Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

I'd like to thank the list administrators for: * their transparency in handling this moderation request * the clarity in describing how to and how not to criticize * for not banning Dan but patiently giving clear guidelines While I don't find Dan's language as offensive as to be banworthy, it is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop Improvements coming to Vector

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 22:36, Strainu wrote: > 1. Why bundle the changes? The collapsible toolbar could be a useful > feature in itself, even for those who are firmly against the > narrow-down content area. It could also be the basis for more radical > changes, such as a "no distraction mode". >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 14:08, Gnangarra wrote: > that doesn't mean we don't try to find alternative ways and improve on the > way we deal with issues Having observed and researched the working of ANI it became apparent to me that the unstructured nature of the discussions there allows for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 22:43, Chris Sherlock wrote: > I have been advised by the WMF that if anyone is concerned about being > sexually harassed they must report this to AN/I and there are no private > mechanisms to report this sort of thing. > > Is this for real? Assuming you've contacted

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

As firmly endorsed by 41 community members (out of thousands) in the ToU for WMF discussion, I think we can agree that the Terms of Use (and also the Code of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

t, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood wrote: > Context is necessary to understand this. > If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI? > Cheers, > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Aro

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Re: [Wikitech-l] CI and Code Review

*Cross-posting to wikitech-l as it's a topic related to development.* On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 23:01, Maarten Dammers wrote: > Of interest to the wider community. I really hope this is not part of a > larger pattern of the WMF ignoring community. > > Maarten I've had a great experience in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad wrote: > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? > I’m unable to answer this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Early thoughts regarding a global code of conduct and a GCC committee

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 21:43, Pine W wrote: > Hello, > This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile. > Your proposal was thought-provoking. I was about to share my thoughts on it for a long time: First, I think there are 3 aspects to the discussion on the CoC: 1. The values and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

gives me more faith that the implementation of these recommendations will be more for the benefit of the whole community than one small group. Aron Manning (Demian) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/M

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

Thank you, Maggie, Elena and Nick for this meeting! The event was very well organized on the first try, focused and informative. Special thanks to Maggie for tirelessly answering all the questions and giving insight to the wide spectrum of challenges. It was great to hear that transparency will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

Thank you, Quim Gil and your team all the effort that went into discuss-space. We've seen a great platform being developed. It was far from ready, however, and my impression was we were in a pre-release phase. To add to the lessons learned, let me share my thoughts on this. From the recurring

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

Also +1 to Guillaume's comment, I couldn't have said better. A user-friendly forum, like discuss-space is most needed by those, who want to join the movement, whom the WMF wants to attract, not to those who are comfortable with the current solutions. And IRC being an appropriate real-time

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

Hi Todd, I'm not sure how your comment about "backchanneling" is applicable to a recording made in public. Please express your views in a good-faith and respectful manner. On Wikimedia projects, we do things in full public view. To prove your point, please link to the log of the irc channels

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 08:57, Chris Keating wrote: > In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time, > and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time. > While MediaViewer's introduction wasn't prepared appropriately and superprotect was an inconsiderate, rushed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Pine W wrote: > Here are a couple of arguments from WMF in favor of SuperProtect, which was > implemented to prevent local users from removing MediaViewer. > It's interesting that this topic came up, as there was a bug in MediaViewer that disturbed me so much I've

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement of the 2020 Ombuds Commission

resolved in the near future by ombuds who aren't involved with enwiki or my recent rejected rename request <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes/2020-01#Aron_Manning_2> . Until then could you please elaborate on the factors that caused such a delay and on how I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Co sprawia, że jesteś szczęśliwy w tym tygodniu? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 19 Jan 2019)

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 02:37, Clover moss wrote: > This week, I learned about Wiki Loves Monuments > . The wording kind of > sounded familiar at first, but I wasn't sure why. I didn't really know what > Wiki Loves Monuments was and now I'm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

Hello Pine, On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 08:06, Pine W wrote: > Hi Aron, > > Some of your comments remind me of arguments that I heard from WMF around > the time that the WMF Board decided to let Lila have her way with > Superprotect. WMF's solution to various question about who should make >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations released, join the conversation

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:50, Fæ wrote: > The WMF board and their CEO know it is in their interest to take on any > firm community consensus rather than playing > political games to get around it. > Political games, like requesting supermajority

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations released, join the conversation

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 12:57, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Could you please explain which of the mails in this thread are problematic > in your opinion? I think that I made a factual statement in the most > neutral way. > The strong focus on voting is in itself, not neutral. Voting at this scale

