt that he will be unable, or will refuse, to do so.

Meanwhile, I cannot trust ArbCom to understand their role in relation to due 
processs and the rules of natural justice, given the recent input into my 
desysop on Commons from two sitting arbs, one of whom was such in 2011, and one 
of their clerks. So I 
can't ask them to unblock me. They are irretrievably poisoned.

Meanwhile, WMF T&S refused to do anything to intervene when someone misguidedly 
complained about me to them. Shameful, as I said at the time. I deserve at 
least as much as those who are against me. Jimbo Wales's 
decision on my appeal against my block missed the point completely. He 
suggested that I shoud prove myself sane. That's both impossible and 
ridiculous, and mentioned in my RFA on Commons.

Time, perhaps, for the WMF to get its act together and say to people "That was 
the wrong thing to do, and we have no hesitation in correcting it". Fortunately 
I am no longer alone; I have people interested in exposing the arbitrariness of 
arbitration.

Phil Nash/Rodhullandemu




- Original Message -
From: Maggie Dennis 
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: 08/12/2020 15:24:15
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers



Hello. 


My name is Maggie Dennis. I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience and 
Sustainability at the Wikimedia Foundation.[1] I oversee the Foundation’s Trust 
and Safety teams (operations and policy), the Community Development team, and 
the upcoming Foundation Human Rights lead.


On December 2nd, I met with representatives of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 
along with several Trust and Safety personnel, including Global Head Jan 
Eißfeldt, to understand some of the challenges faced by the members of the 
group as volunteers in our international movement.[2] It is apparent that many 
volunteers openly identifying as LGBTQIA+ are targeted and attacked for their 
identities, with transgender, non-binary, queer, and queer feminist editors in 
particular at higher risk for such abuse. The members of the group who met with 
us voiced concerns about the safety and wellbeing of other marginalized 
communities and groups as well. 


In my role, and speaking for the Foundation, I am writing today to restate, 
reinforce, and firmly assert our commitment to supporting the LGBTQIA+ 
volunteers in our movement, as well as others who face exclusion and hostility 
on the basis of identity factors.[3]


The Wikimedia movement is based on the value of inclusivity, that anyone may 
play a part in not only receiving but curating and sharing knowledge. What 
volunteers have been able to accomplish in Wikimedia projects is extraordinary, 
but the movement will never reach its full potential if we do not close the 
diversity gap which our communities defined so ably in the Movement Strategy 
process.[4] There continue to be barriers in our movement for LGBTQIA+, women, 
indigenous communities, and other underrepresented groups. We as a movement 
have been called upon by a broad and diverse group of our own movement members 
to promote inclusivity and reduce harms to our participants.


In light of this, one of my teams has been directed by the Board of Trustees to 
(among other requests) facilitate the drafting of the Universal Code of Conduct 
called for in the Movement Strategy recommendations.[5] This collaboratively 
drafted document underwent significant community review in September and 
October and is currently under review by the Board. We will next be launching a 
second phase of that work in January, meant to result in enfo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers

[Camelia Boban]

Thank you Maggie and Natascha.
Now you can also find the Italian translation.

Camelia

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 7:57 PM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Dear Maggie,
>
> Thank you for this public statement, our francophone team has just
> translated the meta version into French. I hope that it gets translated in
> all languages so that LGBTIQ+ persons can feel valued and supported in our
> movement.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> Le 8 déc. 2020 à 16:24, Maggie Dennis  a écrit :
>
> Hello.
>
> My name is Maggie Dennis. I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience
> and Sustainability at the Wikimedia Foundation.[1] I oversee the
> Foundation’s Trust and Safety teams (operations and policy), the Community
> Development team, and the upcoming Foundation Human Rights lead.
>
> On December 2nd, I met with representatives of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User
> Group along with several Trust and Safety personnel, including Global Head
> Jan Eißfeldt, to understand some of the challenges faced by the members of
> the group as volunteers in our international movement.[2] It is apparent
> that many volunteers openly identifying as LGBTQIA+ are targeted and
> attacked for their identities, with transgender, non-binary, queer, and
> queer feminist editors in particular at higher risk for such abuse. The
> members of the group who met with us voiced concerns about the safety and
> wellbeing of other marginalized communities and groups as well.
>
> In my role, and speaking for the Foundation, I am writing today to
> restate, reinforce, and firmly assert our commitment to supporting the
> LGBTQIA+ volunteers in our movement, as well as others who face exclusion
> and hostility on the basis of identity factors.[3]
>
> The Wikimedia movement is based on the value of inclusivity, that anyone
> may play a part in not only receiving but curating and sharing knowledge.
> What volunteers have been able to accomplish in Wikimedia projects is
> extraordinary, but the movement will never reach its full potential if we
> do not close the diversity gap which our communities defined so ably in the
> Movement Strategy process.[4] There continue to be barriers in our movement
> for LGBTQIA+, women, indigenous communities, and other underrepresented
> groups. We as a movement have been called upon by a broad and diverse group
> of our own movement members to promote inclusivity and reduce harms to our
> participants.
>
> In light of this, one of my teams has been directed by the Board of
> Trustees to (among other requests) facilitate the drafting of the Universal
> Code of Conduct called for in the Movement Strategy recommendations.[5]
> This collaboratively drafted document underwent significant community
> review in September and October and is currently under review by the Board.
> We will next be launching a second phase of that work in January, meant to
> result in enforcement pathways that will make our projects safe spaces for
> all volunteers.
>
> Following the LGBT+ User Group meeting, we are also building into our
> plans facilitated support for the LGBT+ User Group and other Wikimedia
> affiliate organizations focused on marginalized communities to come
> together to discuss better mechanisms for supporting volunteers who are
> targeted on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, race, religion,
> ethnicity or other identify factors. We expect to solidify plans and launch
> conversations in January and will be putting out information on how to
> participate.
>
> In addition, we see the urgency and the opportunity to do more to address
> the needs of the LGBT+ User Group and others. The Foundation’s Community
> Resilience & Sustainability function will be connecting more closely with
> the LGBT+ User Group going forward to ensure that the Foundation’s staff
> better understand the needs of this community, especially but not solely in
> our professional Trust & Safety work.
>
> We are committed to supporting volunteers in participating safely in our
> movement and want to be sure that we do not, through lack of understanding,
> ourselves do harm. This includes:
>
>- adopting and disseminating to staff best-practice terminology when
>conducting community surveys,
>- ensuring that volunteers have easier access to existing reporting
>structures now, even as we build other enforcement pathways in the UCoC,
>- being vigilant that incidents where individuals are targeted for
>identity factors are properly recognized and addressed in our Trust &
>Safety systems, and
>- exploring peer support options.
>
>
> I thank the members of the user group for inviting us to join them. I’m
> excited and energized by that conversation and looking forward to finding
> ways to improve. I hope others in the community will join in the publicly
> hosted UCoC discussions starting early in the new year to improve the
> safety of all community members. It will help to ensure that vol

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

Dear Maggie, 

Thank you for this public statement, our francophone team has just translated 
the meta version into French. I hope that it gets translated in all languages 
so that LGBTIQ+ persons can feel valued and supported in our movement. 