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

The following views are mine. I'm not affiliated with either the Foundation or those speaking in the name of the communities. This is a volunteer's opinion. On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:24, Pine W wrote: > Hi Leila and Todd, thanks for the constructive comments. > > I think that global consensus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was macht dich diese Woche glücklich? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 29 Dec 2019)

On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 12:23, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Proposed_specification > That's very serious work, Amir, thank you for investing all the effort! I'd also love to see this come to fruition. While making a dark-mode theme

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 18:53, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > Is this the right time to plug Timeless? > It is, well, timeless. Looks modern too. Should be the default imho by now. Then the wikimania design features could be added to it, to make it almost

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 07:04, Stryn wrote: > You can use > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-rendering > to set the same skin everywhere. > Thank you so much! I was looking for this... Aron ___ Wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

> https://snl.no/kunstig_intelligens That's nice. Try these redesigns with an adblocker for a comparison: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns#/Live_sites https://www.wikizero.com/en/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns#Live_sites

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Chief of Community Engagement to leave the Foundation

set of more nuanced tools to the table to resolve issues with minimal sanctions and without punishments. The WMF is facing a huge challenge. I wish the best luck and good faith from the community to achieve the Movement's targets. Sincerely, Aron Manning On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 3:36 pm, 'Ka

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Astrophoto Contest

Hello Toni! There are some beautiful, professional photos in the commons category... - Is it possible to submit non-professional photos? - The photo I would submit was made in the summer, is that ok, or the photo has to be made between 15 October - 15 November? - How to submit the photo? Kind

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Synthesizing the recommendations and next steps

Hello Nicole, Thank you for the update! This timeline is very useful to understanding the process globally, though, I have to admit, I haven't found it, until you linked it directly in your email. The link to Timeline is hard to notice in the middle of the Overview page. Comparing the pageviews

[Wikimedia-l] RfC: binding desysop procedure on English Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/2019_community_sentiment_on_binding_desysop_procedure#Descriptions_of_de-adminship_systems_on_other_projects So far about 60% of the commenters are administrators, which role comes with an inherent and unavoidable conflict-of-interest.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Partial blocks update

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 08:24, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > How and where can one request enabling this at the Portuguese Wikipedia? > It seems gaining community consensus (an RfC) is the standard way to do it. See a few examples

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Partial blocks update

This development is very much appreciated. Thank you for the effort of the Anti-Harassment Tools team! On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 03:01, James Forrester wrote: > > How do we see which wikis have partial blocks deployed already / are > > planning to have it deployed? > > On a technical level, this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcoming Wikimedia Foundation’s new CTO, Grant Ingersoll

> ...without linking to at least one cute pic of Allie ;-) > Well, Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 20:27, Mike Peel wrote: > > Hi. > > > > I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is > that > > a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an > > outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Todd Allen wrote: > When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia > functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF > backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly > backed down, they would have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:01, Todd Allen wrote: > And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of > thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than > a dozen people? > Let's be factual. There are 9 WGs

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 11:18, Benjamin Ikuta wrote: > It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community. > Benjamin, this is not a clash between two opposing forces, albeit some combative elements try to "divide and conquer", and turn the community into two opposing camps. The

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Diversity Working Group Recommendation 9 - proposal to split in two: "Terms of Use update" and "Licensing Policy update"

This draft resulted in the longest talk page , and the most passionate feedback. The responses mostly address the Licensing Policy update, that turned out to be a very heavy topic,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Leila Zia wrote: > * Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages. > Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3 > different options available. > And his option of a dedicated project for non-free content has been

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke wrote: > "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which > working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input as > I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that timeframe. In one week

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 09:00, Peter Southwood wrote: > Do you speak for one or more working groups in an official or > semi-official capacity? > I don't think it would make sense, if a WG member would write this. I speak my opinion as an editor. To be clear: I meant I assume the WMF will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing. Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Peter, this is a very thoughtful suggestion. I'm not sure the WG members will see it here, maybe you could post on the talk page? I haven't seen it there. Aron On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 12:00, Peter Southwood wrote: > One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free > and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko wrote: The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being > uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded > as "free". I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of uploaders to use

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

We've been waiting for the moment the WMF starts a conversation of proposed changes. It finally came, and I appreciate this good faith effort. I hope we can give constructive feedback and get involved in a civil manner, without focusing on perceived hostilities. The Terms of Use/Licensing Policy

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

One could say that deletionism is just as toxic, cutting off valuable off-springs at the root, based on the balance of different views present at the birth. Walking around with the intent to cut for a long time, has an effect on how one relates to the world. On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Benjamin