Warm regards, 

Nattes à chat

> Le 8 déc. 2020 à 16:24, Maggie Dennis  a écrit :
> 
> Hello. 
> 
> My name is Maggie Dennis. I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience and 
> Sustainability at the Wikimedia Foundation.[1] I oversee the Foundation’s 
> Trust and Safety teams (operations and policy), the Community Development 
> team, and the upcoming Foundation Human Rights lead.
> 
> On December 2nd, I met with representatives of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 
> along with several Trust and Safety personnel, including Global Head Jan 
> Eißfeldt, to understand some of the challenges faced by the members of the 
> group as volunteers in our international movement.[2] It is apparent that 
> many volunteers openly identifying as LGBTQIA+ are targeted and attacked for 
> their identities, with transgender, non-binary, queer, and queer feminist 
> editors in particular at higher risk for such abuse. The members of the group 
> who met with us voiced concerns about the safety and wellbeing of other 
> marginalized communities and groups as well. 
> 
> In my role, and speaking for the Foundation, I am writing today to restate, 
> reinforce, and firmly assert our commitment to supporting the LGBTQIA+ 
> volunteers in our movement, as well as others who face exclusion and 
> hostility on the basis of identity factors.[3]
> 
> The Wikimedia movement is based on the value of inclusivity, that anyone may 
> play a part in not only receiving but curating and sharing knowledge. What 
> volunteers have been able to accomplish in Wikimedia projects is 
> extraordinary, but the movement will never reach its full potential if we do 
> not close the diversity gap which our communities defined so ably in the 
> Movement Strategy process.[4] There continue to be barriers in our movement 
> for LGBTQIA+, women, indigenous communities, and other underrepresented 
> groups. We as a movement have been called upon by a broad and diverse group 
> of our own movement members to promote inclusivity and reduce harms to our 
> participants.
> 
> In light of this, one of my teams has been directed by the Board of Trustees 
> to (among other requests) facilitate the drafting of the Universal Code of 
> Conduct called for in the Movement Strategy recommendations.[5] This 
> collaboratively drafted document underwent significant community review in 
> September and October and is currently under review by the Board. We will 
> next be launching a second phase of that work in January, meant to result in 
> enforcement pathways that will make our projects safe spaces for all 
> volunteers. 
> 
> Following the LGBT+ User Group meeting, we are also building into our plans 
> facilitated support for the LGBT+ User Group and other Wikimedia affiliate 
> organizations focused on marginalized communities to come together to discuss 
> better mechanisms for supporting volunteers who are targeted on the basis of 
> sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, ethnicity or other identify 
> factors. We expect to solidify plans and launch conversations in January and 
> will be putting out information on how to participate.
> 
> In addition, we see the urgency and the opportunity to do more to address the 
> needs of the LGBT+ User Group and others. The Foundation’s Community 
> Resilience & Sustainability function will be connecting more closely with the 
> LGBT+ User Group going forward to ensure that the Foundation’s staff better 
> understand the needs of this community, especially but not solely in our 
> professional Trust & Safety work. 
> 
> We are committed to supporting volunteers in participating safely in our 
> movement and want to be sure that we do not, through lack of understanding, 
> ourselves do harm. This includes:
> adopting and disseminating to staff best-practice terminology when conducting 
> community surveys,
> ensuring that volunteers have easier access to existing reporting structures 
> now, even as we build other enforcement pathways in the UCoC, 
> being vigilant that incidents where individuals are targeted for identity 
> factors are properly recognized and addressed in our Trust & Safety systems, 
> and
> exploring peer support options. 
> 
> I thank the members of the user group for inviting us to join them. I’m 
> excited and energized by that conversation and looking forward to finding 
> ways to improve. I hope others in the community will join in the publicly 
> hosted UCoC discussions starting early in the new year to improve the safety 
> of all community members. It will help to ensure that volunteers across the 
> movement, and in all movement spaces online and off, have an opportunity to 
> contribute safely. People should feel welcomed to contribute to our 
> co

[Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers

[Maggie Dennis]

Hello.


My name is Maggie Dennis. I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience
and Sustainability at the Wikimedia Foundation.[1] I oversee the
Foundation’s Trust and Safety teams (operations and policy), the Community
Development team, and the upcoming Foundation Human Rights lead.

On December 2nd, I met with representatives of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User
Group along with several Trust and Safety personnel, including Global Head
Jan Eißfeldt, to understand some of the challenges faced by the members of
the group as volunteers in our international movement.[2] It is apparent
that many volunteers openly identifying as LGBTQIA+ are targeted and
attacked for their identities, with transgender, non-binary, queer, and
queer feminist editors in particular at higher risk for such abuse. The
members of the group who met with us voiced concerns about the safety and
wellbeing of other marginalized communities and groups as well.

In my role, and speaking for the Foundation, I am writing today to restate,
reinforce, and firmly assert our commitment to supporting the LGBTQIA+
volunteers in our movement, as well as others who face exclusion and
hostility on the basis of identity factors.[3]

The Wikimedia movement is based on the value of inclusivity, that anyone
may play a part in not only receiving but curating and sharing knowledge.
What volunteers have been able to accomplish in Wikimedia projects is
extraordinary, but the movement will never reach its full potential if we
do not close the diversity gap which our communities defined so ably in the
Movement Strategy process.[4] There continue to be barriers in our movement
for LGBTQIA+, women, indigenous communities, and other underrepresented
groups. We as a movement have been called upon by a broad and diverse group
of our own movement members to promote inclusivity and reduce harms to our
participants.

In light of this, one of my teams has been directed by the Board of
Trustees to (among other requests) facilitate the drafting of the Universal
Code of Conduct called for in the Movement Strategy recommendations.[5]
This collaboratively drafted document underwent significant community
review in September and October and is currently under review by the Board.
We will next be launching a second phase of that work in January, meant to
result in enforcement pathways that will make our projects safe spaces for
all volunteers.

Following the LGBT+ User Group meeting, we are also building into our plans
facilitated support for the LGBT+ User Group and other Wikimedia affiliate
organizations focused on marginalized communities to come together to
discuss better mechanisms for supporting volunteers who are targeted on the
basis of sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, ethnicity or other
identify factors. We expect to solidify plans and launch conversations in
January and will be putting out information on how to participate.

In addition, we see the urgency and the opportunity to do more to address
the needs of the LGBT+ User Group and others. The Foundation’s Community
Resilience & Sustainability function will be connecting more closely with
the LGBT+ User Group going forward to ensure that the Foundation’s staff
better understand the needs of this community, especially but not solely in
our professional Trust & Safety work.

We are committed to supporting volunteers in participating safely in our
movement and want to be sure that we do not, through lack of understanding,
ourselves do harm. This includes:

   -

   adopting and disseminating to staff best-practice terminology when
   conducting community surveys,
   -

   ensuring that volunteers have easier access to existing reporting
   structures now, even as we build other enforcement pathways in the UCoC,
   -

   being vigilant that incidents where individuals are targeted for
   identity factors are properly recognized and addressed in our Trust &
   Safety systems, and
   -

   exploring peer support options.


I thank the members of the user group for inviting us to join them. I’m
excited and energized by that conversation and looking forward to finding
ways to improve. I hope others in the community will join in the publicly
hosted UCoC discussions starting early in the new year to improve the
safety of all community members. It will help to ensure that volunteers
across the movement, and in all movement spaces online and off, have an
opportunity to contribute safely. People should feel welcomed to contribute
to our collective and important mission of delivering the sum of all
knowledge to everyone.

Warm regards,

Maggie Dennis


P.S. This statement is also on Meta, at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability/2020_December_Foundation_commitment_of_support_for_LGBT%2B_volunteers,
where translation is being enabled today. If you are interested in helping
translate, please do!



[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability

[2] https://meta.wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Christophe Henner]

Hi,

I consider a bike to be an amazing transportation tool, yet I haven't biked
for months because it is not appropriate to how I commute. I am not sure
invalidating someone's opinion based on its edit count is a good way to
have that discussion .

All the statistics I have ever seen on Visual Editor for years are
supporting evidence it helps newcomers.

I haven't found very recent ones though, but I cannot see why it would have
changed. Perhaps one of you have a more recent study I couldn't find. If
someone has, please share it! I love numbers :D


As for the initial message, contributing financially to Wikimedia projects
is a way to contribute and show support. When a reader gives money, they
are showing that the work volunteers do matter to them.

It is on of the way to contribute and to show gratefulness.

If what we did stop being relevant to readers, they would stop donating. It
is not as much as the amount that matters but the act of giving. So this
sentence strikes me as a good way of saying it actually.

What do you think Pelagic?


Le mar. 8 déc. 2020 à 9:52 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  a écrit :

> But the statistics we are talking about are from 2016 not 2006... And I
> think this is good point as I rember similar discussion in Polish Wikipedia
> when strong supporterts of Visual were found actually not using it on
> regular basis. Answering the question why you are personally not using it
> althgough you claim it is so wonderful might help with future development
> of this tool...
>
> pon., 7 gru 2020, 23:13 użytkownik Joseph Seddon 
> napisał:
>
>> The simple answer to a simple question is that I created my User:Seddon
>> volunteer account in 2006 and Visual Editor was first made available to
>> users seven and a half years later.
>> ___
>> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Tomasz Ganicz]

But the statistics we are talking about are from 2016 not 2006... And I
think this is good point as I rember similar discussion in Polish Wikipedia
when strong supporterts of Visual were found actually not using it on
regular basis. Answering the question why you are personally not using it
althgough you claim it is so wonderful might help with future development
of this tool...

pon., 7 gru 2020, 23:13 użytkownik Joseph Seddon 
napisał:

> The simple answer to a simple question is that I created my User:Seddon
> volunteer account in 2006 and Visual Editor was first made available to
> users seven and a half years later.
> ___
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,